Session 05: Preparing for Review

Session 05: Preparing for Review

Session 04: Drafting the Instructions

Hi and welcome to this session of the Content Review Decision Tree project where I am developing a tool to determine when review support is needed and at what capacity. In the previous session, I drafted the instructions for the tool. Moving into the Review Phase of the project, I intend to identify the target audience, prepare a draft for external review, and send it out for Conceptual Support. I’ll also have to determine a method for getting Proofread Support.

I’ll start with the target audience.

The tool is written for an internal audience (i.e. me). While others may get some use out of this tool I’m not convinced that anyone else would. At this time, I think the target audience for this tool should remain internal.

With that in mind, I’ll prepare the work for conceptual review.


Review Support Tool

The purpose of this tool is to determine when each review tier is needed before implementing content. Three review tiers have been identified:

  • Conceptual Support: Trusted confidants; who understand the goal, who are reliable, and who freely question better ways to meet your goal.
  • Target Audience Support: Users; in which the content was designed for and who do not necessarily need to understand the goal or be known by the project producer.
  • Proofread Support: Editors; who have an eye for typos, grammar, sentence structure, etc. and who do not necessarily need to understand the goal or be known by the project producer.

Before using the tool, you will need to identify the type of project you are working on based on the following parameters:

  1. Is the content INFORMAL or FORMAL?
    • Informal: The content is understood to be less professional.
    • Formal: The presentation needs to come off as professional.
  2. Is the content INFORMATIONAL or CONCEPTUAL?
    • Informational: The content is more about reporting data.
    • Conceptual: The content is more about stirring emotion, explaining a process, or planting ideas.
  3. Is the content intended solely for an INTERNAL AUDIENCE?
    • Yes: The intended audience is specifically for Cryptiquest or those employed / contracted by Cryptiquest.
    • No: Even if the intended audience is mostly for Cryptiquest or those employed / contracted by Cryptiquest, there is at least a small part intended for an external audience.

With your project identified, you can determine what tiers of review support are needed for the content-in-question by running this algorithm:

  1. Is the content Informal?
    • Yes: No review support needed
    • No: Go to Question 2.
  2. Is the content a new project or an update?
    • New Project: Go to Question 3.
    • Update: Go to Question 5.
  3. Is the content Informational or Conceptual?
    • Informational: You only need Proofread Support.
    • Conceptual: Go to Question 4.
  4. Is the content solely intended for an Internal Audience?
    • Yes: You need Conceptual Support and Proofread Support.
    • No: You need Conceptual SupportTarget Audience Support, and Proofread Support.
  5. Is the content Conceptual or Informational?
    • Conceptual: Go to Question 6.
    • Informational: Go to Question 7.
  6. Do the updates bend the concepts enough that they are completely different from before?
    • Yes: You need Conceptual Support, Target Audience Support, and Proofread Support.
    • No: Go to Question 7.
  7. Do the updates entail complete rewrites?
    • Yes: You only need Proofread Support.
    • No: No review support needed.

If it isn’t obvious, you can override the results of this tool and choose to forgo review support or seek additional review support however you wish. This tool was generated to help you determine the decision but it is not comprehensive.


I’ll get this out for conceptual review then tackle the proofread process.

So I need to fulfill this role: “Editors; who have an eye for typos, grammar, sentence structure, etc. and who do not necessarily need to understand the goal or be known by the project producer.”

What options do I have? I can reach out to contacts I know. I can reach out to a gig site (like Fivrr), or I can … what? What else is there? Reach out to a more professional service? If the results of these options are otherwise equal, I’d ideally wish to pay a stranger to do the edits rather than asking someone to do this as a favor. Fivvr seems to be an affordable version of this but maybe if I worked with the right contact I could still have an affordable pay-for-edit relationship with a little bit more accessibility by way of pre-established relationship. I’d also prefer to have a situation similar to the relationship with my confidants but that’s obviously not necessary.

I’ll go the Fivrr route for now and see how that works out. There is an editor that seems to stand out perfectly. After my confidants return their review, I’ll give this a try and see how it works out.

In the next session, I’ll debate the best way to implement this tool on the site. See you there!

Action Items

  • N/A
Session 04: Drafting the Instructions