About the PYA Beta Buddies Scheme

Promoting Yorkshire Authors (PYA) is launching a Beta Buddies scheme to enhance the quality of members' writing through peer review.

This initiative connects authors within a private Facebook group, fostering a collaborative environment for providing constructive criticism. Participation is voluntary, based on mutual trust, and requires reciprocal reviewing, with no monetary exchange permitted.

PYA offers two frameworks for guidance: an informal approach with open-ended questions and a clinical approach involving a detailed scoring system across different elements of writing.

While PYA facilitates the connection, authors are responsible for managing the review process and reporting any issues. The goal is to foster supportive relationships and elevate the overall standard of work within the PYA community, with the potential for removing members should the environment become hostile.

Why not listen to our Podcast on Spotify (follow link in new window) or via an RSS Feed by copying the link into your regular Podcast Reader.

 

Beta Buddies Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

• What is the PYA Beta Buddies scheme and what are its objectives?
• The PYA Beta Buddies scheme is an initiative by Promoting Yorkshire Authors (PYA) to facilitate informal collaboration between PYA members. Members can become "Beta Buddies" who read and review each other's work, offering constructive advice to improve its quality. The scheme aims to help authors improve their writing through reciprocal feedback, with the understanding that quality is subjective.
• How does the PYA Beta Buddies scheme work?
• The scheme operates within a private, closed Facebook group called "PYA Beta Buddies," accessible only to full PYA members via invitation. Members can post requests for beta readers, providing details about their manuscript (genre, synopsis, desired feedback). If another member agrees, they provide feedback directly to the author. PYA is not involved in the review process but expects participants to be respectful and supportive. Ill-mannered exchanges are not tolerated. The service exchange is free, working on trust and reciprocity.
• Is there any cost involved in participating in the PYA Beta Buddies scheme?
• No. The PYA Beta Buddies scheme is based on the principle of mutual, free exchange. Participants offer their beta reading services in return for receiving feedback on their own work from other members. No monetary payment is allowed.
• What frameworks are available to guide the beta reading process?
• The PYA Beta Buddies scheme suggests two frameworks: Informal and Clinical. The Informal Approach uses a series of open-ended questions focusing on the reader's overall impression and specific aspects of the story (e.g., engagement, plot, characters, believability). The Clinical Approach provides a more structured review with scoring for elements like editing, characters, scenes/plot, dialogue, pace and illustrations (if applicable). Participants can choose the approach that best suits them.
• What kind of questions are asked in the "Informal Approach"?
• The "Informal Approach" involves answering questions such as: "What was your overall impression of the story?", "What did you like about it most?", "Was there anything you didn’t like about it?", "Did the story grab you from the beginning?", "Was there anything you found confusing?", and questions about character engagement and whether the plot is believable.
• What areas are covered in the "Clinical Approach" scoring system?
• The "Clinical Approach" scoring system evaluates various aspects of the work, including: Editing (grammar, punctuation, spelling), Characters (development, relatable, consistency), Scenes/Plots/Story-line (consistency, originality), Dialogue (realism, character-specificity), Pace (consistency, engagement) and Illustrations (relevance and quality, if applicable). Each area is scored on a scale, with clear descriptors for each level.
• How do I join the PYA Beta Buddies Facebook group?
• To join the PYA Beta Buddies Facebook group, you must be a full PYA member. Request membership by adding a comment to the pinned post labelled "PYA Beta Buddies" within PYA's closed Facebook group. The group admins will review your request and may ask questions to validate your membership.
• What happens if there are problems or disputes between beta buddies?
• While PYA encourages amicable and supportive relationships, if problems arise, members should report them to the admins of the PYA Beta Buddies Facebook group. PYA reserves the right to remove individuals from the platform if necessary, particularly in cases of ill-mannered exchanges. However, it's expected that most issues can be resolved through open communication between the authors and beta readers.

 

Overview: Promoting Yorkshire Authors (PYA) Beta Buddies Scheme

Date: October 26, 2023
Subject: Review of the PYA Beta Buddies Scheme Documentation

Introduction:

This document summarises the key themes and concepts presented in the PYA Beta Buddies Briefing Document. The document details the implementation of a beta reading scheme for members of Promoting Yorkshire Authors (PYA), designed to improve the quality of their work through collaborative peer review.

