Do their graders want you to fail?

Discussion in 'CastingWords' started by EllieFS, May 29, 2013.

  1. pwt

    pwt User

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    0
    $1/minute is the budget rate and pay 49-50 cents per minute max to transcribers. CastingWords has two other plans that their customers can choose from.

    The only HITs that get close to $1/minute for transcribers are certain Express HITs and Expedited HITs.

    Express HITs get close at 195%+ premium and a Grade 9. They pay transcribers 88 cents (195%) or 90 cents (200%) per minute up there.

    Expedited HITs don't have a bonus because they pay $1/min flat.

    Regular audio costs $1.00/minute, Express costs $1.50/minute, and Expedited costs $2.50/minute. CW makes a profit on all of them even with max premiums and bonuses.

    Only "OK" is correct, "Okay" is an error. It's in the style guide. It's also probably not the only error that you made, it's just one that a grader left in your feedback.

    My rate doing CastingWords HITs last night was $14.98/hour. I've pulled in $667.79 the last 28 working days from them, usually working between 1.5-3 hours each day. That is not cheap labor and they aren't stealing anything from me or anyone else.
     
  2. dancingfingers

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0

    I find it VERY HARD to believe that you don't work for Castingwords. While you find FallonR posting on different threads disturbing, you sure are running around trying to silence her aren't you?
     
  3. pwt

    pwt User

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    0
    What would you like to see, screencaps of my mTurk dashboard? Feedback page? CastingWords profile? CrowdSource profile? Amazon Payments history? You can look through my comment history on this forum easily enough and read some of the complaints I've had about CW in the past. There are a few. There should be one or two about CrowdSource as well.

    I post things online under my real name for a reason. You can find all sorts of things about me online. My political essays (more than 500) and 2012 election coverage, several years of blogging about the TV and film industries on my site and others, my LinkedIn profile isn't hard to find.

    What you won't find is me being an employee of CastingWords now or in the past.

    Disturbing isn't the word I'd use to describe that behavior. Posting the same baseless complaint to half a dozen old threads that have nothing to do with those complaints is more like spam. Spam that's giving a decent company an unearned bad rep.

    What it boils down to for me is that there are people who will accept that they screwed up, learn from it, and work hard to not screw up again, and those are the people that can make good money from CastingWords. This particular requester has a system that rewards people with a good work ethic and really kind of punishes people with a poor work attitude.

    Then there are people who blame others for their mistakes, won't spend any time trying to learn a job that's new to them, and obviously those are the people who don't cut it.

    FallonR's Ripoff report (and posts on this forum) are full of factual errors, half of which are based on her ignorance of how CastingWords even operates. She was (and presumably still is) completely unaware that transcribers have to build up their PPT score to gain access to better paying work. She posted screenshots of several jobs she did that had basic errors in them that are clearly addressed in the style guide, transcripts with errors that she expected to be paid for as if they were perfect.

    Who wouldn't call out such nonsense? One transcript had a grade 6 on it that had at least 3-4 errors just in the feedback. We're not even talking about the total errors in the final edit. She insists that "Okay" is correct for example. It's not. It's an error and that's covered in the style guide. She put spaces after an ellipses. That's another error that's covered in the style guide.

    It is not the fault of CastingWords that she disobeyed the style guide and then threw an online tantrum.

    There are legitimate complaints against CastingWords. Despite being rewritten within the past year, the style guide is still missing information that will cost you with graders and CW. They don't have any mechanism to alert transcribers or graders to changes in that guide which is inexcusable. They don't really seem capable of being a functioning company during the late spring to early fall, when work just vanishes for six months. They don't respond to all emails, even some important ones.

    But they don't cheat people. I'm sitting here on their auto-approve list for grade 9s. That's about 88% of what the expedited HITs pay. That's $2.64 for a 3 minute clip. No matter how good the quality of the work I submit anymore, that's what I get paid. I'm not the only one, either.

    Now you can believe that or not, I have no control over that. I'll give you whatever proof I have to give but if you want real proof, work for CW and work your butt off and you'll see the money for yourself.

    The apt word is rebut, not silence, IMHO.

    edit: I just noticed that this is one of the very few places I've used my initials instead of my name. Feel free to Google me all you want.
     
  4. dancingfingers

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    With all due respect by your account you earned $600.00 and change in 28 days with Casting Words, yet are on every thread SOMEONE/ANYONE expresses a distaste for the company. I have NEVER seen a plain old " turker" come to the defense of any requester like you do Casting Words.

    Casting Words is an undesirable requester for real transcriptionists. The one post where a " newbie editor" was asking about contractions tells us much. A transcriptionist would not have to ask them question, but a editor really? Darn it those that kiss up to Casting Words would not last long with SpeechInk..seriously.

