Should Hubpages start providing a Peer Review Process

1. 91

   klanguedocposted 7 years ago

   Should Hubpages start providing a Peer Review Process
   
   With new search algorithms from Google and Bing and Yahoo relying more on the social relevancy of content and the social trustworthiness of content as well as higher quality content, should HubPages as a service to Hubbers and the Community, offer a Peer Review Process to help make content higher in quality in terms of writing and overall content.

   replyreport
2. 80

   ThoughtSandwichesposted 7 years ago

   Would this result in another censorship body?  I understand that there is a place you can have your Hubs reviewed and fine-tuned by other Hubbers.  I think the best peer reviews are shown by your peers not reading your stuff and through comments.  Now...a beer review...that would get my vote!

   replyreport
3. 87

   rebekahELLEposted 7 years ago

   I personally don't think this is necessary.  There is a forum for critique and reviews, Extreme Hub Makeover, for those who wish to receive feedback.  Also there are the accolades, share functions,  and Vote Up, Vote Down, Flag buttons. 
   Peer Reviews can be quite subjective rather than objective when working with such a diverse group of writers/publishers.  A lot of hubbers learn and grow so much with the vast amount of help already available from the HubPages community.  Really all one needs to do is ask, and someone will gladly help.

   replyreport
4. 60

   Daffy Duckposted 7 years ago

   No. Peer reviews are when people read your hubs.  If they don't like them then they won't follow you.  There is also feedback and comments you can leave.  There is your peer review.

   replyreport
5. 0

   writeronlineposted 7 years ago

   I think, as others have already noted, that HubPages already provides a very worthwhile peer review process.
   
   Not by name, but by functionality, via the various methods of rating able to be carried out by fellow Hubbers, who by definition are other writers, and thus peers.
   
   It's also a reality based, real-time system, operated voluntarily, not by demand. Which adds to, rather than detracts from, its credibility and relevance.
   
   It's further supplemented by an efficient process for collectively contributing to the removal of spun articles, and clearly substandard (objectively, not subjectively assessed) work, via the Hub Hopper.
   
   You can't get a much more pure peer review system than that.
   
   If on the other hand, you're talking about the widely held, but very wrong, perception that 'peer' equals 'superior', you may well find support from those who see themselves that way.
   
   For myself, I'll be the first to form a group in opposition.
   
   The existing comments section provides for those with the need to display their ego in public, but writers have the ability to deny such comments, and for those who feel the need (generally well-founded, and well-intentioned, I'm sure) to let a fellow Hubber know of a particular transgression, without causing hurt or embarrassment, the facility already exists to send the writer an email via Hubpages itself.
   
   And finally, the introduction of individual user domains, not huddled beneath the HubPages identity, is designed to minimise the negative effect of any bad, or even just less commercial,  work that does survive.
   
   A perfect system? Nothing is. But it's not bad.
   
   That's my tuppence worth, anyway. 

   replyreport
6. 71

   whoisbidposted 7 years ago

   I think it would be a good idea because then I probably would not have to write things for moderators. I can't be myself on HubPages because moderators like deleting my stuff even though some others like it.

   replyreport