1 Topic by Temple Wang (edited by Temple Wang 2014-11-30 00:39:13)

Topic: Saving vs. Posting

I have tried out numerous writing group sites, and one thing they all have in common is the concept of "saving" (an incomplete) review vs. "posting" (a complete) review.  The autosave feature is great, of course, but the way this site is setup, an in process review is available for viewing (by anyone) while it is still in process.  This is just dumb, frankly.  The site needs to incorporate a feature independent of auto save that saves in process reviews and doesn't t post them until the reviewer is ready.  This isn't a bug, it's basic functionality available on even the most rudimentary websites of this nature.

In addition, this would also resolve the issue of not being able to edit closing comments prior to posting.  Maybe everyone else is smart enough to write everything in one sitting, but I am just not that smart.  Sometimes i need to take a break. 

This would also add a nice new tab on a users Reviews page called "Reviews in Process"

Quote Post 1

Re: Saving vs. Posting

I think the basic design rationale was that a review is a set of comments, but not  a 'work'.  My own preference would have been for a work's reviews to be more like a forum thread, but with the option at some point for, say, a chapter's thread to fold into one (or one of several) general threads for the encompassing work.  It would be possible to go from a review post to the version active while the post was made, which gets to the topic of versioning in multlayer works.

I'm thumbing this reply on the Android, so I'll cut it short here.

Quote Post 2

Re: Saving vs. Posting

njc wrote:

I think the basic design rationale was that a review is a set of comments, but not  a 'work'.  My own preference would have been for a work's reviews to be more like a forum thread, but with the option at some point for, say, a chapter's thread to fold into one (or one of several) general threads for the encompassing work.  It would be possible to go from a review post to the version active while the post was made, which gets to the topic of versioning in multlayer works.

I'm thumbing this reply on the Android, so I'll cut it short here.

Maybe, but I don't see how that serves the owner of the submission.  If I want to review in lines an individual viewer has on my work, I don't want to look at it one day, then realize the next that they have added more. That's just asinine if you ask me.  Finish the review, save it if you need to, then post it when your done.  It's the only sensible workflow I can imagine.

Quote Post 3

Re: Saving vs. Posting

You, I, and the site owners all have a different take.  But there's no conceptual reason that your flow couldn't front mine.

My flow is based on the interactions I have here.  I've given reviews that hit the old site's 1kword limit, and had to continue the review in the forums.  (On one chapter, too.)

Sounds like you've spent time with either human or machine processes.  I'd love to brainstorm##########analyze and debate this with you at length--around my other projects/commitments.

Quote Post 4

Re: Saving vs. Posting

njc wrote:

You, I, and the site owners all have a different take.  But there's no conceptual reason that your flow couldn't front mine.

My flow is based on the interactions I have here.  I've given reviews that hit the old site's 1kword limit, and had to continue the review in the forums.  (On one chapter, too.)

Sounds like you've spent time with either human or machine processes.  I'd love to brainstorm##########analyze and debate this with you at length--around my other projects/commitments.

It may hinge on what one wants from the site.  My objective is to get my work reviewed.  Some people's primary interest is doing reviews.  While I enjoy doing reviews, it is a means to an end.  If I give good reviews and do enough of them, I earn posting rights and I make friends with people who will do thoughtful, reciprocal reviews.  As such, I want the review process to be straightforward and efficient.  I want the same thing when I look at reviews of my work. I don't want to kill time on a website when I could be writing...

Quote Post 5

Re: Saving vs. Posting

I want to learn, help other people learn, and maybe have a little fun doing it.

As to the working model: when I compose email in a web-based interface, the page periodically--and often--sends change updates to the site.  (In the web model, the operation is called POST.  Sorry.)  These are saved as a draft until I am ready to send the email.  Would something like this, with the ability to save the draft, recover it on a web failure, and go back and resume work, satisfy the need as you see it?  (On the `real' keyboard now, though it's more a keyboid--on a flaptop.)

TNBW is the only site I'm on.  If I used multiples, I would never get anything done.  What never?  No, never!  What, NEVER.  No Not Ever At All.

So you have more knowledge than I do.

I want the same thing when I look at reviews of my work.

In which case I recommend that you ask that TNBW people do conventional reviews, not inline, until they fix some problems stemming from their model.

Quote Post 6

7 Reply by Temple Wang (edited by Temple Wang 2014-11-30 04:46:26)

Re: Saving vs. Posting

njc wrote:

I want to learn, help other people learn, and maybe have a little fun doing it.

As to the working model: when I compose email in a web-based interface, the page periodically--and often--sends change updates to the site.  (In the web model, the operation is called POST.  Sorry.)  These are saved as a draft until I am ready to send the email.  Would something like this, with the ability to save the draft, recover it on a web failure, and go back and resume work, satisfy the need as you see it?  (On the `real' keyboard now, though it's more a keyboid--on a flaptop.)

TNBW is the only site I'm on.  If I used multiples, I would never get anything done.  What never?  No, never!  What, NEVER.  No Not Ever At All.

So you have more knowledge than I do.

I want the same thing when I look at reviews of my work.

In which case I recommend that you ask that TNBW people do conventional reviews, not inline, until they fix some problems stemming from their model.

Regarding this last point, you misunderstood
I don't have any problems reading reviews by others.  My issue is that I can't save Final Comments before I post. [which is the topic of the post] My comment about wanting to look at my work was just part of describing the core of what I want out a site like this.  I wasn't complaining about it. 
To make it clearer - I want two things from the site:
1. Effective way to critique (including being able to save my final comments before I post) to earn credits so I can post my work.
2. Effective way to read critiques by others of my work.
Point 1 is the issue (with respect to not being able to save closing comments before I post); Point 2 is not a problem.

Quote Post 7

Re: Saving vs. Posting

Sorry, I misunderstood.  The inability to see and print the whole of the inline review for a work is a stumbling block for me, so I ask reviewers not to use them, no matter how much easier it is for them to enter the review.

Quote Post 8

Re: Saving vs. Posting

The site needs to incorporate a feature independent of auto save that saves in process reviews and doesn't t post them until the reviewer is ready.

I agree. It's something we'll add over the next couple of weeks.

Quote Post 9

Re: Saving vs. Posting

SolN wrote:

The site needs to incorporate a feature independent of auto save that saves in process reviews and doesn't t post them until the reviewer is ready.

I agree. It's something we'll add over the next couple of weeks.

Great. Thanks

Quote Post 10