How to be a good QCer?

[Devastator]

Originally Posted by Blue_Mage

24 minutes for a QC? Oh my god...

My typical QC requires 3 to 4 hours, since I usually do 2 passes (1 pass for an RC). Yes, I'm moderately anal retentive, but I also explain what the problem is and make a suggestion for each issue I find. And scene bleeds do take time to double-check.

I know I said that was going to be my final post, but there was no way that I could let this sit. The biggest problem with people like you is that you misinterpret the information in your favour. I said "24 minutes to watch the episode + some time to jot down notes or type over some communication application." The key word is watch.

I'd seriously question your potential as QC if you can't even read a sentence properly.

Anyways, I'm not looking at this thread anymore.

[ladholyman]

Haha, this thread is going no where. There are a million right ways to QC. Whatever works, works. Some groups don't have a QC encode. Some do. Some groups have QCs that are anal and correct every other line because it doesn't "sound right." Some groups have common sense. Bottom line is, if you are taking days and days looking over a script, you're wasting your time. Move on.

[the.Merines]

Yeah... QCers themselves probably don't care if the version they get is hardsubbed, softsubbed, or made of cardboard. As long as they can do their job... Everything else is up to the group leaders and encoder.

That's how I feel as a QC, anyway.

[Maceart]

A good QCer takes the episode, watches it once (or maybe twice), jots down things to correct, then turns it back in.

That's all. From my perspective, it's the 2nd easiest job, after being a timer. Anyone can be a QCer provided they know english.

Also, QCs where there's more corrections than half of the whole script are not normal. That's when you fire him/her because it's only going to drag the group down.

[iamtetsuo]

Wow wow this thread is turning into a big ol I'm right you're wrong argument.

Anyways staying on topic:
A good QC should probably have at the very least a high school level education. College level is even better, as the QCers main job is to pick out little mistakes that the editor missed. The QC shouldn't have to worry about spelling as by this point the script should have been spell checked. However the QC should be able to spot there/their/they're type spelling mistakes.
As for how long a QC will take thats a good question. I typically spend an hour QCing, as I like to pause and mull over sentences that strike me as odd checking to see if they make grammatical sense. However some people spend more time, and some spend less. It all depends on how good your editor is, and how much of a nit-picker you are.

[False Dawn]

Originally Posted by Maceart

Anyone can be a QCer provided they know english.

Wrong. As I may have stated before, if a QCer cannot pick up timing and typesetting errors (encoding errors are a little more difficult, I find), then there's no point having them QC.

Also, there's differing interpretations of how well you can "know english" - you can be a native speaker and yet have no clue about grammatical forms of language. In this case, while the QC "knows" English, they'd be useless to the group.

I can be pretty anal when I QC, but I think that's the only way a group can release a sub that they're going to be happy with (that is, if they want good quality subs).

[Quarkboy]

Originally Posted by False Dawn

Wrong. As I may have stated before, if a QCer cannot pick up timing and typesetting errors (encoding errors are a little more difficult, I find), then there's no point having them QC.

Also, there's differing interpretations of how well you can "know english" - you can be a native speaker and yet have no clue about grammatical forms of language. In this case, while the QC "knows" English, they'd be useless to the group.

I can be pretty anal when I QC, but I think that's the only way a group can release a sub that they're going to be happy with (that is, if they want good quality subs).

What? That's just silly... Just because a qcer can't catch timing and encoding errors doesn't make them useless! It makes them LESS useful, yes, but not USELESS. They simply need to be supplemented with a second qcer whose job is to look for those kinds of errors. Some of my best qcers (the ones that majored in english composition, for example) are not the most... um... technically sophisticated. But their expertise in english grammer is indispensible. So are you saying I should reject that person's help just because they can't check every aspect of a fansub? That's just ridiculous.

[Vide]

Originally Posted by Maceart

Also, QCs where there's more corrections than half of the whole script are not normal. That's when you fire him/her because it's only going to drag the group down.

Instead of firing the translator/editor that messed up big time?

[False Dawn]

Originally Posted by Quarkboy

What? That's just silly... Just because a qcer can't catch timing and encoding errors doesn't make them useless! It makes them LESS useful, yes, but not USELESS. They simply need to be supplemented with a second qcer whose job is to look for those kinds of errors. Some of my best qcers (the ones that majored in english composition, for example) are not the most... um... technically sophisticated. But their expertise in english grammer is indispensible. So are you saying I should reject that person's help just because they can't check every aspect of a fansub? That's just ridiculous.

Well, okay, I'll admit it was a little harsh, but I was thinking more if you had a one-man QC project. If you use several people to QC (which seems to be quickly becoming the norm) then someone with language knowledge and relatively little technical knowledge would be pretty useful. I think, however, that it can be a waste of time to have too many people QCing, because then it becomes a case of everyone mentioning the same problems over and over again, making it a laborious task for the QC merge to go through each QC.

