Preview of New Feature Called Expert Reviews
I just did a quick google search to look for the other article which has been expert reviewed and note there are now several which have been supplemented in this way.
Something that concerns me is that many readers who land on a page with "Expert Reviewed" at the top of the page will, just as I did, click to read the Expert Review first and only go back to the read the actual article based on whether the Expert Review gives the impression that it would be worthwhile to do so. Now I'm no expert on SEO and stand to be corrected but from my understanding if a person goes straight to the expert review (which is pretty short remember) and based on that decides to read nothing more, then click through rate/google standing etc will suffer. And that's not all that concerns me.
"The article has been modified since this review was written" - this quote comes from a page which has an Expert Review but where the author has "no recent activity" and I can't see any way of knowing what those modifications were. What if it were the case that the author wants to stand by their original expressed statements/opinions and not want their name attached to something which is not wholly what they promote or believe. So my question is does the reader need to know what the author's original thoughts were and if/why/when said author changed their views, if indeed they did change.
Not sure if the following is the best way of demonstrating what I mean but let's imagine that the internet existed back in the day when all the experts/everyone thought the world was flat but author J Bloggs thinks otherwise and goes out on a limb and writes an article which says the world is round. When "expert reviewed" could his/her article get changed to accord with the experts without his/her knowledge and/or permission so that now everyone thinks J Bloggs agrees that the world is flat when in fact he thinks otherwise.
I should state that the quote above comes from a page where the Expert Review is VERY critical. The page in question is on one of the new niche sites. Paul does say in his opening post to this thread that an expert review can be regarded as a warning. It's a lose weight quickly type article but whether or not I agree with the author's methods of so doing, my concerns above remain.
Sent from Yahoo Mail. Get the appSonia, can you post a link to the Hubs you found? It's against the rules to post links to your own Hubs on the forums, but there's no rule against posting links to others.
Hi Marissa - it's https://caloriebee.com/diets/Menu-to-lo … -two-weeks
Thanks for the link, Sonia. I wrote a lengthy comment on that article but it didn't automatically appear. Hope it gets approved and shows up.
Links re Expert Reviews
https://caloriebee.com/diets/Menu-to-lo … -two-weeks
https://caloriebee.com/diets/The-5-2-Di … sting-Diet
https://caloriebee.com/diets/Low-Calory … nt-Fasting
https://caloriebee.com/diets/The-Ketoge … s-Benefits
https://pethelpful.com/dogs/Health-risk … r-free-gum
https://healdove.com/disease-illness/Di … rt-attacksThanks very much for these. Some of the reviews are balanced, but one of the dieticians is pretty harsh and has old-fashioned views - obviously not up to date with all the latest research on intermittent fasting.
Thanks Sonia, I've been looking for these!
Covering the first three articles and their reviews, it had begun to appear that the main purpose of these "expert reviews" was to discredit the authors by contradicting them. The fourth article is one of the original two and it seems the review has been removed from it, I think?
I must say that the fifth actually impressed me. If this is what Hubpages actually intended with these reviews, I'd feel less aggravated by the process. I have several articles relating to pregnancy and suspect at some point I'm going to have to keep up with "expert reviews" from a group of experts who treat pregnancy differently than I would choose to (I'm the midwife and doula sort, while Hubpages seems more apt to hire in OBs).
Okay, in the interests of providing feedback to Paul (who seems surprisingly quiet when it comes to providing feedback to us, could it be the silent treatment?) I'm posting a copy of the comment I left beneath the following article: https://caloriebee.com/diets/The-Ketoge … s-Benefits
The 'Expert Review' was by a 'Registered Dietician' and says “There has been evidence demonstrating an association between a ketogenic diet and epilepsy. It has been used as an adjunct to medical therapy to help decrease the frequency of seizures, especially for individuals who are unable to maintain adequate control of their disease with medication alone. Regarding the use of a ketogenic diet for other purposes and the general population, there is minimal research that demonstrates its overall effectiveness and health benefit. For the majority of individuals, it is important to understand that a balanced diet consisting of lean protein, healthy fats, low-fat dairy, and fresh fruits and vegetables has been proven to improve health and well-being. Additionally, consumption of whole grains, gluten-free or non-gluten free, have gastrointestinal and cardiovascular benefits and are good to incorporate into a balanced meal plan.”
Here's my comment ...
Hello, Terrie. I was first introduced to the benefits of a ketonic diet by Dr Terry Wahls, (a clinical professor of medicine at the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine in Iowa City.) She has been actively involved in studies related to healing (particularly brains) linked with nutritional ketosis.
You are absolutely correct when you say nutritional ketosis can improve brain function. I've seen some of the research and witnessed significant improvement in patients with impaired brain function after managing to release ketones due to dietary changes.
Formerly confined to a wheelchair due to Multiple Sclerosis, Dr Wahls now keeps herself constantly in ketosis and is fully functioning again after years of disability.
Unfortunately it seems many medical practitioners (without a personal need to keep up with relevant medical studies) are simply unaware of the issues ~ and benefits ~ associated with nutritional ketosis.
I suggest you or other readers who are not familiar with Dr Wahl's work and research into autoimmune disease and brain biology get a copy of 'The Wahl's Protocol'. Medicine and nutrition are ever-changing sciences and sadly we can't rely on our standard medical practioners (or registered dieticians) to share important research we should all be able to access.
Sorry, Paul, but your chosen 'Expert Reviewer' again is simply not abreast of the research and doesn't know enough to offer any kind of 'expert' opinion. A registered dietician? Expected to properly understand the medical implications of ketosis? Yes, nutritional ketosis relies on dietary factors but if you're just looking for an expert on food, why not invite a chef to write the review?
I took my expert advice from Dr Terry Wahls, (a clinical professor of medicine at the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine in Iowa City) who incidentally has been kind enough and interested enough to communicate directly with my daughter as part of her research into MS. (Beats a registered dietician, wouldn't you agree?) I'm not suggesting you ask such a busy and high-profile expert to 'endorse' a mere hub because I don't think it is appropriate. However in the interests of that hubber (and all the future hubbers likely to be given your 'Expert Reviews') I suggest it is time you admit this new initiative is really not going to give you the positive outcomes you'd like.Maybe HubPages should consider sending a mass email to every Hubber, active or not, and just ask them if they want expert reviews? Then they could implement it for hubbers who like the idea and disable it for those who'd rather their hubs performed on their own merit.
It would be similar to when we could opt out of Hub Pro editing.I agree with that.
If HP finds another vet that disagrees with my article on yearly heartworm testing, for example, does that mean his or her opinion has more value than mine?
