I don’t get the complaints about bad writing coming from shoppers. Can someone please explain it? I’m not talking about taking time to contact people for clarification. I’m talking about changing reports so they are acceptable when you turn them in. What other than grammar, usage, spelling, etc. (and the time it takes to get clarification from writers) is problematic for a proofreader? I understand you aren’t getting prose written by a professional writer. But how is it so terrible that so many people complain about proofreading?

the ladie at register for sure noe did ask and say. what want i drink. he told me 4 . thank you

Do you have any idea what that meant? I ran into a similar writing style a lot. You ask what other than grammar, usage, spelling, and time spent getting clarification from the shopper was problematic? Isn't that enough? What I needed was to find out if the cashier offered them chips and a cookie at the register and if they were automatically given a receipt (that was in the guidelines) and what do you suppose "he told me 4" meant? Since the shopper had indicated the person at the register was a female, was there a second person that was male present or was that a typo? Who said thank you, the cashier or the shopper?

I wish I had some copies of reports I had edited to show you exactly how bad it was sometimes, but it would be proprietary anyway.

Why would companies keep shoppers that write a report like this?

I have no idea but it gave me a headache. It was ACL and I was on the bottom rung of editors so I got the worst reports to edit. They have rating tiers internally and I never got to edit gold shoppers reports. I didn't last long as an editor for them. Several years went by before I became an editor for Ardent and I had forgotten how much I hated editing (just like a bad relationship, you forget some of the crap you had to go through over time). Ardent was much better because they actually screened shoppers somewhat. But, the reports were so detailed back then (2007ish?) that I still had to request info from shoppers, and there were shoppers in rural areas that were horrible writers that somehow got it because there was nobody else in their area to do the shops!

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2017 03:31PM by JASFLALMT.

Thank you JASFLALMT.
Let me see if I have this right. You start with terrible writing that forces you to contact shoppers multiple times for clarification. You get paid by the report. Because shoppers write so terribly and don’t reply promptly, and because companies keep shoppers that write terrible reports, you cannot complete enough reports to make a full-time living from it. Is that right?
If that is right, how do proofreaders move up the ladder to both be given only reports with decent writing and enough reports to make a full-time living?

I remember Ardent back in the day. I did one shop for them after the long tedious sign up and going down to get their training. That report threw me into a "do I want to do this", the answer was no, never worked for them again, although I understand they have cleaned it up. I would give a new shopper 3 tries, if they didn't improve de-activate, seems to be a disadvantage to the company to pay Editors and keep those shoppers ..whole business needs a cleaning up. Maybe some of these Editors are just plain mad and take it out on good shoppers, just saying.....why does Intellishop come to mind...

I was amazed at the poor quality of writing in some of the reports I edited. Some of the reports that hit my desk read like bad translations from another language, with sentences twisted around so much that they barely made sense. Some reports had no capitalization. Others were written in ALL CAPS. Some writers had no understanding of the difference between similar sounding words: too, to, two; their, there, they're; whose, who's, for example.

Many shoppers depend on Spell Checker, believing they can't make a mistake if they use it. Surprise - Spell Checker will tell you when you misspell a word, but if you use the wrong word, Spell Checker won't catch that. Grammarly is another tool some shoppers mistakenly think will help make their reports perfect.

Some shopper reports are perfect and beautifully written. Most have a few mistakes. Some are absolutely horrible and take a lot of time and effort to edit. Some have to be completely rewritten.

Patience, I guess, which is something I am apparently lacking. Or they got in with the company early on and with seniority they got to do reports from better shoppers and for more pay. I also think that I was given a lot of one-hit-wonder shoppers who either quit or were deactivated by the company. Now that's not to say that every report was like that, I did a few here and there that barely needed a touchup. Had I stayed with these MSCs as an editor for a few years, I probably would have been given better pay and been able to edit reports from better shoppers.

I think some editors might have young children at home or other circumstances where they can't leave the house, so making $30 a day is better than nothing, and if they have a spouse who makes a good income it isn't necessary to do editing for a living. I was going to school and my spouse makes a great paycheck, so I was looking for something to do where I could have a little of my own pocket money. It just wasn't a good fit for me as I make so much more money as a shopper and merchandiser. With a pool of reports in a queue waiting for me to complete, it really took away from my time to do other things, like heavily bonused shops!!!!

The company that Steve worked for requires a writing sample from people before they are accepted as shoppers, and also these same shoppers had to do a number of phone shops and such before they were allowed to take any shops that required extensive writing. Those reports were probably much nicer to look at than what I saw on a regular basis. Maybe the company that pays $18k a year has a better shopper pool than what I ran into. I hope so.

Going to get in the shower, I have a very well-paying demo event to do this afternoon.

Interesting to know what goes on inside, another question would be, why do some companies like The Source and Customer Impact never over edit, with hardly any feedback...should this tell you their shoppers are of a better quality than other companies or are standards of writing just different?

The Source really doesn't require that much narrative and you are providing the information they want, and your writing style for fine dining (I assume that's what you do the most of for CI) is what they are looking for and they don't have to edit your reports much.

