BBC to machine-translate TV news into Japanese and Russian

Content will still be checked by human journalists before it's uploaded online.

Read the whole story

 

[_shakeyjake_]

ChrisSD[/url]":11mss2fj]This should be fun. How long before the first hilarious mistake?

or will there be human oversight of the result? Machine translation is certainly good for speeding up a translators job but, unless there have been big advances over what google offers, it at the very least still needs a sanity check.

A brief read of the article would have told you exactly what you wanted to know. Its initially done by Google translate then polished by human.

Later on, a bilingual journalist will need to polish the text, and then the voiceover will be recorded automatically using one of the synthesised voices.

 

[helel ben shachar]

_shakeyjake_[/url]":18pnpz9d]

ChrisSD[/url]":18pnpz9d]This should be fun. How long before the first hilarious mistake?

or will there be human oversight of the result? Machine translation is certainly good for speeding up a translators job but, unless there have been big advances over what google offers, it at the very least still needs a sanity check.

A brief read of the article would have told you exactly what you wanted to know. Its initially done by Google translate then polished by human.

Later on, a bilingual journalist will need to polish the text, and then the voiceover will be recorded automatically using one of the synthesised voices.

I almost think that there should be some sort of time delay before clicking on an article and being able to post. A time delay which is proportional to the article length, you know, to coincide with the average users reading speed. This would help people not to expose the fact they didn't read the damn article in their haste to be 'First!' and would greatly reduce the need for justifiable RTFA responses.

 

[mrseb]

cdclndc[/url]":2288lo7w]

_shakeyjake_[/url]":2288lo7w]

ChrisSD[/url]":2288lo7w]This should be fun. How long before the first hilarious mistake?

or will there be human oversight of the result? Machine translation is certainly good for speeding up a translators job but, unless there have been big advances over what google offers, it at the very least still needs a sanity check.

A brief read of the article would have told you exactly what you wanted to know. Its initially done by Google translate then polished by human.

Later on, a bilingual journalist will need to polish the text, and then the voiceover will be recorded automatically using one of the synthesised voices.

I almost think that there should be some sort of time delay before clicking on an article and being able to post. A time delay which is proportional to the article length, you know, to coincide with the average users reading speed. This would help people not to expose the fact they didn't read the damn article in their haste to be 'First!' and would greatly reduce the need for justifiable RTFA responses.

We've joked about adding a feature that shows you how long it's been since the person opened the page and written a comment. But I don't think it'll actually happen

Not yet, anyway...

 

[ChrisSD]

I actually did read the article but some how missed it. Maybe I skimmed. That's totally on me though. Sorry.

 

[Futurix]

Considering how hilariously bad Google Translate can be in English-to-Russian mode, I think that the supervisor will end up doing most of the actual translation.

 

[Me Myself And I1]

Well, maybe they should fix human voice-overs translations first.

I have yet to hear an English voiceover that matches what the person in the original language says. Sometimes I think they just use a random part of the video clip and voice-over it with the gist of what the person said.

I worked at the BBC World Service radio for several years so we did a crapload of localized VOs of English originals and the rule was that there must be an identefiable match so if the listener speaks both languages, they won't think we're making stuff up. People at the WS are multilingual so a single person could typically address multiple languages in the original soundbites.

Sad that some BBC standards only apply to the World Service

 

[AndreaFaulds]

This could work out quite well. The kind of English used in BBC News articles isn't overly complicated, which aids machine translation. Inevitably there will be some mistakes, but humans are checking the translations over, so they shouldn't be too bad.

On the other hand, Google Translate (and statistical machine translation in general) only really works very well for similar languages. If they were doing this between English and, say, Spanish or German, the result would be pretty good. It might even be for Russian (I'm not sure). But for Japanese? The people correcting the translations might have a hard time.

On a different note, it's interesting that at every stage in the process this still involves humans. They need to correct the machine translation and make sure the text-to-speech sounds right. Machine translation here isn't replacing humans, it's just reducing their workload. Instead of having to get them to manually translate the whole thing, then record them speaking it, the machine does the bulk of the work.

 

[Quiet Desperation]

What are the Russian and Japanese equivalents of "meatbag"?

Purely as an honorific, of course.