This is not a good idea, and I would definitely opt out if given the option.I reckon if HP put some work into orientating these external expert opinions to the needs of readers and writers, rather than present rather crude attempt to impress search engines, it could be a useful feature.
There is nothing wrong with a second opinion, as long as it is couched in helpful terms.I agree 100%. There is nothing wrong with a second opinion, provided it's presented as an alternative opinion, and not as an authority passing judgment on the Hub (which is what the current setup does).
...and doesn't make it look as if the expert reviewer is more important than the author due to the order of the juxtaposition of their names
Not a bad idea but now we're getting into the battle of the experts, which takes away from the hub itself by focusing g on experts and not content.
But the existing version already focuses on the expert and takes away from the Hub.
There was me thinking we were critiquing the notion of the expert review in terms of:
* the place where the indicator of the expert's name is place (misleading re authorship of the article - which should come first)
* the credibility of the content provided by the so-called experts
I do not care to have someone claiming to have an "expert opinion" posting on top of my article either.
I'd also like to ask Paul - have you seen 'expert reviews' on other sites?
I took a look at this hub: https://caloriebee.com/diets/The-5-2-Di … sting-Diet
The writer has faithfully reproduced the original 5:2 diet. She has cited her sources all the way through. She references the originator of the diet. She includes contraindications. She includes links to studies which cover the benefits and the risks of the diet.
Yet the reviewer talks about 'this article's diet' (clumsy wording, or what?) The writer has not created a new diet, she has merely put together a resource on the existing 5:2 diet. The reviewer raises concerns that the diet states that no food is off-limits, but that's what the 5:2 diet is.
The reviewer also mentions 'high-fat' in a detrimental way. New research has shown conclusively that higher consumption of fat is not bad for you when carbohydrates are correspondingly reduced.
She finishes with, "In my opinion, this does not lend itself to a healthy relationship with food.” Thereby completely dismissing current research, Dr Mosely (creator of the diet), and the article itself.
Paul, this is not good.I hate to say this, but this kind of fad diet needs challenging. From a hundred perspectives. Not least of which is the ecological angle.
It is a kind of western consumerism gone mad.As do all fad diets. However, there is research backing this one, and people have been fasting since the beginning of time. This one simply incorporates a structure. There isn't anything much 'fad' about it. You just eat less on certain days.
Not going to get into another argument with you, but this diet *has* been examined from a hundred perspectives. That doesn't mean someone can't write about it, does it? You can't prevent people from writing about whatever they want to, Will. You might not like it, or agree with it, but that's the way it is.
What on earth is the 'ecological angle' by the way? You eat the same food as you normally do with calorie restriction on two days a week. What's ecologically unsound about that?
Oh, don't answer. I really don't care.But that's just your opinion Will - and you're not an expert so apparently have no expertise to draw on or importance in terms of comments so far as HubPages and Google are concerned!
As makingamark says, the administration is not treating the writers with any kind of respect or value. If we all stopped writing (and many of us don't write new material) and deleted all our work, they wouldn't have a business anymore.
Once a hub has been changed many times, you just get so disgusted with it, it gets boring to keep revisiting the same piece. I write all evergreen stuff and rarely have to update new info on the articles, only once in a while. But keeping up with all the changes is a F/T job. I've spent hours revising to comply with rules. When callout capsules were hot, I changed many articles to add them. Now I must delete them if I intend to try to put a piece on a niche site. It's crazy. I've had my vision questioned when I added pictures and the edit mode doesn't say it's pixelated, and I see it clearly, yet they insist I am wrong. It's just plain insulting. Seriously, I was asked if I had someone else in the house to look at my pictures to see that they were blurry, even when I got no such message in edit mode.
There are still a lot of good writers here who write about interesting subjects. I have submitted some of my work to both magazines and other blogs (I am not successful running my own blog, but paid for my submissions to others). HP can be a good place to get noticed and gain a following. At least it used to feel like the administration was working with us to make HP better. Now they seem to be off on their own, and don't even want our input. I keep changing my mind whether it's worth it to stay here..
Yes, the language in the review is clumsy, which is one problem. Another is that there's no way for the author to respond to the reviewer. I suppose it could be argued that the reviewer should be able to respond to the author's response as well. The whole thing could get very messy. Perhaps there should be a special comment section for just the reviewer and the author. Any responses in the present comment section are going to get buried by other people's comments.
I think I read somewhere that the Experts are not paid so I'm curious about what they get out of doing these reviews. Perhaps their incentive/motivation is to have their status/ego stroked by being more visible on the net (and nothing wrong with that of itself), or could it be something else. Whatever their motivation is, most certainly in the case of Jellygator's article, they don't seem motivated enough to even read through the entire article let alone any of the comments. For me this makes their Expert Review terribly flawed.
Further, if it is the case that HP can change the article (possibly/seemingly) without an author's knowledge or express agreement, this just seems plain wrong. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, if below the review HP say "The article has been modified since this review was written" the reader should be able to tell what has been changed so that everyone concerned is clear as to the standpoint of the author.
It would be great to hear directly from authors who have been reviewed - hopefully the reason they have not chipped into this thread is not because they are unaware they have been reviewed - ouch!
Overall, as things stand, IMO this whole concept is unwelcome and detrimental.I totally agree with Chasmac. The expert reviews when negative will result in the hub getting unpublished or losing credibility. In both scenarios both the hubber and HP will lose. Giving the hubber a heads-up as others have suggested, so additional research and fixes can be made to the article solves this problem.
I am happy to see the HP team being proactive in their approach to the sites, but this idea needs some fine tuning.I note with interest the review has been removed from the ketogenic diet article. So that's a great improvement.
Plus the first review has been removed and replaced by another one on jellygator's 'silent treatment' article. (The author may never have seen the first review because she refers to 'his' instead of 'her' review in the Comments.) I only looked at those two reviews. Can't tell you if there's been any changes to the others.
But I also note there is no post on this forum discussion to acknowledge our combined efforts to help Paul and the team by providing our feedback. So what ... they figured out all by themselves that the reviews were inappropriate?The current review isn't much better. The reviewer seems to have made up a new definition for the word 'flood'. As in "...give one another permission to de-flood..."
And, yes, HP, we set our comments to be approved, so why can't the same apply to the review? And you really have to remove the reviewer's name from the top of the page. It's very misleading to readers.
This isn't going to work.The 'flooding' bit probably means 'overwhelmed', as in flooded with feeling or overwhelmed by stimuli, but then who knows, lol?