    Oh and btw " bragging" about how much you earned at Casting Words is really cheesy... truth is if one works consistently with SpeechInk that can be earned in a week.

    You sure spend an awful lot of time on this board defending CW... while the rest of us are actually " working". Just sayin....
     
  5. dancingfingers

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    Back to work I go... but just had to throw this in for YOU PWT... friend of mine has been transcribing for many years legal, medical you name it. She didn't take my advise and stay away from CW, her score is 88, yet at SpeechInk her score is consistently between 98 to 100, with majority at 100. Enough said.
     
  6. pwt

    pwt User

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    0
    It was. I've worked more since then: http://imgbox.com/abbEFmxD

    And it's all CastingWords HITs: http://imgbox.com/aczKdvUr

    It looks like CW kind of shut down for Thanksgiving and no new work is being posted. I guess I'm going to be stuck doing surveys and other mTurk crap for a while.

    Perhaps it is, but that has nothing to do with the accusations that CastingWords rips off mTurk workers who do transcriptions. To some degree every requester rips us off because that's the nature and the point of mTurk.

    That said, the 10-$14/hr I can make working for CastingWords sure beats the $1-2/hr I figure I would make doing those business card HITs for Oscar whatshisname, or the $3-5 from CrowdSource.

    When someone complains that CastingWords pays terribly, it's not bragging to rebut that criticism with proof that you actually can earn decent money from them. It is in fact the only possible way to rebut such criticism, if that criticism is false.

    A consistent amount of work can earn you that much ($600) in a week from many different requesters. There are plenty of Indian turkers that make $100+ in a day that never do audio transcription. I suppose it might be possible, I've never worked for SpeechInk before so I can't say for certain what's possible with them and what's not. But I think I can make some reasonable guesses here.

    First, right now I see a SpeechInk HIT that pays $26.96 for a clip that's 55:56 or just short of an hour. At my best I could do a HIT that size in 210 minutes (3.5 hours). At worst it would take 284 minutes or 4.7 hours. Let's stick with best case and use that.

    If you're working an eight hour day, you can get two of those jobs done in a day. That's $53.92 a day or $377.44 in seven days. That's a bit more than half of what would be needed. By my math, doing three of those clips per day (10.5 hours worked, $80.88 earned) still wouldn't get you to $600 even in seven days, forget five. It'd be $566.16. You can fudge the numbers a little if you're a faster transcriber than I am, but I don't think that'd help much because of the other points.

    Second, CastingWords pays more than SpeechInk does /if you're a very good transcriber/ for them. That SpeechInk 55:56 clip pays about 47 cents per minute, but the top "express" HITs that CastingWords posts that get the largest bonus (grade 9) pay 90 cents per minute. If you can transcribe at the same speed for both companies, you'll make nearly double working for CastingWords /if you do a perfect transcript/.

    Third, the 28 days of work for me that pulled in $600 wasn't more than a handful of hours per day. You can do the same with both companies, treat it like a real job and work 8 hours a day if you want and earn much more. Or you can use it as extra income and just work a little here and there. That's up to each of us. I tend to do the latter and only work more when I want more money. So when I say I made $600 in 28 days, that's anywhere from 1-3.5 hours per day. That's not all day. Frankly I can't do this all day, my fingers turn to jello after about four hours.

    I worked a bit over 26.5 hours in October and earned $244 spread across 11 days. (My PPT meant I got auto-approved for "grade 8" for most of October.) I suppose if I'd wanted to I could have squeezed that into 3.3 working days. Same with November. It was $486 in November in 21 days, but that's in 41.5 hours. That's barely more than a standard work week in hours, right?. If you took the hours I worked in November and squeezed them into eight-hour workdays, you'd land at 5.1, your basic work week plus an extra 1.5 hours.

    Feel free to argue with any of these numbers but I just don't see it. Working at my speed (3.7 minutes of work per 1 minute of audio):

    SpeechInk: 5 days (40 hours total), $308.11
    SpeechInk: 7 days (56 hours total), $431.36

    CastingWords: 5 days (40 hours total), $585.42
    CastingWords: 7 days (56 hours total), $819.60

    Note that that's not taking into account actual job size. That's taking what each requester pays per minute of audio at the highest level and applying a specific work speed to it over the course of 40 and 56 hours.

    So yeah, I'm just not seeing it. If I worked the same speed for both companies I'd be making almost 50% less from SpeechInk than from CastingWords.

