Rocco Caputo writes: > On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 08:19:14PM +0000, Smylers wrote: > > > Similarly an author doesn't need to understand all of the problems, > > just so long as they state exactly what they are looking at, > > preferably stated upfront. So the article starts by saying "I'm > > looking for a something that does ..., and these are the features > > that I'd like it to have ..., and this is the way it'd be convenient > > for it to operate". > > "Conveniently, I've written exactly the thing that provides the > features I need, in a way that's most convenient for my purpose. > Everything else pales by comparison, otherwise I would not have > written it. Here, let me show you."
Yeah, that could happen. But such a review would likely be discredited, and may well provide impetus for somebody else to provide a better one. > > Starting with an explicit list of 'requirements' like that has > > several advantages: > > > > * It makes the subsequent review more objective (and, just as > > importantly, makes it be seen to be objective), as modules are > > being compared against defined criteria rather than just on > > feelings. > > It's easy to tailor criteria to suit one module over others. True, but by explicitly listing the requirements it means this can be seen by everybody: if you've got a need for a particular type of module and your criteria don't match well with those in the review then you know not to reject (bits of) it. If the review mentions additional criteria then it should make you pause and evaluate whether they apply too you. If you haven't got any criteria then, yes, you're at the mercy of reviewers' whims. But is that really worse than the current situation? Should we get swamped by obviously biased reviews then let's address that. But it isn't a problem we have yet ... Smylers
