Bringing QA up to the top. This is my 2c on the whole subject.

I work as an editor for one company and an MT for another company and I have 16 years experience.

I look at it this way. Back in 1994, I worked for a national company. There was ONE QA person for roughly 200+ MTs in that office. All they had to do was fill in the blanks. Other than that, the MT was expected to know their terminology, grammar, etc. If you did not, you were terminated.

Now, there is usually 1 QA person for every 10 MTs (good case scenario). The reason being is that everything just about has to be 100% reviewed with audio. This shows that the quality of work coming in has dropped. MTs need to be responsible for their work. QA needs to edit the reports for quality (but not go nuts on punctuation when it does not matter - as a lot of times it is iffy). BUT for an example, I received something that had several made up words in the report. This is from an MT with 3 years experience. This is ridiculous and this is what editors have to deal with. Believe me, punctuation is not the biggest issue. Grossly incorrect medical terms and English words are an issue.

I do hate that the feedback you receive is iffy at times, but I can honestly say that I feel it will always be that way. Everyone needs to take responsibility in the work that they are doing. It is not up to QA to fill in blanks that are easily filled in by the MT or to correct grossly incorrect words in reports. This should be done once or twice at best and if that MT can't do their job, then they should be let go. We all have a job to do. We might as well do it and quit griping about it before it all goes overseas.

Follow Ups:

• Question to the editors..what do you prefer? - sm 18:07:16 03/02/05 (0)
• I agree totally. I can understand - MT 13:56:54 03/02/05 (0)
• Good post. I do QA for national, and - Editor 07:42:43 03/02/05 (2)
  • accountability for grammar - QA'd to death 10:22:39 03/02/05 (1)
    • we are not mere typists - mk 16:36:30 03/03/05 (0)