Hi, folks, You might have heard that I'm the lead writer for CastingWords' style guide reworking project. So, since we've got some time before that finishes, if you have transcribed for CastingWords and you have seen all four of their style guides (or at least the main one and the What If), then what is confusing to you in them, that you want made clearer? Thanks!
Hi, Naturegirl, I think the major problem with the style sheet is that new transcribers - not all of them, but an incredibly large proportion of them - DON'T READ the present guide, and if they do, don't assimilate what is actually in there. As somebody with a 100 CW score, who does a lot of Improve assignments on transcripts with scores of 7 or less, I see it all the time. People simply do not read what is already there. They submit one massive block of transcript. No paragraphs. Speaker tags are wrong (if there's only one man speaking, he is NOT Man1 !!!). And, but and so start every sentence. Numbers are wrong. No research on names and meaning is done. Sometimes there is simply no critical thinking applied. If the transcript doesn't make sense, then it most likely isn't what was said. If somebody is quoting a book, or the Bible, go find the quote and put it in quotation marks. CW uses Merriam-Webster for spelling and hyphenation: go check words. There are lots of esoteric finer points you could include, of course. But the major thing is simply please read and think about what is already there. I hate to sound mean, but people are sabotaging their own efforts by not applying the info already available.
Hello, Maggiemw! It is always nice to see you. You are quite right about that. I have had the same frustrations when doing the later-stage work on completed transcripts. It is my hope regarding the style guide that its current format is part of the problem, because it is, I believe, way too confusing for new transcribers. And among many other things, being spread out at four different URLs makes it totally unmanageable. It's also hard to tell, in the current version, what is important and what is not. Of course, it is all important, but even CW originally intended that some of it would be less important, less immediate for transcribers to need to start doing, when they first try their hand at CW work. So I guess my goal is to help it all make a lot more sense. I like to think that part of the reason new transcribers don't pick up on the style is because it's in such a difficult-to-understand format now that many of them just go, "whatever" and try and learn from feedback, not from the guide itself. For example, in the new guide, there might still be four URLs. But if there are, then it should make a lot more sense as to why the information is split up that way. Transcribers (or editors) will know why they are going to a particular URL, and cross-linking should be a lot better. Most subjects (style for numbers or speaker tags, for example) should be covered entirely at only one URL. No subject will be covered a little at this URL and a little at another. I hope that once we make it a much more possible task to take in the style guide, that new folks will do it a lot more often. And I'm guessing that also will give CW the option to set the bar higher for what level of work is acceptable from even new transcribers---as long as the style guide is clear enough that it seems reasonable to expect them to take it in easily. (I'm not saying I know they will do that, but I'm saying it will make it an option for them, even though they may just be happier to be getting better work products.) So I agree that many new transcribers don't take it in. But I also think that CW could do more with the style guide to make it digestible. And if not, well, revising the style guide is futile! But I think doing it will make a difference.
Perhaps the clearest way for newbies to assimilate the material would be to present a marked-up visual as the first page, annotated with the rules. You take a 6-7 transcript and its 9 counterpart, the ones that already exist in URL#4 would be fine, and visually present the differences - circle the ellipses at the beginning. Circle the speaker tag. Cross out the filler words. Have the numbers blinking. Then the next pages would verbally present the rules and guidelines, with examples from the page 1 visual and others. A self-quiz at the end, including hyphenation, capitalization, spelling, tags, the whole thing. Yes, a self-evaluation, where people could apply what they have supposedly just read (sorry for the sarcasm!) and get immediate feedback. Make the style guide eminently printable. I often look at some of the transcripts I'm improving and think that the transcriber had a good ear and good spelling, but if they had just applied the guidelines a bit more closely, their first experiences with CW would have been a lot more rewarding.
