Getting Writing Feedback with ChatGPT Using Specific Prompts: Simple Feature That Most People Miss.

If you’re reading this, it’s likely that you’re a writer, an aspiring writer, or simply like writing and intrigued by the buzz surrounding ChatGPT. Like many of you, I like writing too and am intrigued by ChatGPT.

However, English isn’t my first language, and so I often grapple with expressing myself accurately. Even after I’ve penned down my thoughts, I need someone to review my writing. In my case, that’s not an easy task, I almost have no friends who are willing to read my writing since it is written in English.

This is where ChatGPT comes into the picture. It has become my go-to resource for checking my writing and ensuring that my ideas are articulated effectively and accurately.

However, engaging ChatGPT to review my writing can be a bit of a challenge, primarily because the quality of output relies heavily on the prompt provided. You see, ChatGPT, like many AI models, delivers different results based on the instructions it receives.

Consequently, a generic prompt such as ‘please check my writing’ might not yield the most effective feedback. To make the most of ChatGPT’s capabilities, I’ve learned to provide more specific prompts that guide the AI to offer the kind of critique I’m seeking.

Before we look into the specifics of tailoring prompts for effective feedback, let’s first examine the type of response one might receive from a generic request.

To demonstrate this, I had ChatGPT review one of my pieces of writing on a trading forum called TradingView. I chose this particular article because it had already choosen as Editor’s choice, thus providing a benchmark for the kind of feedback I might expect.

Here is the prompt:

“please give review and feedback on my writing”

a simple prompt and perhaps too general.

and here is the result:

“Your writing is well-structured and makes a strong case for the idea that more information does not always lead to better decisions. You provide a variety of examples to support your argument, including studies on horse race prediction, college football predictions, and financial forecasting.

The use of these examples helps to illustrate the point you are making and makes your writing more engaging. You also include a quote from a prominent investor, Joel Greenblatt, which adds credibility to your argument.

One suggestion for improvement would be to provide a more concise and clear thesis statement at the beginning of your piece. While you do state the main idea of your writing in the opening sentence, it could be more explicitly stated to help readers understand the focus of your argument.

Overall, your writing effectively communicates an important message about decision-making and the value of quality information over quantity. Well done!”

now let’s change the prompt to be more specific like this:

“As a magazine editor, please review the following article for both strengths and areas for improvement. On a scale of 1–10, how would you rate it? Be candid and objective in your feedback”

Yes much longer than the previous one and of course more specific. (We’ll get more on this later.)

Here is the result:

Strengths:

• The article is well-structured and easy to follow, with clear subheadings and examples to illustrate the main points.
• The author uses a conversational tone and asks rhetorical questions to engage the reader.
• The author provides a good balance of research-based evidence and real-world examples to support the argument that less information can lead to better decisions.
• The article ends with a compelling example of a successful investor who uses a simple approach to picking stocks.

Areas for improvement:

• While the author does a good job of summarizing the research findings, they could benefit from adding more analysis or commentary to explain why the findings are important or how they relate to the broader topic of decision-making.
• The article could benefit from more varied sentence structure and word choice to make it more engaging and interesting to read.
• Some of the transitions between paragraphs could be smoother, as the article sometimes jumps abruptly from one example to another.

Overall, I would rate this article a 7 out of 10. While it effectively makes the case for the importance of quality over quantity when it comes to decision-making, it could benefit from more nuanced analysis and a more varied writing style.

In a glimpse you can see it is better than the previous result since it was made in the list, offers more way to construct the writing to be better and provides a numerical value 7 out of 10.

Now let’s compare the two result

The second feedback(specific prompt) is more detailed and provides a more in-depth critique of my article. It compliments my structure and use of examples, but it also points out areas for improvement such as the transitions between paragraphs, the need for more analysis or commentary on my research findings, and the need for varied sentence structure and word choice.

The rating of 7 out of 10 provides a quantifiable measure of the reviewer’s (ChatGPT as a magazine editor)overall impression.

The first feedback (general prompt)is concise and focuses mainly on the strengths of my writing, such as the use of varied examples and the inclusion of a quote from a prominent investor. However, it does not provide the same level of detailed critique or specific suggestions for improving the writing style, sentence structure, or transitions as the second feedback.

In terms of constructive criticism and elaboration, I think the second feedback is more comprehensive. It provides specific suggestions for improvement that I can directly apply to make my writing better.

Now let’s delve on the second prompt:

“As a magazine editor, please review the following article for both strengths and areas for improvement. On a scale of 1–10, how would you rate it? Be candid and objective in your feedback.”

Here are the components of the prompt

1. Role Assignment: By asking ChatGPT to “act as a magazine editor,”I am guiding the AI to adopt the mindset of a professional editor. This helps in setting the context and defining the tone of the interaction.
2. Task Definition:I am clearly defining what I want the AI to do: provide both positive and negative feedback on the piece of writing. This is crucial because the AI responds based on the instructions given to it.
3. Scoring System: The request to assign a score from 1 (the worst) to 10 (the best) gives ChatGPT a quantitative measure to express the quality of the writing. This can help me understand where my writing stands according to the AI’s evaluation.
4. Candidness and Objectivity: I am asking the AI to be “candid and objective,” which guides the model to provide straightforward and unbiased feedback.

So as you can see, the prompt can help you get better reviews and feedback from ChatGPT. In case you have no one to review your writing, you can use ChatGPT but remember to use specific prompt

Last but not least, let’s use the above specific prompt to review this writing. I wonder what score will I get.

I got 8 out of 10. not perfect but I am happy with it! What do you think do I deserve to get 8 out of 10?