Yulia Kovalskaya 

Well...

Yulia Kovalskaya said:

Why does that happen?  The upgraded memory has three times the size of the original file!!!!

Because you have now added fragments to your TM which are used in autosuggest for fragment matching and repairing matches.

Yulia Kovalskaya said:

Can someone explain WHAT process lies behind the TM upgarde? What are the benefits? Is it really necessary? There are so many opinions that, honestly, i am unable to draw any clear conlusion. 

Here's a little light reading...

https://multifarious.filkin.com/2016/11/17/more-power-to-the-elbow-uplift

Yulia Kovalskaya said:

I know the upgrade was needed in the 2017 version due to the introduction of the upLift technology. However, in the Studio2021 the warning triangle still appears

It appears whenever you have a TM that has not been "uplifted".

Yulia Kovalskaya said:

online "advisors" recommend to let it be....that is, not upgrade.

There are times when "uplifting" isn't a good idea... normally when working with huge TMs or perhaps when receiving a reference TM and you have it for a specific purpose, or if you are only creating projects and pre-translate for others who translate, or maybe you just don't want to uplift untested/approved TUs.  

The more common recommendation, I think, is to turn off some of the "uplift" features because of performance issues you may be experiencing that could depend on the size of the original TM or the processing power of your PC.

Yulia Kovalskaya said:

Is it really necessary?

I think only you can make that decision.  You either see the benefits when working with it, or you don't.  I suggest you try it and see, or perhaps explain what your role is and who will be using your TMs?

Very quick and detailed answer, Paul! Now I understand why the triangle appears! Because we import on a daily basis.

So according to you, the TM needs to add more fragments and automatically informs me about that. Ok, but that makes the upLIFT technology not totally "automatic", but to some extent, similar to the Autosuggest dictionaries, that are more "static" and must be created every time and then, as the memories grow.

Now I am totally lost! On the one hand, upLift main advantage is that it starts "helping" us in real-time, recalling fragments based on the segments of the project in course. On the other hand, you affirm that I need to upgrade my memory (make it three times bigger, ergo slower) to benefit from these fragments....What for? Even if I do not upgrade, I still benefit from this feature...

Paul said:

I think only you can make that decision.  You either see the benefits when working with it, or you don't.  I suggest you try it and see, or perhaps explain what your role is and who will be using your TMs?

My role is translator. So I am one of the final users of these memories. But I am also in charge of all these specific issues my colleagues and I come across every day. I am against upgrading, because we have our memories on a local server, so they give us many problems (slow response). If we triplicate their size (currently 14 TMs, all different language pairs)...I am afraid to make the process even worse...

Yulia Kovalskaya 

Yulia Kovalskaya said:

Ok, but that makes the upLIFT technology not totally "automatic", but to some extent, similar to the Autosuggest dictionaries, that are more "static" and must be created every time and then, as the memories grow.

Sort of.  Once uplifted if you only translate to add new TUs then the UpLift features maintain themselves and you do not have to do anything.  AutoSuggest Dictionaries never do this and always require regenerating.  AutoStuggest dictionaries are also only useful for AutoSuggest.  You cannot use the fragments for anything else.

But otherwise you're right.  If you add TU's by importing or merging TMs then you will always have to UpLift because now there is a lot of work to do in order to properly analyse the content and create meaningful fragments.

Yulia Kovalskaya said:

What for? Even if I do not upgrade, I still benefit from this feature...

As I have tried to explain you don't completely.  But, if you prefer to work wth AutoSuggest Dictionaries and keep your TM smaller then feel free.  The choice is yours, it's not mandatory!

Yulia Kovalskaya 

Yulia Kovalskaya said:

My role is translator. So I am one of the final users of these memories. But I am also in charge of all these specific issues my colleagues and I come across every day. I am against upgrading, because we have our memories on a local server, so they give us many problems (slow response). If we triplicate their size (currently 14 TMs, all different language pairs)...I am afraid to make the process even worse...

Putting the memories on a local server and sharing them isn't a very robust way to work.  Perhaps you should consider using something like Trados Team and then you can share the TMs in the cloud in a well managed environment designed for sharing, the size of the TMs won't matter, and you also get the benefits of more collaborative working features suitable for teams.

We all have Studio Professional 2021 (hopefully 2022 soon, since our current version has an important option unavailable). When you say we could use "something like Trados team", what do you mean? Any complement? Or just migration of our memories to the cloud? Microsoft Teams , for example, IS an excellent environment for sharing files and task management. Now that you say this, I think we could try that one....

Yulia Kovalskaya 

Yulia Kovalskaya said:

When you say we could use "something like Trados team", what do you mean?

Trados Team is a specific product that we offer that supports working collaboratively.  It's part of RWS Language Cloud.  It integrates nicely with Trados Studio, you can have cloud projects, cloud TMs, cloud terminology, translate in the cloud if you like etc.

https://www.trados.com/products/team/

Ok, sorry, did´t get it at first. Yes, we are actually negotiating this option with the local RWS office. But we are still between the cloud-based and server-based management. GroupShare doesn´t seem like a bad solution either. Well, the question is to see the differences and compare the advantages and performance.

Ok, sorry, did´t get it at first. Yes, we are actually negotiating this option with the local RWS office. But we are still between the cloud-based and server-based management. GroupShare doesn´t seem like a bad solution either. Well, the question is to see the differences and compare the advantages and performance.