 

[jtroth]

AndreaFaulds[/url]":306ngcch]This could work out quite well. The kind of English used in BBC News articles isn't overly complicated, which aids machine translation. Inevitably there will be some mistakes, but humans are checking the translations over, so they shouldn't be too bad.

On the other hand, Google Translate (and statistical machine translation in general) only really works very well for similar languages. If they were doing this between English and, say, Spanish or German, the result would be pretty good. It might even be for Russian (I'm not sure). But for Japanese? The people correcting the translations might have a hard time.

On a different note, it's interesting that at every stage in the process this still involves humans. They need to correct the machine translation and make sure the text-to-speech sounds right. Machine translation here isn't replacing humans, it's just reducing their workload. Instead of having to get them to manually translate the whole thing, then record them speaking it, the machine does the bulk of the work.

The translations between Japanese and English are indeed horrible. But even so, when my husband (native Japanese) wants to translate something I've written into Japanese he'll often ask me for an initial run through Google as a starting point. It is just (barely) good enough for that purpose.

 

[Deleted member 192806]

Next up, how MT (Machine Translation) is being used at the UN?

 

[letao]

Futurix[/url]":2ocj3vm3]Considering how hilariously bad Google Translate can be in English-to-Russian mode, I think that the supervisor will end up doing most of the actual translation.

Completely agree. Case in point, if you google translate this article's title to Japanese and back, you get:

"The BBC in Japan and Russia on the television news of machine translation"

How do you "polish" this turd?

 

[Deleted member 192806]

One question, why the synthesized voices?

 

[mbuchman]

I wonder if a "middle" language would work better. For example, the original work would be translated to the middle language then back to English. If the English to English translation was good, then hypothetically all other languages would be good as well.

Or maybe that would be too much like robot speak, I'm not sure.

 

[Bozo Z Clown]

PhilStone[/url]":2hcfk6sg]

Content will still be checked by human journalists before it's uploaded online.

Will the content also be censored and biased, as is typical of BBC journalism?

Ok, you piqued my curiosity, if not the BBC who is your gold standard for unbiased news?

Most people would consider the BBC to be one of the more even handed major news organizations.

 

[Bozo Z Clown]

Ostracus[/url]":2udo7fjj]One question, why the synthesized voices?

I thought they sounded remarkably natural (we've come a long way).

What do you propose as an alternative?

 

[PtRWhatever]

As a HUGE fan of Anime and Manga, anything auto translating into Japanese from English and vice versa has monstrous pitfalls. I've come across many a "auto translation" of a manga that makes no sense. Getting the real meaning of many phrases from Japanese to English requires contextual understanding about what is being said. The grammar order is different between the two languages just as an example.

For those people who arn't into anime and or manga, I offer THIS fine piece of Brittish filmography as an example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JV8b7mB4HTU

Google translate and in fact ANY current computer translation from English to Japanese is no where close to being ready for main stream media without human help.

 

[Deleted member 192806]

Bozo Z Clown[/url]":tlmuuldw]

Ostracus[/url]":tlmuuldw]One question, why the synthesized voices?

I thought they sounded remarkably natural (we've come a long way).

What do you propose as an alternative?

Why do you presume a question of process is a criticism of same?

 

[btbinjapan]

AndreaFaulds[/url]":1txnlclf]Machine translation here isn't replacing humans, it's just reducing their workload. Instead of having to get them to manually translate the whole thing, then record them speaking it, the machine does the bulk of the work.

As a professional translator (Japanese to English), I find that machine translation increases my workload, not reduces it. In all but the simplest of sentences, it produces translations that must be heavily revised, or deleted as unusable. It is faster to just write out a sentence from scratch than mousing around and polishing turds.

 

[Vincent294]

わたしあるますをいしゃピッザのかくせいざいラブにはみますさいしゅんツレラぎじゅつ。
Those know Japanese, cringe at this grammar. Enter it into a translator for an even more cringe-worthy response.

 

[soulsabr]

I picked up a few Xanth books on my kindle. The mistakes of a simple English to English translation were glaring. This should be better.

 

[dustmagnet]

letao[/url]":2mfspgsd]

Futurix[/url]":2mfspgsd]Considering how hilariously bad Google Translate can be in English-to-Russian mode, I think that the supervisor will end up doing most of the actual translation.

Completely agree. Case in point, if you google translate this article's title to Japanese and back, you get:

"The BBC in Japan and Russia on the television news of machine translation"

How do you "polish" this turd?

