5 ms·

Am I understanding correctly that around 1997 a single person transcribed 42 hours of recordings? Wild and impressive. I wonder how long it took them? Modern t

Am I understanding correctly that around 1997 a single person transcribed 42 hours of recordings? Wild and impressive. I wonder how long it took them? Modern tools would likely do it in 42 minutes?

lordleft 2mo ago
While 42 minutes would be hard to beat, I think that stenography was and remains a highly mature and impressive skillset.
detourdog 2mo ago
That’s what foundations are for. Transcription used to be a human job just like computers.
- StilesCrisis 2mo ago
  It still is, if you want a correct transcription and not just a plausible one!
Cthulhu_ 2mo ago
I'm transcribing more than 42 hours of meetings and designs into software code; work is work. It's tedious and repetitive maybe but there's always people really into that kind of thing.
amelius 2mo ago
Maybe those modern tools could be used to clean up the audio and video?
jubilanti 2mo ago
At max, two full work weeks for a lightly trained amateur to transcribe 42 hours of decent but not great quality audio. A professional could do it in near realtime. For me, it is notable that this is notable for you. This used to be as ubiquitous of a profession in modern organizations as typists were. Many people's entire job was going to meetings and/or listening to calls, transcribing the conversation, not just taking notes. Professional stenographers transcribe in realtime with phonetic markers and everything. Even lightly trained transcriptionists can transcribe 1 hour of audio in 1.25-1.5 hours of wall clock time. For an amateur, you could probably get to a 1:2 ratio within a few hours. It's at max two full weeks of work.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- msephton 2mo ago
  JoAnne Ishimine was a volunteer, former Channel 7 LA news anchor, and actress. She had the skills! And the time, obviously.
The-Bus 2mo ago
Even if the transcription was instantaneous, you'd still need to manually vet it, i.e. listen to all of it.

Am I understanding correctly that around 1997 a single person transcribed 42 hours of recordings? Wild and impressive. I wonder how long it took them? Modern tools would likely do it in 42 minutes?

lordleft 2mo ago

While 42 minutes would be hard to beat, I think that stenography was and remains a highly mature and impressive skillset.

detourdog 2mo ago

That’s what foundations are for. Transcription used to be a human job just like computers.

StilesCrisis 2mo ago
It still is, if you want a correct transcription and not just a plausible one!

Cthulhu_ 2mo ago

I'm transcribing more than 42 hours of meetings and designs into software code; work is work. It's tedious and repetitive maybe but there's always people really into that kind of thing.

amelius 2mo ago

Maybe those modern tools could be used to clean up the audio and video?

jubilanti 2mo ago

At max, two full work weeks for a lightly trained amateur to transcribe 42 hours of decent but not great quality audio. A professional could do it in near realtime. For me, it is notable that this is notable for you. This used to be as ubiquitous of a profession in modern organizations as typists were. Many people's entire job was going to meetings and/or listening to calls, transcribing the conversation, not just taking notes. Professional stenographers transcribe in realtime with phonetic markers and everything. Even lightly trained transcriptionists can transcribe 1 hour of audio in 1.25-1.5 hours of wall clock time. For an amateur, you could probably get to a 1:2 ratio within a few hours. It's at max two full weeks of work.

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
msephton 2mo ago
JoAnne Ishimine was a volunteer, former Channel 7 LA news anchor, and actress. She had the skills! And the time, obviously.

The-Bus 2mo ago

Even if the transcription was instantaneous, you'd still need to manually vet it, i.e. listen to all of it.