Main Themes & Key Ideas:

• Objective: Collaborative Improvement: The primary objective of the PYA Beta Buddies scheme is to facilitate constructive feedback and collaborative improvement among PYA authors. The scheme provides a safe and trusted environment where authors can exchange reviews and learn from the process. As the document states, the aim is "to help authors to improve the quality of their work by informal collaboration between PYA members (beta buddies) so that they can read and review each other’s work to provide constructive advice on how to improve it."
• Reciprocal, Trust-Based System: The scheme operates on a principle of reciprocity, where members offer their reviewing services freely in exchange for receiving feedback on their own work. This requires a high degree of trust between participants. "The PYA Beta Buddies scheme will work only if each buddy gives their services freely, in exchange only for others offering to reciprocally examine their own work. It very much relies on trust between two parties so we urge writers to research potential buddies before reviewing commences."
• Private Facebook Group: A private, invite-only Facebook group, "PYA Beta Buddies," serves as the central platform for connecting authors and facilitating review requests. This ensures a closed and moderated environment for PYA members. Access is controlled via requests to the group admin.
• Author Responsibility: While PYA provides the platform, the responsibility for managing the review process and relationships with beta readers lies with the individual authors. PYA's role is primarily administrative and to address any instances of unacceptable behaviour. "PYA isn’t involved in the review process, nor the interaction between author and beta reader and you’ll be expected to handle the relationship between you."
• Framework Options: Informal vs. Clinical: The document outlines two framework options for conducting reviews: an "Informal Approach" based on open-ended questions and a "Clinical Approach" that uses a structured scoring system. Authors are free to agree on the most suitable method for their needs. "We’re offering two frameworks as guidance to kick-start the Beta Buddies scheme but you’re not obliged to follow either of them – agree between yourselves how the reviewing will be performed and the outcome."
• Subjectivity of Reading: The document acknowledges the inherently subjective nature of reading and literary taste. The Helen Johnson quote highlights this: "'Quality is in the eye of the beholder – and, in the case of a book, in the eye of the reader. A book exists as a relationship between two people: the writer and the reader. And, as each reader is a unique, every reader’s reaction is also unique.'"

Informal Approach Details:

This approach uses a question-based framework focused on the reviewer's overall impression and engagement with the story. Example questions include:

• "What was your overall impression of the story?"
• "What did you like about it most?"
• "Did the story grab you from the beginning? If not, why not?"
• "Was the story easy to follow and without plot holes? If not, why not?"

Clinical Approach Details:

This approach employs a structured proforma with scoring categories to provide a more objective assessment. The key categories assessed are:

• Editing: Grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc., with a scoring range from 1 (poor) to 5 (exceptionally well edited).
• Characters: Well-rounded, backstory, relatable, consistency, with a scoring range from 1 (one-dimensional) to 5 (finely written protagonists).
• Scenes/Plots/Story-line: Consistency, imagination, originality, with a scoring range from 1 (failure to engage) to 5 (original and imaginative).
• Dialogue: Realistic, character-specific, convincing, with a scoring range from 1 (inconsistent, unbelievable) to 5 (realistic and immersive).
• Pace: Consistency, engagement, build-up, with a scoring range from 1 (drags or races) to 5 (engaging and consistent).
• Illustrations (where applicable): How well the illustrations complement the text, with a scoring range from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent).

Each scoring level within these categories provides a detailed description to guide the reviewer's assessment.

Conclusion:

The PYA Beta Buddies scheme aims to foster a supportive and collaborative writing community within the PYA. By offering a structured platform and framework options, the scheme intends to improve the quality of members' work while acknowledging the inherent subjectivity of literary criticism. The success of the scheme will rely heavily on the trust, reciprocity, and constructive engagement of its participants.

 

 

PYA Beta Buddies Study Guide

Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each.

