How to be a good QCer?

[yamaru]

I'm wondering how to be a good QCer. I've looked around for some kind of guide, but I haven't found one yet... so could anyone help me? Thank you

[the.Merines]

Hm... Well, I'll try to give an easy answer.

Basically, know English. Understand how to sentences should be spelled and structure. Watching for spelling and word usage errors is important. Personally, I dabble a bit in timing and encoding so I know how to spot these kinds of errors more easily as well. It's also somewhat important to be available (in IRC or whatever your group uses) so you can be contacted easily when it's time to do your job.

[yamaru]

I understand that knowing the basics of English is a requirement. However, I don't know anything about the timing and encoding.

Could any explain how to shift the time if the timing is off?

[the.Merines]

As a QC one doesn't mess with that stuff. Just make a note of the error and an approximation of how far off the timing is, or where/when the encoding error happens. The team members who are experienced in those fields will fix them- you just need to tell them about it.

[bayoab]

QCrs don't do any of that. QC's job is to find what is wrong and to tell the person to fix it. It's hard to become a good qc. Most people who are good are naturally good. The best ones are anal rententive.

[yamaru]

Sorry if I'm asking too many questions, but I've been told a lot of different things and I want clarification.

If a QCer only checks for grammar, isn't that the same job as the editor? I thought that a QCer would check everything, and then fix it. If the QCer isn't fixing it, what's the point of checking? It seems like it'd be wasteful to find the mistakes and then push the work off to other people...

But then again, I've never done this, so I don't know what's wrong or right. Just to me, it seems weird that a QCer would just point out the errors and not fix it while they go...

[the.Merines]

It might seem wasteful, but it isn't in most cases. When the translator gives an episode script to the editor, it usually is a very direct translation from Japanese to English, which doesn't always make sense in English. The editor fixes the word flow while also keeping the original meaning.

QCs are the last line of defense before the episode is released. Maybe your editor never makes mistakes, but most are normal humans and do. It's much easier for another person to look at the episode with fresh eyes than the same person looking at their work over and over.

[ladholyman]

You're exactly right, yamaru. A QCer should give suggestions on how to fix mistakes, not just point them out. Some QCers are anal and would only point out mistakes. That is the mark of a bad QCer.

There is no right or wrong way of QCing. You just QC. You open up Notepad.exe, note down stuff that's wrong, and give suggestions on how to fix said mistakes. It's as simple as that.

[the.Merines]

Originally Posted by ladholyman

You're exactly right, yamaru. A QCer should give suggestions on how to fix mistakes, not just point them out.

Eh... Yeah, I forgot that part.

[yamaru]

It still seems like an awful lot of work for timers and encoders if QCers don't fix the mistakes and it seems like QCers don't have much of a job if all they do is find and point out mistakes.

[the.Merines]

Yes. Being a QC can seem like you're not important in the big picture, but that really doesn't matter. It is important because not everyone can do it. It's a generally accepted position in the fansub workflow. If it makes you feel better, usually you watch a "rough encode" that isn't as demanding to perfect as the final product, and changing the timing of one line only take a moment. The encoder should only have to do 2 encodes- 1 rough and 1 final. Worst case scenario: the QCs catch a new error in 6 or 7 encodes. That's when it becomes a burden on the other group members.

[Ledgem]

If the QCer fixed the error, and then QC'd his or her own work, it's quite possible that if the QCer introduced an error (even if they knew what they were doing) they might not be as attentive because they'd think to themselves "ah this spot - I already fixed it" and relax a bit.

Everyone here has seemingly talked about QCers as if they're secondary editors. When I led projects, I expected more of my QC. Not only did I want them to catch spelling and basic grammar mistakes, but timing (if a sub was hanging or cut off too quickly, and if subtitles flashed by too quickly), the editing (was it easily understandable) as well as encode errors. It sounds like a lot, but as someone said, some people are just naturals - they don't even need to focus, and just as they're watching they pick up on all of the problems.

I don't envy being them, because it must make normal fansub-watching terrible. They're great to have on staff though

QC may feel like it's not worth it, but it does make a difference. It feels nice to have someone at your back, you know? I originally used the QC position as sort of a "training" position for people just getting into fansubbing, though, and based off of observations it seems that I'm not alone - QCers generally specialize after a time and take on a new roll. It doesn't mean that they're not important to quality fansubs, though, so take pride in what you do.

[the.Merines]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I don't envy being them, because it must make normal fansub-watching terrible. They're great to have on staff though

You've no idea... Every time I spot an error, I want to scream. In any case... yamaru, if you have any more questions, feel free to ask. I think this thread could be a nice guidepost for new QCs in the future (so long as I don't leave out anymore important parts ).

[Devastator]

QC is, as has been stated already, the last line of defense between the work zone and the public. Thus, it is a very important role in fansubbing, unless you can feel completely confident in your translator and editor not to let any mistakes slip by, which in many cases isn't the case. As much as people may want to disagree, there is always a flaw to this system, and it's human.

The QC's job in my opinion is really pretty much the 'everything' position, just perhaps in a different perspective from the respective position (not so much in hardsubbed QC, since everything is more like a black box -- In no ways do I support hardsubbed QC, though). If there's anything that could be seen as an issue or if there's a possibly better alternative, it should be noted.

