Welcome to CSR Nation
When can we just say "no" we cannot accommodate a rough draft or expedite? I have had my last 6 jobs in the past ten days be rough drafts or expedite. I've tried some scopists and ending up spending more time fixing their edit jobs. Every one of these jobs have been expert, extremely technical, with my nose in the documents they were reading from (at 300 words a minute) for every page I'm editing. I am not going to sacrifice my health.
What is so hard about the reporting agency at least asking if a job is going to be rush or a draft needed? I seem now that almost all of my jobs turn out that way. These attorneys just think we are machines operating machines.
Yes, for the ultra realtime merit writers it's a lot more doable.............but there are a lot of good reporters/writers out that are not of this caliber that something has just got to give sometimes. There are only so many hours in a day.
Wow, Randall! Thanks for your kind words! And yeah, it is hard to work for multiple reporting firms. But I actually prefer it that way because then I can say no and set my own schedule more easily than if I'm just working for one. And another good thing about working for many reporting firms over the years is that it's very educational. I've gotten to see many different ways of handling reporting problems and have gotten a feel for when a firm is doing what's normal in our profession and when they're kind of making up their own rules as they go along :-)
To reply to the question of "a new name for a scopist," I would suggest: Transcript Preparer, similar to Tax Preparer. Many reporters desire a person who works as a combination of both scopist and proofreader skills, one who slowly works in the file to both "scope" and proofread.
How about transcript editor, or final transcript editor, or final pass editor, or transcript punctuation specialist?
Well, I guess there will be different levels needed, requiring different titles, for : a) less than full proofreading services; b) only "scoping" services; c) only proofreading services; d) final-transcript services (but for the ^ left for the reporter to check), which combine "scoping" and proofreading; and e) services for those reporters who were texting and laughing during the deposition and, therefore, don't know what steno keys they were pressing.
Transcript Editor is good, too; Final Transcript Editor, also.
People think they are Punctuation Specialists, but many times are not.
lol. Ain't that the truth.
I think you missed one. When the writer is so clean that they don't need the same type of scoping as the E Ticket reporters (remember Disneyland used to have tickets and E Tickets were for the Rocket to the Moon-type rides, not the easy going Sleeping Beauty Castle-type rides?), but shouldn't have to pay for the same level of service either. Seems to me that a clean writer should be able to demand your "d" services at the very least and not have to pay for proofreading on top of it.
Don't hold your breath.
Depends what GOOD reporters start to demand.
Sure. I think this all can and should be worked out between reporter and scopist.