Hi, Maggie, Some ambitious suggestions here, but I like them! The visual is an awesome idea---doing visuals isn't often something that occurs to me personally, so I like the reminder. Definitely on board already with making the style guide printable. Hm, a quiz! That seems like a useful thing to have as an option for new transcribers, although perhaps it'd be too much to require people to take one. I will talk to CW about these ideas. Thank you very much for weighing in! NG
I think the speaker tags need to be more clear cur (explanation on grading wouldn't hurt either...more than speaker tags don't follow guidlines) Speaker Labeling Speaker name and colon start each new speaker. If there is a timestamp it goes before the speech, after the colon. Label speakers with their first and last name the first time they appear. Label them with just the first name after that. If you do not know a speaker's name use a descriptive name such as "Man:", "Woman 3:", "Host:", "Interviewer:", etc. The more descriptive the better. Do not use "Male:", "Female:" or non-descriptive labels such as "Speaker 1:". Having thought I followed this guideline I was marked down, and trying to find out what the label should have been has been like pulling teeth. Hard to learn and improve this way. Reading Maggiemw's comment no where does it say a description of man1 would not be acceptable (although I agree with her). I keep re-reading the guide hoping that a line magically appears, but honestly to keep guessing just doesn't make sense...just my 2 cents.
I was looking at the CW guidelines last night trying to decide whether or not to dive in, because I know that transcriptions are usually where the "big" money is. I still haven't decided. I will look again, but without having actually done a hit, it's hard to figure out what needs to be more clear. I do have a question on the "grades". I have seen grades 7-9 mentioned. Are these sort of like C-A grades in school, where you at least get something for these grades, and nothing for anything less?
It's controls how much bonus you get, unless you get a rock bottom grade (4) you get the HIT amount, but it's the bonus amount where the money is.
Thanks, ivycreek. It's great to know what is and isn't clear about the current guidelines. I take issue with the way they're written too and am happy to be working on fixing them! Sounds like your confusion on speaker tags might have been specifically related to the audio you were working on, unless I am misunderstanding your question. I agree it can be frustrating to try to get this clarification, and maybe that's why a revamped style guide will be so useful. So to answer your question, CW has an NDA, but if you want to email me with more details about that audio (it's more in keeping with the spirit of the NDA to stick to email and not go through the forum, if it's a specific audio), I would be happy to help you regarding your tagging question. I will PM you that contact info, or you can find it on my blog, too. Although if I'm misunderstanding and your question is just a general one about speaker tagging, let me know and I can post that answer here. General or not, I'm also starting to post style clarifications like this one to my blog, because I've seen how rough it is to search for that stuff here, even if someone has answered it before! So I will do that also, based on what we figure out. Then it'll be easier to find for everyone, because I'll have it categorized and also eventually tagged there. About CW's grading, here are grading examples, and here are their official grading guidelines. I don't think that grading will be covered as part of the style guide revamp, although I believe you're right, that grading needs to be made more consistent. I know they are constantly working on that. Good for you, ewd---it's true that some of the most solid and stable money on MTurk can be found in transcription. To keep this thread from going OT, I took a screenshot of a sample bonus structure and created a brief post on it for you on my blog. You'll find it under "Moneymaking basics," over toward the left side, when you scroll the page down. If you have more questions about their bonus structure, you can email me over there or leave a comment on that post, or even just start a new thread in the CastingWords forum (where I'm thinking I probably should have put this one, lol!), just so this one can stay on track, please. You also can look at any HIT CW offers to see the bonus structure for it, even if you are not qualified for their jobs yet. I'm glad to see your interest, in general! It's always smart Turking to keep your options open.
One other thing I want to say is that I believe the main thing that is confusing about CW style is the format in which it is now given to Turkers. The style itself is actually a pretty good guideline---it's just hard to tell that from how it's (not very well) broken down, currently, in the public guide. As evidence of that, what I have for now is that people who have been using the breakdown that I created for it in my book (it's just a bonus I stuck in, at the end) seem to feel like they are able to get a much more solid grasp of it, and they're able to get high scores. So to me, that means there's lots of hope for making the CW style clear in the public revision that is being created. That's why I agreed to work on the project. So I really appreciate everyone's input on how the style is/is not clear---all very helpful!