Bing's round-trip translation is "Machine translation of both Japan and Russia, on the TV news BBC." This is more sensible, albeit not perfect.

 

[Solomon Black]

So I presume they will be working on bio-engineering this into small fish next?

 

[dj__jg]

PhilStone[/url]":eikieovi]

Bozo Z Clown[/url]":eikieovi]

PhilStone[/url]":eikieovi]

Content will still be checked by human journalists before it's uploaded online.

Will the content also be censored and biased, as is typical of BBC journalism?

Ok, you piqued my curiosity, if not the BBC who is your gold standard for unbiased news?

Most people would consider the BBC to be one of the more even handed major news organizations.

Bias becomes a problem in news reporting when it hides the truth, which is what censorship is also all about. Unfortunately there are no truly unbiased news sources. That said, the BBC deserves to be highlighted as a huge offender for the way they like to present themselves as professional, unbiased and balanced, which they obviously are not.

Only people who are ignorant or equally biased would consider the BBC "one of the more even handed news organizations." It is anti-American and promotes everything having to do with human caused global warming, the EU, gays, minorities, and foreigners of the Western world. It is also apologetic towards Islam while being critical to Christianity and Jews.

Oh, yes, of course, they should give equal broadcast time to both human caused global warming deniers and scientists, because otherwise they'd be biased? /s

News organisations are filters, they have to filter out false/spurious/insane information/sources, and then filter down further to keep the amount of news they publish manageable, and then they need to condense it into something you can read whilst drinking a cup of coffee.

During this condensing/filtering some bias is unavoidable, because :

A: People (sub)consciously always filter according to their own beliefs and
B: News organisations need people to read what they write, and people are most likely to read things that they agree with, so there is an incentive to follow the readerbase
C: Various reasons that might cause an organisation to be biased which I'm too lazy (or biased ;P) to think about, for example: Lizardpeople handing out orders

If you think the BBC is too biased, go read something that aligns with your worldview. Or even better: Go read something that is biased about the same amount in the other direction, read the BBC as well, compare and find the truth somewhere in the middle.

Now for my own biased opinion:
I think the BBC is not very biased at all, one of the reasons for this is that it's publicly funded and therefore viewer ratings have a smaller influence on it.
This might just be because it aligns with my current worldview (America is really funny and not much of a democracy, global warming exists and is at least partially caused by those weird bipedal monkeys, the EU is necessary for the small European countries to stay in existence and is a good thing when it listens to the citizens and not the industry, anyone who still has a problem with people having different sexual preferences is probably quite misguided, I don't know how one promotes minorities, and foreigners to the Western world should probably get a nice firm handshake and a tour, and if they like it here and can adhere to our laws, customs and values, why shouldn't they be allowed to stay?

As for being apologetic towards Islam and critical to Christianity and Jews, I'm pretty sure there is a minority of [FAITH] that has done some terrible things and used [FAITH] to justify it, I don't think you can rank one above the others.)

 

[jtroth]

dustmagnet[/url]":alwgyfd5]

letao[/url]":alwgyfd5]

Futurix[/url]":alwgyfd5]Considering how hilariously bad Google Translate can be in English-to-Russian mode, I think that the supervisor will end up doing most of the actual translation.

Completely agree. Case in point, if you google translate this article's title to Japanese and back, you get:

"The BBC in Japan and Russia on the television news of machine translation"

How do you "polish" this turd?

Bing's round-trip translation is "Machine translation of both Japan and Russia, on the TV news BBC." This is more sensible, albeit not perfect.

One of the funniest things Mark Twain ever wrote concerned the translation of his Jumping Frog of Calaveras County into French (as a means to illustrate the perfidy of the French). He first showed the original of The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County followed by a French translation he had found. Then, to illustrate what a terrible job they'd done, he did a word-for-word translation back into English (rather how a dumb machine might do it). Wonderful! http://genius.com/Mark-twain-back-trans ... -annotated

 

[Totally Radical Liberal]

dj__jg[/url]":2xd3vjkq]

PhilStone[/url]":2xd3vjkq]

Bozo Z Clown[/url]":2xd3vjkq]

PhilStone[/url]":2xd3vjkq]

Content will still be checked by human journalists before it's uploaded online.