1. What is the primary objective of the PYA Beta Buddies scheme?
2. Why is it important that no payment changes hands within the PYA Beta Buddies scheme?
3. How does one become a member of the PYA Beta Buddies Facebook group?
4. What information should an author provide when requesting a beta reader in the PYA Beta Buddies Facebook group?
5. What is the role of PYA in the review process between authors and beta readers?
6. What are the two frameworks suggested for Beta Buddies?
7. What is the focus of the "Informal Approach" to beta reading suggested by Helen Johnson?
8. What is the purpose of the scoring system in the "Clinical Approach" to beta reading?
9. In the Clinical Approach, what aspects of a story are evaluated?
10. According to the document, what makes illustrations "Excellent" in the context of a beta review?

Quiz Answer Key

1. The primary objective is to help authors improve the quality of their work through informal collaboration with other PYA members who provide constructive advice on each other's writing. This collaborative reviewing process aims to enhance the overall quality of members' writing.
2. The scheme relies on reciprocal exchange, where members offer their services freely in exchange for others reviewing their work. This helps establish trust and prevents it from becoming a transactional service.
3. To become a member, one must be a full PYA member and request to join the private, hidden PYA Beta Buddies Facebook group via a comment on the pinned post. The group admin will then review the request and may ask validating questions.
4. An author should provide as much detail as possible about the piece needing review, including the genre, synopsis, and the specific type of feedback they are seeking (general impressions or detailed critique).
5. PYA is not involved in the actual review process or the interaction between authors and beta readers; authors are expected to manage the relationship themselves. However, PYA will intervene if there are instances of ill-mannered exchanges.
6. The two suggested frameworks for Beta Buddies are the "Informal Approach" and the "Clinical Approach," which offer different ways to structure the review process.
7. The "Informal Approach" focuses on answering a series of open-ended questions to provide general feedback and impressions of the story, guiding the conversation between the author and beta reader.
8. The scoring system in the "Clinical Approach" aims to make the beta reading review outcome more objective by providing a structured way to assess various elements of the writing.
9. In the Clinical Approach, the story is evaluated in terms of Editing, Characters, Scenes/Plots/Storyline, Dialogue, Pace, and Illustrations (where applicable). Each section has scoring criteria to assess the quality of these aspects.
10. Illustrations are considered "Excellent" when they not only explain the text but also expand upon and complement it, giving the reader a deeper visual representation of the plot and characters, enriching the overall reading experience.

Essay Questions

• Discuss the potential benefits and drawbacks of using the "Informal Approach" versus the "Clinical Approach" in the PYA Beta Buddies scheme. Which approach do you think is more effective, and why?
• Critically analyse the role of trust in the PYA Beta Buddies scheme. How does the emphasis on trust influence the success of the scheme, and what measures does PYA take to foster and maintain it?
• Explore the idea that "quality is in the eye of the beholder," as stated in the document. How does this subjectivity impact the effectiveness of beta reading, and how can authors and beta readers navigate differing opinions?
• Evaluate the scoring criteria provided in the "Clinical Approach." Are they comprehensive and fair, or are there aspects of writing quality that are not adequately addressed?
• Consider the limitations of the PYA Beta Buddies scheme. What are some potential challenges that members might face, and how could PYA address these issues to improve the overall experience?

Glossary of Key Terms

• Beta Buddy: A member of the PYA Beta Buddies scheme who collaborates with another member to read and review their work, providing constructive feedback.
• PYA (Promoting Yorkshire Authors): The organisation instigating the Beta Buddies scheme, aiming to support local authors and improve their writing quality.
• Informal Approach: One of the suggested frameworks for beta reading, characterised by open-ended questions and a focus on general impressions of the work.
• Clinical Approach: The other suggested framework for beta reading, involving a structured proforma review with a scoring system to provide a more objective assessment.
• Genre: A category of artistic composition, as in music or literature, characterised by similarities in form, style, or subject matter.
• Synopsis: A brief summary or outline of a story's plot.
• Plot Holes: Gaps or inconsistencies in a story-line that detract from its credibility.
• Protagonist: The main character or leading figure in a story.
• Dialogue: The conversations between characters in a book.
• Pace: The speed at which a story unfolds.
• Prose: Written or spoken language in its ordinary form, without metrical structure.

Promoting Yorkshire Authors Beta Buddies, or PYA Beta Buddies for Short

Briefing Document

Our Objectives

To help authors to improve the quality of their work by informal collaboration between PYA members (beta buddies) so that they can read and review each other’s work to provide constructive advice on how to improve it. 

