I can proofread, but I’m not a superhuman.
It’s not that I proofread faster than everyone else.
If it’s an easy transcript (simple answers with few errors), I can (and do!) read up to 100 pages in one hour, and I do it with excellence.
This “speed” did not come without lots and lots of practice, though. Harder, denser jobs, such as hearings, slow me down to about 40-60 pages an hour. Any faster than that, and you’d miss things.
How I’m able to do so much work to earn so “much” money is largely dependent on the method I use to proofread. I only use an iPad. It reads just like a book, and it keeps my eyes on the “page” — no need to dart my eyes up to the page number, over to the line number, and over to an errata sheet. My eyes never leave the words I’m reading. My iPad also saves me from having to wait on a printer to print or a scanner to scan, and I don’t have to separate clean pages from dirty pages — the app allows me to e-mail annotated pages only directly inside the app.
Looking up something used to mean opening up a browser and manually typing in a word or phrase. With new technology, however, it’s as easy as tapping the word on the screen and selecting “Google” or “Dictionary”. Not having all the tedious steps involved in “paper proofreading” and errata sheets allows me to take on more clients and work more efficiently. I did start out proofreading on paper and writing errata sheets. There is just so much wasted time doing it this way. Before, when I’d finish a job, I’d have to stop what I was doing, get up, scan in the pages, wait, save the PDF, attach them to an e-mail… that whole process was a time suck! If you’re working with a lot of clients, it can really add up.
Faster Technology = Faster Proofreading
The technology is new, I get that, but that doesn’t make it bad or wrong. It works, obviously — I’ve got lots of happy clients who love my PDF corrections. In the same vein, it totally makes sense there are many proofreaders who don’t make the kind of money I do if they’re not doing it the way I do it. The truth is, many proofreaders don’t do things the way I do them; the app I use on iPad (iAnnotate) was just released in 2011, so I’m not surprised some reporters and proofreaders haven’t heard of it.
It’s catching on, though. California court reporting agency Jilio-Ryan posted this article on March 16, 2015, which lauds iAnnotate as the “preferred method” for proofreading transcripts.
Got questions? Leave a comment below!
How much does the full course cost?
I’m very very interested in taking it. I’m a spelling/grammar freak and have dreamed of a way to make a legit living using my superpower.
Hi, Rob!
For information on the course tuition, go to proofreadanywhere.com/overview. Have a great weekend! 🙂
Help!! I am a student, and I am currently working through the practice transcripts, and I really, really fear that I cannot read fast enough to ever make more than about $15 per hour as a proofreader, if even that! I certainly cannot fathom ever making anywhere close to the $43,000 per year doing part-time hours that Caitlin discusses in her blog, and I am so, so disappointed and worried. It regularly takes me over three hours to Proofread 100 pages of text. I use an IPad, I use Iannotate, so it is not the technology, it’s my reading/proofing/marking speed. I want to make this venture work, I really really do, but I may not want to continue on to the most expensive part of the course if it is unlikely that I will ever be able to VERY significantly increase my speed. Is this a common insurmountable problem that you come across with your students? I understand that practice will increase the speed with which students can find errors, but what about someone who is just bad at reading fast? Are we doomed? Most importantly, please tell me how you would recommend I go about determining whether or not I will ever become an efficient enough reader to make this venture work. Thank you for your time.
Hi, Whitney! Just remember that you’re a beginner and learning to proofread transcripts is an art, so you need realistic expectations. You’re going to be slow at first, but you will get faster over time. 🙂
It’s impressive how you’ve streamlined the proofreading process—using an iPad really sounds like a game-changer for speed and efficiency.
Thank you for sharing. We’re glad you found the iPad approach helpful for making the proofreading process more efficient.
It's impressive how you've shortened the proofreading process; using an iPad sounds like a game changer in terms of speed and efficiency.
Thank you for your comment. We’re glad you found the iPad approach impressive for improving speed and efficiency in proofreading.
I especially appreciate the point that it’s not about being “superhuman,” but about practice + process. The distinction between easy transcripts and denser material like hearings is something a lot of people overlook when they talk about page-per-hour rates.
Thank you for your feedback! We’re glad you found the focus on practice, process, and the differences in transcript complexity helpful. 🙂
As a student, I sometimes get discouraged by my slow pace. But reading this reminds me that technology plus practice is where the magic happens. I’m going to keep pushing forward!
I completely relate to wanting to turn an obsession with grammar into a real career. It would be incredibly helpful if you could clarify the pricing structure or link to a breakdown of the course fees so I can see if it fits my budget.
You can visit our website proofreadanywhere.com to view all our courses along with their pricing and details. 🙂
I loved your tips on speeding up proofreading!
thanks your sharing
The point about dense hearings vs cleaner transcripts really stood out to me. People often compare output numbers without considering how much formatting, terminology, and speaker overlap can completely change the workload.
What I appreciate here is the focus on systems instead of “natural ability.” Breaking down the difference between straightforward transcription and more technical material makes the productivity discussion feel much more realistic.