Jas, The Source has Business Verifications and they are difficult, but they don't use anyone, need special certification and background check. They do get back if anything isn't right. I do many different types of work, Dealerships, Health care, Assisted living, Bank Investments, etc. restaurants always, but not exclusive of others.
Doing a Coyle restaurant later in the month, and have done Hotels in the past. I just talk about the restaurants mostly......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2017 04:19PM by Irene_L.A..

@JASFLALMT wrote:

I think some editors might have young children at home or other circumstances where they can't leave the house, so making $30 a day is better than nothing, and if they have a spouse who makes a good income it isn't necessary to do editing for a living.

So much this! I have two women in mind who are financially well enough off from husbands to be SAHM's. Neither of them would ever understand the importance of earning income from my perspective. My husband doesn't earn enough to buy a house, three trucks and a classic car, a motor bike, an ATV, and afford us a kid or three while I sit home and braid my long hair and think of what wine I want to take out on the boat next Sunday. We're stressing about putting me through graduate school.

Their biggest worry is if they remembered to buy cupcakes for everyone at the LulaRoe leggings exchange. 0_o

That was meant to be funny, btw. But I definitely could see where someone might want to just do a bit of work to stay home and not stress. I have a relative in mind who could use something like that so she didn't have to try to scrape up enough income to afford daycare and bring home a pittance left over from her paycheck in hopes that the extra $20 will afford them extra puffy cereal for the month.

I was referring to Customer Impact concerning fine dining in my post "(I assume that's what you do the most of for CI)". I didn't know they did banks and investments, healthcare, assisted living, or dealerships, interesting. In my area they only offer restaurants and merchandising.

The only thing I wrote about The Source is that they don't require much narrative. I wasn't talking about fine dining as they don't offer that in my area, just a casual sit down burger place, and I knew you did more than that for TS because you talk about it in your posts and because I see all of the other types of assignments online in my area as well.

CI isn't the only MSC I was talking about, they do restaurants in my area + a couple small shops. I do mostly causal dining for them, as they lost their one fine dining I used to do. I mentioned them as far as being accepting of reports. They don't do banks (feel my words are being twisted)...since I worked for many MSC's as we all do.
Dealerships, Banks, Assisted living and others are done by various companies. I know you do mostly Merchandising, so perhaps, we're not on the same page on this one. The Source has casual restaurants in L.A., remember they are located in San Diego, so, L.A. has many more shops (I would think). I do about 4 different restaurants for them, all allowed to be done by one and are easy, compared to a Coyle casual restaurant. I have done them all....did three dealerships within two weeks recently......just saying.

Yes, I know that other companies do other kinds of shops. I was responding to your post the way it was written as you only mentioned two companies, The Source and CI.

@Irene_L.A. wrote:

Interesting to know what goes on inside, another question would be, why do some companies like The Source and Customer Impact never over edit, with hardly any feedback...should this tell you their shoppers are of a better quality than other companies or are standards of writing just different?

I was trying to make a comparison using these two (above) companies which are fair, to say intellishop or Service Check, where Editors seem to over edit and find fault with everything. Would like to hear from JayC comparing companies...would it be the last two hire difficult Editors and don't pay much.

@JASFLALMT wrote:

Yes, I know that other companies do other kinds of shops. I was responding to your post the way it was written as you only mentioned two companies, The Source and CI.

Once an Editor, always an Editor...

Yes, it would be great to get JayC's input on who he edited for, but it sounds like it's a common theme for editors across different MSCs.

I think some of it also might be the way that the guidelines are written and the report form is laid out. CI and TS both do a really good job on that. I think IS often doesn't lay out the report form in a logical order so that the narrative can be written chronologically according to the way the sentences are numbered. If the shopper has to jump back and forth from various sentences to write the narrative it becomes confusing. Also, sometimes guidelines are vague and not interpreted the same way by the shopper and the editor, or even sometimes a scheduler uploads the wrong guidelines for the wrong report, and then all hell breaks loose and we read about it in the forum from angry shoppers.

I don't do any of Customer Impact's merchandising gigs, BTW, other than once because the location was two miles from my house and I was going to that store for a different reason so it was very convenient. They generally don't pay well enough for me to bother with.

@Irene_L.A. wrote:

Why would companies keep shoppers that write a report like this?

I suspect some areas are just starved for shoppers and beggars can't be choosers. A shopper's availability, integrity, and observational skills are probably more valued than their language skills--especially if an editor works for a flat fee. What does the MSC care when the end product is acceptable to the client?

Wasn't it Marketforce who said something about their requirement for shoppers is that they are breathing?

@Irene_L.A. wrote:

I was trying to make a comparison using these two (above) companies which are fair, to say intellishop or Service Check

HA! Service Check. When I first did shops for them they had a sample narrative in the guidelines ("exemplary narrative" LOL) that had a few typos and grammatical errors. I corrected it and sent it back. They updated the guidelines with corrections the following day.

