Updated: Nov 8, 2019
In this article we will go over the pros and cons of Auto Transcriber v.s. Human Transcriber. Let the battle begin.
Auto-transcribers definitely serve their purpose. I feel for the disabled who really are limited with their motor-skill abilities. Typing of any length can be troublesome, tiresome, and in some cases, not even an option.
The major plus point is that the auto-transcribers do transcribe. The text will then need to be proofed and adjustments made; however, if one is disabled, this would be easier to attack than typing a whole document. The corrections could even be done piece-meal, as they have time and energy to do this.
For those needing a job done (of any size), my personal recommendation (and of others that I've either conversed with, or noted in my online 'travels') is just have a live person do this. In the end, one typically finds the project produced via the 'live person' noticeably saved on the dollar end.
One can do an experiment for theirself. Send a 2-3 page document to someone and ask for the Auto-transcriber version. Send another 2-3 page document to the same person and ask for the 'live person' transcription. You will be asked if you want the Auto version to be proofed and corrected for you. You will find that you are paying more for the auto version because of the time necessary for a live person to go back and read it, making corrections as they go along. Now if the auto-version draft is all that is needed, and the quality is of no matter, then this method is for you--absolutely.
Interestingly, when anyone of any experience does the live transcription, they typically work fast and quite thoroughly on the first go-through--even catching their own errors as they proceed. When completed with each audio, then they do a run-through, relistening while following the text copy at a faster speed. This gives the assurance that all aligns before turning it back to the originator.
The live-person typing is rather different than the auto version from another respect, too. Should the originator have chosen to not have a live person go through an automatic, audio-to-text version for corrections, there are definitely errors. And I've seen some extremely embarrassing errors because the auto-system 'heard' a word that was entirely a different word, but sounded like this other word--and not only contextually changed the meaning, but in a way that could be bad public-relations, depending on where that document was being forwarded. Now if the originator chose that the live person corrects the auto-type version, again, that person needs to listen to the audio at a regular pace to duplicate all the words and ensure that what landed on that transcript was in fact what was actually said. OR, one can opt to just have the live person run through and correct obvious out-points (which may still not be but about 95% accurate or so).
When it's all said and done, the live transcriber does indeed give the originator the best product (99% accuracy), in the quickest fashion, and at the best price. You must realize that there is a reason that clients come to transcription companies for this task. Anyone today is capable of downloading the voice-to-text applications and getting their work done in that mode. Well then, why aren't more using that method if it's so workable? And the answer to that is why we stay in business, transcribing for you and others!
Tell me what you think in this Robot v.s. Human Battle of Efficiency.
Photo Credit: by JB_Bandit, Canva
#Typing #Transcription #RobotvsHuman #BattleofEfficiency #Accuracy #Efficiency #Affordable #WorkableSolutions #Disabled #Disabilities #ProsAndCons #VoiceToText #Tiresome #Proof #Proofreading #AutoTranscriber #Audio #PostProduction #Quick #Fast #Documents