Am I the only one who finds this exceptionally annoying. I think it should be one of the review rules that you arn't allowed to quote the ENTIRE say 7000 word passage and edit on like four sentences with grammar mistakes. I see why sometimes it can be easier, not everyone has the time to sit and seperatly quote each little thing that is wrong in a passage, but if you don't have the time to review properly... why review at all? If somthing is wrong, or there is a serious grammar mistake you scroll down and quote it, highlight it with colour and then explain what could be done better. By quoting the entire thing you are not only take up room and I have seen that you don't always explain what the error is correctly because you are sub-consiously worried about your reviews influence on the stories flow and confusing the writer. Why is this done? It's just annoying...
We've had discussions about this before. I agree with you, I think it's far better to write a review in your own words, illustrated with excerpts of specific sentences or phrases. However, it's a matter of reviewing style. I do recommend for the "one block quoters" that if there are long stretches they have no comment on, that they delete those from the block quote and replace them with a single line of ellipses like so: I don't think it should be a rule, but I would strongly urge people to show reasonable restraint in quoting the original material.
I will quote paragraphs/sentences at a time, if they contain errors, with the errors highlighted, and corrections and details beneath (outside of the quotation). Would that be acceptable?
I also agree, but... I would hate for any newbies to be discouraged from doing reviews. I realize that for the more seasoned individuals, the features offered to make reviews easy to read may be old hat, but I can most definitely remember when it was Ancient Greek to me. New blood is the life blood of the site, no?
To be fair, your reviewing techniques are of a much higher standard than most newcomers to the forum.
Perhaps we could have a mentor program? We have Reviewers, we have Moderators, we even have Super Moderators. Perhaps we could have go-to people on the site to show the tricks of the trade in writing and formatting acceptable reviews. There has been a large influx of new members as of late, I think it might be a good idea. I volunteer! *raises hand*
Not absolutely. Some reviewers, particularly when dwaling with a piece fully laden with SPAG errors, prefer to point out every error they see. My belief is that doing so overwhelms the writer with details, so he or she is unlikely to learn from it. I'd rather pick out the 3-5 most glaring errors, particularly repeated errors, and discussing them in terms of why they are a problem. That's about the number of details most people can hold in their conscious minds at one time, so they are more likely to be able to retain the principles. But that is my personal approach. It's not necessarily the only one or the best one in all cases.
Ach, Cogito. Now I'm not sure about line-by-lines! I like them because they show the writer what the reader was thinking as s/he went. But if the general consensus seems to be people don't appreciate them, why should I spent 30-60 minutes reading a piece, seeking errors to help people improve? What's embarrassing is I've spent most of my reviews doing line-by-lines. Are there any recommendations against using the line-by-line in the Why Review? document? Perhaps there should be. I'll learn to write "block" reviews.
I think line-by-line reviews have their place as well. I appreciate it if someone takes the time to do a thorough review like that. And when it comes to myself, I love it when people point out all my SPAG mistakes. I hate to have them in my text, and I adore people who can see them clearer than I can. But that could be just me. I've noticed that many people don't actually like it when people concentrate on SPAG too much. To me, grammar and spelling are the spine of the story, and I feel awfully grateful every time someone points out something I haven't seen myself. And I do try to remember all the corrections. But like I said, this could be just me. Other than that, I agree that it's unnecessary to quote the entire text unless you have something to say about every little detail. But this doesn't really bother me. I'm quite tolerant when it comes to reviews, and people learn all the time. Everyone has their own style of reviewing, and I find that interesting.
Line by line can work well in shorter pieces, particularly poetry. But maybe I'll update the Why Review to direct people to the Reviewing forum for ideas on how to review.
I'm sorry to disagree with others here, but there is no good reason to micromanage reviewing methods. When you turn "reviewing" into a bureaucratic process, you remove some of its greatest educational benefits...ie - the value to the reviewer of learning to look at writing with an analytical eye. Personally, I like line-by-line and I also have no problem selecting just a few passages for review. But, if the process is going to be rigidly controlled by a bunch of style rules, then I lose my enthusiasm; especially if I subsequently come under criticism for not following some arbitrary style rule. And, learning to review (which already requires some measure of self confidence) will become a daunting task for new people. As Wreybies said..."New blood is the life blood of the site, no?" Also, if you don't like someone's reviewing style, then don't read it! That's pretty easy.
On this matter, I have to agree with NaCl. I think it would be unwise to "micromanage reviewing methods". When it comes to people who actually try to give decent reviews... it's a bit too much to expect them to do it by following some kind of rules. People learn through the process. It would take fun out of reviewing, too, in my opinion.
Everyone has a different style. I don't always use the same style either, although the one I described is what I feel is most helpful. But I agree with Dean and Rebekkamaria that micromanaging or dictating the form of reviews would be a bad idea. As long as there is substance to the review, and it is delivered respectfully, the format it's delivered in is and should be mostly up to the reviewer.
Well...this thread certainly took a U-turn. It started "bad passage quoting!" and ended with "it's up to the reviewer"
Not that much of a turn, really. I said from the start that I prefer a different style, but that that I was not in favor of forcing everyone to the same guidelines.
I quote the whole thing and go through it because I find it a lot easier. I could sit there and quote each part separately but i find the way I do it much easier. If I'm going to spend 40 minutes reviewing someones work I should be able to do it however the hell I like and they'll be damned grateful thank you very much.
Personally, when I post something for review I hope somebody will take the time to do a line by line because I want specific pointers on how to make my work better. Even if the reviewer is a complete jerk and just doing it for faultfinding it's still more helpful than one of the generic "I really liked your characters. You need to show more and tell less. On the whole I thought it was really good, but still needs some work" reviews.
Thats what I like to do and seee done to my work. Honestly the best and ONLY real review I've had that has been even remotely line by line was from Libby-Ann and she helped me a lot with info-dumps that I was doing and grammar and spelling errors that slip by me because my spelling is fairly attrocious. Even though Libby reviews in a block it was still helpful. I feel like a bit of an ogre by shouting about block reviews. I still find it horribly annoying and just takes up far to much space, but I won't shout about it anymore.
I don't see any reason to keep quiet about it, though. If there is something you find annoying about a reviewing style, I think it is better to air it so everyone can think it over. After all, if a reviewer finds it annoying, You can be sure some of the writers will react similarly. We're hearing both sides of it here, including some writers who like the full line-by-line approach in reviews of their work. It's all useful information.
Yes, some readers apparently do find the line-by-line annoying. I did a little asking around. Besides taking up space, the line-by-line is "ugly". When I was doing line-by-lines, I thought I was being helpful. I tried doing one of those cute paragraph-type reviews and it broke my heart. I'd make a review post about the pros and cons of the line-by-line, but I think that'd just make more trouble. I feel like I've stirred up a bit of trouble of my own at these forums. Really, it's just no fun to review anymore if I have to worry about offending/bothering another writer because they don't like a certain style of review. And now I have to wonder if the people I'm critiquing are even reading the line-by-lines. Why in the holy heck should I even bother? Ah, well, life pans out that way sometimes, doesn't it? The rest of the forums are quite active and pleasant to be in. Every writer's forum I've been to I've had to leave because of problems with critiquing. You think I'd learn that critiquing in a semi-public group just doesn't work. I'm not quite sure why. It has something to do with group dynamics, I'm sure.