And I have to agree with Vide - if there are that many QC problems, then it's usually the editor/translator/timer/typesetter's fault, not the QC's fault. You should only really get rid of a QC when he lets howlers through on a regular basis, because then he's just not doing what he was hired to do.

[Maceart]

Originally Posted by Vide-Kun

Instead of firing the translator/editor that messed up big time?

No, because if there's a translator out there that makes that many mistakes, I highly doubt him/her would have the ability to translate a full episode.

[Dnous]

Originally Posted by Maceart

Also, QCs where there's more corrections than half of the whole script are not normal. That's when you fire him/her because it's only going to drag the group down.

No, because if there's a translator out there that makes that many mistakes, I highly doubt him/her would have the ability to translate a full episode.

Yeah, QC'ers shouldn’t put all errors in their QC report. QC'ers are supposed to find a few mistakes, not getting all of them. It might hurt your editor’s or translators’ pride! So, if you’re planning on QCing, don’t put all the mistakes you found in the report. You risk getting kicked out! Well... at least in the group where Maceart works.

Translators are rare, right? So, you don’t kick a translator, right? Even if he/she fails at it, right? Or, am I wrong?

[tun]

Originally Posted by Maceart

No, because if there's a translator out there that makes that many mistakes, I highly doubt him/her would have the ability to translate a full episode.

There are plenty of groups with below average translators and even crappier editors. I've been in both situations as an editor and a QCer, where the translator or editor respectively did a shitty job and put a huge burden on me.

Your original post indicates that you prioritize speed over craftsmanship of work. That is fine if you're a speed subber, but a majority of groups are not.

[stfu]

If the person can't catch timing, typesetting or encoding errors, then they're just another editor, not a QCer. Unless the group ignores the QC report, the QCer(s) should be responsible for all the errors in a release (aside from non-obvious tl errors).

[[darkfire]]

In megami the qc'ers use the Raw or work raw to qc from. We require the qc'ers to make an mkv themselves. Theres the time issue. If they get the raw or workraw when it hits our ftp by the time it even reaches the qc process they should have it. Depending on the project we either qc directly into the script or make timecodes with notepad with the suggestion on the side. The Script Finisher applys the qc to the script then its off to the RC encode. One person is assinged to check the RC (It really shouldn't have errors since they would have all been fixed in qc.) Then if the RC is good we release. The encoder only does a final encode once.

[silverfire]

A good QCer can easily find at least 70 errors of any kind in any Shinsen release, and has the patience to watch the same episode at least 6 times over (once raw, and QC up to 5 times).

[Blue_Mage]

Originally Posted by silverfire

A good QCer can easily find at least 70 errors of any kind in any Shinsen release, and has the patience to watch the same episode at least 6 times over (once raw, and QC up to 5 times).

Translation: All QCers suffer from extreme masochism.

[False Dawn]

Originally Posted by silverfire

A good QCer can easily find at least 70 errors of any kind in any Shinsen release, and has the patience to watch the same episode at least 6 times over (once raw, and QC up to 5 times).

A good QCer would probably cry watching a Shinsen release...

[ffdshow]

Originally Posted by silverfire

A good QCer can easily find at least 70 errors of any kind in any Shinsen release, and has the patience to watch the same episode at least 6 times over (once raw, and QC up to 5 times).

But you are not a normal QCer! Where can I find a QCer who can translate, time, and encode?

-
In any case, thanks for all the posts in this thread. I get to know a little more how things are working. I think, people care about how long it takes to archive their acceptable standard. QC should be the key in many cases.

[Arimfe]

Originally Posted by Maceart

Also, QCs where there's more corrections than half of the whole script are not normal. That's when you fire him/her because it's only going to drag the group down.

Originally Posted by Dnous

Yeah, QC'ers shouldn’t put all errors in their QC report. QC'ers are supposed to find a few mistakes, not getting all of them. It might hurt your editor’s or translators’ pride! So, if you’re planning on QCing, don’t put all the mistakes you found in the report. You risk getting kicked out! Well... at least in the group where Maceart works.

Translators are rare, right? So, you don’t kick a translator, right? Even if he/she fails at it, right? Or, am I wrong?

That made me lol

Originally Posted by silverfire

A good QCer can easily find at least 70 errors of any kind in any Shinsen release

*sees the connection*
The obvious conclusion must be that Maceart secretly works for Shinsen

[the.Merines]

Now I'm getting off-topic... If possible, wouldn't it be nice for the editor/s to work with the QCs before the RC1 encode? Through scanlation proofing I usually look at the script first, change a few odd wordings, then look over the script+RAW images and change as necessary.

Couldn't the same idea be applied to fansubbing? Give the editor's script to the QCs to fix (at least) spelling and grammar mistakes before any encoding gets done. Then the editor can look over the modified script/s from the QC/s to make sure they are not too far from the original translation.

This is coming from a QC and not an editor, so perhaps it's a bit far-fetched. This also assumes that the QC would look over the RC1 afterwards for timing/encode errors and the usual. Speed may be an issue here, too.