Bewertung und Feedback des Lernenden für Site Reliability Engineering: Measuring and Managing Reliability von Google Cloud

While the content itself is good and relevant, the presentation and speakers are too robotic and the module layout of the course doesn't match the weekly schedules.

too much repetition , you need to make less modules and more concentrated material , less repetition , some speakers has unmotivational tone ...

The course is designed for people knowing some basic. The beginner level introductory course should be made available before this course

This allows to establish the universal language between teams and set up common goals, but the practical part is not very solid.

The course could have been more interactive. Sometimes it felt like the trainers are just reading from the material in front!!

Issues with test no working to get the answer addressed not responding to title in the project you need to turn in .

The unit and exercise correction method is horrible. It took extremely long time. Need a change in that approach.

Dependency on people is not very good as we end chasing people for review

Overall course structure is good

Flashback from Lost. Some of the materials and assingments seemed out of sync.

Not well structured peer-graded assignments.

I agree with another reviewer on here (ASHISH) in that it would have been beneficial to have some practice examples for the submission tests. Not knowing the "grading rubric" ahead of time as to get an idea of what the course was looking for, sort of left you writing something up, submit, see what the grading-rubric looked like, then edit (which blows away any feedback you received from peers) and start again.

The last user submission (which required a spreadsheet to be downloaded), updated with info you analyzed in previous submissions, and then needs to be "publicly" shared out from your personal Google account to be publicly reviewed by other users. Two things from this take-away:

1) put in more "specific" instructions on how to proceed (I reviewed several other users, and it was clear they did not understand what was required. I commented back to several with line-by-line instructions to help where I could).

2) Instead of requiring me to us my personal GMail account (if you have another way to publicly share the spreadsheet, that can be used as well), have some way to host it on the Coursera site.

Content was good, but there are a lot of things that could have been done better about the Coursera website.

All content was presented through video. Although the transcript was provided, it was just a big block of text. It was almost impossible to look up a key point. It would have been good for the class to provide TEXT summaries of the key points at the end of each lesson.

The videos were also extremely dense and dry. Again, a text summary would have helped immensely.

The content of weeks 1-3 were good, but I wasn't very impressed with week 4.

On one of the written assignments I accidentally refreshed the page, causing me to lose all of my work. I'm taking off one star for this. If you are going to give us large assignments, then you need to have an auto-save.

I wasn't impressed with the week 3 assignment. I was mostly fighting with the spreadsheet instead of focusing on the concepts of the course.

The speakers in the videos speak so quickly that often you have to watch them several times. The instructions for the assignments in Week 3 are very vague. This course assumes a level of technical expertise that should be made clear before a person purchases. The submitted assignments should be graded by a proper instructor or someone with subject matter expertise, not people who are taking the course. It was clear to me from the amount of work that I reviewed that many didn't understand the material, so how could they grade my submission?

While the concepts presented in the course are valuable and important, the way they are presented is extremely dry and difficult to follow. I would not be surprised if both the text and videos (besides the intro videos with 2 people) were all AI-generated. Concepts that could be explained easily are presented as they'd be in an academic paper. You're better off reading the transcription over and over rather than watching the videos.

The material in this course was very useful, but in general I found the presentation to be horrible. The transcripts need to be better formatted -- just put a few line breaks in.

And the presenter of weeks two and three is very hard to follow. He speaks way to fast and it's almost just a stream of consciousness. You have to follow along with the transcript, which makes it impossible to watch the slides next to him.

The course content is great! the videos are very good! the questions are good also. There is just 1 thing that is really poor about this training: the peer-reviewed questions. there is little (mostly no) feedback from the peers and the grading is very random. I hope you can change this to something more fair.

I'm also hoping for a sequel to this: with examples of the "wheel of misfortune", "post-mortems" etc.

Very poor content and continuous loss with different people and topics.

For example, What is SLI, SLO and SLA? Here my question.

https://www.coursera.org/learn/site-reliability-engineering-slos/discussions/weeks/1/threads/IV_7w_oCSXaf-8P6Aul2RQ

Should be broken into two. Most people do not need the excuritating detail at the end.

The assignments are painful. You have no idea what it should look like, because none of the videos actually go through an example written result.

This course is really hard to complete, due to assessment score is dependent on other people. This make learning and be better at SRE is slow.

I was searching for RELIABILITY AND MAINTENANCE PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION course , but in coursera i found SRE .I thought it is the same i am searching . But it seems for IT employees not for the core sectors. . So please provide RELIABILITY AND MAINTENANCE PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION course.

The instructor is only reading the manuscript, and the students are just learning a compressed version of the introduction. It is difficult to fully grasp this knowledge through limited learning. Open questions and peer review are actually not so useful.

The "quiz's" are mostly guess work, and they provide no feedback once they are passed. How is anyone supposed to learn a topic, when they are asked to answer questions on items they were not taught, and given no feedback on, once completed?

I found this training to be very difficult to follow. Even the submissions are difficult to achieve properly and the peer review process I really think does not provide any value.

It's all Youtube videos and thought exercises that come from Google's SRE book. Why is this a course?

By far the worst course I've taken on Coursera