3 ms·

Understood that with printed docs multiple people may start commenting on the same points, however, the discussion happens only once still. I personally find t

by alok-g 5y ago

Understood that with printed docs multiple people may start commenting on the same points, however, the discussion happens only once still. I personally find that many of the comments showing up with online commenting are not worth, and they don't even get acted upon. What's lost in the process are good comments amongst the sea of them. Notetakers should be capturing the key points anyways. Large number of online comments is perhaps even worse than meeting summary notes with a raw listing who said what.

grogenaut 5y ago
I'm with you on filtering out the key points. But I felt I had to do that in paper meetings as well. I have no real issue closing out comments after the review. I've also started making heavy use of suggestions instead of comments for minor edits... I spend a lot of time doing grammar and phrasing stuff on early release documents. This feels more like collaborative editing. Both paper and online docs are a lot better than sending around word docs with track changes on tho.
- alok-g 5y ago
  +1 overall. >> I'm with you on filtering out the key points. But I felt I had to do that in paper meetings as well. Agreed. Even for the verbal discussions after paper meetings, the law of triviality still usually applies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality Just that it has become worse with online documents. >> I have no real issue closing out comments after the review. +1. >> are a lot better than sending around word docs with track changes on tho. I agree, collating feedback from multiple Word documents is a lot harder for accommodating the smaller comments (i.e., those comments which should be handled later offline). It would have been ideal if (online) document review tools had the following features: (a) Allow the reviewers to mark their own comments on importance. I would find this useful even as a reviewer so that I can bring up only the important points into the verbal discussion. It would also be helpful if I can mark some comments as intended for myself only. (b) Submitting the key comments first (using 'a' above), subsequently the remaining ones after the meeting.

by alok-g 5y ago

grogenaut 5y ago

I'm with you on filtering out the key points. But I felt I had to do that in paper meetings as well. I have no real issue closing out comments after the review. I've also started making heavy use of suggestions instead of comments for minor edits... I spend a lot of time doing grammar and phrasing stuff on early release documents. This feels more like collaborative editing. Both paper and online docs are a lot better than sending around word docs with track changes on tho.

alok-g 5y ago
+1 overall. >> I'm with you on filtering out the key points. But I felt I had to do that in paper meetings as well. Agreed. Even for the verbal discussions after paper meetings, the law of triviality still usually applies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality Just that it has become worse with online documents. >> I have no real issue closing out comments after the review. +1. >> are a lot better than sending around word docs with track changes on tho. I agree, collating feedback from multiple Word documents is a lot harder for accommodating the smaller comments (i.e., those comments which should be handled later offline). It would have been ideal if (online) document review tools had the following features: (a) Allow the reviewers to mark their own comments on importance. I would find this useful even as a reviewer so that I can bring up only the important points into the verbal discussion. It would also be helpful if I can mark some comments as intended for myself only. (b) Submitting the key comments first (using 'a' above), subsequently the remaining ones after the meeting.