Peer Review Recap Part 2

This time the peer review process was more confusing to me.  I don't think the WetPaint wiki is as straightforward as Google Docs was.  It didn't seem quite as organized, and that made it more difficult to find everything.  I still didn't mind the WetPaint format, though it was more complicated when it came to the actual editing of papers. 

Apparently some of the editing tools don't work well with Safari, so when I was trying to edit papers I couldn't change the color of the font.  This meant that I couldn't find many ways to distinguish my comments from the actual papers.  I would underline something so that it would show up, and then once I saved it the underlining would be gone.  Plus, unless people posted a thread or wrote their name after their editing, there would be no way to know who was saying what.  That wasn't crucial, but without the name how will it work for grading?  When using Google Docs before, it would give the name and time right next to the comment, which made it more helpful.  It also showed up differently than the paper itself, making it easier to see where the comments were.

The Wiki still did it's job in that I was able to give constructive comments, which I did to the best of my ability ( I would have been able to receive them as well if I had posted my essay).  The online peer review process is proving to be just as beneficial, if not more so, than the traditional face to face format.