I had written, Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:29:12 >> *I* reckon that all these unemployed people on the >> dole (for which I pay) should earn their dole by doing >> transcriptions.... Rob wrote, Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:10:51 +0000 > One I transcribed showed an amazing 60 percent error > rate yet another had only 2 percent. O.K. - though I'm not sure how you get a %age rate... > To have people do this who really don't care is a waste > of time and effort. That doesn't matter - it is *their* "time and effort" they are wasting. An important side effect is that it would "get them off the streets" (and off the TV sofa), and just might foster an interest and a desire to do better next time. > Personally I would say join your local fhs and help them by giving a > couple of hours a week to transcribe. Do you ? But that is an entirely different story, and has nothing to do with what I wrote, which was about paying the unemployed to do it (no work, no dole). Frank Lockley wrote, Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:32:31 +0100 > you need to have people who have a genuine interest > to get decent transcribing done, That would be nice - but it's not essential. > or spend so much time checking the transcriptions > that you may as well do it yourself to start with. Absolutely not ! As a matter of routine, you have it transcribed twice, and then the results are compared automatically. If there is too much difference, you have it transcribed again - and again, as necessary. > Poor transcriptions are a waste of time Whose time ? And it's better than nothing > and reflect so badly on any > society/organisation that have published them Well, absolutely ! It would perhaps be foolish to publish without checking. On the other hand, publishing transcriptions together with scans, and welcoming corrections, is better than scans alone. But the topic was prompted by microFs, that are not available on line, not even as scans. Please don't re-post this entire message.