The difference between scoping and proofreading

[Andrea Gwynn]

Hi! I would like to get everyone's opinions on what constitutes scoping. If a reporter sends you a job to proofread and you edit the job yourself, as well as check the audio in parts of the job, does that constitute scoping?

[Christie Browner]

I think a big difference between scoping and proofing is the system/program on which you are using. If you are using a CAT system and can therefore do globaling and has the potential to use AudioSync and such, that should qualify as scoping. If the reporter sends the transcript as an ASCII or any text file, all you can do is proof. You can't help add to the dictionary of the reporter or spot check with audio. It kind of goes together with spending more for a CAT program to make more.... you got to spend moeny to make money.

[Rosalie DeLeonardis]

I agree with Jeanese, proofreading is just reading the transcript and then sending the corrections back for the reporter to do. Scoping to me is when you are actually editing the transcript through whatever software you use (and also listening to the audio) and then sending back to the reporter without them having to make the corrections.

[Lisa Migliore Black]

I would think the difference is the amount of corrections you are having to make. For scoping, research on terms should already be done (although a good proofreader would catch something that's incorrect despite the reporter's best effort). IMO, corrections would largely be limited to word swaps, one missing word overlooked, spacing issues, and small punctuation errors. If I scope a job myself, my proofreader catches a small error every five to 10 to 20 pages or so.

If you are red-lining the page to the point it looks like a bloody mess, I'd suggest to the reporter she needs to hire a scopist, or if she already has one, someone with some skill.

[Christie Browner]

I personally have never printed any transcipts. I make any and all corrections on the computer and email it back to the reporter when completed. The reporter, to my knowledge, then would submit it to the agency for printing and compiling into the booklet form. Unless the proofreader is going to be the "assembler," I don't see the point of printing the transcript.

[Liane Gruett]

I will always send a list of corrections; however, whether or not I proof from a computer screen or hard copy is completely up to the reporter's preference.

[Rebecca Blasco]

Hi, Andrea,

When a reporter sends me something for scoping, I am restoring it to my edit station, listening to the audio and making changes to the transcript; speaker IDs, Okay you pansy to occupancy, things of that sort.

When I proofread, I typically get the document in either ASCII form, PDF, or some other such thing. I read the entire document on screen (ink costs more than the printer!), put my suggested corrections in an email and email them back to the reporter to add those changes. I have one reporter who prefers that I make the changes for her. I will restore her already 100% scoped transcript into my system and proof it, make whatever corrections are necessary, and send it back to her. Very rarely she'll ask me to listen to a spot or two, which I am happy to do.

The difference is, if you're making material changes in a transcript, that's scoping. Proofreading is the final catch before it goes out. You might find serious mistakes in a transcript for proofing, but it is still just proofing.

In circumstances where I need to PROOF the transcript against the tape, I charge a rate in between the scoping and proofing rate, and I clear that ahead of time. If I'm not truly scoping, I don't feel that I should charge for it.

Hope that helps.

[Tami]

"Okay you pansy," HA! Love that one.

You must work for reporters who use LOOOOONGhand, Rebecca. :)

[Rebecca Blasco]

For the longest time I had reporters who couldn't write their way out of a paper bag. Okay you pansy is a real one I've had to change before. Now I've got a couple reporters whose writing is impeccable, and I LOVE working for them.

But reporting has changed my life in weird ways: I used to always spell used u-s-e-d. Now when I'm flying, I spell it y-o-u-s-e-d . . . well, that's what it SOUNDS like . . .

[Rebecca Blasco]

I've seen it happen. It's rare, but it happens. The instances I get is when something is very technical or scientific and the reporter has done his/her own scoping and they're just not confident they got it all correctly. I have seen really technical stuff come across my desk; crazy technical. Crazy scientific, with engineers talking about why that hole where your house used to be isn't a sinkhole because you have one micron less sand than necessary for it to truly be a sink hole, or geologists who happened to be camping in Big Bear the morning of the twin earthquakes in Landers and Big Bear, CA, you know, the one that rolled me right out of my bed at 5:30 in the morning. Sometimes you just need a second set of ears on stuff.