After our peer revision, I felt that our group was able to grasp more control over our project. Hearing the critiques of other groups put our work in perspective, which a good thing.
Even though I personally am not thoroughly impressed with the Google Sites version of our website, our feedback was pretty good! They peer group that revised us didn't like the lack of neatness of our site maps, which I was responsible for. I personally didn't care to hear that criticism, because they didn't even give us their revised site map, while I provided 3 copies of the original and revised site map, clear enough to read, but too "sloppy" for their tastes. Whatever. I drew it by hand. Regardless, Kelly of our group is cleaning up the site maps for our final, anyway.
I noticed how different our approach was when we were reviewing group 6's website, the URI Surf Club website. They took a very different route from us. They dulled down the graphics from their original website, which to us didn't make sense. Our criticism was mostly based on the fact that since their target audience is college surfers, making the website look more wild and fun was a good thing, not a bad thing.
The only thing that bothered me about the peer review was the grading. We gave their group a 7.5, which I thought was tough but fair. That was based mostly on the fact that they did not include a revised site map at all, and they seemed to have degraded certain aspects of the website where they didn't need to.
They gave us a 7! Because they think we needed to change some colors and alignment. Clearly we're not all on the same page here!
I'll be happy when this assignment is over.