Anyway.... I reckon HP need to get past the 'review' thing as fast as possible
Some suggestions:
Second Opinion
Another Perspective
A Professional's Take
Orientate to the subject matter rather than a critique of the page.Flooding does have a formal meaning in psychology which is to be exposed to very high levels of a conditioned aversive (e.g. put in a room full of spiders when phobic of spiders). but I have never heard of "de-flood".
I would love to review some of the articles in the eye care section. I have credentials (COA, OSC) and have been in my field for 21 years. A lot of the current information in the hubs on things like cataract surgery or dry eyes, even retinal detachments is plain wrong and I find it frustrating. Mainly because my patients come in and say "well I read that" and the information they read was completely wrong and we have to try to make them understand, which isn't easy.
As a side note, I may be able to con one of my doctors into reviewing articles. But I'll need to ease them into that LOL
MelissaI must say this is a really bad idea. Let me explain why...
I'm a Licensed Psychotherapist and hold a PhD in Psychology. In the case of the hub reviewed by the expert, I would have written something completely different (positive). Thats because so called reviews are completely subjective.
I also write for Psychcentral and can tell you that when an article is reviewed, it's never critiqued via narrative. Instead, a simple bit of text is added at end of article that reads: "This article was scientifically reviewed by xyz". (See example below).
Here is an example: https://psychcentral.com/lib/a-guide-to … -research/
HP honestly, it's a bad idea to do this. You are better off beefing up Remedy Grove instead of trying to turn a vertical into an expert medical, psychological or financial blog. Unless the site is run by a group of specialists in a given field, it's not going to work.
I don't mean to be negative. I understand the rationale. But bad idea.
Oh, if I were the author of that hub and and expert wrote that about my work, I'd be really upset. I'd also be less likely to create another hub for that vertical.I agree with this entirely. (I'm still catching up on a lot of posts in this thread, so forgive me for being late on some of these replies).
To add to this, I have to key problems with these "expert reviews."
The first is that they are not written well. There are grammar and spelling errors, they don't read like they were written by professionals (because these experts are not professional writers, to be fair), and they use inaccessible language (in some cases).
The second (and this has been weighing on my mind quite a bit) is that Hubpages and its niche sites is not a scientific journal by any stretch of the imagination. We're not academic writers. None of us started writing here with the expectation that our hubs would be "peer reviewed." If articles on these topics are to be "peer reviewed" I feel that it is imperative that authors be notified up front (when signing up for Hubpages) so that they can make an educated decision of whether they want to write here or take their business somewhere less critical and formal.
Furthermore, the topics being reviewed are, themselves, subjective. There's a reason that there are so many (often conflicting) self-help books about relationships and marriage. Certainly there exists science surrounding these topics, but much of the research is comprised of compiled "personal experience."
I can see the value of requiring corrections for hubs pertaining to medical advice (for example), but in a field which is comprised so much of opinion and personal experience it seems that these conflicts will do nothing but drive the reader away.
Yet another crackpot so-called "expert review" on https://caloriebee.com/diets/The-5-2-Di … sting-Diet which warranted a comment - so I provided one.
Where does HP find these so-called experts?
Of course no diet is going to work if people binge eat on bad foods. However these would be described as "people who are not following the diet"!!!!
Yet another "expert" who provides an opinion as opposed to validated and verified test results.
In this case somebody who hasn't done the simple arithmetic of trying to work out how you can binge eat on the wrong foods and still stick to the recommended calorie constraints for the non-fasting days.
IMO the only way these really very silly "expert reviews" on sound well written articles are going to go away is if we all write comments refuting and disputing what the so-called expert has to say. With rationale and stated reasons of course!I suspect this project should be scrapped.
A. Too many problems.
B. Extensive time and labor with minimal return on investment.
C. Everyone hates it.Several years ago, we saw a huge resurgence of bears in NJ. The Northern part of the state is so overdeveloped, the bears have no place to go. They are not afraid of people. One summer evening I came home from a walk, and as I got to the top of my deck steps, a bear was curled up and sleeping on the deck, by the grill! I just went inside and it kept sleeping. It was so funny. One day I had five bears in front of my house (it's a heavily wooded lane).
Unfortunately, the Governor decided to thin them out and authorized a bear hunt to get the numbers down. They do get in the trash, and eat all the bird seeds in your feeders, often damaging them. I still see a few bears now and then, but not as many as those previous summers about 6 years ago!Jean, because I know you I feel comfortable in saying this. Animals (even bears) are going to gravitate to you because of your energy.
Had I seen bears in front of my house, I would have ran...and they would have eaten me
I'm late in commenting, and haven't read all the forum posts, but I did read a few pages.
I looked at the hub in question, and here are my comments.
1 I agree with the others that the "expert Reviewed" at the top of the page is confusing. It does take away from the author of the hub, and almost makes it look like a mark of approval from the expert.
2. You need to make sure that the expert is truly an expert, actually reads the entire hub, tells the pros as well as the cons of the article, and has proper writing skills to express what s/he wants to say.
3. I agree with the others that the review would be better either at the bottom or the side bar.
4. The author of the hub needs to be involved in the process of the review. I wouldn't want an expert to review my hub and publish a "review" without my being able to look at it, and being able to have some back and forth with the reviewer. If I truly made a mistake, I would want to correct it. But if it is a difference of opinion, then a comment in the comment section should suffice - one where I had the opportunity to explain. A separate review section (maybe a stickied comment) would work better.I think there's an important distinction about reviews which has not been made before in this thread - and it relates to point 4 in the comment by Millionaire Tips
I write reviews all the time - about art exhibitions. I may be complementary and I may be critical and quite often it's a bit of both.
However the KEY POINTS about the process are:
* I am NOT posting my review on the website of the people organising the art exhibition or the art gallery holding the exhibition.
* My name does not take any priority over the name of the person holding the exhibition.
Given the subjects chosen for review, it seems to me that a much more appropriate model is "peer review" i.e. the review of new ideas / content / materials by experts and peers PRIOR to the publication of the article.
(see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC193978/ for principles and practice and definitely worth reading to identify some of the very common problems with the use of experts to review papers for publication!!)
In other words experts making judgements about
* whether the article is ready for publication
* or whether there are issues that need addressing prior to publication
That would satisfy the notion that the expert ought to be involved in offering their views to the author. If done using a peer review panel for different topics it also allows for "experts" to be called out if they are making superficial or irrelevant points (as witnessed in some of the so-called "expert reviews" posted to date).
PLUS - and this is very important - the author gets a chance to review and revise their article PRIOR to publication.
Hence the model for publication in areas where content needs to be authoritative would - under the system I am suggesting - involve peer review by experts in the field PRIOR to publication.