    What I think it boils down to is how good you are for CW. If someone doesn't follow their style guide and gets low grades and low bonuses, or are new workers for CastingWords and can't get the high paying work, I suppose it's possible to make more money from SpeechInk. FallonR was a new transcriber and therefore wasn't allowed access to "express" HITs, so yes, it's a fact that she couldn't earn what I can given the same number of hours worked. For her, SpeechInk may very well have paid more. She submitted some decent work (grade 8) and some very poor work (grade 6) on CW HITs that already paid low because they weren't "express".

    I don't know what your history with CW is, but maybe that's the same. Maybe for both of you it's the combined factors of not following the style guide consistently (low grades/bonuses) and then not working long enough to raise your PPT qualification high enough to get the good work. That would hold anyone back. You (anyone) can't earn $819/week from CastingWords with a PPT below 90 submitting work that gets a grade 6 or 7. I've never disputed that. That's a fact as much as any other. But that is precisely what sets CastingWords apart from all the other transcription requesters. Other requesters have an accept/reject paradigm that doesn't incentivize very high quality work, and thus pay less to *everyone* no matter what. CastingWords incentivizes high quality work. My mTurk dashboard is living proof of that.

    If you can earn from SpeechInk what I do from CastingWords in the same amount of time (or less time), that's fantastic. I'm happy that you've got a requester that you like working for and one that fits your needs. I'm no different, except yeah, I step out there to defend CW more than most because that's the person I am. They've been great to me over the years and I feel that they've earned that from me. I'd be no more or less defensive of a company on a salary. I think I make good money from CW because I've earned it, and because of that and some other things, I think they've earned a bit of my time too.

    *shrug*

    189 total posts, not all about CastingWords, in 19 months? I don't consider that a lot of anything, but to each their own.
     
  7. pwt

    pwt User

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think comparing the two is apples and oranges. First of all, CW's PPT qualification last I heard doesn't end at 100. It's not a 1-100 scale with 100 being perfect, there are transcribers above 100 with this company from what I've read. I'm at 95 right now and got there with about 90% grade 8s and 10% grade 9s. I think it takes consistent flawless work, but there's more than 100 to the PPT it seems.

    Second, PPT reflects your entire work history while it sounds like with SpeechInk that number is what you get on a per-job basis. Totally different measurements. A more apt comparison might be the grades from CW.

    Third, 88 with any amount of work means she was exactly two points away from unlocking "express" work. A couple of weeks of mostly grade 8s (not even perfect work) should have brought her to and above 90 which would have doubled her possible pay just by widening the selection of work to choose from. If she quit before getting there, that's on her. If she goes back to CW and works a few more weeks and gets her PPT to 90, she's in for a serious pay bump with them.

    I seriously doubt there's anything she could do at SpeechInk right now, or ever, to double her pay per job like that. Or am I wrong?

    Whatever works for her is great. If she's happy there, groovy. But I think all three of you are missing out because you had a rough first experience with CW and bailed far too soon.
     
  8. wtfgod

    wtfgod New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2013
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where can you see the edited transcripts? I don't see the option on their workers site.
     
  9. ayeembored

    ayeembored Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    They're on workers.castingwords.com. Click on the feedback link and then on the "Full Edit" next to each job.
     
  10. wtfgod

    wtfgod New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2013
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    I only see "Details". Is there some sort of time limit?
     
  11. pwt

    pwt User

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    0
    The full transcript won't show up until the entire thing is done, and there does appear to be a limit on how long they stay up. The oldest one I can still see are from Nov 21. When the full edit is available the link will appear right next to "Details". And I do mean right next to it. It'll say:

    Details Full
    Edit

    Details is one link, Full Edit is the other with the line wrapping around.
     
  12. wtfgod

    wtfgod New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2013
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay, thanks.

    Right now there is only "Details", as it's from the 30th I'm going to assume it's just not done yet.
     
  13. dancingfingers

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would have replied earlier, however I had to pull myself off the floor from laughing so hard at your comments. " Bailed far too soon"? Really? Again my friend has been transcribing for YEARS, for LAWYERS, AND DOCTORS and the POLICE... SERIOUS transcription, and CW bumps her down to a grade so low she can't transcribe, yet she gets graded at SPEECHINK @ 100 consistently. Gee I wonder what or who the problem is?

    I can't help but notice how you choose to ignore the comment on the " newbie editor" who didn't know what to do with contractions! REALLY??!!! Someone that doesn't grasp the simplest concept of what transcription is doesn't know, and is editing other turkers work????!!! How scary is THAT? And you want to brag about your ppt and their grading scales? Pulease.. if they are letting someone who doesn't know what to do with contractions edit... there are just no words.. NONE.

