Comments on: EP Meta: Milestones http://grandtextauto.org/2008/03/21/ep-meta-milestones/ A group blog about computer narrative, games, poetry, and art. Thu, 30 Sep 2010 22:43:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: noah http://grandtextauto.org/2008/03/21/ep-meta-milestones/comment-page-1/#comment-223747 noah Sat, 22 Mar 2008 05:26:06 +0000 http://grandtextauto.org/2008/03/21/ep-meta-milestones/#comment-223747 Chris, I think that's an intriguing idea. I've been arguing that blog-based peer review should really be done in established online communities -- but another possibility would certainly be to establish an online community for purposes of peer review. Of course, the flip side of the "only for fans" worry is that this is a community in which we already discuss these things and have expertise present. The same is true for blogs in other areas. I wonder if we'd get as good an expertise to noise ratio in the "Prr" community. Of course, there's one obvious way to get some data... Chris, I think that’s an intriguing idea. I’ve been arguing that blog-based peer review should really be done in established online communities — but another possibility would certainly be to establish an online community for purposes of peer review.

Of course, the flip side of the “only for fans” worry is that this is a community in which we already discuss these things and have expertise present. The same is true for blogs in other areas. I wonder if we’d get as good an expertise to noise ratio in the “Prr” community. Of course, there’s one obvious way to get some data…

]]> By: Chris Lewis http://grandtextauto.org/2008/03/21/ep-meta-milestones/comment-page-1/#comment-223711 Chris Lewis Sat, 22 Mar 2008 03:40:48 +0000 http://grandtextauto.org/2008/03/21/ep-meta-milestones/#comment-223711 I'm really looking forward to the comparison between what the GTxA commenters came up with, and what the peer review picked up. I wonder if what others before me have said are right, and the GTxA comments have been about precise wordings or paragraphs, while the peer-review was more overall impressions. If that's the case, then one could certainly envisage this happening more often; where the two complement rather than overlap one another. I can't really admit to having spent too much time reading EP, but from what I have, I've really enjoyed it. It's easy to be generous with your time when it's something as interesting as EP. But as Ian Bogost pointed out in the Meta chapter, I do worry that might be skewing the comments: we wouldn't be here if we weren't interested in the work of the GTxA guys. This is not to say that the comments were wrong, but just that I hope the peer-review will confirm and solidify in *your* mind that you've got a great book here, rather than "one for the fans" (nothing wrong with that either, of course...) Perhaps if we concede that the blog format might not be able to see books in their entirety, then there could be a site which could share a section a day from books in peer-review across a wide range of topics. Visitors would all have their own specialities and fields they enjoy, but would also get a kick out of learning something out of their comfort zone. That might then expose authors to the challenging perspectives that Ian mentioned. Sort of like Digg, but for academic peer-review books. Peerr. "I perred your work." ... It needs a better name. I’m really looking forward to the comparison between what the GTxA commenters came up with, and what the peer review picked up. I wonder if what others before me have said are right, and the GTxA comments have been about precise wordings or paragraphs, while the peer-review was more overall impressions. If that’s the case, then one could certainly envisage this happening more often; where the two complement rather than overlap one another.

I can’t really admit to having spent too much time reading EP, but from what I have, I’ve really enjoyed it. It’s easy to be generous with your time when it’s something as interesting as EP. But as Ian Bogost pointed out in the Meta chapter, I do worry that might be skewing the comments: we wouldn’t be here if we weren’t interested in the work of the GTxA guys. This is not to say that the comments were wrong, but just that I hope the peer-review will confirm and solidify in *your* mind that you’ve got a great book here, rather than “one for the fans” (nothing wrong with that either, of course…)

Perhaps if we concede that the blog format might not be able to see books in their entirety, then there could be a site which could share a section a day from books in peer-review across a wide range of topics. Visitors would all have their own specialities and fields they enjoy, but would also get a kick out of learning something out of their comfort zone. That might then expose authors to the challenging perspectives that Ian mentioned.

Sort of like Digg, but for academic peer-review books. Peerr. “I perred your work.”

…

It needs a better name.

]]>