Reviews::review    Reviewee::merits    Section::reviewer    Which::refund    MESSAGE::video    Books::movie

My purpose is to reflect upon the relationship of reviewer and reviewee. Here a status persists that means the reviewers' words carry weight. Despite the independent merits of each item of work, the record of performance is less objective. Effort is relative to temporal nuances and the reviewers ignorance, amongst other factors. True merit is therefore almost impossible to measure and thus is often measured inaccurately.

The consequence may be significant, leaving the reviewee confused or frustrated by inconsistency and occasional inadequacy. Unchecked such feelings will erode productivity and the quality of work. The fix for this managerial fopa is surprisingly simple – review a random sample of tasks over a set period of time and identify appropriate reviewers for each. Not only does the reviewee receive more objective (read appropriate) feedback but peer review becomes a skill spread across the team – wherever there is competence.

Given the opportunity for a full cycle of review, i.e. the reviewee may pass comment on the reviewer, the work and objective review of its merits are subject to the same checks and balances. This quality control process may be self regulating to ensure a good standard of reviewer and thus assured work and an improving worker.

Talk:Review sections
Intro   COMOB    Added movie/tv/video review section; also, on lack of references generally