What do you expect from a scopist?

[Marla Sharp]

I'm wondering if most reporters are expecting what I'm expecting from a scopist. I'd be curious to hear both reporters' and scopists' opinions, of course.

Do you expect your scopist to:

Look up on the Internet spellings of any proper noun, i.e., company names, cities, doctors, products?

Fix wrong punctuation at the end of a sentence? Example:
"You were there what dates."

Follow your preferences as best they can? Examples:
Paragraph frequently
Put "BY" lines after any interruption in Q&A

When it's a video, go over the videotape word for word and be sure every word is in there?

Follow basic punctuation rules? And I know this is an area of much controversy and disagreement, but there are several basic punctuation rules that both Morson's and the rest of the world uses (Chicago Manual of Style and others). I'm very curious what punctuation most people can agree on.

How about these:

Comma between two independent clauses connected by a coordinating conjunction. Example: "He was happy, but he didn't like it." "She went up the stairs, and she fell down on her crown."

Break up run-on or choppy sentences - at least in SOME way. Example:
Q Do you recall during the time, I think you told me you worked there for about a year, during the time you worked at Rain Bird, was there any type of safety training that went about there?

Let me know what you think. Are there basics we all expect?

[Judy]

See, if Jim Barker were to start scoping....

[Lynn M. Penfield]

who??? :)

[Michelle]

Marla, I don't think you're too demanding at all. Scopists should always use google or some other search engine. Example; I was doing a job with one of my scopists on site, we had the job complete and ready for printing but there was one term we just couldn't verify. We spent an hour between dictionary, thesaurus and the internet and we eventually found it. I think reporters should be guaranteed that type of work ethic and pride in the finished product from all our scopists.

[Marla Sharp]

Yvette, I'm happy to report I have found a good scopist on here as well, and I don't want to give out her name!! Selfish, isn't it? I'm torn between wanting to protect other reporters from substandard scopists and making sure I have at least one scopist who knows the ind. clause/conj. rule - and more!!

Sure, there are lots of varying styles, all of which can be understood and appreciated by most scopists worth their weight in gold in just a few transcripts. But there are also lots of hard-and-fast rules that both Morson's and Chicago Manual of Style and a lot of other punctuation/grammar books all agree on.

And when scopists continually fail you in that way and continue to not look up proper nouns on the Internet and continue to not apologize for half-effort work and still expect full payment, that's what's causing all the bad blood between scopists and reporters.

Any reporter who's had even a small taste of greatness from a scopist knows the value of a properly educated, hard-working, ethical scopist. And, with their help, we can prepare transcripts that most people won't cringe at when reading it later on down the road.

I've been very curious where most of these substandard scopists are getting their training.

I've never not paid a scopist, but sometimes I sure wish we had the option of paying them according to their performance.

[Kathleen Iuzzolino]

But there are also lots of hard-and-fast rules that both Morson's and Chicago Manual of Style and a lot of other punctuation/grammar books all agree on.

But what are the scopists to do with reporters with pages of "rules" that no one agrees on? Scopists are routinely faced with reporters who make up their own grammatical rules and are expected to relearn the English language in order to pacify the reporter.

And when scopists continually fail you in that way and continue to not look up proper nouns on the Internet and continue to not apologize for half-effort work and still expect full payment, that's what's causing all the bad blood between scopists and reporters.

All? Those are the only reasons? Don't you think that's a bit myopic? Don't you suppose there are other reasons? I can just as easily take your statements and turn them into reasons that some scopists are disappointed in some reporters:

Any scopist who's had even a small taste of greatness from a reporter knows the value of a properly educated, hard-working, ethical reporter. And, with their help, we can prepare transcripts that most people won't cringe at when reading it later on down the road. I've been very curious where most of these substandard reporters are getting their training. I've never overcharged a reporter, but sometimes I sure wish we had the option of charging them according to their performance.

Overgeneralized statements like these are not very productive. Yes, you are having difficulty finding and retaining a scopist who meets your standards. Best wishes on your newest venture.

[Judy]

Kathleen,

Why are you continuing this "fight" of yours? Using your own style:

(1) it alienates the reporters who are members here and (2) it is practically a self-fulfilling prophecy to make sure that you never find acceptable reporters.

I'd have thought you would have learned by now: Reporters can work without scopists, but scopists don't have a job without reporters.

Judy

[Kathleen Iuzzolino]

Judy,

You are missing a very important point -- I'm not the one complaining about being unable to find reporters with whom to work because they are all incompetent except for the few who are just too busy to hang out on boards like this.