====

I originally had a list, but ended up removing it. However, I think it probably would help more than not to include it anyways.
- Translation, if possible, should be checked by QC if the group doesn't have a translation checker as there may be cases that the editor interprets the line as something else
- Editing, naturally spelling, grammar and word choice
- The timing should feel comfortable from the viewer's perspective (note that some groups don't actually care, I've worked with one in the past) and should try to fit in some way with the translation
- Typesetting and encoding (video and audio), generally anything that could potentially be seen as an issue
- Styling (font choices, sizes, colours), if disagreeable, a better alternative should be suggested or at least what makes the styling seem unfit should be noted

[False Dawn]

I don't know who's been saying that qc-ing is only about editing, but it's much more than that. Yes, editing is a large part of it - but you also have to check the timing, the encoding, and the typesetting (good qc-ers also listen to see if the translation is accurate, though most qc-ers don't know Japanese, in my experience).

Generally, QC personnel have to know the basics of timing, editing, typesetting and encoding in order to say what's wrong. It's alright pointing out that something's wrong, but without suggesting the best way to rectify it, it's almost pointless.

Only the basics are really needed though. QC is usually a case of identifying possible faults with potential releases, whereas other areas include more creativity - QC is more a case of making sure that certain things are consistent (punctuation, scene-timing, etc). When you've cracked all those, then you're on your way to becoming a worthwhile QC.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Devastator

The QC's job in my opinion is really pretty much the 'everything' position, just perhaps in a different perspective from the respective position (not so much in hardsubbed QC, since everything is more like a black box -- In no ways do I support hardsubbed QC, though).

What do you mean by hardsubbed QC? I wanted to jump on this, but I think I might be mistaking what you meant for something else.

If you have QCers doing everything by softsubs, it's much more time-efficient than having them QC the end product (release candidates), but I don't believe that they'd be able to catch encoding errors unless the error was in the raw to begin with (in which case the encoder sometimes may catch it). It also introduces a host of other issues, since the softsubs may display differently for each system and/or differ from the encoded subs. If you meant it that way, I'd be very interested to hear why you're against hardsub QCing.

[Fatsobob]

How to be a good QCer?
Jot down everything that you notice, whether it is a mistake, or even a slight issue that might be noticed by a regular viewer. I always watch through specific parts that don't seem right 4-5 times to try to catch something.
I guess being a good QCer just comes from knowing what to look for.

[Asai]

When I QC, I actually don't pay as much attention to the English as I do the typesetting particularly. Though, while I do still notice most language errors, and always offer suggestions for lines that sound strange given the context, etc. -- I pay more attention to the timing and typesetting, which a lot of people don't seem to be bringing up. Though that may also be due to working with another QC on my current projects who is very anal about language, so he catches anything specific to that while I tend to catch more of the timing/typesetting stuff. Makes things easier all-round.

The typesetting part isn't a big deal to some groups since they don't use multi-coloured layouts, italicised thoughts, properly set signs as opposed to "Note: Sign says 'Food'" but for most, it is. The styles used on fonts is important to pay attention to, especially if you're using different colours for diff chars (a practice I personally dislike) as you need to keep it all consistent.

But, I'd actually like to move in to timing and/or typesetting, so maybe that's why I don't pay as much attention to the use of language as I should. Also, I understand a reasonable amount of spoken Japanese and can often just skip over odd, poor or inaccurate subs without even noticing it (<- BAD trait, btw!) as I'm listening more than reading. -.- But that's why I'll do two or three passes over a QC script to make sure I catch as much as possible.

[Devastator]

1) Lower video quality (which is what the group I worked with did) restricts the QC team from knowing the end quality of the video. ie. the encoder could still use a file size / target bitrate that restricts the quality, and as a result introduces notable blocking in the end result.

In doing things with the final resultant video, the QC team can expect that what they see is what they will see when it's released. In fact, those with restrictions on bandwidth can simply mux in the last script so they don't need to download the episode in its entirety provided they don't plan to distribute too, but hey, they're limited on bandwidth right?

2) Multiple QC passes, which is what some groups wind up doing until everyone involved feels that it's "perfect," restricts who can QC to those who can afford to download the file that many times. Plus, it takes significantly less time to download one video and X scripts than X videos, especially as X increases.

For those who are nearing their limit on bandwidth, they could simply check the scripts for editing. Checking to make sure that timing is comfortable is still manageable too, just rename the script the same as another video and watch that video with the script being QC'd and try to read the subs. Or even provide those QC members with the audio, so they can use Medusa / Aegisub to check the timing against that.

3) It's much easier to do rechecks when necessary. A script can be marked where changes were made by QC and by the person checking which corrections should be applied. As a result, it also makes it unnecessary for the QC team to watch the entire video again for translation, English, timing and typesetting (if done in ASS) related corrections.


A set of images could be provided as a 'this is how you should be seeing it' which members could compare against. I will note that I'm not familiar with the crowd that sees things differently when it comes to softsubs, unless you mean VLC users, but who cares about them?

[sangofe]

Be a majorly picky ass about all aspects in fansubbing, and you're a good qc'r.