Will the content also be censored and biased, as is typical of BBC journalism?

Ok, you piqued my curiosity, if not the BBC who is your gold standard for unbiased news?

Most people would consider the BBC to be one of the more even handed major news organizations.

Bias becomes a problem in news reporting when it hides the truth, which is what censorship is also all about. Unfortunately there are no truly unbiased news sources. That said, the BBC deserves to be highlighted as a huge offender for the way they like to present themselves as professional, unbiased and balanced, which they obviously are not.

Only people who are ignorant or equally biased would consider the BBC "one of the more even handed news organizations." It is anti-American and promotes everything having to do with human caused global warming, the EU, gays, minorities, and foreigners of the Western world. It is also apologetic towards Islam while being critical to Christianity and Jews.

Oh, yes, of course, they should give equal broadcast time to both human caused global warming deniers and scientists, because otherwise they'd be biased? /s

News organisations are filters, they have to filter out false/spurious/insane information/sources, and then filter down further to keep the amount of news they publish manageable, and then they need to condense it into something you can read whilst drinking a cup of coffee.

During this condensing/filtering some bias is unavoidable, because :

A: People (sub)consciously always filter according to their own beliefs and
B: News organisations need people to read what they write, and people are most likely to read things that they agree with, so there is an incentive to follow the readerbase
C: Various reasons that might cause an organisation to be biased which I'm too lazy (or biased ;P) to think about, for example: Lizardpeople handing out orders

If you think the BBC is too biased, go read something that aligns with your worldview. Or even better: Go read something that is biased about the same amount in the other direction, read the BBC as well, compare and find the truth somewhere in the middle.

Now for my own biased opinion:
I think the BBC is not very biased at all, one of the reasons for this is that it's publicly funded and therefore viewer ratings have a smaller influence on it.
This might just be because it aligns with my current worldview (America is really funny and not much of a democracy, global warming exists and is at least partially caused by those weird bipedal monkeys, the EU is necessary for the small European countries to stay in existence and is a good thing when it listens to the citizens and not the industry, anyone who still has a problem with people having different sexual preferences is probably quite misguided, I don't know how one promotes minorities, and foreigners to the Western world should probably get a nice firm handshake and a tour, and if they like it here and can adhere to our laws, customs and values, why shouldn't they be allowed to stay?

As for being apologetic towards Islam and critical to Christianity and Jews, I'm pretty sure there is a minority of [FAITH] that has done some terrible things and used [FAITH] to justify it, I don't think you can rank one above the others.)

Sigh. There could have been a much simpler exchange here. You asked his gold standard of non biased news source better than the BBC? The answer was Fox News. Done. No more words necessary.

 

[LVN8]

Ostracus[/url]":clim0ebn]Next up, how MT (Machine Translation) is being used at the UN?

Oh good lord no! What do you want to do, start a war?

 

[10thDoctor]

dj__jg[/url]":2qie8jna]

PhilStone[/url]":2qie8jna]

Bozo Z Clown[/url]":2qie8jna]

PhilStone[/url]":2qie8jna]

Content will still be checked by human journalists before it's uploaded online.

Will the content also be censored and biased, as is typical of BBC journalism?

Ok, you piqued my curiosity, if not the BBC who is your gold standard for unbiased news?

Most people would consider the BBC to be one of the more even handed major news organizations.

Bias becomes a problem in news reporting when it hides the truth, which is what censorship is also all about. Unfortunately there are no truly unbiased news sources. That said, the BBC deserves to be highlighted as a huge offender for the way they like to present themselves as professional, unbiased and balanced, which they obviously are not.

Only people who are ignorant or equally biased would consider the BBC "one of the more even handed news organizations." It is anti-American and promotes everything having to do with human caused global warming, the EU, gays, minorities, and foreigners of the Western world. It is also apologetic towards Islam while being critical to Christianity and Jews.

Oh, yes, of course, they should give equal broadcast time to both human caused global warming deniers and scientists, because otherwise they'd be biased? /s

News organisations are filters, they have to filter out false/spurious/insane information/sources, and then filter down further to keep the amount of news they publish manageable, and then they need to condense it into something you can read whilst drinking a cup of coffee.