I'm objecting to the overgeneralization about scopists that is rampant on this board. I hardly consider that a "fight." I think you are not understanding that I'm coming from a position of concern, not anger. I'm not "fighting" with anyone. These are concerns that need to be addressed.

I'd have thought you would have learned by now: Reporters can work without scopists, but scopists don't have a job without reporters.

And many reporters don't have a life without scopists. Best wishes on those daily copies, too. :-)

Kathleen

[Sheena Stobaugh]

I don't know if any of you read my reply in the "Reporters Who Don't Pay Their Scopists" thread, but I'll state it here again.

The best way I can think of to ensure that you know from the get-go whether a scopist is competent or not is to have them scope a 10-page sample transcript and return for your review. You can even take a few minutes to make up a test of your own with some untranslates, misspellings, wrong punctuation, and see how the scopist does on it. Those few minutes you spend doing this will pay off big in the end.

Additionally, don't send a huge job to a scopist for the first job. Start out small so that you can communicate your preferences that may not have been covered in the preference sheet. Definitely do not start out a new working relationship with a scopist on an expedite or daily, for obvious reasons.

As far as research, yes, that is part of a scopist's job. To add to this, I will say that this is supposed to be a reporter-scopist team, so it would really be helpful if the reporter could get the spellings while on the job. I know you can't get every spelling, but I've worked with some amazing reporters over the years I've been scoping, and I always appreciate immensely the ones who took me into consideration and provided spellings for me. There are misspellings all over the Internet. It would be easy to pick the wrong one if you didn't know any better. Some companies aren't on the Internet. Sometimes I do have to flag a spelling for a reporter to check because I've exhausted all efforts to find the spelling and just simply was unable to find it.

The absolute key to finding a good scopist is to spend the time communicating throughout the relationship. Good scopists know what it means to be a team. The same can be said for reporters. I've been contacted by many reporters who just want to throw a 300-page job my way without wanting to spend the time to fill out a preference sheet, give me any spellings (even of the witness), don't want to take the time to send any exhibits, even though there's extensive quoting from them and yet they expect a perfect job. I'm somehow supposed to read their minds as to their preferences, as to which is a quote and which is a paraphrase, etc. It can't work like that.

If reporters will take the time to screen scopists in the beginning stage of the relationship, there will be no need to feel cheated and there will certainly be no need to discount a scopist's invoice. Just as you wouldn't hand over your child to a complete stranger that you've not checked out thoroughly to ensure they have the capability to care for your child, you shouldn't do the same with your livelihood, your transcripts. A little time in the beginning is all it takes to weed through in order to find that great scopist you've been searching for.

[Judy]

Play Wink

[Kathleen Iuzzolino]

Judy,

Is discussing this issue so threatening to some reporters here on CSRNation that one must resort to childish graphics?

Questions have been asked about acquiring and retaining good scopists, and when scopists respond, you call them "Creepy."

Really?

For all the otherwise professional reporters and scopists on this board, this begs the question: Are we to sit back and wonder now why only some reporters have difficulty keeping their scopists?

[Rhonda Hall Breuwet, RDR CRR CLR]

Reporters do daily copy without scopists all the time. They work with other reporters to get the job done. Been doing that for years, for the profession of scoping ever came to be. Me, I prefer using a scopist on daily copy so I can make more money, but that also places more stress on me with having to also proof, correct, print, bind, etc. Splitting it up with another reporter makes things relatively simple. So reporters have to decide whether they want more money or more sleep/sanity.

And Judy, that $1.25 pp for full audio, well, that's a tad more than 50% of what I make for an original. So unless I'm selling copies, I can't afford to use a scopist at all; the scopist would make more money than I would, and I have a problem with that.

[Gwen]

Hi Marla,

I checked your profile and see that you use Eclipse. I have a proposition for you. Send me 30 pages of a transcript, and I will do them free.

I'm new, trying to break into the business, and it's not easy. I've read many of the gripes that court reporters have with scopists, and I would like a chance to show you what I can do. I was taught at court reporting school to look things up, to get verbatim, to weave voice-overs etc. I will listen to your transcript twice. Let me know what you consider a fair amount of time researching questionable items.

After I scope your 30 pages, please look over it before sending me anything else. If you like my work, pay me fairly, and put me to work. I do not claim to know everything, so there will be some things that more experienced scopists may know that I don't; however, if you tell me what I got wrong, I will make a note of it, and endeavor not to repeat the mistake. What have you got to lose?

E-mail me @ [e-mail]