Re: New word in operative report

LOL. There are a lot of things concerning about such a setup. One would be that someone seeing the work and not being aware the client asked for that quality of work could find out which service produced it. Seem you'd have to have a disclaimer along the lines of "dictated but not read" on each report: "Work draft quality only at client's request" or something. OTOH, if they got a taste of that maybe they'd realize the difference and that the accurate reports they are accustomed to are not generated by accident.

JulieW8 wrote: 
On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 14:40:28 GMT, RaeMorrill <RaeMorrill@xxxxxxx> gave
thanks and said:


That's the bottom line: Quality. When it no longer matters, those of us who take pride in a job well done, who wouldn't think at guessing at a term or shrugging off an completly impossible bit of data without flagging it cannot compete. If I just typed pedal to the metal, and didn't bother to "waste" any time with even a basic spellcheck, never mind proofing, and certainly not "wasting" any time finding a name or address on the web, I could likely work for a couple of cents less per line and possibly make more an hour. 


Exactly. At one time I actually considered a "coach" class division
for clients who just wanted cheap transcription. They'd know up front
that they were getting the best cheap work I could deliver - but it
wouldn't be the same as the work delivered to clients who pay more. I
just couldn't bring myself to do it. (Besides - can you imagine being
an MT and finding out you were working in the "coach" division? I
don't even want to think of the ruckus that would ensue!)

~~~~~*****~~~~~*****~~~~~*****
To send me e-mail, use juliew8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

.