janet reid wrote:Hi Vern
Agree with what you've said, and I should've made it clear when I wrote the initial comment. I do appreciate each and every review despite the format or whether one is easier to incorporate than the other. I'll find a way to make it work if someone had gone through all that trouble. And just as a side note, I do use the in-line reviews also, but I'm more likely to use regular reviews. As you said, everyone will do it their way, and there is nothing wrong with that!
The reason for mentioning it was simply to say that the in-line reviews seem to benefit reviewers more at this stage and for it to really reach it's full potential, it should be developed for both reviewer and writer as it's relatively more time consuming to merge it with the original. But this is only my opinion and if I'm the only one, then obviously I'll suck it up as I doubt Sol is going to design the new site to my whims even though it would be awesome 
I know there are a couple of writers that specifically ask that you don't use the in-line format. As yet I haven't seen any asking specifically that regular reviews should not be used. I don't think it's unreasonable for a writer to do so, because then at least you know and I don't mind. But again, that's me!
Cheers Janet
Hi, Janet. I want you to know I am not upset in the least. That being said, I have read two other folks here claim the inline review benefits the reviewer more than the author and that simply stuns me and causes me to pause and wonder if I'm understanding what is really being said.
How can ANY review benefit the person who gave their time to read and thoughtfully leave suggestions towards improvement more than the one who is receiving said input on their work?
In other words, just what does the reviewer get for their efforts? Especially what could they get that benefits them more than the author they gave input to?
I just don't get that.
I mean I've seen reviews where the min. suggestions are given within the first few graphs and then not one single comment given to the rest of the work which consist of about two-thirds then leave a general statement made to rap things up so it's clear they are only reviewing to get points to post their latest work, but selfish reviews will be given by those sorts no matter which format is followed, and even at the bare min. the author still has five or six (I forget which) suggestion towards improvement.
I have given both sorts. When I first started to review I gave overall comments because I knew so little I could only offer my view and opinions as a reader. As I grew as a writer I started to leave line by line reviews. Line by line reviews, aka in-line reviews, are the most detailed and most helpful sort of a review one can give or receive. They take a great deal of time when done properly. I fail to see how my giving an hour or more of my time to improve someone else's writing instead of my own benefits me.
Are we talking about the format when we say inline review or are we talking about the review its self? Is it the way the in-line is sat up that folks are saying benefits the reviewer more than the author?
Again, I am not upset with you or anyone I'm just wondering if I'm missing something here, so PLEASE don't take my comments personally or feel I am trying to pick a fight, because honestly and from the bottom of my heart I am not