TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: guidelines for technical reviewers From:Kris Olberg <kjolberg -at- IX -dot- NETCOM -dot- COM> Date:Tue, 11 Nov 1997 20:49:40 -0600
-----Original Message-----
From: CJACOBS.US.ORACLE.COM <CJACOBS -at- US -dot- ORACLE -dot- COM>
To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU <TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU>
Date: Tuesday, November 11, 1997 7:20 AM
Subject: guidelines for technical reviewers
>No doubt all of you have experience with technical reviewers who return
>review
>packets late, or not at all, or not containing the kind of review comments
>that you were hoping for.
One technique I've seen employed a number of times is to require a signature
from a reviewer. My personal experience as a technical reviewer is that it's
a lot harder for me to put my signature on something when I know darn well I
haven't looked it with a critical set of eyes.
Regards...Kris
------------------------------
kolberg -at- actamed -dot- com
kris -at- olberg -dot- com
