I have posted this question on other forums, but I have not received a satisfactory answer.
What is the difference between scoping for machine reporters vs. voice writers? As I understand, the voice writers also create a written copy. The difference is how each reporter creates that document. Am I not understanding correctly? I am interested in expanding my client base, so would appreciate comments on scoping for voice writers.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

Views: 1325

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi K.C., Voice writers speak into a mask which they train the computer to recognize their voice and then the computer translates that into a transcript. If you get a reporter who is very good, like I had at one time, who then gave it up, it can be easy, but if you've got someone who doesn't translate well, it will take forever. Any other questions, let me know.
If the voice writer uses CAT software, there will be a transcript just like with steno writers, but the words will be in English in the note bar, not steno outlines. If a voice writer is dictating into Word or WordPerfect, there would still be a transcript to scope, only it would be a .doc file or a .wpd file. In scoping for voice writers, one would have to listen word-for-word to the audio file for complete accuracy. Nowadays, that should be the standard rather than spot checking, I think, because transcripts will be synched up if they are used in trials or big cases to prepare for trial. I think the days are over when you can safely edit lawyers or judges. The same with appeal transcripts, they have to be verbatim, IMHO.


© 2024   Created by Kelli Combs (admin).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service