After the LinkedIn peer review I began noticing the weakness in my writing voice compared to my group members. The diction and phrasing of their sentences sound more professional compared to when I reread some of my pieces. It was only after when researching tips and tricks for our next assignment did I learn about trying to incorporate as many keywords, descriptions and media as possible.
A difficulty I encountered when doing the peer review was analyzing the descriptions as if I were a possible employer. While my peer review partner had all the basics down, I would not know the specifics of how what a computer science or chemistry employer would be looking for. Are employers looking just for the most term and keywords and academic achievement over a more personal tone in their summary and descriptions?
The most helpful feedback I was able to provide was the use of adding media. Adding some kind of video, newspaper or academic link to their projects would break up the text as the reader goes down the page and flow nicely into their experiences. The most important tip was that I need to start reevaluating what I put down in my experiences and volunteering to be more focused toward future readers and employers. Some of my work and volunteering is outdated and not relevant towards sociology.