Maggie, I love the idea of a visually marked-up transcript. I also know it would be a lot of work to put together, but as a "visual" person, it would stick in my head better. Also, the self-quiz at the end is a great idea too...not a quiz to qualify, but a quiz to make one more confident to go ahead and submit a manuscript. I am STILL dragging my feet because I'm scared to death what I put out won't comply...and I'm pretty much a perfectionist, which may be why it's scary. A football fan at heart, I have to say that not reading the guidelines or understanding them is akin to not using the teams' playbook...the QB is gonna get tired of you real fast! LOL
I know you were addressing Maggie, pieper, but I'll just weigh in too... It is good for me to hear this about the visual version, because I don't think that way---so it's useful for me to be reminded that other people do! Although (and thanks, pieper, for acknowledging this) it's still gonna be a PITA to assemble, lol. I'll keep the quiz thing in mind, too! And I like the playbook analogy, even if I'm not much of a sports fan.
Speaker tagging section: rough version So, I can't plan to do the guide according to forum vote, because CW has to be the client for the project and so they have final say as to how they want it. But I did want to let you guys in on my draft of the speaker style section, since concerns about speaker style were mentioned here (I think ivycreek and I have since sorted out his stuff privately, but ivycreek, speak up if not!). I'm going to put a quotebox around it so it'll be clear, even though this quotes no one in the thread. Sorry that makes it italic; that appears built into the quote code. Please remember that this is a draft; it will become less wordy in places. However, if you feel anything is missing, please let me know! Any other comments are welcome, too. This is an excerpt from the proposed new guide, only, so there still can be a visual supplement and/or quiz in addition, depending on what CW favors. Since this excerpt doesn't include suggestions on how to use the style guide that is being created, here are a few. The bold indicates correct formats. You can follow bolded examples exactly. The style guide is a reference that you should not be poring over during every job---the goal is to have it be there when you need it, and one skill is to learn when you need it. So this is not a quick-reference but a complete reference. You are encouraged to make your own quick reference/cheatsheets! Use this full guide to learn the style and to be the final source of it when you are unsure. This is the transcriber guide, so there will be an editor supplement, but editor styling is not covered in this excerpt.
Hi Naturegirl! This first draft is looking pretty good! I think that the Audience Member part is still going to be confusing, especially the "exactly two" part! I somehow think that gender should be eliminated completely from the audience part, but numbers should be obligatory for different speakers (after the first one). I admit that I do not see any point in the "1" in "Man 1" when there is only one guy that ever talks! And would like to emphasize the space between the "man" and the "1" since no spacing is the error I see all the time. I think titles should always be used with last names, not with first names alone (the Pastor Linda example would bother me a lot). For my generation, it's a mark of respect: Professor Markus; Dr. Jameson... In some cases the title or role, freestanding, might be enough: Pastor; Teacher: Lecturer. Just my thoughts...and I'm trying to figure out how to do a visual for everybody...it might take a while!!!!
I would like some clarification on spelling and questioning of a certain spelling (like an object or some non-common item). After researching and not finding what I would want to be the correct spelling, I then put [sp] behind the choice I made. Is it correct that I then just spell it that way without the notation to the editor at each instance? Or would I mention it in notes to the editor when I submit my transcription? I would also prefer to use titles such as Professor Markus, as opposed to Professor Frank, or just Frank. I've been accused of overanalyzing almost everything, so perhaps this is the case for others. Guidelines aren't always EXACT instances, they GUIDElines. Does that make sense? I don't know that every single thing can be covered. It might be as important to really pay attention to the feedback from the editor and learn from that, as well.
Hi Pieper, In answer to your question (and just my way of doing things, for what it's worth), I would put [sp] after each instance of the word in question AND leave a note for the editor about how no standard term seemed to be available. It would show that you did the research and came up with empty hands. I also don't think you're over-analyzing at all. It's amazing how many questions come up about stuff we think we know when we're doing this. I keep Merriam-Webster online open and my Chicago Style Manual around to deal with the doubts that come up, and am constantly amazed at how many things I am capable of getting wrong... It's one of the reasons I like doing this - it's a great language workout. There are a lot of judgment calls in this, and to me, the most important thing is that I keep thinking about what the person or people are talking about and how best to convey it authentically. Warm wishes to you!!