    Gee I wonder how this " newbie editor" transcribes...to use a contraction even if the speaker says it or not to? Oh wait, an extra space or spelling grey/gray is MUCH more important, yep, yep... smh.
     
    #73 dancingfingers, Dec 4, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 4, 2013
  14. pwt

    pwt User

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    0
    You said yesterday that your friend's PPT was 88 and that's plenty high enough to get work. It'd have to be 79 or lower to be unable to transcribe. Which is it? Is her PPT 88, or is it so low that she can't transcribe?

    To answer your rhetorical question, the problem is your friend's inability to follow clear instructions, apparently. I think we've already established that. It's the same problem that virtually every quitter has. They don't follow the style guide, get low grades, get low pay, and then whine about it while refusing to accept responsibility for producing ****ty work.

    Like I said, it all goes back to work ethic. People who put time and effort into learning that guide don't have these problems. If they did there wouldn't be anyone with a high PPT, yet there are.

    Not very. Editors have a grading system of their own and if they perform poorly for CastingWords, their score will drop and they won't be able to do that work anymore. Same for graders. CastingWords uses qualifications for everything they put on mTurk as far as I know.

    There is no "more important", just important that all of us produce quality work. Transcribers, editors, and graders that perform poorly will have their qualification score drop either until they level out producing acceptable work, improve, or fail out.

    All of that is on the person doing the work.
     
  15. dancingfingers

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    PWT you said Not very. Editors have a grading system of their own and if they perform poorly for CastingWords, their score will drop and they won't be able to do that work anymore. Same for graders. CastingWords uses qualifications for everything they put on mTurk as far as I know. And again you missed the WHOLE POINT... an editor that doesn't know what to do with contractions??? I give a rats behind about editor scores. the point is that CW allows people to edit without knowing TRANSCRIPTION 100. Had this person been a good transcriptionist he/she would not have to ask on this forum of all places what to do!!!!! Geesh...

    Second of all you are right, someone that transcribed for DOCTORS, LAWYERS AND POLICE really doesn't know how to " follow directions" boy, oh boy how in the world she had a JOB for years is beyond me, And of course, well the fact that she grades @ 100 with Speechink is just absurd because after all according to YOU CW is the BOMB in transcription.

    You know I have really had enough of your foolishness...it's no wonder you never transcribed for Speechink, my guess is you would never survive.
     
  16. dancingfingers

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    PWT, sorry I just had to add this... I barely glance at your nonsensical answers, however I did notice you do have reading comprehension problems, how your answer to this statement relates only YOU Know

     
  17. pwt

    pwt User

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just got out of the hospital so I'll make this short.

    Nothing in your previous two comments addressed any of the substantive points of this discussion, so right now you're just running around in rhetorical circles to avoid the facts.

    CastingWords has a strict style guide they expect their workers to follow and people who do follow it get rewarded with a level of pay that doesn't seem available anywhere else on mTurk with transcription requesters. You seemed to think otherwise, but I laid out the numbers and haven't seen you challenge them so I assume you now understand that working for someplace like SpeechInk is a huge step down in possible earnings in exchange for fewer and simpler rules.

    I've never looked at it as one is better than the other, unlike you, they are just different to me each with their pros and cons. It all depends on a person's work ethic and talent.

    Work for whomever pleases you, but your soured opinion of CastingWords based on an atypical experience doesn't change any of those facts. People who work hard do well with CW. People who don't, don't.
     
  18. aureus

    aureus New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2013
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    ... And another inexperienced or sloppy editor will take their place.

    Just yesterday, I correctly transcribed "cut you loose."
    The editor's 'correction': "cut you lose." :eek:

    That's egregious.

    That editor left misspelled feedback and tried to give me a 7. (I'm on auto-9's.) I don't hesitate to report every significant mistake that I find in the edits. Unfortunately, support has a backlog right now, so cr*p such as "cut you lose" is probably getting delivered.

    When I'm wrong, I admit it. I do make mistakes (even big ones). Twice recently I've asked to be downgraded when I knew I deserved it. Nevertheless, when I'm right and the editor is wrong, I show no mercy. :eek: I'm here to do good work and I want the customer to receive good work.
     
  19. electricaltill

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2013
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've done the same, and I find support are generally...supportive when I make such reports.

    It is too easy to become a CW editor. My first job for CW was an edit job - I received a well-deserved 4, and couldn't do edit jobs again for over a year (After I'd reached a 100 PPT, I asked for my editor score to be raised). There should be a minimum PPT required before you're allowed near edit jobs.
     
  20. pwt

    pwt User

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's why I don't edit. Even though I get auto 9s now, I still doubt I'm producing perfect transcripts every time out. Figured if I can't do that, then I have no business editing.
     

Share This Page