As you might know, we had a community evaluation review last week. The votes have been tabulated and below are the sample questions organized by score (
Excellent - Needs Improvement):
- Why is the blind man in John 9 sent to the pool that means “sent”? 7/1/0
- Who does Jesus refer to by the phrase “another who testifies about me” in John 5:32? 6/2/0
- Should the title in Isaiah 9 be translated? 6/4/0
- Does Luke put the Twelve in a negative light in Acts 6? 3/5/0
- Is Satan one of the “sons of God”? 3/5/1
- Tribe of Benjamin Elite Corps of Slingers 3/5/2
- How can Psalms 68:18 be translated as in Ephesians 4:8? 1/4/1
- Paul's knowledge of Jannes and Jambres the magicians of Egypt 2/4/4
- Romans 16:7 : “fellowprisoners” in the book of Romans?! 1/5/4
- Why are the Psalms broken into five books? 1/3/4
The numbers after each question are the count of votes recorded for Excellent/Satisfactory/Needs Improvement. So question #1 had seven Excellent votes, one Satisfactory and no Needs Improvement. By my count we had 13 participants, but for various reasons, not everyone voted on every question. (I wasn't allowed to vote on questions 3 or 5, since I wrote those questions myself, for instance.)
I'd like to open the answers to any comments y'all might have on the results or the process of reviewing the questions. I'm particularly interested in analysis of the 3 questions at the bottom that clearly need improvement. What is lacking in those questions? What can we do to improve them? What lessons can we learn to avoid those pitfalls in the future?
I'd also like to know what problems people found with the higher-scoring questions. What did the reviewers miss?
Feel free to be critical of our site and don't hold back because:
Next eval begins on May 3 at 3:00.
(Obviously, don't get personal, however. Let's try to avoid naming names if possible and just focus on the content of the questions and answers.)