Many learners have a hard time getting someone to discuss and review their creations. This can be disheartening.
There aren't enough people reviewing/critiquing in the creations-discussions channel.
By creating a system where learners can trade reviews/critiques with others who are around their level, we increase the pool of "reviewers" to match demand.
- Discord channel under Showcase:
#review-trade-matching - This will not replace
#creations-showcasenor#creations-discussions - Learners can post an "LTT" (Looking To Trade) using the template below.
- A learner who wants to respond to a post must create a thread and initiate communication in said thread.
- Generally speaking, trades should be between two learners who have recently completed the same project.
- Learners are encouraged to stay in regular communication inside the thread until the reviews are complete.
- We will provide a review template to help facilitate a positive experience for both parties (also below).
- Results of the reviews should be posted in the thread. This will alleviate moderation concerns.
- Ghosting a review trade will result in zaps.
- Abandoning a threaded review request (not responding to a response) will result in a zap.
- The only new posts in this channel must follow the posting template (no chatting). Responses must be threaded.
- Posts that are stale for a week will be deleted.
- Posts can be "bumped" (original post deleted and a new one reposted) after becoming stale for 48 hours.
- No cross-posting review requests (server rules)
- Review results should use the template provided and be posted in the thread.
- Once a partnership has been established, the thread should only be used by the partners or a moderator. Commenting in someone else's review thread is to be avoided.
- If you agree to trade reviews with someone, you are responsible to communicate effectively with them on a timely completion of review. "Review ghosting" (not providing a review one one was provided to you) is a 2-zap violation.
- If someone responds to your request by creating a thread and you do not follow up within 72 hours, the post may be deleted and you will be given one zap.
- I will provide a review on my partner's project, in a timely fashion, in good faith, with integrity and respect to the process of development.
- I will abide by the server rules of TOP with what I write in the review.
- I will receive both praise and criticism with grace and a learner's mentality.
- Recognizing that both parties are still in the process of learning, I will take all suggestions and criticisms with a grain of salt, ensuring I do my due diligence before taking advice that might be incorrect. Additionally, neither myself nor my partner are under any obligation to implement any changes as a result of the reviews we receive.
Path:
Course:
Project:
Review type: [Design, Code, Both]Before reviewing:
- Remember the person. They worked hard on this project. Be mindful of the language you use.
- Strongly consider being more positive than negative. Most people are their own worst critic. Also, being too negative may lead to others not wanted to partner with you in the future.
- All content in a review is still subject to the rules of this server and may result in moderation if they exhibit any unprofessionalism or violations of our policies.
- Things to evaluate when reviewing: functionality, use of techniques taught in relevant TOP lessons, aesthetics (if appropriate), responsiveness (if appropriate), bugs.
Reviewer:
Project creator:
Project title:
# Design:
Praises:
Critiques:
Additional comments:
# Code
Praises:
Critiques:
Additional comments:
# Overall
Summary of review (a few sentences about your overall impression of this project):- Use path assignments with Dyno to help learners filter the channel
- Use bot to auto-delete stale posts
- Use bot to enforce no chatting in channel somehow?
- Slow mode?
- Does this apply to threads?
- Instead of having a responder create a thread, perhaps the bot can do that automatically, then responders can just join the thread.
- Reviewers will be at the same level, so the advice given may not necessarily be good.
- Social contract could alleviate this. Remind reviewers to take all advice with a grain of salt and follow up with personal research
- Reviewers of the same level may not offer anything truly constructive (similar to above)
- Channel will need to be moderated thoroughly, at least in the beginning
- Bender will take responsibility for this, and expectations will adjust as we reevaluate the success of the idea
- How do we handle when we notice bad advice?
- Particularly egregious advice should be addressed directly in the thread by a maintainer/moderator.
- Disparity between abilities of those who are matched may create an imbalance in quality of traded reviews
- This is acknowledged as one potential shortcoming, but it is hoped that most learners will have something to offer the other for feedback, even if minor.