My Story - see msg Posted: Mar 21st, 2016 - 5:09 pm In Reply to: QA compensation - Robin
I used to be a QA person---I have since gotten out of any aspect of MT.
Anyway, first, keep in mind that even if a QA person is paid by the hour, they likely have a production requirement of X-amount of reports per hour/day, or perhaps line. This can be as big a disaster as transcribing on production. We QA would have MTs who were on chronic "full QA" (full QA meaning word for word against the voice, in addition to correcting grammatical errors), dictators who wanted every report full QA'd, individual clients who wanted all their reports full QA'd all the time, etc., etc. How would this help our production requirement? Oh, and then there's the 98% accuracy thing.
QA is not just jumping from one blank to the next and filling them in. And it's usually the most difficult of difficult dictators if we are. And you get in trouble form your supervisor if you "correct" an MT via electronic notes and they don't like your supposed attitude because you didn't sugar-coat everything with "you're doing great," etc. And you get in trouble if there is a critical error on a "non-full QA report." We were supposed to know that how when filling in the blanks?
QA is held to a higher standard, and since some of the MTs were the little queenies, we QA were come down upon harder than any MT ever was.
All that being said, I left my QA position when "they" decided to pay me solely by the line for all this nonsense, taking away the hourly rate.
The QA grass is not necessarily greener than the MT side--not sure the reason behind your question, but don't think that an hourly rate is necessarily all it's cracked up to be.
Post A Reply Reply By Email Options
Complete Discussion Below: (  marks the location of current message within thread)
- QA compensation - Robin (Views: 1019, 2016-03-21, 11:37 am)
- QA pay - easterrabbit (Views: 731, 2016-03-21, 12:36 pm)
- My Story - see msg
|
