Some context seems to be missing from this discussion. Reviews are assigned at random—I don’t get to select pieces that align with my personal taste or creative momentum.
As a result, not every piece immediately sparks an effortless, flowing critique. That isn’t a judgment of the author; it’s simply the reality of a volume-based system. Some work requires more intentional effort to identify structure, strengths, and areas for growth.
When that happens, I choose to engage more deeply rather than defaulting to surface-level or generic feedback. The goal is always the same: to provide something thoughtful, organized, and genuinely useful to the writer.
If the expectation is that every review should come effortlessly regardless of circumstances, then we’re prioritizing convenience over quality. I’m more interested in the outcome—whether the feedback actually helps—than in policing the process behind it.
Professional standards don’t disappear just because the system is automated.
Printed from https://www.writing.com/main/handler/item_id/2352911-On-Reviews-Process-and-Expectations
All Writing.Com images are copyrighted and may not be copied / modified in any way. All other brand names & trademarks are owned by their respective companies.
Generated in 0.10 seconds at 8:33pm on Jan 15, 2026 via server WEBX2.