Welcome to CSR Nation
What do you expect from a proofer?
I am a recently retired official and have taken on some scoping and proofing as a supplement to my retirement. Usually I get the final draft to read before it goes out the door, just as another pair of eyes to pick up any errors that might exist. However, I have had occasion where there were corrections on every page and I felt like it wasn't truly a final draft.
I'm just looking for some input as far as what reporters expect from a proofer.
When I use a proofer, it's right after I get it back from my scopist. It is nowhere near a final draft when the proofer gets it. If I was proofing it, I wouldn't need a proofer and wouldn't spend the money to have it proofed.
Errors on every page seems excessive but I can see a few errors every five pages.
Yes, Kelli, I can see a few errors every five pages, but this was way beyond that.
And a lot of it I had to read two or three times. I just wasn't comfortable and sent it
back. I haven't had it happen before, so I'd like to see what others have to say.
Thanks for the response.
I carefully scope and then send to my proofer. Some pages have several corrections and many pages have no corrections. But if it's crazy up there, maybe the reporter barely scoped or used a horrible scopist and you should charge more.
I have usually found too many missed errors with even the best proofers because they go too fast. They know what they are doing and what to look for, but just go too fast or are distracted.
Kerry, I respectfully disagree about the too many missed errors. You haven't used me yet. You can find my ad under "Proofreaders" on this website. Give me a try and the words "too many missed errors" will only apply to a crappy scopist or a sub-par proofer, which there are many out there. And it's comforting to have an actual reporter read your work also.
Good deal, Marge! That's the kind of work that I have been proofing. I think that when I send back any corrections to the reporter, she makes the corrections if she agrees, and I believe it's pretty well ready to go out the door after that.
So . . . this is what I've been doing since I moved to Michigan and retired, BUT I think I'm ready to get back in the game at least part-time. Hope you are doing well.
Emily, I had to respond to your comment. Did you say your proofreader wants you to proof the work yourself before you send it to her? No offense, but WTF? Why are you using her? That's ridiculous, time consuming, and most importantly, a WASTE OF MONEY! You should be using a proofreader after either you or a competent scopist is done with it. Really, how many more errors can they possibly point out after you've already looked over it? I'm under Proofreaders in the classifieds for this site. I would never ask a reporter to do that before sending me work.
If you and the proofer have or had a good relationship and it works, I'm sorry if I insulted anyone. Not my intention. But to me the whole process you have explained is crazy.
And that's exactly the reason for hiring a proofer. SO SO true about the eyes being tired after scoping. That's why a scoper and the proofer should be two different people. Of course, when trying out a new proofreader, it's going to take time to build trust. You SHOULD read the proofreader's work over a few times until you can trust him. But how nice when you finally do get to that level!
Hey, I'm available, folks.
In my opinion, I'm paying my proofreader to proof my work, whether it be one error every five pages or three errors on every page, and send an errata sheet back to me.
One more thing: And this is an important one. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERFECT TRANSCRIPT. Once more. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERFECT TRANSCRIPT. There are good proofreaders, there are shitty proofreaders, and there are excellent proofreaders. Of course, I put myself in the latter group, having proofread my own work for 30 years. I'm not being pompous; it's just a fact after being in the biz for so many years. Sorry if that comes across as cocky. And I've lost a client after she told me I was just that, "cocky." Sorry, but I'd rather be an excellent proofreader and cocky (which I thought was a bit harsh) than a crappy one who is overly polite and afraid to point out errors. I'm not looking to be your best friend. You know, we don't have to have lunch together once a week.
So don't be too too hard on a proofreader if they don't catch one or two errors. We try extremely hard to please the reporters we work for. And I'm coming from the reporter side AND the proofreader side.
I'm with you on this one, Rosalie. Agreed!
I do beg to differ on "There is no such thing as a perfect transcript."