Regarding the differences between editing at different companies: I can do a report for one company and be asked for more detail, and I can do a report for another company and get glowing feedback. It depends on what is expected by the client, and, I think, it also depends on what editor you happen to get.

@JASFLALMT wrote:

the ladie at register for sure noe did ask and say. what want i drink. he told me 4 . thank you

This is a great example. I see this kind of writing on the Net, as well.

I just resubmitted a report after an editor asked for clarification. She had partially edited my report and I saw many errors (hers, not mine). I corrected a few of those and then just gave up.

What bugged me more than her adding errors to my narratives was her changing the meaning of some of what I had reported.

Do the companies actually see the original report, or just the edited version? After a good editor makes things all nice and neat the MSC may not have a clue.

@Irene_L.A. wrote:

Why would companies keep shoppers that write a report like this?

During the Spring of '15, I discovered, when I was unintentionally mailed a report I had submitted to Ardent, that the editor was altering my writing into a Dick, Jane & Spot style of brief staccato phrases. Being aware it was their prerogative to use the report in the manner they saw fit, I decided my reputation for coherence was more important than a meal and a few dollars; I requested and was given my deactivation. I quite enjoyed the food, the price was certainly right and the MSC was a joy with whom to be associated, but the report was a nightmare for me.

Shopperbob, it is true that the MSCs want the reports in a format that is short and to the point, and they are not fond of compound sentences or writing with a flair. The end client who reads the report may be upper management, but that doesn't always mean that they always have good reading comprehension. The MSC needs it to be in a format that is easily understood and can be scanned at a glance without too much thinking involved. So your coherence and the end client's coherence may be two different things.

KathyG, the MSCs I worked with did not look over the reports before distributing them to editors. They had the ability to do so but that would be a time consuming endeavor. If I had a particularly bearish and grueling edit ahead of me I would sometimes ask the managing editor to have a look but generally the reports were edited and sent on without anyone knowing how bad or good a shopper's writing ability was.

I think sometimes feedback given from editors is ridiculous. If the information is all there and the editor can understand it, even if there are a few typos or errors, by gawsh just fix the danged thing and don't nitpick!!! I have heard of editors who would return a shop to fix a few misspelled words or some missing punctuation, which is just unnecessary. If it's a question of a date or time conflict or something that isn't understood completely, that's a different story.

@shopperbob wrote:

During the Spring of '15, I discovered, when I was unintentionally mailed a report I had submitted to Ardent, that the editor was altering my writing into a Dick, Jane & Spot style of brief staccato phrases. Being aware it was their prerogative to use the report in the manner they saw fit, I decided my reputation for coherence was more important than a meal and a few dollars; I requested and was given my deactivation. I quite enjoyed the food, the price was certainly right and the MSC was a joy with whom to be associated, but the report was a nightmare for me.

This is an interesting discovery with Ardent. I am always long winded as anyone who has read my posts knows. Ardent frequently sends me feedback thanking me for all the detail I put into my reports. They tell me how wonderful it is etc. I have found (not necessarily with Ardent) that often one editor will ask to cut down on the details and then next editor for the same client will tell me I need to write more after I changed my style for the first editor. Or one editor will say do not use hair color and the next, when I leave it out , will suggest I use hair color. It would be really nice if they were consistent and if they were in fact changing the entire style of your writing to fit their style would apprise the writer of how that company would like it so that they do not have to keep re editing your reports. How else in future would you know they always want short to the point writing?

One main problem is shoppers who do not confirm their responses. When I edited, I could not approve a report unless each one was verified. (This is often complained about here, but after my stint at editing I totally get it.) OFTEN, the wrong yes/no answer was chosen. For example (in a list where all of the other questions had "correct" answers of "Yes"...), "Did you see a towel on the counter" Answer: "Yes." But it was not discussed in the narrative, and in this case, there was not supposed to be a towel out in sight. So back to the shopper for clarification: Q: Where did you see a towel? A: Oh, I didn't see any towels. So that answer had to be changed before sending it through.

Another question: "Was there any debris or insects in the dining area?" A: "Yes." Since there were no details in the narrative... back to the shopper to clarify. The resubmission said something like "There was any debris or insects in the dining area." Still unclear, so back to the shopper, who ultimately comprehended the meaning of the question and said: Actually, no, there was no debris or insects.

The editor has zero power over poorly worded questions and guidelines. If I sent a numbered list of five items to correct, maybe two would be addressed. I had to follow up until all of the inconsistencies were gone- hopefully without introducing any new ones. Each of these back and forths could easily add on 12 hours to the editing process, and if it leaked over onto a day I was scheduled off, it was still my responsibility. So many reports were just a hot mess, and the fastest solution was just to rewrite it from scratch using the shopper's information rather than trying to revise and move their sentences around to be coherent.

Why don't the MSCs just drop those bad shoppers? "We need them more than they need us." I'm more than happy to clean up someone's grammar problems, but the real problem with editing is the issue of reliable reporting. And I have to strongly question the observation skills of shoppers like in the examples above.