Can Peer Review Solve the Decadence?
Do you appreciate it when a publishing site offers peer review?
Rather than take this into the forums where toxicity runs rampant, I figured I would bring my ideas directly to the readers here on HubPages to get their valuable opinions and input on the topic. No doubt that the forum regularly makes myself and others feel as if they are being invalidated and even produces evidence of direct and ongoing harassment, so here we are to discuss in a safer environment that I would like to ensure is accepting of all views that are expressed without the intentions of harming others. What will we be discussing, though?
Today I would like to discuss the decadence that is unarguably present within the HubPages community, and is causing long-term damages to everyone involved; the solution to this problem is also quite simple in theory as well so long as HubPages sought to do the leg-work in developing the software.
Would you prefer peer reviews to seeking advice in the forums?
No doubt I have built up quite a bit of temporary infamy within the community after publishing my article "Is Prejudicial Discrimination the Answer?" which sought to point out the apparent toxic mentalities held by senior members within the community, and the subsequent spread of said mentalities that I would like to bring to a stop. However, I will recognize that there is a problem with lower-quality articles making it past the QAP and the association with such quality as a community member can lead to concerns that potential readers will leave before giving the site a fair chance. This is no excuse for beginning a witch hunt and being prejudiced against new writers, though, and I think I have come up with a concept that would see both the toxicity and low-quality addressed in a productive manner with long-term success being the outcome for everyone involved.
Should Hubbers be held more accountable for their criticisms of others?
HubPages already has a score system which regularly devalues writers with no constructive input being available from observing the score itself, and thus I would label this scoring system as underutilized and seemingly pointless unless the goal is to make your potential writers feel bad. What if HubPages were to use that scoring system as a way to streamline the process of determining which articles should be featured, and which articles simply bobbed and weaved their way around the QAP? Hear me out.
HubPages should break down the overarching Hubber score into subcategories that determine the necessity of peer-review and subsequent HubPages staff review. The subcategories would determine the amount of negative "peer reviews" left by those with a score of 80+ that are necessary for a staff editor to come in and determine the ongoing featured or published status of the article itself rather than leaving it solely up to the report and score features. Those subcategories would look like this:
0-30 Hubber score: A ratio of 5:1 negative to positive peer reviews to get an official editor decision.
31-60: A ratio of 10:1.
61-90: A ratio of 15:1.
91-100: A ratio of 25:1.
Then upon official editorial review by a staffer it would then be decided whether or not the article gets to remain published and featured, or whether it should be un-featured and given the basic reason why it was un-featured from the editor.
On top of this system would be the ability to include a short 200-500 word comment from the peer reviewing section of the article, offering a way to give constructive criticism with the peer-review. This should not come without some risk to the peer-reviewers' Hubber scores, though, as I feel it could be an abused system without consequence for the reviewers.
If an article under this system is deemed to be of a quality not worthy of the negative peer review score, and should remain published and featured, then all subsequent negative reviewers should be docked somewhere within the one-three point range from their overarching Hubber score upon conclusion of official editorial review. This would not only deter Hubbers from abusing the system, but also decrease the toxicity that is ever-present in the forums while offering a proper outlet for criticism and advice.
Do you feel this peer review system I proposed would be viable and productive for everyone?
What Do You Think?
Do you think this would be a viable and productive system for not only increasing the quality of Hubpages as a whole, but also reducing the work load on those who have to officially edit the articles here on HubPages? Please, go down into the comments section and let me know what your opinion is on my proposed system, as well as offering your own solution as to decreasing the decadence, toxicity, and low-quality within HubPages.