for the "you know" patrol

Discussion in 'CastingWords' started by zinni, Dec 27, 2012.

  1. zinni

    zinni User

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just a quick note.

    Been doing this for a while. I know good and well that we're supposed to get rid of the likes, you knows, I means. But this is ridiculous.

    Sometimes "you know" isn't just junk words. I had a transcript recently where the speaker said, "But I just want to let you know that if you're one of those guys..." The editor took out the "you know" so it said, "But I just want to let that if you're one of those guys..."

    Sometimes those "junk" words aren't junk. The final consideration should be whether the transcript makes sense or not. In this case, without the "you know," it sounds dumb.

    (Got a 9 on it anyway. I'm not mad, just amused.):p
     
    #1 zinni, Dec 27, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 27, 2012
  2. ewd76

    ewd76 User

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    Never done one of these, but when you're right, you're right.
     
  3. ayeembored

    ayeembored Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yep. There are editors out there that will clip any of the common filler words without looking at them. I wonder if someone has set up an auto-editing script. Along with "You know", I have seen "like" being cut through a whole transcript, too, and probably some others.

    Hrmm. A bit of code that cuts filler words and does an automatic spellcheck might explain a few oddities that I've seen in final edits.

    Anyway, I'd suggest you fire off an email to CW about it and maybe they'll catch the editor.
     
  4. naturegirl

    naturegirl User

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2012
    Messages:
    701
    Likes Received:
    0
    Agreed with ayeembored. This is an editor not actually doing their job, because the point of editing is to make the transcript make more sense, not less. :)

    I have reported this kind of thing before. CW doesn't like to see it happening but sometimes just misses that it's going on. I think if you report it, they can easily notice who the editor is. And they need to, because doing this to a completed transcript doesn't serve anyone well.
     
  5. hapless

    hapless Guest

    True. However, this has "going on" for a long time, and will likely continue. Without tiered qualification screening as a prerequisite to editing, incompetent editors will continue damaging good work.

    I'm amused too ... so amused that I quit, and I'm still laughing.
     
  6. naturegirl

    naturegirl User

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2012
    Messages:
    701
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yikes, sorry to hear it, hapless. Although if you're laughing, that's good, right? :) If you meant to make it stick, I hope you find pastures at least as green elsewhere.

    They sort of have tiered screening for editing---for example, you can't edit some of the highest-paying transcripts until you have shown editing chops sufficient to raise your editor score to a certain level. So that's something. But even there, I've seen some really awful mistakes and cases of editors missing or even inserting errors.

    I've made the case with CW before that editing should really pay more, because the editor can mess up the transcript or really improve it, all in one HIT. But unfortunately, they seem to still be more focused on the transcription and have let me know that they have never found that paying editors more results in better editing.:( Not necessarily a model I agree with; I agree that editors have way too much power not to be more carefully screened (or more highly valued).

    Pay aside, though, this is an issue with many transcription companies, on and off Turk. And some writers would say it's an issue with editors in general.
     
  7. hapless

    hapless Guest

    A recent transcript mentioned "King Lear" in a context like this (click the link to see):

    https://google.com/search?q="king+lear+in+the+nfl"

    The submitted transcript was correct; but the final edit replaced "King Lear" with "Kindlier", which made NO sense whatsoever. :p

    (See how I used a semicolon there? I hate being told not to use semicolons. I just love 'em.)
     
    #7 hapless, Jan 14, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 14, 2013
  8. ayeembored

    ayeembored Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, man. That's horrible. Horrible. If you're primarily a transcriptionist, and a good one, looking at the edits can kill your soul.
     
  9. naturegirl

    naturegirl User

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2012
    Messages:
    701
    Likes Received:
    0
    Glad you decided not to quit after all, hapless. :)

    I agree with ayeembored; unless I'm feeling patient, I hardly ever look at the edits for this reason.

    However, since you spotted that, please let CW know. The only way to cut down on editing that inserts mistakes is to help them figure out who's doing it. And I've pointed out mistakes in the final edit before that were significant enough that they got corrected before delivery to the client. You may be the only one who spotted this problem, so it's most useful if you speak up and tell them.

    If you'd rather not mess with that, I'll happily do it, if you PM me or email me (address is in the "About" section on my website).

    LOL, you hate being told what to do, don't you? Although actually, in the CastingWords cheatsheet I put in my book, I wrote this: "Avoid semicolons; they are too formal for transcripts." So you'll see that I like to sneak in stuff like that, too. :)
     
  10. hapless

    hapless Guest

    I quit for a good while. Am I back? Barely. I've turned in but a trivial number of tiny transcripts this year. Watching the edits (e.g. "kindlier" "King Lear") can be good for a laugh (and I am, as I said, still laughing).
     
    #10 hapless, Jan 15, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 15, 2013
  11. hapless

    hapless Guest

    At this time, I'm not contacting CW regarding final edits. I may resume doing so, later on, if I eventually return to work in earnest. (Strike a point off my transcriber-karma, that's fine.) ... For other reasons, I'm not PM'ing or emailing anyone. Thanks though!
     
  12. hapless

    hapless Guest

    [Deleted, sorry]
     
    #12 hapless, Jan 15, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 15, 2013
  13. hapless

    hapless Guest

    Perhaps sometimes they too make mistakes. (Who doesn't?)

    In one case, following my dispute with an editor, CW told me that I had transcribed a word that was not in the audio. I showed them an image of the audio waveform where, IMO, the utterance of the word in question was visible. They declined to comment on that evidence.

    Sometimes I'm right. :playball:
     
    #13 hapless, Jan 17, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 17, 2013
  14. hapless

    hapless Guest

    I'm just a dabbler.

    In order to be a "good" transcriptionist, I would have to be much faster than I am ever going to be.

    I'm usually careful, but always slow.
     
  15. Whimsy

    Whimsy User

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    805
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen. I don't even dabble now. The editing part just took up too much of my time.

    I also discovered I hate listening to people talk.
     

Share This Page