A previous study evaluated the quality and productivity of machine translation post-editing (MTPE) for published science-technology articles classified under Reiss’ informative text type. MTPE accuracy was compared against human translation (HT) accuracy in that study. This study succeeds that study with a broader scope of analysis, including a weekly newspaper article presented in a magazine format as another variant of informational text. This broadened effort seeks to identify differences in machine translation (MT) error types across different text types while also providing further supporting evidence for the major findings of the previous study. Based on those identified differences, this study explores how post-editors respond to these errors. Similar to the results of the previous study, the HT group in this study spent approximately 50% more time than the MTPE group, and the average post-editing accuracy of the MTPE group was significantly lower (36.7%) compared to the HT group (84.6%). However, in contrast to the findings of the previous research, where all corrections attempted by post-editors were considered appropriate, some corrections made by post-editors in this study were deemed inappropriate and thus classified as accuracy errors.