Becoming a reviewer or beta buddy will enable authors to learn from the process and improve the quality of their own work too.

Ultimately, reading is subjective. What is one man’s meat is another man’s poison. 

‘Quality is in the eye of the beholder – and, in the case of a book, in the eye of the reader. A book exists as a relationship between two people: the writer and the reader. And, as each reader is a unique, every reader’s reaction is also unique.’ Helen Johnson

What’s On Offer

Promoting Yorkshire Authors (PYA) are instigating a scheme to allow members to become Beta Buddies in a safe environment open only to those enrolled in PYA. Beta Buddies collaborate with each other to review each other’s work. It’s important to understand that no payment must change hands – The PYA Beta Buddies scheme will work only if each buddy gives their services freely, in exchange only for others offering to reciprocally examine their own work.

It very much relies on trust between two parties so we urge writers to research potential buddies before reviewing commences.

How PYA Beta Buddies Works

PYA has created a private hidden closed Facebook group called PYA Beta Buddies. Group membership is open only to full PYA members and is by invitation only. To join, you must make a request via PYA’s closed Facebook group by adding a comment to the pinned post labeled PYA Beta Buddies. The group’s admin will review your request and ask questions if necessary to validate it.

Once you’ve joined the PYA Beta Buddies Facebook Group as a member you can add a post and request the services of someone to beta-read your work – either a full book or a section of it. Provide as much information as you can about the piece you want reviewing including genre, synopsis and what you’re expecting. If you’re lucky, someone will respond and agree to work with you and offer their opinion – either in general, or as a detailed critique.

PYA isn’t involved in the review process, nor the interaction between author and beta reader and you’ll be expected to handle the relationship between you. You should report to admins any problems you have – but we hope this will be rare and that the relationship between writers and the beta-readers will be amicable and supportive. PYA will not tolerate ill mannered exchanges on the platform and reserves the right to remove individuals from the platform if this is necessary. We hope participants will be kind and offer constructive support to each other.

Beta Buddy Frameworks

We’re offering two frameworks as guidance to kick-start the Beta Buddies scheme but you’re not obliged to follow either of them – agree between yourselves how the reviewing will be performed and the outcome. 

The two frameworks are Informal and Clinical.

Informal Approach

Experienced writer Helen Johnson suggests that the Beta Buddy answers the following questions when reviewing a piece of work and discusses their answers with the author.

• What was your overall impression of the story?
• What did you like about it most?
• Was there anything you didn’t like about it? If not, what?
• Did the story grab you from the beginning? If not, why not?
• Were there any points where you started to lose interest?
• Was the story easy to follow and without plot holes? If not, why not?
• Was there anything you found confusing?
• Did you find the main character engaging, if so what was most engaging about them? If you didn’t find them engaging, why not?
• Were you able to keep track of the characters, who was who and their relationship to others? Were there too many characters? 
• Was there anything in the story that you had trouble believing, or that seemed illogical? 
• Did you notice any inconsistencies in the plot, with the characters, or with anything else?
• Did you find the ending satisfying? If not, why not? 
• What is your favourite quote from the book?
• Is there an excerpt from the book that really resonated with you?

Clinical Approach:

A more clinical approach may be appropriate for some reviewers as it provides a structure and a marking system which makes the beta reading review outcome more objective (perhaps).
The proforma review comments are split into sections with clear guidelines on how to assess each section. This may not be for every reviewer, nor their writing buddy – it’s horses for courses.

Editing

Editing – grammar, punctuation, spelling, set up, consistency. Please be aware of different writing styles and individual styles or voice. Suggested scoring:

1.  Prose has not been sufficiently edited. Peppered with editing errors.
2.  Several errors that will pull the reader out of the story.
3.  Occasional errors.
4.  Any errors failed to spoil the reader’s enjoyment. 
5.  Exceptionally well edited.

