Session 01: Kick-off
Hi there! Welcome to this first session of the Review Forum project where I am creating a space for public reviews of Cryptiquest content. This session will attempt to suss out the goal and objectives of the project.
During the Retrospective for the Compass Definitions project, it was revealed that the “release for general feedback” step was skipped for the project and a possible solution was to create a forum on social media channels specifically for soliciting feedback.
Currently there is no “space” assigned for soliciting general feedback from the public. I can ask friends and acquaintances and they may do it because they care about me but that would be less effective than seeking reviews from people who are interested in the content. I could publish it through official Cryptiquest channels but those channels are for official dissemination of information, not soliciting feedback.
Need: A space carved out for officially soliciting feedback from the public that is separate from the channels used to give information to the public.
Once content is ready for review, I copy and paste it into “the forum”, make a few social media posts about it and watch reviews come in from people who believe in the content and want to help it be better.
Limitations and Unknowns
- Assuming a new platform is chosen and I upload the content directly to the platform, do people from that forum get to comment on it? (Answer: Sure. Why not?)
- Assuming an old platform is chosen, how do people from outside that forum comment on it? (Answer: Share it to the other platform and let them answer from there?)
- Alternatively, should reviews be posted directly to multiple platforms? (Answer: The ideal situation is that it’s posted once.)
- Do I share notifications of these review opportunities through the official channels? (Answer: Perhaps the answer is that the official channels notify subscribers of the platform to do so, but not of each review.)
- What about formatting? (Answer: The forum must be able to accept html formatting.)
- What if, on the off-chance, there are a lot of people who provide feedback (to the point of it being problematic)? (Answer: Either the comments are cut off after a certain amount of time or there is a disclaimer that the comments will not be read after a certain amount of time?)
- What happens if no one offers any feedback at all? (Answer: I will need to ask people who would normally review for their advice to improve the system.)
After identifying the ideal situation and addressing the limitations, the goal seems to be about establishing a system.
Goal: To establish a system in which Cryptiquest presents content for the public to review.
- Posts will only be generated in one forum.
- All review posts should be sent to reviewers but not to all followers.
- The platform for posts must either accept html formatting or provide the same formatting that would otherwise be available via html.
Proposed Direction and Next Steps
- Research forums that meet objectives.
- Report findings in next session.
- Plan launch.
During the research phase of the the Online Notes project, I had come across some tools that did not work for that project but may here. I will start with these items. The next session will be dedicated to reporting my findings and (hopefully) planning the launch.
- Look into changing names of projects from reflecting the proposed solution to reflecting the initial problem. This may mitigate the frequency of projects ending with different products than the project name suggests.
- Perhaps the Retrospective should be generated at the start of each project and store all the project planning elements (need, goal, objective, etc.) and considerations?
- Add research and planning deliverable for this project.