Non-Fiction
Viewing comments for Chapter 5 "Reviewing Reviewed"All non-fiction
23 total reviews
Comment from MissMerri
This is an all-encompassing write about reviewing. I don't think you missed a thing. I thought it was incredibly well-written and full of common sense, logically presented and easy to understand. I saw nothing to suggest or change. My only question is why do you not review very much? Is it just me you avoid, or do you just not have time for reviewing? After reading this great outline of how to do it well, I wished I could be someone who benefits from your skill. ;") I agreed with every point in this piece and can easily understand why it won the blue ribbon. Well done Mikey. MM
  |
This is an all-encompassing write about reviewing. I don't think you missed a thing. I thought it was incredibly well-written and full of common sense, logically presented and easy to understand. I saw nothing to suggest or change. My only question is why do you not review very much? Is it just me you avoid, or do you just not have time for reviewing? After reading this great outline of how to do it well, I wished I could be someone who benefits from your skill. ;") I agreed with every point in this piece and can easily understand why it won the blue ribbon. Well done Mikey. MM
Comment Written 20-Aug-2018
Comment from karenina
Congratulations on your win with this op-ed analysis of the conundrum of reviewing, the rating system, the fluff vs. The helpful crotique, et al. I notced this very post had 117 "views" and 22 "reviews"--which highlights the problem of longer pieces being glanced at and passed by in order to read the next "5-7-5" poem, grab the money and dash. I actually spent a good amount of time opining on this post while reviewing another of your pieces so I will refrain from being redundant. Just wanted to say congrats and acknowledge both your identification of the issues and your suggestions to improve the system were intelligently laid out.
Karenina
 |
Congratulations on your win with this op-ed analysis of the conundrum of reviewing, the rating system, the fluff vs. The helpful crotique, et al. I notced this very post had 117 "views" and 22 "reviews"--which highlights the problem of longer pieces being glanced at and passed by in order to read the next "5-7-5" poem, grab the money and dash. I actually spent a good amount of time opining on this post while reviewing another of your pieces so I will refrain from being redundant. Just wanted to say congrats and acknowledge both your identification of the issues and your suggestions to improve the system were intelligently laid out.
Karenina
Comment Written 03-Aug-2018
Comment from Shanbreen
Michael you have a well thought-out and well-written essay. However, I do believe that you have missed out on one very important concept -- human behavior, which often acts in contradiction to what is the right way to act. I take back: I think you have given this consideration in your essay, but you continue with the utopian view of hoping to educate people not only in how to review ( be consistent, kind, etc.) but also in the belief that people come to the site to be good reviewers.
As it stands, you may be quite correct in stating that the system works fine. But the question here is, can it be better? In my opinion, subjectivity in any assessment process is going to be a problem because as we all know, there are different people, with different ideas and different reasons about what is appealing to them (of course, the mechanics can be or are pretty objective). While subjectivity cannot be completely eliminated, one can try to reduce its affects by the provision of specific guidelines (as I have talked about in my own essay).
Then there are external factors that effect the reviewing process, such as reviewing friends, depending on others' votes to write yours, etc. These can be looked into without any serious affect (I believe) on "taking the fun away" from people on this site.
I understand that the model is working well at the present, but it obviously has problems by the very fact that this is selected as a contest topic. Of course, there are some very good reviewers who take their job very seriously -- the operating word being that it's a job. But unlike other jobs this one has no accountability for lousy work and therein comes the necessity for guidelines.
These are just some thoughts. I hope I've not offended you in any way. I am happy to be on the site, although I never take the reviews too seriously. I have published several times with a publication being worked upon at the present. My being on this site is for two reasons: to evaluate the interest in my contents (topics) and occasionally getting a good reviewer like Patty Adams for grammar and punctuation.
