Voluntary Peer Editing

1. 88

   Len Cannonposted 14 years ago

   I'm just throwing this out there.  Quality content has been a topic that's been discussed a lot after the whole Google slap shenanigans  we've had.  With that in mind, I'd like to suggest eventually including an "automated" peer editing service.
   
   Essentially, writers opt to send their Hubs into a pool of HubPages approved peer editors who will make suggestions , fix grammar and spelling problems, and help create an eye pleasing layout.  Now, I know we have the "Extreme Hub Makeover" forum to help out people who are interested, but there are some problems there. 1) Not everyone would want to openly put up others opinions for commentary. The automated system would keep conversations and critiques private.  2) Only a small minority of writers actively use the forums.  3) As an integrated service, it would be used even by the newest members with a click of the button.
   
   Of course, it would stink to have volunteers doing a lot of free work so HubPages can keep making money. It might be a good idea to have the edited author relinquish, say, 5% of their pageviews to their editor for the benefit of their services.
   
   Obviously this isn't perfect and it is probably more than a little work from a programming standpoint.  However, I think it is an interesting idea and might be a good start to fighting back against charges of inferior content. Plus, it seems like it would fit in with HubPages theme of empowering the writers, rather than hiring outside community editors to pass judgement on our content.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Hestia DeVotoposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Would that really pay appropriately given the amount of work that would be necessary in correcting hubs?  I have a few friends who are professional editors and they make somewhere in the range of $50-$75 per hour for their skills, while the impression I've been given here is that money made from page views from other people's hubs is pennies.  I'd be horrified if someone wanted me to fix their hubs so they could earn more money and essentially was getting nothing for doing so.

      replyreport
   2. 86

      kschangposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I have the same idea. But IMHO, what's needed is a peer APPROVAL system, not an edit system.
      
      My specific idea was basically any hub from newbies (or hubscore below a certain number, say, 50?) must be approved by approvers, randomly chosen from the pool. Exact number can be discussed.
      
      Original idea is like... randomly choose 5, and 3 out of 5 must approve before the hub can be published.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         EmpressFelicityposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I don't mind the idea of an approval system in theory, but I would really prefer that the process was carried out by staff members, using a specific, transparent set of standards with a right of appeal.
         
         I don't like peer approval systems in general - too much potential for favouritism, voting down people you don't like etc.
         
         And when it comes to staff-led approvals: given that the staffing levels at HP are low, I don't think they'd welcome the extra workload!

         replyreport
         1. 86

            kschangposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            The favoritism can be curbed by a RANDOM pool of approvers. If you don't know who's going to get to rate the hub there can be little favoritism, esp. if you also strip out any ID info.
            
            Appeal process is necessary, with a penalty if the appeal fails. (Inspired by the NFL 'ruling challenge' )  Here's my idea:
            
            Each hubber gets 1 or 2 appeals a week. You can't save / pool it. 
            
            If your appeal is successful you get a certain something (haven't figured out what yet... maybe a temporary hubscore boost?)
            
            If your appeal fails you lose a certain something (haven't figure out what yet... hubscore penalty? )

            replyreport
            1. 0

               EmpressFelicityposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               But will the raters know whose hub they're rating?  Or would the "ratee" have their ID stripped out as well? 
               
               
               

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  kschangposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Most likely, both. Some sort of double anon system, perhaps?

                  replyreport
2. 69

   Cagsilposted 14 years ago

   Interesting thought.

   replyreport
3. 88

   Len Cannonposted 14 years ago

   I'll mark this one down as "bad idea" in my notes.

   replyreport
4. 69

   lrohnerposted 14 years ago

   Len - I don't think it's a bad idea. I just don't think it's doable unless you use paid editors.
   
   Some of the hubs out there just need minor corrections and fixes, and that could be done very quickly. But some of the hubs, particularly those written by ESL writers, could take 30 minutes or more to really fix. I know this because I do paid editing work on another site where I edit all types of articles, from ESL writers to those who are grammar/spelling challenged.
   
   It's more of a time sucker than you think to do it right.

   replyreport
5. 88

   Len Cannonposted 14 years ago

   I agree that editing is hardwork. I did the editing for new writers for a site I used to work for a few years back and it could be very grueling.  I suppose my real point is that people probably want their work edited to begin with, Hubpages doesn't want to hire 36 editors to spend an 12 hours glancing through 30 articles a day, and we need to make a community effort to improve our content.
   
   Honestly, the 5% page view wasn't supposed to be a "fair compensation" for editors time, but a small bonus that offers more than a cursory pat on the back for people who volunteer their time.  I'm sure other people have better ideas.
   
   I just think a more private editing process, user-to-user, codified into the HubPages system could see some positive use.
   
   I'm not married to the idea, though, and I appreciate your input Hestia and Irohner.

   replyreport