Marg Transifex

I like Transifex. It has a smooth use interface. It helps us translate content across multiple channels, and is especially helpful for international business use, which we have quite often!

It takes a while to setup on my computers, though that may be an issue on my end.

Recommendations to others considering the product:

What problems are you solving with the product? What benefits have you realized?

Easy to understand great technical support

Freezes up sometimes when I'm in a rush

Recommendations to others considering the product:

What problems are you solving with the product? What benefits have you realized?

- Allows for a git-centric process of translations;

- API is far from great but it's complete enough to do most things you'll need;

- Can't say support is unresponsive, they do reply in a good time;

- Price model is really strange. Who charges per word in a cloud-based world? This is almost free considering Amazon storage prices.

- UI is not great:

- Hard to understand the current state of things (shows the current state, but not how much % it moved today for instance), many UI flows are confusing (eg. you are in a resource, click translate and have to choose a resource again...);

- Search takes some time (although all data is already in the UI – so it does unnecessary backend searches), the field for searching is not great UX wise;

- API is clearly a 2nd thought:

- Many things are not there (update context for all keys for instance);

- Endpoints exist with different functionality in different versions at the same time (that's really weird);

- Lacks consistency a lot. E.g. some endpoints return JSON or HTML depending on the status (that's also really really weird).

- We experienced some strange caching issues with the CLI tools;

- Many important missing features IMO. E.g. Can't create a resource from another one from the UI (you have to manually download and then upload);

- Many support requests are replied in a confusing way (maybe EN is a language barrier for them) and when we asked about a feature they don't support they simply say "this can't be done" instead of assessing how important it is and telling you decisively they don't plan to do it (and the reasons) or if they plan to do it along with an ETA/timeframe;

- Some features seem really useless to me. For instance why would I upload images and send positions in the image to associate with keys? I highly doubt anyone uses this (at least through the API) since it's too hard of a problem. I would prefer to have some live-editing capabilities couples with the git/resources flow.

- They say they do, but they don't really suppport the ICU format correctly (some missing syntaxes). Discussing this with them was a bit difficult 'cause they both didn't understand our points and insisted they were right while they were not (by the end of this thread they understood us and admitted they were wrong);

- Lacks more fine-grained communication tools, like filtering better who to send emails when a resource is created and communicating people when resources are complete or reviewed. We had to use the API and webhooks to build our own services to improve that.

--

With all that said, it may seem they were always wrong and being stubborn. That's not the case, we also requested many stupid things and asked stupid questions along they way and they helped us understand and improve. But since the goal of this feedback is for _them_ to improve I think it's worth noting they also fail a lot on giving the best/clear support.

What problems are you solving with the product? What benefits have you realized?

They have varities of language availability.

I am not sure about other languages but for Korean language there were some awkard wordings.

Recommendations to others considering the product:

What problems are you solving with the product? What benefits have you realized?