The whole purpose of annual reviews is to keep you abreast of whether or not you are fulfilling the requirements of tenure.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
If I had my way, I wouldn't do annual reviews, if I felt that everybody would be more honest about positive and negative feedback along the way. I think the annual review process is so antiquated.
Every year I tell myself that I'm not going to read any reviews and then I do. We're all human and when I read something negative it hurts. I think when you write it's part of the game, you're going to get some good reviews and some bad reviews and that's how it goes. I don't write for the reviews.
I think, in general, it's better not to respond to reviews of your work.
If you get a bad review, you take that in your stride.
If you have too good a time writing hostile reviews, you'll injure not only your sensibility but your soul.
In general, I've been treated well by reviews, and there are times when I haven't. The truth is that I've come to feel like I'm better off without reading them.
Reviewers are certainly entitled to their own opinions. I've become buddies with enough writers and directors, and to be perfectly honest, the ones that have lasted a long time don't pay a lot of attention to the reviews.
Critics have their purposes, and they're supposed to do what they do, but sometimes they get a little carried away with what they think someone should have done, rather than concerning themselves with what they did.
As much as I encourage communication with my readers, I don't want reviews from them, simply because I don't need to be hamstrung in the middle of working on something.
Startups are rapidly changing systems. If you use an annual review cycle, you aren't getting feedback at the same pace that you need to adapt and change the business.