Characters

Characters – well-rounded, back-story, relatable, believable, consistent e.g. name, age or physical attributes and personality remain constant. Suggested scoring:

1. One dimensional, lacking history, do not gain the reader’s empathy, regular/noticeable errors regarding attributes. 
2. Failure to develop character. Reader disinterested in character outcome. Occasional continuity errors.
3. Satisfactory character progression. Believable back story. Elicits empathy/emotion from reader.
4. Characters are believable and relatable. Few (if any) errors. Reader is invested in character outcomes.
5. This book is carried by its finely written protagonists. No continuity errors. Reader becomes wholly invested in individual conclusions and believes in these characters.

Scenes/Plots/Story-line 

Scenes/plots/story line – consistency, imagination, originality. Suggested scoring:

1. Failure to engage reader from the outset. Lack of unique theme. Boring, confused or repetitive. Progression – story fails to develop.
2. Drags in places. Noticeable anomalies. Predictable. Fails to ignite reader’s imagination. Ending is lacklustre.
3. Imaginative. Few inconsistencies. Original and engaging story-line.
4. Engages from the first. Holds reader within the prose. Few (if any) consistency errors. Climax is exciting, emotional, motivating, horrific, etc.
5. Original sorry. Consistency of themes. Imaginative. This is a book you wish you’d written and don’t want to end.

Dialogue

Dialogue – realistic, sufficient or insufficient, character-specific, convincing. Suggested scoring:

1. Sparsely or over used. Inconsistent. Unbelievable. Unconvincing. No demarcation between characters. 
2. Over use of names. Over use of specific words (dragging the reader from the story). Implausible conversations. Unrealistic dialogue.
3. Consistent with characters’ personalities. Believable. Sufficiently spread throughout. Allows the main protagonists to develop. May occasionally seem stilted.
4. Credible and convincing dialogue that enables character development and moves the plot forwards with ease.
5. You wish you could write dialogue like this. So realistic you feel you are in the book and speaking with the characters yourself.

Pace

Pace – too slow/fast, consistency throughout (doesn’t drag in the middle etc), grabs at the outset/intensifies at conclusion. Suggested scoring:

1. Drags. Races. Or both. No happy medium. The reader is either bored, or races through the book too quickly.
2. Tendency to allow the book to slow down too much, especially in the mid section. Failure to engage reader at the outset. No defined conclusion/protracted or confusing ending.
3. A satisfactory pace throughout - although there may be times when the reader wants to skip forward over long winded sections or has to re-read when the action is too swift. 
4. An engaging opening. Good pace throughout. Few (if any) boring or confusing sections. An effective build towards final climax.
5. Opens well. Consistency throughout. Engages at all the right moments. Can elicit emotional response from reader. Final chapters are finely crafted. The reader does not want to finish this story.

Illustrations (where applicable)

Illustrations should not only explain the text, but expand and complement it. Artistic illustration can include compositional construction and many details that text alone cannot about the characters, surroundings, times and places of action. All together, this gives the reader a visual representation of the plot and characters and reveals the author’s intentions in greater depth. Suggested scoring:

1. Poor - illustrations do not make sense and appear of poor quality, lack any stimulus.
2. Fair - illustrations provide some context but lack consistency throughout the book.
3. Satisfactory - illustrations sufficiently explain the text but add no further value to the story.
4. Good - illustrations visually represent the book and complement the story.
5. Excellent - illustrations enhance and expand the book, bringing the characters and story to life. 

Author Questions - Children's Author Group Session of 13th February 2025

Linda Jones hosted another Children's Author Group on 13th February 2025 and before the meeting, had put the questions to writer Craig Hallam, having them up her sleeve as she asked each of the attendees their thoughts on the question and how they'd answer it.

It was a productive and enlightening session, even if our answers didn't always match those of our invited guest.

Craig is a multi-award-winning international author. You can find more about him at Craig's Website (opens in a new window). Here are the questions Linda put to him and his answers - how would you have answered them?

1. At what point do you think someone should call themselves a writer? For me, it’s as soon as they put “pen to paper”. But that can also be fingers to keyboard, voice to text, or however else you get your writing done.
   
   
2. What difference do you see between a writer and an author? Honestly? Not much, if anything. I usually think of a writer as someone who does all kinds of writing, say for content creation, blogs, articles, or anything else. Authors tend to write things particularly for publication, but that’s about it. The skills and jobs of both overlap massively. It’s probably a matter of choice on the individual’s part. What do they feel most comfortable describing themselves as? 
   
