Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Bruno Skvorc - Open sourcing content - peer review's effect on quality

Ad

Open Sourcing Content
Peer Review’s Effect on Quality

Ad

About me
● Bruno Skvorc, Croatia
● PHP Editor, SitePoint.com (PhpMaster.com)
● Developer Evangelist at Diffbot.com
Twitter...

Ad

Open Source Content
● Open Source is more than Code

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Check these out next

1 of 18 Ad
1 of 18 Ad
Advertisement

More Related Content

Advertisement

More from Open Labs Albania (17)

Advertisement

Bruno Skvorc - Open sourcing content - peer review's effect on quality

  1. 1. Open Sourcing Content Peer Review’s Effect on Quality
  2. 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. 3. Open Source Content ● Open Source is more than Code
  4. 4. Peer Review Reviewers need to be: ● qualified ● respectful ● genuinely interested ● traditional model = meh ● open access model = meh
  5. 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. 6. SitePoint’s Peer Review ● Github / Gitlab to the rescue ● one repo per channel ● PHP channel pioneer
  7. 7. SitePoint’s Peer Review Closed by default, open by request
  8. 8. SitePoint’s Peer Review ● in depth guidelines ● semi-strict rules (best practices, etc.)
  9. 9. SitePoint’s Peer Review ● no moar Trello plz ew ● active communication ● more issues and Slack, less email
  10. 10. SitePoint’s Peer Review Mass pings discouraged but allowed Individual pings preferred Categories Table ● competencies ● preferences ● notes
  11. 11. SitePoint’s Peer Review
  12. 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. 13. SitePoint’s Peer Review Rule of three ● three or more reviews ● two weeks ● urgency
  14. 14. SitePoint’s Peer Review ● rewards ● regular Authors ● gamification (soon) ● automation (sooner)
  15. 15. SitePoint’s Peer Review Results
  16. 16. SitePoint’s Peer Review Peer review gave us: ● higher payouts ● appreciation towards authors ● more traffic, fewer expenses ● more advertisers ● noticeably higher quality
  17. 17. SitePoint’s Peer Review Closed doors = lame Openness with content = great Collaboration on content = greater Potential gain > risk of content theft
  18. 18. Contact Twitter: @bitfalls G+: +BrunoSkvorc Github: Swader Email: bruno.skvorc@sitepoint.com Joind.in: https://joind.in/14461

×