(i.e. not a review by an Editor who has no personal knowledge of the topic and is only competent to comment on whether format guidelines have been followed and whether grammar and spelling are up to standard. I think we've seen a fair few examples in the past where Editors felt their level of competence extended way beyond what they are actually asked to do.....)
The peer review is NOT published. What is published is an article which has had the benefit of a peer review "behind the scenes".
Using this approach, expert review can be used but not in such a way that it appears solely to be a marketing device designed to impress Google but instead comprises a process designed to improve the quality of the content of the article being published.
How about it?Given that the peer reviewers are unpaid, not being listed publicly would remove any reward for participating at all.
So basically OUR articles are providing links to people we have no say over.
How is that better? How does that work in the interests of the author?I am not saying it is better. Just that academic peer review works because there are indirect academic rewards for the reviewers. Even in academia getting these reviewers is becoming extremely difficult because people are busy and don't have as much time to donate. So the solution here is probably to just not do it at all.
It's concerning to me that NO ONE from HubPages staff has had the simple courtesy to return and provide any sign they're listening to our concerns.
Fourteen pages of feedback and not one acknowledgment? Rude, HubPages, rude. It smacks of arrogance.
I'm wondering if any HubPages staffer is "following along" as promised? I'm guessing not, considering they haven't acted on the fact that THREE qualified psychologists have said the expert review of the example Hub is wrong (and yes, I do mean the replacement review as well).
We haven't even had any of our questions answered. For instance, does an author get notified when an expert reviews their Hub? It would appear that Jellygator wasn't. That really, really worries me, and shows a lack of respect for authors. Disappointing.Endorsed - I agree with everything Marisa has said.
If this change was beta tested before it went live I suggest HP changes its beta testers.
Plus see my summary of what I think the current position is at https://hubpages.com/community/forum/14 … ost2925736
Just getting around to reading this the day after Thanksgiving because I have time. I've been curious about the Expert Review controversy. (I actually just wrote a very long post but it wouldn't to through, go figure, I'll keep it shorter.)
I agree with the concerns and observations of the HP community about the bias and negative effects of the reviews and how it could impact authors and readers.
Question 1: Where does HP get these experts and how are they vetted? I missed that.
Question 2: How far must one bend over backwards (or forward) in order to please Google and at what cost? I do appreciate all that HP has done to help us thrive. But I feel that the lines between best interests of HP site, HP authors, HP staff, our readers, and Google are beginning to blur.The apprehension I've seen here is concerning. Everyone seems to have their own definition of what constitutes valid information. There are only so many viable interpretations of reality. Science uses rigorous review and criticism that sometimes goes on for decades so we can finally say "ok, our theories about quantum mechanics must be somewhat true because our cell phones seem to work". You can't just provide an opinion with the intent to educate without being presented a counter-argument. The entire structure of the HP platform is designed around feedback from other human beings. Why? Because conversation helps us arrive at the truth. We're not supposed to be an echo-chamber. This isn't kindergarten finger-painting where the teacher gives us high marks for effort alone. We're talking about information with REAL-WORLD consequences.
There must be some accountability or else there is no reason any of our writing should be taken seriously. Furthermore, we have to accept that there are people out there who know more than we do about any particular topic. It's a large world. This should come as a blessing that we have the technology to access so many people with different perspectives. I detect a problem in value systems here. We care more about our reputations than we do making valuable contributions.
So, by all means, plug your ears and go "la-la-la" when someone decides to illuminate your errors. I, however, see it as an opportunity to grow and change. As should anyone else who cares about the truth. Is it possible for the expert to be misguided or bias? Of course. In the end, it's our responsibility to re-evaluate our notions about the world.
Then another question arises:
What are most people here for and where do these expert reviews apply and how often?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there is a very low probability of an expert reviewing an article for pumpkin pie recipes or the best ski resorts in Colorado. The artsy fartsy, creative types need not worry either because the realm of aesthetics and poetry is implicitly subjective.
As mentioned in the OP, there are finite "experts" to go around. What are the odds that you would get expert reviews on EVERY single article you write? Unless, perhaps, you are consistently misguided. Even so, this may only come as a brief annoyance (if at all) in anyone's experience here.
But if you're going to write a short thesis on social & economic reform without any appropriate background education, I hope someone wallops you with a healthy dose of "life is more complicated than that, here's why...".
Again, there has to be some distinction between HubPages and your average chunder-bucket platforms like Facebook or Reddit.In principle I agree with what you're saying about articles writing on specific topics should expect to attract reviews of their positions
In summary, the ISSUES are:
1) whether the so-called "expert reviewer" has actually read the entire article as opposed to the first sentence or paragraph
2) whether they are adequately qualified to comment on the SPECIFIC topic - and who says? (People claim authority and qualifications all over the place - I like to see the credentials! I looked at the "credentials" of one so-called expert and cited them - and suddenly she was removed as an expert reviewer)
3) whether they actually know more than the author
4) whether the author should be formally given notice and the chance to respond to the review prior to publication - given it's sitting on their article and not in another credible publication (as usually happens with "expert reviews")
5) whether the name of the so-called expert reviewer (whose credentials have NOT been checked) should appear above the author's name - allegedly to "demonstrate authority" for Google - when Google may very well think this to be a very misleading thing to do - and kick the HP butt some more.
Did I leave anything out?That's right.
@Jesse. You are missing the point. None of us are saying there shouldn't be feedback, or that opinions shouldn't be questioned. That's why there's a comment section. It's the *method* we're not happy with. As Katherine points out.
Also, if we're not informed that an 'expert review' has been added to our hubs, how on earth do we get the chance to explain, refute, agree, or disagree with the review?
A long while back I was doing an in-depth, very expensive reflexology course. It was so rigorous that the NHS accepted the training as part of a foundation qualification for a nursing degree. One of the assignments was a study on some aspect of dietary treatment/advice. I wrote a long paper on why the (then) advice given by the NHS and the Diabetes Association was completely wrong (low fat/high carb). My tutor said that it was an 'interesting perspective' that went against mainstream opinion. Now, ten years later, it turns out that what constitutes a good eating regime for a diabetic patient is not in line with the advice they were handing out back then. In other words, consensus is not always correct. And that has been proved time and again.@theraggededge, Perhaps I've missed a few points presented here. I wasn't aware that we wouldn't be notified if reviewers had left their mark. Whether or not that's true seems to remain unclear from what I have read.