During this condensing/filtering some bias is unavoidable, because :

A: People (sub)consciously always filter according to their own beliefs and
B: News organisations need people to read what they write, and people are most likely to read things that they agree with, so there is an incentive to follow the readerbase
C: Various reasons that might cause an organisation to be biased which I'm too lazy (or biased ;P) to think about, for example: Lizardpeople handing out orders

If you think the BBC is too biased, go read something that aligns with your worldview. Or even better: Go read something that is biased about the same amount in the other direction, read the BBC as well, compare and find the truth somewhere in the middle.

Now for my own biased opinion:
I think the BBC is not very biased at all, one of the reasons for this is that it's publicly funded and therefore viewer ratings have a smaller influence on it.
This might just be because it aligns with my current worldview (America is really funny and not much of a democracy, global warming exists and is at least partially caused by those weird bipedal monkeys, the EU is necessary for the small European countries to stay in existence and is a good thing when it listens to the citizens and not the industry, anyone who still has a problem with people having different sexual preferences is probably quite misguided, I don't know how one promotes minorities, and foreigners to the Western world should probably get a nice firm handshake and a tour, and if they like it here and can adhere to our laws, customs and values, why shouldn't they be allowed to stay?

As for being apologetic towards Islam and critical to Christianity and Jews, I'm pretty sure there is a minority of [FAITH] that has done some terrible things and used [FAITH] to justify it, I don't think you can rank one above the others.)

* Considering you are likely British, based on your writing, I'm not surprised you take offense to your beloved BBC being criticized.

* I don't need your advice on how I should get my news, and I certainly do not need it to determine what is true or not.

* Yeah, you can rank some people of faith above others, because Christians and Muslims are not going around the world *today* threatening to and slaughtering the unbelievers.

* The fact that the BBC is government funded doesn't prevent it from being biased. It is well know that they are biased. Even those that have worked for the BBC have accused it of being biased.

* You feel America is "really funny and not much of a democracy" because you are equally anti-American and ignorant.

* Your country is doing a really swell job allowing in the Islamic head cutters and then going after its own for criticizing that. Yep, they really like you "laws, customs and values."

American here. I use the BBC as my main news source, since most of the American ones are hopelessly biased, and I don't want to read the same thing on every news provider to determine what the likely truth is. The BBC may be biased as well, but at least it's to a much smaller extent than Fox, MSNBC, and CNN.

 

[Deleted member 192806]

LVN8[/url]":284c9aas]

Ostracus[/url]":284c9aas]Next up, how MT (Machine Translation) is being used at the UN?

Oh good lord no! What do you want to do, start a war?

Well how else are our machine overlords going to talk to us?

 

[Vincent294]

PhilStone[/url]":2yu3rhsn]

dj__jg[/url]":2yu3rhsn]

PhilStone[/url]":2yu3rhsn]

Bozo Z Clown[/url]":2yu3rhsn]

PhilStone[/url]":2yu3rhsn]

Content will still be checked by human journalists before it's uploaded online.

Will the content also be censored and biased, as is typical of BBC journalism?

Ok, you piqued my curiosity, if not the BBC who is your gold standard for unbiased news?

Most people would consider the BBC to be one of the more even handed major news organizations.

Bias becomes a problem in news reporting when it hides the truth, which is what censorship is also all about. Unfortunately there are no truly unbiased news sources. That said, the BBC deserves to be highlighted as a huge offender for the way they like to present themselves as professional, unbiased and balanced, which they obviously are not.

Only people who are ignorant or equally biased would consider the BBC "one of the more even handed news organizations." It is anti-American and promotes everything having to do with human caused global warming, the EU, gays, minorities, and foreigners of the Western world. It is also apologetic towards Islam while being critical to Christianity and Jews.

Oh, yes, of course, they should give equal broadcast time to both human caused global warming deniers and scientists, because otherwise they'd be biased? /s

News organisations are filters, they have to filter out false/spurious/insane information/sources, and then filter down further to keep the amount of news they publish manageable, and then they need to condense it into something you can read whilst drinking a cup of coffee.

During this condensing/filtering some bias is unavoidable, because :

A: People (sub)consciously always filter according to their own beliefs and
B: News organisations need people to read what they write, and people are most likely to read things that they agree with, so there is an incentive to follow the readerbase
C: Various reasons that might cause an organisation to be biased which I'm too lazy (or biased ;P) to think about, for example: Lizardpeople handing out orders

If you think the BBC is too biased, go read something that aligns with your worldview. Or even better: Go read something that is biased about the same amount in the other direction, read the BBC as well, compare and find the truth somewhere in the middle.

