Bruno Skvorc - Open sourcing content - peer review's effect on quality
0 likes529 views
The document discusses SitePoint's open peer review process for content. It outlines that SitePoint uses GitHub and GitLab repositories for each content channel, with content closed by default but open for review upon request. The peer review process involves in-depth guidelines, active communication through issues and Slack, and a rule that content requires reviews from at least three reviewers over two weeks. The results reported are higher payouts for authors, more traffic and advertisers for the site, and noticeably higher quality content.
Bruno Skvorc - Open sourcing content - peer review's effect on quality
- 1. Open Sourcing Content Peer Review’s Effect on Quality
- 2. About me ● Bruno Skvorc, Croatia ● PHP Editor, SitePoint.com (PhpMaster.com) ● Developer Evangelist at Diffbot.com Twitter: @bitfalls G+: +BrunoSkvorc Github: Swader Email: bruno.skvorc@sitepoint.com
- 3. Open Source Content ● Open Source is more than Code
- 4. Peer Review Reviewers need to be: ● qualified ● respectful ● genuinely interested ● traditional model = meh ● open access model = meh
- 5. Peer Review SitePoint: ● a magazine, not a blog ● all posts paid ● budget vs. traffic matters ● expenses--, quality++ … how? ● not a fit for traditional peer review ● not a fit for “gold open access”
- 6. SitePoint’s Peer Review ● Github / Gitlab to the rescue ● one repo per channel ● PHP channel pioneer
- 7. SitePoint’s Peer Review Closed by default, open by request
- 8. SitePoint’s Peer Review ● in depth guidelines ● semi-strict rules (best practices, etc.)
- 9. SitePoint’s Peer Review ● no moar Trello plz ew ● active communication ● more issues and Slack, less email
- 10. SitePoint’s Peer Review Mass pings discouraged but allowed Individual pings preferred Categories Table ● competencies ● preferences ● notes
- 12. SitePoint’s Peer Review Review types: ● skim and comment ● typo fixes (suggestions or pull requests) ● other fixes (suggestions or pull requests) ● opinions ● alternative approaches ● etc...
- 13. SitePoint’s Peer Review Rule of three ● three or more reviews ● two weeks ● urgency
- 14. SitePoint’s Peer Review ● rewards ● regular Authors ● gamification (soon) ● automation (sooner)
- 16. SitePoint’s Peer Review Peer review gave us: ● higher payouts ● appreciation towards authors ● more traffic, fewer expenses ● more advertisers ● noticeably higher quality
- 17. SitePoint’s Peer Review Closed doors = lame Openness with content = great Collaboration on content = greater Potential gain > risk of content theft
- 18. Contact Twitter: @bitfalls G+: +BrunoSkvorc Github: Swader Email: bruno.skvorc@sitepoint.com Joind.in: https://joind.in/14461