I just have a hard time believing that there will be an invisible review lurking around every corner as presumed by many. I'm not sure I can even attempt to imagine the ratio of expert reviewers to Hub authors. It might be that very very few of us have to deal with the growing pains of this new feature. And it doesn't seem like any of it set in stone yet.If this feature is going to have any effect, then it will need to be rolled out extensively across the health and lifestyle niches.
We know that Jellygator, the author of the example Hub, hadn't been notified. I see Terri Silver posting here - it's not clear whether she's commenting on her Hub, which was expert reviewed (though the review, strangely, has been removed), or if she's commenting in general.
Be sure to have your dogs vaccinated every year...Oh, wait, that was the reccomendation ten years ago. It was wrong.
It happens everywhere, so does that make an expert reviewer more correct than the author?Just not a fan of the cynicism. The difference between me and everyone else is I'm not losing any sleep over it. Protest away. I've said my peace.
Cynicism? I'm not seeing any cynicism, can you explain what you mean?
Since you stated "I don't care who or how many people read my articles" it really does not matter to anyone who actually cares about their articles.
I think you're missing the point.
I don't think any of us would object to an expert challenging our views in the Comments section of our Hubs.
That's not what's happening here. What's happening is that an expert's name is being emblazoned across the top of the Hub, so the reader is tempted to click on that name and skip straight to the expert review, without having read the Hub at all.
In the case of the example Hub, the original Expert Review said, essentially, "this article is total cr@p and the writer doesn't know what she's talking about". Clearly, the result will be that most readers won't go back to read the Hub. The Hubber also has no opportunity to respond to the expert - except in the comments which aren't linked to the expert review.
Add to that, the Hubber who wrote the review had NO idea the expert review had been added to her Hub, until we made comments that drew her attention to it.
Since then, no less than three experienced psychologists (who also happen to be Hubbers) have chimed in to point out that the "expert" was wrong. HubPages has since replaced that review with a different one - but the fact remains, if we hadn't made all this fuss, that Hub would've been stuck with that "expert" review, which basically destroyed the Hub. And although HubPages replaced that review, there are others which are equally as damaging and as inaccurate on other Hubs.
We, as critics, have the easy job -- pointing out why something is not the way we want it to be. Staff have the difficult job, putting something concrete into practice.
I'm fairly sure they are professional enough not to get upset about the criticism.
They certainly can't complain about the level of feedback, lol.
As I am now out of the hospital and at home recovering from surgery, I am a bit foggy right now -- but this is my initial reaction, and I've not read through everything yet.
It may be that HP is biting off more than it can chew.
When I first started writing here, I noted so many poorly-written hubs that were mostly not researched and referenced. The idea was to allow authors the freedom of expressing their experiences. As a journalist, that was frustrating for me to see such poor quality. But I liked writing here for the freedom I didn't have with other clients. I still do, especially now that HP has dramatically improved and features more well-written pieces and interesting content.
But to make this an "expert site" or one that "experts approve" of is not really feasible without changing your whole business model. The only "experts" out there are the doctors, lawyers, engineers and etc. who have advanced degrees in a particular field. And they do not always agree on everything! There may be some of these noted experts who do some writing for their own businesses but, with some exception, they won't do them here or anywhere else Google has decided is necessary. It's not worth their time and certainly not worth the money. Money is everything.
WebMD or Johns Hopkins, for examples, are accredited sites that supposedly offer accurate medical information. But it's not always accurate and any "expert" can disagree. Many of us are "experts" on what we do .. but how often do we journalists (writers and editors) disagree on style (for example, the Oxford Comma debate, lol).
The internet is riddled with false and misleading info. Unless Google can be specific about what it thinks is "expert," ... and even then, that changes ... it is that proverbial can of worms. And how feasible is it for HP to have qualified "experts" review anything, especially when these people won't be paid for their advice?
Then, there is the nature of human beings. The internet has allowed even nice, honest and highly-principled people to behave like jackasses just because they can, especially if they hate the topic or have a vigilante point of view (I've dealt with that on some of the pieces I've written).
So, my thought is ... don't overthink it. Google changes its rules every other day. Yes, we have to keep up to speed but we already allow comments on hubs, whether from "regular people" or these so-called experts. Every advice piece that offers medical opinions should always tell readers to see their own doctors. Internet resources should be advice, but NEVER diagnoses.One more thing. I just read this hub that you've allowed some "expert" to have his two cents on. It says nothing other than he disagrees with some portion of it. It does not give validity to his own OPINION. Experts do tend to disagree on things, and rarely will you see one agreeing on something that someone else wrote; it's an ego thing. I hope HP will consider the repercussions of this very carefully because what it means to me is that just about everything written on all pages can be discredited, regardless of the listed resources/references used to assist in writing the article.
Extremely well said Teri - in both posts.
Like UnnamedHarald I too continue to wonder about the deafening silence.
There's nothing wrong in saying we made a mistake and should have tested it some more before releasing it into the wild.
Or acknowledging this was a test and that the comments made have been very helpful in thinking through how to take this matter forward i.e. withdraw "expert reviews"
So far the articles listed are not things I would write about or know anything about. But that doesn't mean it won't affect me in the future.
I imagine negative expert reviews would make the article look bad. I certainly would consider questioning what the author wrote. I wonder if that would do any good or just do harm to the author.Marisa, I was commenting on the "expert" review, not the author's original article. For whatever reason, in the window that opened for me, there is a section by Wyatt Fisher, Ph.D. (The so-called expert).
Basically, I think any experiment is worth looking at but in this case, in my opinion, this one should be sent to the circular (trash) file.Teri, I was asking whether you were commenting on the example Hub or your own Hub. I don't know if you're aware, but your Hub on the Ketogenic Diet had an expert review on it. I read it, and it wasn't too bad, but it wasn't too complimentary either. I went to take another look at it, and it's been removed - did you complain about it, or did you never know it existed?
I don't have a hub on any kind of diet, can you show me the link? Perhaps it was from a different author?
Apologies, the author's name was Teri something, I must have misread it.
The problem is that HP may recognize Moe as an expert, put his name up on top of the hub, and allow him to criticize. There are just as many Moes claiming to be experts out there, and just because they have an opinion does not mean it is correct. (The correct diabetes diet, yearly vaccinations for your dog, etc, etc, ad nauseum.)
As far as I am concerned, the role of the writer is to present a subject clearly, and where there are significant differences of opinion, whether in the expert realm and/or in the lay realm, to outline the controversies with due respect for all concerned. The writers own opinion should never blot out alternative perspectives.
I have to use one of my own hubs as an example here.
Most vets you visit will tell you that your dog has to have a yearly heartworm test, even when on heartworm preventative most of the year. I think this is wrong, and tell people why.
