I've buzzed around the forums a bit, and I haven't seen anybody do one of these. Maybe I'm just missing them, but since they're the way I typically review I'm wondering if I need to change my style for this forum.

A line-by-line, for those who haven't heard the term before (at least not as I know it), is basically copying the entire story into your post, and then adding your comments into the lines in a seperate color or font. It allows you to be exhaustive and to easily show where the problems are, but it does take up a lot of space and might be disruptive if the writer and other posters aren't expecting it.

Can or should I do this in my reviews?

I think plenty of people on the site do this, or something similar. I know in my case, I only quote the lines / parts I comment on, but it's the same concept.

You can :) I've done them before. Honestly, you can critique a work however you decide to, as long as it's helpful, in my opinion. Sometimes, I point out grammar and spelling but not content, sometimes I do content but no grammar and spelling, sometimes both, and sometimes I go sentence for sentence. It's long, and hard, but it's helpful :)

You don't have to change your style of critiquing, you just have to make sure you're not flaming anyone :D There's no rules on how you decide to critique. (Or at least, I don't think so)

I believe a more useful review is to select 3-5 areas of potential improvement, and discuss those, with examples from the author's piece.

An exhaustive, line-by-line review can be overwhelming for both the reviewer and the author. I believe a focused review has a better chance of resulting in real improvement without wasting either person's time.

The full markup approach makes more sense when grading student papers, but even there I believe a summary that homes in on the key points is most beneficial.

The exhaustive approach also risks losing sight of the forest while pruning the trees.

Heh, I know I'm guilty of that. But then, I've made it my place in life to be a tree-pruner. Others can watch for forests. Though I'll keep your point in mind.

I've done line by line, but only when my focus is on grammar, and only when the grammar is in need of intensive help.


<-- Also a grammar Nazi

Even there, I usually try to find what errors are repeated, and focus on those, with a comment that there are more.

It's great to critque things differently. It gives the writer many different types of feedback! The more feedback, the better. =)

I've seen a lot of reviews on this forum that are very simular, it is also the way I review a work.

I review that way actually. I find it is better for the writer of the piece to understand what we are going on about. I do it for poetry as it is easier to point out exactly where problems arise.

line-by-line reviewing works great, but can be a hassle in reviewing longer pieces as well. Depends on how much time a person has to review though.

personally, I find that more global advice is better than a line-by-line nitpicking crititque. Thats just me. I feel that reviewing is like being a travel agent... you dont tell the person where to go, just how to get where you think he wants to go. I find that simple advice, relating to the story or poem in general, is more helpful.
I review by asking a question about the content, pointing to a problem, and by complimenting some aspect of the work... it seems to help.
cheers

Kk. Thanks all for your feedback. I think I'll go with my line-by-line for short pieces or pieces in need of heavy copyediting, and a more general approach for others. Keeping any of the author's wishes in mind, of course.