Thank you, maggiemw, pieper, and ivycreek for weighing in! I'm glad that you guys seem to like it, overall. (And anyone else, you've not missed the boat, so hop on in, if you like!) I'm going to try and answer the issues raised in sequence. I agree that the bit about audience members is way confusing and would like to get rid of it or at least simplify it. I'm still working with (on?) CW about that. Wish me luck! ^^Same with the whole "Man 1" thing. Let's see what they say! I'm thinking that the bit about possibly using a first name with a title needs to stay in, though, because I did do a HIT where the physician referred to himself as Dr. Jim (or whatever his name was), and his clip was intended to be a folksy kinda thing. So I think that's important to make clear for transcribers, so that no transcriber insists on labeling him "Dr. Richardson," (that's just a name I made up, of course) even after he's said "I'm Dr. Jim." I'm sure he would have wanted his transcript to say "Dr. Jim," so we sorta have to have that option if the speaker seems to want it. However, I agree that in general, you wouldn't use that option just to use it. We should probably be assuming that the speaker wants their last name + title used unless there is obvious evidence otherwise. Oh, Maggie, if you want to do a visual, please have at it! I'm making up a complete transcript that should illustrate every style point being used correctly, and it will be linked from the new main Guide. So you could mark a version of that one up, if you don't want to do one from scratch...feel free to PM me about that, if you want. Or a separate visual one sounds great, too! Agreed that not every style point can be covered. The Guide will try. But yes, hopefully there will be enough in it so that when transcribers have to extrapolate on their own, they can! As far as the [sp], officially, the style is that you place it after the word in question only the first time it appears in your transcript, as long as you spell it the same in-question way every time. Then the editor should be able to do Find/Replace without also having to remove [sp] tags for every one (like, if punctuation was in the way one of the times, then a global F/R wouldn't find that instance). However, this is a bit up in the air now, because CW is also saying that maybe the [?] for a puzzling term (not one where you can't tell how it's spelled, but one that seems not to fit the context that the speaker is using) should be used after *each* instance in which the term appears. So, it would be nice to have that rule be the same for both of those tags, since they're used for similar reasons. Hee, "language workout." Kinda love that!
Been a while since I mentioned this, so I thought I'd provide an update. Finally, I can say that I feel like it's about done! It's taken much longer than I expected, partly because I had no idea just how much stuff CW knew is not in the current guide and was hoping to cram---er, get, into the new one. So on my end, I've been busy not only assembling it all but also lobbying for consistency (we say to do X this way, but Y is used similarly, so to reduce confusion, they should have similar rules, even if we have to make some small adjustments in usage to get them that way) and for streamlining (we don't need 6 tag choices for situation C; we can cover the possibilities with 2). Like I said, much more work than I expected it would be, but I think the end product will be easier to use while also covering all the bases better. Be warned: it sounds like CW may have an admin process that could take a while to approve the guide as I finalize it. They're committed to having the new one, but I am not counting on them releasing it right away.
We may have figured out a way to approximate a visual guide, although not a quiz as of yet. The idea is that the sample transcript will be a Google Doc (all other style docs will be regular HTML pages, like they are now). All CW transcribers will get the link to view the document. This means everyone will be able to view the commentary CW has written on it, with the individual comments popping up as a viewer mouses over the text. The sample transcript has already been written, so it just remains to be seen whether adding the comments in will work or will just make it too cluttered and unreadable. The idea of the comments won't be to explain formatting/style points (they should all be explained in the main Guide) but just to highlight why their usage in the sample is correct. As I submitted it, the Guide now has pretty much all the style points in it, unlike before, when the style rules were spread out over all the documents. Here's the structure: Main guide, including a word list with correct spellings. Editors' supplement: only need to view this if you are editing and want to know what else to do, besides what's in the main guide. Rare situations supplement: only need to view this if something weird comes up, such as two speakers having the exact same first and last names or the entire audio being a mathematics lecture. It's stated in the main guide when there is more detail about a specific situation that is located in this supplement. Sample transcript: demonstrates every style point mentioned in the main guide, but is only about 2 pages long. Whew! So, let's see what CW says! UPDATE, 12-22: The style guide is live, as I posted in this thread. No Google Docs for the sample transcript, sadly.