If someone does not care for my opinion, and for the explanation I give in the article, they can go and pay for a test or go read an "alternative perspective" article by a large commercial vet clinic that makes a lot of money from requiring yearly testing.Don't be silly. Writers write opinions. All the time.
There are certain types of writing that should be as you describe, academic papers, for example. But this is HubPages. Where writers write about anything and everything. We express opinions, recount personal experience, offer facts as we know them.
Of course, most are open to criticism and discussion. I'll repeat: that's why there is a comments capsule.
Here's another real life example to support my belief that HP staff underestimate the 'authority' value already attributed to many articles (and writers) here ... and why I consider the addition of 'expert reviews' to be a knee-jerk reaction that is entirely unnecessary and potentially very detrimental.
Back in 2012 I wrote an article/hub suggesting parents with angry children consider having their child tested for food allergies, and I explained why. Nobody was talking about it or writing about it at that time but, surprise, surprise, it is a popular topic these days. After the creation of niche sites, this hub was left to languish on HP. As was/is the case with quite a few of my topics, HP's new 'professional Editors' didn't consider it worthy of moving to HealDove. (Ah, yes, the huge responsibility of allowing a hub like that to be put on a niche site was clearly too much of a burden.)
We all know being left on HP is expected to be the 'kiss of death' for any hub. If it isn't on a niche site it has no hope of being acknowledged by Google. That's what we've all been told. And now we have the knee-jerk appointment of 'expert reviewers' to prevent niche site articles from sliding into oblivion.
So why is that hub of mine (still HP, nothing to do with niche site) on Page 1 of Google search results under a number of different search terms? For instance, there's 40 million 400 thousand other search results for 'food testing for anger' (without inverted commas) ... yet my lowly HP hub is at the top of them. Yep, #1. Followed by pinterest pages showing my article. And then more than 40 million other pages.
The search terms it tops are not money-makers because they're not that popular (yet), but the hub still tops them. It used to be on Page 1 of 'Why is my child so angry?' and those sorts of more popular search terms. Probably still would be if HP had moved it to a niche site.
But even if it was on HealDove, if an 'expert reviewer' was assigned to it, they'd probably say 'there's no evidence, etc' and kill the article anyway .... despite the supportive comments below the hub, and the growing acceptance that what I wrote is proving to have merit. And despite the fact that Google obviously thinks it is okay.I cannot stress enough how much I agree with this post, considering that I have a child with food intolerance and have had to battle her school endlessly in getting accommodations for her. "Professionals" reject the idea that it is a possible cause of her behavior in school, but when we've experimented with foods, we've seen improved behavior at home.
Point being that "experts" would likely disagree with LongTimeMother and kill an article which could potentially be helpful to other parents.
As a parent in particular I trust anecdotal evidence earned from years of gaining expertise in the field of mothering over an expert who has studied child rearing in a book.
Excellent example!Long Time Mother,
I could be wrong, but I used to have hubs moved to niches all the time without even being notified of it. Now it seems since we are limited to moving 2 hubs each month to a niche, nobody goes through the ones we have on the HP account. I also have many first page Google hubs just sitting there in the "kiss of death" category. But some need picture changes and other requirements that were different when I wrote them, and it takes hours sometimes to "fix" one or two pieces.
And then when I submit an article, the turn around time is often so long, often over such petty nonsense, that I end up challenging the editor, but by then it's a different editor. I've had so many hubs put in the wrong niches. Because of my astrology hubs, no matter what I write about they keep putting it in Exemplore. I have many good pieces I worked very hard on which are stuck in a miscellaneous category.
I've had to argue the difference between personality traits in astrology and psychological archetypes and how they react to life's situations, really difficult hubs I researched for a long time. It would help if the same editor worked with us from the time a hub is submitted until it is approved. I can't even get 2 a month moved. I wonder for how long we will still be able to submit them to niches ourselves?
It is really disheartening that nobody in the administration is listening, and that we can't even work with one editor for the short time it should take to get a hub moved. Apparently they are overwhelmed, and experimenting with this "expert" business just makes it look like this is such a serious site, when it's always been informative in a more informal way. And also, I don't get notifications when a hub is finally moved after weeks of debate. I don't have time to check them everyday. The staff's attention is getting too scattered.Jean, I've read so many of your hubs over the years. I've even referred clients to some of your work as a pathway to self-insight. It's hard to imagine any of your hubs are still on the HP vertical. It's foolish of HP not to move your work to the new niche sites ...quickly.
You are always too kind. Thank you so much for thinking of me and my work, and for telling others about it. You have very positive energy yourself, and always an optimistic attitude, as you well know!
All of my hubs have been featured for years. But when I was beginning here, I didn't read the rules, I jumped in too fast. So I have a lot of pictures that need changing, and metaphysical and mythical topics are hard enough to illustrate, let alone in legal photos.. I am also long winded, as any of my readers know, and have to make smaller paragraphs.
I guess all my neighbors on the lane have the same energies as me, lol! Our animal buddies really don't go after us, they seem to coexist quite well. Apparently bears love ice cream (a big vice of mine) and yogurt, it seems to always be in the pile of garbage they leave, licked clean! It's a one lane road in a series of them, consisting of about 60 homes (once a bird sanctuary) and so we are used to seeing all kinds of nature's creatures. The bats still freak me out a little
This seems to be the major flaw in the expert reviewers experiment.
How will HP ensure that the expert reviews change as knowledge changes? It's would be very hard to keep information up to date especially in the field of health where new discoveries are being made all the time.
I was also banging on about dairy intolerance 12 years ago when it severely affected my daughter. The majority of health professionals at the time thought I was nuts! Luckily I had the internet where I could do my own research. Nowadays it's very common to hear those same health professionals talk about dairy intolerance and it's accepted as a real condition. Good job I didn't listen to them 12 years ago though because my daughter would have spent months, if not years, in pain.
In my experience a lot of medical professionals information is way out of date. For instance most doctors and nutritionists tell T2 diabetics to eat lots of carbs when all the latest research shows that a low carb high fat diet can reverse all the symptoms of T2 and put it into remission. I've seen 1000's of people who got their information through the internet actually do this and then have to go explain to their doctors how it works because the doctors do not know.
How about the field of mental health where gut health, diet and inflammation is gradually being shown to have a big impact if not a hugely causal relationship? If you have a psychoanalyst reviewing articles on mental health they're going to come at the topic from their own narrow paradigm and probably ignore all of that newer research.
I understand why HP want to try this but I feel strongly that the internet can't be filled with only the opinions (and that's all they are most of the time) of professionally qualified people. "Everyday experts" have a massive role to play as well.
