When a team starts planning a multilingual website, one of the earliest questions is how to divide work between machine translation and human reviewers. Without a clear split, content can slip through with no one owning its accuracy, or human translators can end up spending time on material that never needed manual attention. The goal is to set boundaries that match the risk each type of content carries.
A practical starting point is to sort your content by how much error it can tolerate. Pages that carry legal obligations, health or safety instructions, or culturally sensitive marketing claims generally need human translation or at least a full human review before publication. On the other hand, large volumes of reference material, internal notes, or user-facing content where approximate meaning is sufficient may be reasonable candidates for machine translation with occasional spot-checks. You can adjust these categories as you see what kinds of errors actually appear in your context.
Responsibility works best when it is attached to a specific person or role at each stage rather than to a department in general. If machine output is used as a first draft, someone needs to own the review step and have the authority to reject or revise it. If that ownership is vague, errors tend to persist because no individual feels accountable for catching them. You might find it useful to write down who reviews what, what they are checking for, and what happens when they flag a problem.
It also helps to revisit these boundaries periodically. Content types change, new languages get added, and the quality of machine translation tools shifts over time. A written record of your original decisions gives you something concrete to compare against when you notice new failure patterns. When you review, you can ask whether the current split still matches the actual risk, or whether certain content has quietly moved into a category that needs more or less human attention than it originally received.