Now for my own biased opinion:
I think the BBC is not very biased at all, one of the reasons for this is that it's publicly funded and therefore viewer ratings have a smaller influence on it.
This might just be because it aligns with my current worldview (America is really funny and not much of a democracy, global warming exists and is at least partially caused by those weird bipedal monkeys, the EU is necessary for the small European countries to stay in existence and is a good thing when it listens to the citizens and not the industry, anyone who still has a problem with people having different sexual preferences is probably quite misguided, I don't know how one promotes minorities, and foreigners to the Western world should probably get a nice firm handshake and a tour, and if they like it here and can adhere to our laws, customs and values, why shouldn't they be allowed to stay?

As for being apologetic towards Islam and critical to Christianity and Jews, I'm pretty sure there is a minority of [FAITH] that has done some terrible things and used [FAITH] to justify it, I don't think you can rank one above the others.)

* Considering you are likely British, based on your writing, I'm not surprised you take offense to your beloved BBC being criticized.

* I don't need your advice on how I should get my news, and I certainly do not need it to determine what is true or not.

* Yeah, you can rank some people of faith above others, because Christians and Muslims are not going around the world *today* threatening to and slaughtering the unbelievers.

* The fact that the BBC is government funded doesn't prevent it from being biased. It is well know that they are biased. Even those that have worked for the BBC have accused it of being biased.

* You feel America is "really funny and not much of a democracy" because you are equally anti-American and ignorant.

* Your country is doing a really swell job allowing in the Islamic head cutters and then going after its own for criticizing that. Yep, they really like you "laws, customs and values."

So in other words you...favour Zionist news sources (sorry, had to take a jab at how little you know about British English, and I'm an American too before you start any accusations).

 

[Vincent294]

Is it possible to machine translate stupid into something intelligible? Some of these comments...

 

[Vincent294]

LVN8[/url]":3cbewlts]

Ostracus[/url]":3cbewlts]Next up, how MT (Machine Translation) is being used at the UN?

Oh good lord no! What do you want to do, start a war?

I declare nachos on the United America of Kingdom Land!

 

[DanNeely]

jtroth[/url]":4d4n7nv1]

AndreaFaulds[/url]":4d4n7nv1]This could work out quite well. The kind of English used in BBC News articles isn't overly complicated, which aids machine translation. Inevitably there will be some mistakes, but humans are checking the translations over, so they shouldn't be too bad.

On the other hand, Google Translate (and statistical machine translation in general) only really works very well for similar languages. If they were doing this between English and, say, Spanish or German, the result would be pretty good. It might even be for Russian (I'm not sure). But for Japanese? The people correcting the translations might have a hard time.

On a different note, it's interesting that at every stage in the process this still involves humans. They need to correct the machine translation and make sure the text-to-speech sounds right. Machine translation here isn't replacing humans, it's just reducing their workload. Instead of having to get them to manually translate the whole thing, then record them speaking it, the machine does the bulk of the work.

The translations between Japanese and English are indeed horrible. But even so, when my husband (native Japanese) wants to translate something I've written into Japanese he'll often ask me for an initial run through Google as a starting point. It is just (barely) good enough for that purpose.

One of the limiting factors in machine translation is the supply of well translated bilingual text to feed the algorithms. While Google's had a suggest improvements feature for a number of years; I'm doubtful that they get much good data from it. The people who know both languages well enough to make those corrections generally aren't the main users. Feeding all of the BCC translators corrections back into the system offers a potentially large source of new multilingual text in a wide variety of subjects that can be used to make the machine translations better.

 

[jdale]

Although it might seem that technology like this could take jobs from humans, an anonymous source at the BBC said that "the intention was instead to free up reporters to do more journalism rather than administrative tasks."

Given how bad human translation still is, and that they are still having humans refine the text, I don't think this is a real concern.

But that said, this statement is BS. "Free up reporters to do more journalism" means they don't have enough to do the translations and reporting. If they didn't have this, they would have to hire more. Any labor saving costs jobs, at best you can say that it only costs potential jobs (i.e. no one is actually getting laid off) rather than real ones. Be honest about it.