I've begun to have a difficult time following this thread and hadn't noticed that the review had been changed (or that the reviewer had been changed. Like many others in the comments I am caught up on, I feel that this indicates that Hubpages Staff is not listening to our overall concerns. There are so many problems with these expert reviews that changing the reviewer of a hub is hardly going to change the response from the writers on this site.
Has the other page which was reviewed been posted somewhere? I've not gone looking for it specifically but have noted references to it in this thread.Following up, although I realize I just commented.
I've just taken a moment to comment on jellygator's hub, and a thought occurred to me. Beyond the obvious (for crying out loud, please move the expert's name somewhere below the author's name!), would it be possible to have the expert contribute to the hub rather than to correct it?
Regarding this particular hub, both experts who have reviewed it provided some ideas for handling conflict within the relationship, but only did so subsequent to confusing statements made about the original article -- for example, both have stated that the silent treatment isn't abusive (who's to say it's not abusive to some people?).
It makes no sense to give "experts" this kind of power over volunteer authors. I'm increasingly confused by the purpose of this type of content.In the years I've been on this site most changes by the HP staff have led to fewer writers participating here. The one good thing is, the staff is always assessing the value of a change and if it is not working they get rid of it. Some good ideas, like Hub of the Day, have gone by the wayside as well, and I'd like to see that one return or the promotion of the most viewed hubs of the week. Finding good things to read here has become harder and harder. Still, every once in a while they do something that either really improves the site or eliminates a problem, like getting rid of Q&A. It started out fine but has deteriorated in the past election year. Glad to see it go.
This idea seems like a bad one, but I know from my own experience, you toss about three ideas against the wall in order to come up with one that sticks. Keep tossing those ideas HP! But I doubt this is one that will stick.We have read all the feedback - Multiple times:) It's been compiled and reviewed.
We have a round two in the works with several pieces of feedback from this thread incorporated!Well that's nice to know. A month between your comments felt like too long for comfort though. I'd like to request next time you ask for our feedback, you or one of the team could keep in touch with us on the relevant thread, please.
I second this. Furthermore, the feedback has been overwhelmingly negative. I'll be looking forward to seeing what the changes actually look like, considering the fact that the current implementation undermines authors to such an extent that it will likely cost Hubpages writers.
Now that we know Stage 2 is under development, I will back with a few more thoughts for discussion. Wish I had more time right now, but I don't. So rest up fellow writers. There's more on the way for us to discuss.
Meanwhile, Paul, I'd appreciate you taking a look at this other thread .... https://hubpages.com/community/forum/14 … -our-dmcasFound this one while browsing Jellygator's article and I haven't seen it posted, so here it is:
https://pairedlife.com/problems/Top-10- … r-Marriage
To start with, I did not notice the expert review at the top of the page this time. Not sure why, other than that I wasn't looking for it. That might make some difference. Going in, I'm often looking for them.
The review was, again, argumentative and contentious. I'm having trouble putting into words why it bothered me, but the gist of it is that this article is specifically about the ways that men can do better in their marriages. In this context, I don't see that there needs to be balance (by listing, for example, the ways that women can ruin their marriage) because that would defeat the purpose of the article. It seems that this was written in a similar vein to any self-help books written by laymen. If we're to be subjected to this sort of scrutiny, I will surely be taking any future articles on this topic (which I had planned to write) elsewhere. I don't want to have to argue with "experts."
Further, my interpretation of this review is that the expert accuses the author of not being an expert, which should go without saying. We're not paid professionals: Most of us are hobbyists who enjoy writing for the pleasure of doing it, and who happen to make money with our hobby.It's crazy. This kind of article appears everywhere, from women's magazines, to newspapers, to personal blogs, to sites like this one. The writer doesn't claim to be an expert, so of course, is basing it on her personal experience and opinions. However, she's a personal coach and spiritual counsellor, so why shouldn't she write freely on this kind of topic. Readers can choose to heed her advice or ignore it. It's unlikely to cause any damage in any case. You've only got to read the comments to see the discussion the article has provoked.
The title is "Top 10 Ways Men Destroy Their Marriage". The reviewer says, "“Overall, the article demonstrates a bias toward men..." Well, what a surprise. The writer also has a 'twin' article, "Top 10 Ways Women Destroy Their Marriage".
Here's the 'review' in its entirety:
"“Overall, the article demonstrates a bias toward men while overgeneralizing the expectations of women in a marriage. The content appears to be founded on speculation, assumptions, personal experience, and personal opinion rather than valid and reliable information. No references are provided to assist the reader in verifying facts and drawing their own conclusions from reputable and reliable sources.”
Wouldn't it be wonderful to discover that at the bottom of one of your articles? Where's the balance?
By the way, it looks like Dr Jodi isn't averse to posting articles on the topic of human existence herself:
http://www.blackfoxlitmag.com/2016/09/1 … i-de-luca/
Any of us could have written it. Maybe she doesn't like competition?
@Paul: Has the writer been informed of the review?
I really hate this, HubPages.I reckon those kinds of articles should just be left in peace.
It doesn't look as if there is any actual harmful advice and some people probably find them comforting.Couldn't agree more.
This particular expert review seems utterly pointless. It's lazy in that there's nothing of substance to it (anyone could have written it) and it negates the valid stance of the author.
It's a lesson in "How to Trash a Perfectly Good Page" whilst simultaneously making Hubpages look super uncredible.Yes, it's as if HP wants to shoot itself in the foot.
"Oh we're terrible, we are. We publish such rubbish articles. Don't read them anyone. Look at the expert's lovely site instead. They know what they're talking about. Our writers just spout a load of old sh*te."
The format makes it look like either fraud or plagairism. Forget how lousy their "experts" are; it's fraud to imply they are writing articles they aren't.
I sincerely hope the extremely unconventional way HP chose to identify the expert reviewers is just a style or grammar error, because it looks for all the world as if the reviewed articles were written by those experts. I've spent the last several days asking random people I know to read one such hub of the lot, whichever interested them and to tell me who wrote it. Readers come away thinking the hub was written by the expert. I did this to show it isn't just my perception that this format makes it look as if HP is trying to pull one over on Google.
My feedback is this:
1. Fix the grammar identifying the expert to reflect normal, accepted conventions for doing so before Google slaps a penalty on your website for fraud. This will also make it clear the byline is the byline and not just a sloppy plagiarist accidentally leaving the real author's name on the work.
2. Use an editor to make your experts sound more polished, to define the less-known terms they use, and to make sure the expert you've chosen has expressed a view in line with the majority of experts in their field. Research is what interns are for.