Review the reviews contest for me was to get some member chips to get more of my work reviewed. That's all.
|
Michael you have a well thought-out and well-written essay. However, I do believe that you have missed out on one very important concept -- human behavior, which often acts in contradiction to what is the right way to act. I take back: I think you have given this consideration in your essay, but you continue with the utopian view of hoping to educate people not only in how to review ( be consistent, kind, etc.) but also in the belief that people come to the site to be good reviewers.
As it stands, you may be quite correct in stating that the system works fine. But the question here is, can it be better? In my opinion, subjectivity in any assessment process is going to be a problem because as we all know, there are different people, with different ideas and different reasons about what is appealing to them (of course, the mechanics can be or are pretty objective). While subjectivity cannot be completely eliminated, one can try to reduce its affects by the provision of specific guidelines (as I have talked about in my own essay).
Then there are external factors that effect the reviewing process, such as reviewing friends, depending on others' votes to write yours, etc. These can be looked into without any serious affect (I believe) on "taking the fun away" from people on this site.
I understand that the model is working well at the present, but it obviously has problems by the very fact that this is selected as a contest topic. Of course, there are some very good reviewers who take their job very seriously -- the operating word being that it's a job. But unlike other jobs this one has no accountability for lousy work and therein comes the necessity for guidelines.
These are just some thoughts. I hope I've not offended you in any way. I am happy to be on the site, although I never take the reviews too seriously. I have published several times with a publication being worked upon at the present. My being on this site is for two reasons: to evaluate the interest in my contents (topics) and occasionally getting a good reviewer like Patty Adams for grammar and punctuation.
Review the reviews contest for me was to get some member chips to get more of my work reviewed. That's all.
Comment Written 31-Jul-2018
Comment from WalkerMan
Having read all the other posts in this batch as well as read comments on this topic ever since I got here, plus experienced some of the same odd reviewing versus rating behavior that you mention, I conclude that you here are covering the subject most sensibly -- hence, the Six.
Where I went to school, even on a science or math test, if you filled in a blank with a word, you'd lose points if it were not spelled correctly; and if you wrote a sentence, the grammar and punctuation had to be correct too. I've actually been helping others with their writing since my senior year of high school, when the English teacher required an essay be written spontaneously every Friday. The other kids would come to me for help.
I have been working with computers since the mainframe days of punch-cards; but when (because of where I worked) I had access to a personal workstation and email, I quickly became appalled at the sloppiness of writing by my peers with doctorates who hit "send" without bothering to proofread even messages and reports that would go to upper management. I worked an offset day, so my wise manager came to me after hours to proofread his reports before he'd send them up the line. I worked there for nineteen years, and got raises like everyone else, but he was the only manager who ever promoted me to higher rank.
The strictest (but fair) reviewer on this site is I. J. Fox (not presently active). Here are his reviewing criteria, stated clearly in his Profile:
1 Star - very poorly done
2 Stars - perhaps a good idea, but has not been edited or developed enough yet
3 Stars - this is good and done well, but is nothing out of the ordinary
4 Stars - this is a very well done work, structured, paced, and phrased well, but does not stand out in a substantial way
5 Stars - there are few to zero flaws here; it is structured, paced, and phrased exceptionally well, and definitely stands out
6 Stars - this is essentially perfectly structured and paced; the subject matter itself stands out, the quality stands out, and the level of imaginative development is complete; it also actually reached my soul at some level
As you can see, his Four is roughly what most reviewers call a Five; his Five is equivalent to what most reviewers would consider a Six; and his Six feels like a Ten if he ever gives you one. In EVERY case, he explains in detail exactly why he gave the rating that he did.
That is TRUE constructive criticism that can help ANY writer willing to face it, but he told me it scared a lot of the writers he reviewed.
If we look at the FS rating system as it is, and factor in your observation that we need something between Four and Five that will not be taken as an insult by the more sensitive among us, perhaps Five should be like I. J. Fox's Four, Six should be like his Five, and his Six should become our Seven. Under that system, reviewers should EITHER be allowed to award up to TEN Sixes per week OR be allowed to carry forward any unused Sixes into subsequent weeks. The new Sevens could be limited to three per week with carryover of any unused.
