New review team page

[Scott]

Yes, nobody seems to have complained about the changes making it too hard to get a review. From the testing I did, it looks like there are still multiple reviews available to all reviewers, even new 'level 0' reviewers.

I suspect that some of the issues we have had in the past with trying to balance the availability of reviews with the demand to join the review team have already been alleviated with a moderate increase in the proofreading and quality standards for reviews, thanks to the editors.

-- 17 Mar 2015 12:19 pm --

One thing I have been considering is adding the option for reviewers to earn some temporary 'bonus points' to their score, maybe in the range of 5-20 points for doing things like completing their profile on the forums (i.e. uploading a custom avatar, signature, etc.).

Another change I made is that when a new review is published a 'latest review' link is added below the signature of that person. I'm hoping this will help reviewers who are quality participants in the community get higher popularity scores--under the thought that other members will think to themselves this person seems cool, I'd like to read their latest review for which I see a link right here.

[bluemel4]

Scott I recently had a review published and I noticed that I do not have a link to my "latest review" below my avatar or in my signature section.

[Scott]

@bluemel4 I have just now retroactively added the link to the latest published review to all the review team members. A member's link should automatically update whenever a new review is published by that member. Thank you!

[bluemel4]

Scott you are the best!

[ALynnPowers]

I think this might be my favorite addition to the site!

[Scott]

Scott you are the best!

Thanks for noticing!

I think this might be my favorite addition to the site!

Well, since you have over seven thousand posts it should be.

[PashaRu]

Very nice addition. I've used it already!

[Janiac02]

Another change I made is that when a new review is published a 'latest review' link is added below the signature of that person. I'm hoping this will help reviewers who are quality participants in the community get higher popularity scores--under the thought that other members will think to themselves this person seems cool, I'd like to read their latest review for which I see a link right here.

I really love that idea! I appreciate all of the help I can get

[Scott]

Indeed. I think the signature reference to the review can really help members who use it right to increase their score. Basically, if one makes really helpful, insightful and nice posts on the forums, other members will think 'I like this person and this person's opinion; let me read that review that's mention right there in the signature by this person'.

[Ryan]

Great addition, @Scott

I have a few questions regarding editorial work.

1) I've noticed that one particular reviewer's reviews have been very steadily improving so that their scores have moved from a 4 to, most recently, a 6 (I know this because I've rated nearly all of them). This is so great to see and I wondered whether, after discussing the monthly awards some time ago, there might be one for most improved reviewer? I know there has been some issues recently regarding the progress of members going unnoticed and this would offer a solution to that problem.

2) In reviews there might be spelling/grammatical/punctuation errors but the review generally might be very insightful and interesting, so I don't feel comfortable marking it down when its content is otherwise great. Is there any way to separate the score from a reviewer's decision to have it published or not? For example, a drop-down menu from which to choose "to be published" or "not to be published" and if the latter is selected the editor can explain why while also providing feedback in the current way. This means that reviews are given the best rating possible on condition that they make certain changes and once these changes are made they can re-submit and the review can be published with that rating. Of course, this might need to be tweaked, but I just wondered what everybody thought. I know this relates to a much smaller number of people.

[Scott]

I think I want to change the reviewer scoring formula to make more recent reviews count more towards the editorial analysis score than older reviews. That way members will not have their score dragged down by a few low scored reviews done at first when they are still getting used to everything, once they do a couple well-rated reviews.

I am not fond of the idea of having reviews rewritten. If the guidelines were not followed, I would like someone else to do the review following the guidelines the whole time. A big part of the issue here is that I am not counting on the editor process to find and correct every little thing to make it a great review, but rather I want the editor process to simply double-check that the review was done according to the standards. I want to make sure we are delivering a high quality service to the authors and publishers who gives us free copies of their books for review.

[Ryan]

I think I want to change the reviewer scoring formula to make more recent reviews count more towards the editorial analysis score than older reviews. That way members will not have their score dragged down by a few low scored reviews done at first when they are still getting used to everything, once they do a couple well-rated reviews.

I am not fond of the idea of having reviews rewritten. If the guidelines were not followed, I would like someone else to do the review following the guidelines the whole time. A big part of the issue here is that I am not counting on the editor process to find and correct every little thing to make it a great review, but rather I want the editor process to simply double-check that the review was done according to the standards. I want to make sure we are delivering a high quality service to the authors and publishers who gives us free copies of their books for review.

Understood, sir!

Good idea about making newer reviews have more input

[bookowlie]

I think I want to change the reviewer scoring formula to make more recent reviews count more towards the editorial analysis score than older reviews. That way members will not have their score dragged down by a few low scored reviews done at first when they are still getting used to everything, once they do a couple well-rated reviews.

I am not fond of the idea of having reviews rewritten. If the guidelines were not followed, I would like someone else to do the review following the guidelines the whole time. A big part of the issue here is that I am not counting on the editor process to find and correct every little thing to make it a great review, but rather I want the editor process to simply double-check that the review was done according to the standards. I want to make sure we are delivering a high quality service to the authors and publishers who gives us free copies of their books for review.

Here's my 2 cents about these issues:

I have mixed feelings about the scoring formula possibly changed to give more weight to more recent reviews. I agree with the reasons you posted. However, there are some books that are just a bit difficult to summarize and review, no matter how experienced the reviewer is. In these cases, the reviewer's overall score would be disproportionately lowered under the proposed scoring formula.

As for the proposal of having reviews rewritten, I agree with Scott. I am not a fan. I don't think the editors should have to basically suggest rewrites of a review in order for the review to become acceptable for publication. It's true that editors do give suggestions, including grammatical changes, rewording confusing sections, etc. However, the ultimate goal is for the authors to be given high quality reviews.

-- 22 Mar 2015, 20:56 --

I hope my observations don't come across as overly harsh.

[Ryan]

Just forget I mentioned it. It was stupid of me

[Janiac02]

I may be exceptionally dense, but is there any way to see what is affecting our editorial analysis score? I completely understand the logic behind not allowing rewrites, but I feel it would be helpful to know what I can improve in my subsequent reviews. I fear I am repeating the same mistakes over and over, and my score keeps gradually decreasing.