What makes for "rough" scoping?

[Chelsea Adams]

Hi guys! I'm a proofreader currently training to become a scopist. I'm working with a few reporters directly rather than going through a program, so forgive me if this question makes no sense/is inappropriate. Proofreaders can generally charge an added fee for exceptionally messy transcripts. I'm curious if this applies to scoping, as I'm unsure how you would even define a "messy" transcript in scoping since it's obviously going to be way messier than what a proofreader sees. 

So, I guess my question is, what makes a transcript "messy" for scoping, if that exists? Please and thanks!

[Vincent Prewitt]

I would say if there is a truckload of untranslates and mistranslates, and if you have to pretty much transcribe the whole thing, that would count as messy.

[Chelsea Adams]

Thanks! Good to know. I've asked the two clients I've been working with, but I'll ask you, as well: If a transcript grows considerably, how do you charge for that? If you get it at 30 pages and it goes up to 35, is that a lot? Or up to 40? Do you charge by the end amount or based on the amount of growth?

[Vincent Prewitt]

Well, with my experience, a transcript will grow naturally because you have to get the formatting correct (while of course sticking with a reporter's preferences). The reporters I've worked with in the past I've had to add colloquy, parentheticals, bylines, fix drops, more Q/A, among many other things that would push it all down, especially towards the end when the reporter may slip up. Reporters should know that and you should charge accordingly. It has nothing to do with being "messy" at all, just part of our job. It's when you pretty much have to transcribe the whole thing yourself and fix nearly every mistranslate and untranslate or fix a truckload of drops is when it gets messy.

[Chelsea Adams]

Thanks very much! I know that’s not necessarily a messy issue, but it’s good to have more perspectives. :)