Add in your four rules of etiquette in reviewing, plus a fifth below, and I think most members here would be happy.
#5 Write the review BEFORE choosing the rating. Reread the review to be certain it does not contain mistakes of its own. THEN choose the star rating and RECHECK IT before clicking "SAVE" (as that will minimize accidental mismatches between reviews and accompanying ratings that some reviewers are too embarrassed to admit to having missed).
Beyond all that, perhaps reviewers ought to be rated on THIS scale:
+2 (or A) = Outstanding, nominated as a Reviewer of the Month
+1 (or B) = Helpful comments, including explanations when useful
0 (or C) = Possibly encouraging, but nothing more
-1 (or D) = Did not show understanding of the post or gave erroneous advice
-2 (or E) = Showed evident negative bias toward the post, topic, or author
Finally, perhaps there ought to be an additional Base Certificate, costing a bit more, to allow FIVE days dwell time for prose posts over 2,500 words, plus twelve points and initial recompense of 72 cents (or more). That would encourage more reviews of longer prose works.
Thank you for YOUR post that prompted me to add these thoughts. -- Mike
|
Having read all the other posts in this batch as well as read comments on this topic ever since I got here, plus experienced some of the same odd reviewing versus rating behavior that you mention, I conclude that you here are covering the subject most sensibly -- hence, the Six.
Where I went to school, even on a science or math test, if you filled in a blank with a word, you'd lose points if it were not spelled correctly; and if you wrote a sentence, the grammar and punctuation had to be correct too. I've actually been helping others with their writing since my senior year of high school, when the English teacher required an essay be written spontaneously every Friday. The other kids would come to me for help.
I have been working with computers since the mainframe days of punch-cards; but when (because of where I worked) I had access to a personal workstation and email, I quickly became appalled at the sloppiness of writing by my peers with doctorates who hit "send" without bothering to proofread even messages and reports that would go to upper management. I worked an offset day, so my wise manager came to me after hours to proofread his reports before he'd send them up the line. I worked there for nineteen years, and got raises like everyone else, but he was the only manager who ever promoted me to higher rank.
The strictest (but fair) reviewer on this site is I. J. Fox (not presently active). Here are his reviewing criteria, stated clearly in his Profile:
1 Star - very poorly done
2 Stars - perhaps a good idea, but has not been edited or developed enough yet
3 Stars - this is good and done well, but is nothing out of the ordinary
4 Stars - this is a very well done work, structured, paced, and phrased well, but does not stand out in a substantial way
5 Stars - there are few to zero flaws here; it is structured, paced, and phrased exceptionally well, and definitely stands out
6 Stars - this is essentially perfectly structured and paced; the subject matter itself stands out, the quality stands out, and the level of imaginative development is complete; it also actually reached my soul at some level
As you can see, his Four is roughly what most reviewers call a Five; his Five is equivalent to what most reviewers would consider a Six; and his Six feels like a Ten if he ever gives you one. In EVERY case, he explains in detail exactly why he gave the rating that he did.
That is TRUE constructive criticism that can help ANY writer willing to face it, but he told me it scared a lot of the writers he reviewed.
If we look at the FS rating system as it is, and factor in your observation that we need something between Four and Five that will not be taken as an insult by the more sensitive among us, perhaps Five should be like I. J. Fox's Four, Six should be like his Five, and his Six should become our Seven. Under that system, reviewers should EITHER be allowed to award up to TEN Sixes per week OR be allowed to carry forward any unused Sixes into subsequent weeks. The new Sevens could be limited to three per week with carryover of any unused.
Add in your four rules of etiquette in reviewing, plus a fifth below, and I think most members here would be happy.
#5 Write the review BEFORE choosing the rating. Reread the review to be certain it does not contain mistakes of its own. THEN choose the star rating and RECHECK IT before clicking "SAVE" (as that will minimize accidental mismatches between reviews and accompanying ratings that some reviewers are too embarrassed to admit to having missed).