3. Hire someone who understands digital magazine layout as currently practiced by the big players, or heck, just copy the big players who use expert reviews. The format is confusing and annoying to readers.
4. Stop forgetting that the end result needs to be an enjoyable read. Google's entire business model literally depends on making their users as happy as possible with their search results. So trying to create a simulation of something that visually appears to be what their words claim they want while ignoring the spirit and intent of their words is entirely useless.
Google doesn't want you to trick them into thinking experts wrote hubs; Google just wants you to remove hazardous advice from your website. You could do that by having interns fact check the hubs and putting a statement on each such hub saying it was fact-checked by (name of team) as of the date it was, and that modifications made after that date had not been fact-checked by the team.
This SEO strategy looks black hat in its current form.
(edited to add) Before Will starts bashing my writing skills and personality, I thought I might forestall that occurrence by pointing out I have no horses in this race. Nothing I have on HubPages would make even a remotely logical candidate for the process as I'm already an expert in several of the topics and the rest aren't areas that even have degrees, professions, or certifications associated with them. My only interest is in how this will affect HubPages reputation. Hey, you'd stop a friend who gave you rent money from walking in front of a bus, wouldn't you? Doing something that isn't fraud, but visually looks like fraud is like stepping right in the Google bus' path. It
may be completely accidental, as in the case of my psychologist friend who was the poor fool who rushed to buy therapist.com, but Google won't care.A positive review:
https://healdove.com/disease-illness/Di … rt-attacksI don't like the positive reviews either. Kylyssa has it in a nutshell when she says, "Google doesn't want you to trick them into thinking experts wrote hubs; Google just wants you to remove hazardous advice from your website....
This SEO strategy looks black hat in its current form."
This is the fundamental problem with the idea. Paul says they're doing this because "Google wants experts", but Google wants expert authors, not expert reviews of articles written by non-experts. So this idea won't achieve anything unless (as Kylyssa says) it tricks Google into thinking the expert wrote the article - and Google usually wakes up to tricks eventually, and it's not good to be on the receiving end when they do.My concern, personally, is that this is what HP is trying to do -- trick Google into thinking the expert wrote the article.
Writers do not necessarily need to be experts in a field to produce a worthwhile article. Simply being a good writer and researcher can be enough, as long as there is a familiarity with the basics of a subject area.
Balance, fairness, fact checking, an awareness of the impact of a work on people's lives are absolutely the minimum requirement.
If someone might be harmed by a poorly written/researched piece, that is unforgivable.
These are all learnable principles.Which is, more or less, what we've been saying all along.
Such a poorly written/researched article should not pass QAP. That's the point of having a Quality Assessment Process. However, alongside that, the reader has the responsibility to carry out necessary research before they do anything that could cause themselves harm.I wouldn't disagree with that, that's exactly how I approach my own writing. I'm just telling you what Google says it wants - and making the point that adding an "expert review" to an ordinary article doesn't achieve that goal.
I think this is what we are all trying to say.
I looked at the review on Heal Dove about heart attack symptoms, and thought the "expert" opinion of "this looks good, add more about stabbing pain" was just a waste, and sounds like someone playing English teacher with the red pen.The way that HP have set up the feature is guaranteed to produce that 'teacher' feeling, lol. Better design might he able to save it.
To be honest, if HP writers avoid allowing their opinions to take center stage on YMYL topics there is no reason for them not to tackle serious subjects.
Let the facts talk for themselves and you are on safe ground. Report the debate within a professional community, accurately, and you are on safe ground.
If you have established the facts, outlined any controversy and won a little respect through your diligence, your own personal opinions can certainly have a place, if you flag them as such.
Weird mash ups of personal stuff are a menace to others in YMYL areas.I think the editors are pushing for personal experience. They don't want you to be a researcher, but an expert or patent/victim.
It would be a wiser approach for a site like HP but some people have a talent for clarifying issues and there is no reason to discourage that.
The heart attack page on Healdove (the one that was reviewed) is a good example. Quick to read and solidly grounded in in-depth, factual info.
Oh my! I don´t like it at all. Why is it that the name of the " expert reviewer" is on top of the authors' name? The hub is not written by the expert but by the author himself/herself. If this feature will continue, I am afraid more writers will leave this site than before. Some readers would not even read the articles with negative experts reviews on them.
They're gone! I haven't looked at the whole list of articles, but the "expert reviews" on at least two hubs are gone! Did the authors withdraw their permission for these reviews to be posted on their hubs, or is Hubpages rethinking this?
ETA: Definitely not on all of them, but on the ones I checked they were negative reviews that were removed.
I think what Hubpages is attempting to accomplish is "peer reviewing" and the "peer review" does not belong in this sense on the article. It should be sent to the editor for the author to make changes so that their article is more accurate, rather than posted on the hub in this way.
After all, when I write a book review -- positive or negative -- the author doesn't put it inside their book, do they?That's awful, Terrielynn. I never thought Paul Edmondson would tell us lies, but it looks as though that's exactly what he's done.
I started a separate thread to ask whether authors were consulted about Expert Reviews, and Paul answered there to ASSURE me it was a consultative process. I'm really, really disappointed.Marisa, I think maybe they should the expert reviewers know this if thats how its suppose to be. From what i've read I am not the only one who wasnt given any interaction with the reviewer. I was only told it would be done and when it weas finished and it showed up on my article. The only interaction I got was the pro editor who went through it when the review was done. I hope this changes when they see how it's being done so far. Maybe Paul doesn't know any of them are doing the review this way.
Sorry, I explained it badly. He didn't say there would be interaction with the reviewer, but he DID say the editor would consult with the Hubber about it. Being told it's going to be done and then told it's finished, isn't really "consultation" in my book. Did you feel you had the right to say, "this review isn't fair"?
oh that's ok. I don't always come across the way I mean too. No I don't feel I had any say in the review part at all. I feel li8ke they took over my article and made it theirs. I was upset at first and didn't contact the pro editor either. I guess I should do that. Thank you for asking. You are always so helpful.
Looking at past posts, it seems there were reviews but they were discontinued.
I definitely believe any expert review should be a consultative process involving the author. Article claims the expert reviewer disagrees with can be resolved prior to the adulteration of the article using the inclusion of peer-reviewed journal citations/references in the hub to substantiate author claims.
If the expert believes an article to be dangerous or false, then including that statement on a published article would only damage the EAT of the author. This would be particularly frustrating when the "expert" is stating an opinion that can be easily disagreed with by another expert in the same field or refuted by peer-reviewed professional research articles.
