The Review Process

TranscribeMe offers clients a 99% accuracy guarantee, which means that all files completed by a QA need to be client ready. Your completed sessions will be subject to reviews to assess your quality of work. All QAs must reach and consistently maintain a quality ranking of 4.5. Falling below this quality will be grounds for removal. When reviewing your ranking, we look at:

• Overall average (all files completed)
• Last month average (files completed last month)
• Current month average (files completed in current month)

Falling below the quality standards for any of these can result in loss of QA status, as we need QAs that can consistently produce high-quality files for our clients. It is CRUCIAL that you read all of your reviews and carefully assess the changes made to any of your completed files, which can be seen under your Work History.

Remember that Reviewers are reviewing to see that the file is client ready when you submit it. Your rankings are based on this, NOT on how many edits you may have made to the session.

Probation

Upon first being accepted to a QA Team, you will receive a Welcome email with details regarding your Probation period, during which time your files will be subject to review by experienced members of our team. It is crucial that you thoroughly read and understand this information before beginning. The most current probation requirements will be outlined in this email. If you do not receive your Welcome email within 2-3 business days - be sure to check Spam and Promotions folders - please send in a Help Desk ticket.

Snippet and Full Reviews

Some of your sessions may be reviewed in full by the review team, listening to the same audio you had while reading over your final transcript and correcting any errors. However, if your work appears to be client-ready, then the Reviewer may opt to review only a few small snippets of your work, randomly selected throughout the session. In this case, the snippets chosen for review will appear in the Overall Comments portion of your review feedback. Either type of review, full or snippet, will count towards your QA rank.

Declined Sessions

If your file goes to a Reviewer, they have the option to Decline your work. A decline means the Reviewer has deemed your work unsatisfactory. If this occurs, you will receive an email advising you that your work has been declined with reasons given by the Reviewer, after which you will have 1 hour to claim the file and start correcting any errors the Reviewer has noted in the file. If you do not claim the file within an hour after a rejection, the file will go back into the QA pool for another QA to complete, and you will not be compensated for that file. Please make sure that all work you submit is of high quality and review your work thoroughly before submitting.

"Should Have Been Rejected" Sessions

If the file is a high-priority file or is overdue by the time the Reviewer accesses it, then instead of declining your work, they may choose to correct the errors themselves. If the Reviewer considers your work unsatisfactory but corrects the errors themselves due to priority or time constraints, this will be noted on the Review Feedback form as Should have been rejected. In these circumstances, an admin will review the session to validate the Reviewer's decision. If our admins find the rejection justified, a portion of your pay for the file will be transferred to the Reviewer to compensate them for the extra time spent.

Finding Your Ranking

Your QA rating is simply the average of all the ratings you've been given by reviewers. As a new QA, most of your files will go through review. Occasionally, a file will get fast-tracked to meet a client deadline, so be sure you always submit client-ready transcripts! When the review is completed on a file, you will get an email with the review sheet attached, detailing your rating in each of eight categories as well as providing comments and feedback to help you improve. As your completed sessions go through review, your overall ranking for each session will also appear in your work history. Click the View link to access the Reviewer's feedback on your file.

At the top of your work history, you can view your average ranking across all reviewed sessions, your average for the past 30 days, and your average for the past 90 days. Be aware that these averages include all QA teams: 1-step, 2-step, and Stamper. Stamper files are rated on a scale from 4.5 to 5.0 rather than the usual 1.0 to 5.0, so these may skew your displayed rankings and hide any issues in your 1- or 2-step work. Team leads will exclude these files when evaluating your work for those teams, so be sure to check each session rank in your work history.

Post-Probation Reviews

QA files may undergo review, either online by our Reviewer team or offline by an admin, for a number of reasons. The best thing you can do is always put out the highest-quality work you can and take any feedback as one more tool to help you improve your craft. If you are consistently pulling high ratings on your reviews, you will be back off review very soon. A QA might receive a spot-check review for any of the following reasons:

• New QA: You've just cleared your probation period, and we want you to get some more feedback on your early work.
• Inactivity: You've been gone for a while, and we want to make sure you remember the Style Guide well!
• CSI File: The client complained about one of your past sessions. Whether justified or not (and we do check), this will usually garner you a spot check on your next session, just to be sure everything's in order.
• Declined Session: If you have a file sent back by the reviewer, or if the reviewer marks the Should Have Been Rejected box, then you will likely continue getting reviews longer than you otherwise would have.
• Accuracy Concerns: An admin noticed something in your work that made us think you may need some additional feedback.
• Low Ranking: Your overall ranking is below or close to the 4.5 line, or you have a lower overall ranking than we think you deserve, and we want to help you bump it up!
• Reviewer Check: You have been doing excellent work, and we are considering you for a promotion. First, we need to see what the current review team thinks.
• Random Review: There's no real reason, but you just haven't had any feedback in a while.