Beyond all that, perhaps reviewers ought to be rated on THIS scale:
+2 (or A) = Outstanding, nominated as a Reviewer of the Month
+1 (or B) = Helpful comments, including explanations when useful
0 (or C) = Possibly encouraging, but nothing more
-1 (or D) = Did not show understanding of the post or gave erroneous advice
-2 (or E) = Showed evident negative bias toward the post, topic, or author
Finally, perhaps there ought to be an additional Base Certificate, costing a bit more, to allow FIVE days dwell time for prose posts over 2,500 words, plus twelve points and initial recompense of 72 cents (or more). That would encourage more reviews of longer prose works.
Thank you for YOUR post that prompted me to add these thoughts. -- Mike
Comment Written 30-Jul-2018
Comment from robyn corum
Mikey,
I really agree, of course, with so much of what you're saying --if not everything! I try to offer ratings based on each writers' abilities. Some get a five-star review because I earnestly believe it's the best they are capable of.
I think this series (?) of yours is a great way to keep this issue in front of the masses. I also think you'll probably take the prize in this contest, as well. This is a thorough piece that explains, in depth, what we all deal with, and I can't imagine anyone saying it better. *smile*
I don't know if I told you, but i came up with a fab solution to the issues being raised in the Reviewing Forum, on how to 'fix' the problems. *smile* (Mainly, because I'm a genius.) I shared them with Gareth and then did nothing further. hahaha! I think I'm the only one who thinks they're marvelous! hahahahaha
A small note, if I may?
1.) Is that "the game's" fault? OR, is it the game (players')?
Otherwise, I thought you handled this topic beautifully. I always enjoy reading you. Thanks !!
|
Mikey,
I really agree, of course, with so much of what you're saying --if not everything! I try to offer ratings based on each writers' abilities. Some get a five-star review because I earnestly believe it's the best they are capable of.
I think this series (?) of yours is a great way to keep this issue in front of the masses. I also think you'll probably take the prize in this contest, as well. This is a thorough piece that explains, in depth, what we all deal with, and I can't imagine anyone saying it better. *smile*
I don't know if I told you, but i came up with a fab solution to the issues being raised in the Reviewing Forum, on how to 'fix' the problems. *smile* (Mainly, because I'm a genius.) I shared them with Gareth and then did nothing further. hahaha! I think I'm the only one who thinks they're marvelous! hahahahaha
A small note, if I may?
1.) Is that "the game's" fault? OR, is it the game (players')?
Otherwise, I thought you handled this topic beautifully. I always enjoy reading you. Thanks !!
Comment Written 26-Jul-2018
Comment from PoemsOfDD
Michael, what can I say but.... I agree with you. You could have gone on, I wish you did but perhaps another contest. On top of all that, another pet peeve is when I give constructive comments and suggestions and the author finds it helpful and edits their work because of it ...and I still do not receive a review nomination. One has to review a hundred writes a day in the hope of a bite of nomination. I give up! I could go on now but I won't. I'll just shower you with a six and be on my way. ~DD
|
Michael, what can I say but.... I agree with you. You could have gone on, I wish you did but perhaps another contest. On top of all that, another pet peeve is when I give constructive comments and suggestions and the author finds it helpful and edits their work because of it ...and I still do not receive a review nomination. One has to review a hundred writes a day in the hope of a bite of nomination. I give up! I could go on now but I won't. I'll just shower you with a six and be on my way. ~DD
Comment Written 26-Jul-2018
Comment from barkingdog
Well written and so very sensible as you have always been in your essays.
Fairness is such an important part of reviewing along with consideration for the writer, his talent and purpose for joining FS.
It would be nice if everyone had to read your entry when joining the site. It might give them some perspective on what to expect and as to where they fit in with their skill level and innate talent. But alas, there is no initial guidelines and we all flounder and complain in the beginning or at least until we realize what to expect and where we belong in the scheme of things --basically the pecking order or talent.
