Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

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

363 views

Published on

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

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

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

×