Launching today
Write Bubble
Where writers and readers grow together
7 followers
Where writers and readers grow together
7 followers
Stop juggling feedback across email chains and Google Docs. Write Bubble gives writers structured, trusted feedback and gives reviewers a reputation worth building. A community, not just a tool. Free during early access.
How does the reputation system actually work for reviewers? Like, is it purely based on volume of feedback given, or does it weigh the quality and how often the writer marks it as helpful?
Good question@hmeyraineijqe ,
After every review, the writer rates the reviewer on four things (1-5 each): helpfulness, specificity, clarity and usefulness. So yes, whether the writer found it helpful is literally one of the four things being scored, it's not a separate signal, it's baked into the rating itself. That's what builds a reviewer's profile over time, not how many reviews they've done. If someone churns out loads of shallow feedback, their ratings drop and they lose visibility, so there's no way to game it by just doing more reviews.
It also picks up on what a reviewer's actually good at (pacing, dialogue, structure etc) based on where they score highest, and their general style, whether they lean critical or supportive.
One more layer worth knowing: reviewers also pick a type for their profile, Beta Reader, Developmental Editor, Copy Editor and so on. That's a label they choose themselves to describe the kind of feedback they offer, not something the rating system assigns. Separately, there's an actual computed tier based on their ratings and review history, that's the part directly tied to quality, and it updates automatically as they review more manuscripts.
Curious what you think once you've had a proper go, this stage is exactly when feedback like yours matters most.
How does the reputation system actually work for reviewers - is it based on volume of feedback, quality ratings, or something else entirely?
@asminhnkd4ye Mostly quality ratings, but there's a bit of "something else" mixed in too.
Every time a reviewer finishes a review, the writer scores them 1-5 across four categories: helpfulness, specificity, clarity and usefulness. Those scores are what actually shape a reviewer's reputation, not how many reviews they've racked up.
The "something else" part: the system also works out what a reviewer's strongest at (dialogue, pacing, structure, that kind of thing) based on which categories they consistently score highest in, and picks up on their general style, more critical or more supportive. None of that's manually tagged, it's inferred straight from the ratings.
There's also a tier system, worth being precise about since it's actually two separate things: the badge on a reviewer's profile (Beta Reader, Developmental Editor etc) is self-chosen, it describes the kind of feedback they offer rather than a verified rank. Separately, there's a computed tier based on their actual rating history and review activity, that one's automatic and reflects how experienced and trusted they are. The two aren't linked yet, so right now the profile badge and the computed tier can technically tell a different story.
Let me know if that raises more questions, happy to go deeper on any of it.
How does the reputation system actually work for reviewers, and is it tied to a public profile or something more private within the community?
@gzdecoansurdwq Both, actually, it depends on what the reviewer chooses.
Every review gets rated by the writer across four categories (1-5 each): helpfulness, specificity, clarity and usefulness. Those aggregate into an overall score plus the four individual breakdowns.
Whether any of that's visible to anyone comes down to a visibility setting each reviewer controls: private (nothing shown to anyone), platform (visible to other logged-in Write Bubble users), or public (a shareable profile URL anyone can view, no account needed). If a profile is visible at all, the full rating breakdown comes with it, nothing's shown piecemeal.
One nuance worth mentioning: the badge you see on a profile (Beta Reader, Developmental Editor, Copy Editor etc) is a label the reviewer picks themselves, it describes the kind of feedback they offer rather than a rank they've earned. There's a separate computed tier, based on their actual ratings and review history, that reflects how experienced and trusted they are, but right now it isn't linked to that profile badge. Bringing those two together is something we're looking at.
Appreciate the sharp question, it's exactly the kind of thing that shapes what we prioritise next.
How does the reputation system actually work for reviewers, and is there any weight given to feedback that ends up being implemented by the writer?
@sebahattinsjly Sort of, yes, though it's not quite "implemented" in the literal sense.
Writers can mark individual comments as accepted, basically acknowledging "I'm acting on this feedback." That acceptance rate feeds into a reviewer's computed tier, the highest tier actually requires at least 60% of a reviewer's comments to be marked accepted by writers.
Worth being precise though: accepting a comment doesn't check whether the writer actually made the corresponding edit to their manuscript, it's an acknowledgment signal, not a link to a specific change. And it's separate from the core reputation ratings, the four-dimension scores (helpfulness, specificity, clarity, usefulness) only come from the explicit rating a writer gives after a review. Accepted comments don't move those numbers.
So there's a real signal in there for "did this land with the writer," just not full implementation tracking yet. Genuinely good instinct to ask though, linking accepted comments to actual manuscript changes is worth exploring.