I agree with your, ahem, 'scientific study': ' It's interesting to note, the truly exceptional talents here happen to also be the most courteous and helpful members. Invariably, the nasty, rude, arrogant jackasses are ALSO untalented.'
Take care. Stay brilliant.
:) e
|
Well written and so very sensible as you have always been in your essays.
Fairness is such an important part of reviewing along with consideration for the writer, his talent and purpose for joining FS.
It would be nice if everyone had to read your entry when joining the site. It might give them some perspective on what to expect and as to where they fit in with their skill level and innate talent. But alas, there is no initial guidelines and we all flounder and complain in the beginning or at least until we realize what to expect and where we belong in the scheme of things --basically the pecking order or talent.
I agree with your, ahem, 'scientific study': ' It's interesting to note, the truly exceptional talents here happen to also be the most courteous and helpful members. Invariably, the nasty, rude, arrogant jackasses are ALSO untalented.'
Take care. Stay brilliant.
:) e
Comment Written 25-Jul-2018
Comment from Therese103
This is a great guide on reviewing. I agree, it does rub you the wrong way when your work is nearly always given an ''Excellent'' rating. Really? We are not all Shakespeares or Longfellows by any means!
I wish you well in the contest.
|
This is a great guide on reviewing. I agree, it does rub you the wrong way when your work is nearly always given an ''Excellent'' rating. Really? We are not all Shakespeares or Longfellows by any means!
I wish you well in the contest.
Comment Written 24-Jul-2018
Comment from Susanjohn
Wonderful! and I'm giving you six stars!!... and here's why..
Mikey, you say it like it is and I appreciate that.
You are so correct. Reviewing can be tricky. I personally SOOOOO appreciate those that take the time to review and offer suggestions. Heck! That is how you learn...I don't know what I'd be writing without some of the most talented people that have encouraged me here on FS. I also have had a member explain to me the importance of a good review. A well constructed and helpful review takes time and knowledge. ( I would not be able to catch a grammar/spelling mistake to save my life lol) BUT, I can offer what someone's poetry means to me or thoughts and emotions. I have read works here that just stick with me! truly! The talent here is just amazing!!! and those stand-out poets are some of my favorite FS people.
SOOOO thank you for the reminder! I could do a better job on formats and such now. ( except for you and Dean..you guys write a love poem and I am MUSH) I can't review form...just soak in the deliciousness. That's all I'll be able to do with those.
Great write, good suggestions and thoughts to ponder.
|
Wonderful! and I'm giving you six stars!!... and here's why..
Mikey, you say it like it is and I appreciate that.
You are so correct. Reviewing can be tricky. I personally SOOOOO appreciate those that take the time to review and offer suggestions. Heck! That is how you learn...I don't know what I'd be writing without some of the most talented people that have encouraged me here on FS. I also have had a member explain to me the importance of a good review. A well constructed and helpful review takes time and knowledge. ( I would not be able to catch a grammar/spelling mistake to save my life lol) BUT, I can offer what someone's poetry means to me or thoughts and emotions. I have read works here that just stick with me! truly! The talent here is just amazing!!! and those stand-out poets are some of my favorite FS people.
SOOOO thank you for the reminder! I could do a better job on formats and such now. ( except for you and Dean..you guys write a love poem and I am MUSH) I can't review form...just soak in the deliciousness. That's all I'll be able to do with those.
Great write, good suggestions and thoughts to ponder.
Comment Written 23-Jul-2018
Comment from nordicgirl
You know, Michael, I don't know a darn thing about reviewing. I just KNOW it's a privilege to read incredible writing. I don't understand the pettiness here. Everyone shod be thrilled to have a place to share their work. Well, you sound sensible as always. People would be wise to follow your lead. That's my advice. NG
|
You know, Michael, I don't know a darn thing about reviewing. I just KNOW it's a privilege to read incredible writing. I don't understand the pettiness here. Everyone shod be thrilled to have a place to share their work. Well, you sound sensible as always. People would be wise to follow your lead. That's my advice. NG
Comment Written 23-Jul-2018
