WAHM Forums

The WAHM community forum was created to be a place for work at home moms to share their ideas and stories. In the forum you can find information about work at home jobs, starting home businesses, avoiding scams, and surviving the WAHM lifestyle. In support of the WAHM community, WAHM.com also features instructional articles, easy recipes, as well as job and business listings tailored specifically to work at home opportunities.

View Full Version : Allegis Transcription quality

08-17-2015, 11:17 AM
I have an interview with them this afternoon, and I have a couple questions only someone working for them can answer. How is the quality of their recordings overall? My test file was pristine, very clear. Are the majority of their files like that? Also, are many of the audios heavily accented? If so, which accent? Indian, Asian, etc. Thank you for any information you can provide.

08-18-2015, 08:21 PM
I'm a newbie here, but was looking for Allegis posts to see what others were thinking. I interviewed a couple weeks ago. Went through the "onboarding" process, was sent 3 files at a time to do for QC approval. The recording quality was nowhere near what the test was, and even then, I ended up with 98% on 3 of the 9 files I did over the course of a week. Still, it took me forever to get it that clean, and on 5 of the 6 others I was within 0.5% of the 98% required. The one that really seemed bad was only a 2-page file, and the interviewer couldn't even understand what the interviewee was saying, so they ended the call with a promise to call back. And on that one QC seemed to be able to insert all kinds of text where my inaudibles were. I've been transcribing for about 30 years (used to even be a court reporter), but they seemed to find all kinds of um's, uh's, partial words, things that they thought needed to be in a transcript, which I tried very hard to put in, but upon getting my QC feedback, with no audio to check their grading, I figured I was fighting a losing battle, so I have moved on. Still looking for something else, but have a medical transcription job that is drying up that I at least still have a couple hours a day to work on.

Do let me know how your interview went. The lady I interviewed with was very nice, but the recruiter one who was also in charge of QC'ing the work seemed to be a bit more standoffish. And her e-mails were pretty riddled with typographical and/or grammatical errors.

Fred (not a mom, obviously, but still working from home)

08-19-2015, 09:07 PM
My interview went well. They did sign me on to work for them. I have only two concerns - my first is that using their system (not Express Scribe or Start-Stop or anything else) I won't be able to make any adjustment to cancel out or lessen any noise that might be on the recording. My second concern, but pretty minor, is the accents. I can transcribe just about any accent well, except Asian. I'll give it a shot. I would think I would know by the time I'm doing the onboarding files whether or not it's something I want to stick with. At least these will be short files, so if I do get a nasty one, I won't have to decipher it for a long time. :)

08-19-2015, 09:16 PM
There aren't that many files with accents. They have translators available.

08-20-2015, 06:41 AM
Sorry, but I am in complete disagreement with aewtx. As a current contractor with them, I can tell you that Allegis has approximately 90% poor audio and a lot of files with accents. The accented files wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact that the audio is so poor which compounds the problem. The translator files are usually awful too IMO.

Tripmom, the only audio adjustments youíll be able to make is with your own computerís equalizer or sound tweaking options.

Fred, you are so right on the nose! QC has become a joke with no consistency and many people feel they are incorrectly graded. You never get the audio back to double-check with your QC reports either, so you canít dispute anything. This whole issue is made more insulting by the fact that ABSOLUTELY YES, the recruiter person youíre talking about cannot send out a single solitary email that doesnít have at least one mistake in it. Even the ads she posts online for transcriptionists have errors in them! That particular person should never be allowed to do a QC report and is making the company look bad with all her typing errors.

08-20-2015, 04:52 PM
Thank you all for your questions and concerns, everyone.

I will look into the ads you're referring to, as we do have more than one team of people posting ads, as we did start using a recruiting firm as well, and they're posting ads very similar to ours.

Just wanted to chime in and clarify some things so there's no miscommunication.

To clarify the QC questions, our QC Reports are evaluated by two Quality Check Specialists. I, Kelly Vu, the Recruiter here at Allegis, am not the one evaluating anyone's transcripts, and I do not score them. Any scores given is based on the transcriptionist's performance, and we have explained how scores are calculated to our new hires, using a standard formula, so that it is consistent and not subjective.

QC Reports are indeed sent back without any audio files. But a transcriptionist can always request to have the audio file assigned back to them to listen to an compare. The only catch: this has to be done during our office hours, so that we can properly archive the audio file once more when you're done listening to them.

Regarding audio quality, both I and the Resource Managers are extremely upfront about our audio quality during the interview process. What constitutes as poor or good quality is based on opinions and experience; but we understand that not all of our audio files are great, as the interviewees are usually the one who control the environment and outcome of the audio files. The way work is distributed in our system, it is dependent on your luck when grabbing work from the job list, as we do not assign you any files when you're done with training.

While our accuracy requirements are high, it is indeed crucial to have these standards in place. Anything typed out in error, that changes the meaning of the statement, can affect the outcome of their claim.

I hope that answers a lot of questions or concerns you may have.

08-20-2015, 08:20 PM
I still stand by everything I posted, and not to be a b***h, but I noticed more than one error in the above post, bolstering my point. It makes the company look bad and also is kind of insulting when all of us have to be so conscientious with our transcripts for the company. As far as the bad audio being the fault of the client, yes, that is true, but said company has a lot of nerve expecting high accuracy when they consistently submit such poor audio files. Obviously, they arenít too concerned about taking quality recordings, so how can they say that the outcome of the claim based on the transcripts is all the fault of the transcriptionist? I refuse to take full blame on that, but it gets placed on my shoulders anyway because I'm just a contractor with no rights. Anyway, I donít have time to keep batting this ball back and forth, so Iíll duck out now. People who read this thread can now see multiple viewpoints and use their own judgment.

08-21-2015, 10:55 AM
Oh no, LittlePinky. I'm certainly am not arguing the fact that there may be some typos on my end. And that's probably why I'm not a transcriptionist or part of the QC team.

I only wanted to point out what the actual process for QC Reports is, and clarify that I am not the one doing them, so the readers can be aware and not mislead.

I'm also certainly not "blaming" anyone, especially our customers, for the audio quality, but just making it transparent that our audio files will come in a large variety of speakers, clarity, and miscellaneous situations. :)