If your sessions are found not to meet the required 99% accuracy for QA, then an additional probation period at a reduced pay rate may be required to provide you with Reviewer feedback and to maintain your position on the team.

Review Form

When a file is reviewed, you will have access to a PDF Review Form. You will receive a copy of this form via email and you can also access it through your work history by clicking the blue View button beneath Reviewer.

Scoring

A score of five indicates that you had no errors at all for that category. Even one error can lower your ranking for a category to a four, so always check your work carefully before submitting each session. Every Reviewer may have a different reviewing style, but this is generally the scoring you can expect on your sessions:

• 5: No errors would be a ranking of five, which would be A+ and excellent job.
• 4: One to two errors would be a ranking of four, meaning a grade of A- or B+ and very good job.
• 3: Three to four would be considered something between a B & C grade. You did not do horribly, but the file did contain errors.
• 2: A score of two indicates significant problems with your work in this area, and the client would most likely not be satisfied with this file.
• 1: You need to pay close attention to this category and study the feedback as well as the appropriate style guide sections before attempting any more work. Your status as a QA is in real danger.

Review Categories

1

Audio Quality: Please rank the audio quality for this session.
Although we fully understand that poor audio quality can affect the quality of the transcript, a Reviewer will still dock stars if they are able to make out words that the QA didn't.

2

Should Have Been Rejected: Should file have been rejected but due to priority Reviewer redid?
If the Reviewer determines that your file was not client ready at submission, they may mark Yes here and enter supporting details in the text field. Yes is scored as a 1 in the overall ranking, and No is scored as a 5.

3

Speakers: How many speakers were present in the file?
This indicates the total number of speakers in the file.

4

Timestamps & Speaker IDs: Were the timestamps accurate?
This section includes everything covered under the timestamps and speaker ID guidelines.

5

Spelling & Formatting: Were all words spelled correctly?
This is where formatting errors, misspelled words, and miscellaneous typos will be noted. This includes if names and terms were researched and spelled consistently throughout the file.

6

Sentence & Paragraph Structure: Are sentences/paragraphs structured properly or do they stop and start in odd places?
Are sentences structured properly? Do the sentences include the full thought, or are they short and choppy? Are the paragraphs overly long or short and choppy? Use your best judgment here.

7

Punctuation: Has punctuation been used correctly?
While we would like punctuation to be correct, there is always a degree of subjectivity. If it is blatantly wrong and changes the meaning of a sentence, yes, points will be removed for incorrect punctuation. For 2-step sessions, remember that the additional guidelines in the Advanced Style Guide apply for punctuation.

8

Missing/Misheard Words: Are there any Misheard/Missing Words/Letters?
If the file has misheard words, it will not have a ranking of five. The Reviewers do not have any special equipment that allows them to hear the words better than you. Listen carefully, following along with your transcript attentively, and always take context into mind.

9

Style Guide: Are there any Style Guide errors?
Style guide errors can include a variety of things such as tags, speaker names, contractions. It is also very important to ensure that the file follows the Guidelines on the right-hand side of the session.

10

Reasonable Attempt: Has there been a reasonable attempt to transcribe all words?
This section can encompass a variety of different scenarios, including that there are not [inaudible] or [crosstalk] tags left in that can clearly be made out. If the Reviewer can make them out, then you as a QA should be able to understand the word. Did you use proper research on Google for those harder words? Was an attempt made to guess at any of the words that were hard to hear? Do the words match the context of the file? Were all speakers appropriately captured or were side conversations inappropriately ignored?

11

Chunk Management: If this was a 2-step file, were all words in their correct audio chunk?
This applies only to 2Step QAs. Though it will not detract from your rank, this is where a Reviewer will note if there were words in the wrong chunks. For all 1-step sessions, the reviewer will select "Not a 2-step file."