3 ms·

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'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.