   
3. Have you ever considered writing under a pseudonym, and why or why not? Oh yes! And I have on a few occasions. I currently split my work between darker books under Craig Hallam and lighter stories under C B Hallam. I’ve also written some fairly spicy stuff under another name that I definitely won’t be sharing.
   
   
4. What do the words “writer’s block” mean to you?  Usually that I need a break. I either need to change project for a bit (I’m usually working on a few things at once) or draw/paint to rest my brain, or get out of the house for a walk. I think Writer’s Block is just letting you know that you need something.
   
   
5. How do you process and deal with negative book reviews? Honestly, I don’t read my reviews very often.  Only if someone says “Hey, I left you a review”. I do most of my sales face-to-face at conventions and signings, so I often get people coming back the next year and we chat about the book there. It’s one of the best parts of the job for me. Except for when someone asks a question about a character and I don’t have a clue what to answer.
   
   
6. Are there therapeutic benefits to modelling a character after someone you know? I’ve never actually done it. Is that weird? But I’m sure there are tons. The first one that comes to mind is people you don't like as fodder in a murder mystery 
   
   
7. What is the most difficult part of your writing process?  Focusing on one job at once. I’m usually writing one, editing another, and researching the next one. It helps me to make sure I’m working on something at all times.
   
   
8. How long have you been writing or when did you start?  I’ve written ever since I was a kid but I only started submitting for publication about 14 years ago. I guess that’s when I started being serious about it. It feels like five minutes and forever at the same time. 
   
   
9. What advice would you give to a writer working on their first book? Just get writing. I’ve spoken to hundreds of people who have a great idea but never actually write anything. They have vast worlds in their heads but I see them year after year and they still haven’t written anything. Just start with a single scene. Start with the ending, if you like. But the only way you’ll ever get better at the craft is to start writing. 
   
   
10. What, to you, are the most important elements of good writing? Oh wow. That’s a tough one. Maybe connecting to your reader. If you’re not connecting through a character, an interesting plot, or an intriguing world, then no one is going to want to turn the page. Other than that, everyone has their own style, influences, and ideas, and it’s all so subjective. 

 

 

Brief Notes from PYA Quality Subcommittee Meeting of 13th February

Priorities

Priority tasks identified after a 'vote' of members of the PYA Quality Subcommittee from those raised by the group after earlier discussions were finalised as:

1. Facilitate a Beta-Reading scheme for PYA Members
2. Implement an 'Improve Quality Group'
3. Collate available information to provide guidance to members on, in priority order: Self Publishing, Marketing including social media, Avoiding publishing scams, Book illustration, Becoming a best seller.

Beta Reading Scheme

It was agreed that PYA should set up - using whatever technology is appropriate - a self sustaining beta reading scheme based upon introducing members to each other so that they can assist each other with beta-reading and proofing. Members introduced by the scheme would manage book exchanges, mutual reading, communication, etc themselves.

However, PYA will provide some beta-reading guidelines to assist in the process and the form of this guidance (blog posting, documents, podcasts, YouTube or something else) should be decided by the implementation team.

Jane Clack was volunteered to lead this task.

Improve Quality Group

It was agreed that PYA will create an 'Improve Quality Group' run along the lines of the Writers' Support and Children's Author groups but - for the moment - limited to inviting speakers to present to members on subjects that would help participants to improve the quality of their work.

At the meeting we agreed to trial a single session of the Improve Quality Group and to identify a suitable topic and speaker for that presentation. After holding this session we will decide whether to continue with the group, change it or abandon the idea.

Pam Golden was volunteered to lead this task.

Collate Information to Provide Member Guidance

This is a large task that will be ongoing for some time with a target of providing easily accessible guidance to members on the topics identified by our priorities, possibly expanded later.

The task also involves identifying the best way of delivering guidelines - e.g. via a blog, documents, podcasts, YouTube, Presentations, etc.

Paul Smith volunteered to start this task.

Ongoing

One item from the initial priorities remains outstanding and will be addressed later: Creating a list of External or Professional Bodies to assist members to interact with the broader writing community.