It seems that not many people liked what I was saying on my latest post. I apologise if you don’t agree, although I still think what I think: I just hope you don’t think me immature. Either way the following post will be based on one of those sites that I think, should not have too much freedom. Fine, own a rubbish graphic site. There are always people who will like it and visit it. But, when it comes down to review sites you’ll have to be a little more proffesional.
Note to those people: review and work on your own site before opening a site to review other peoples sites. Your opinions are useless because you don’t have a clue what you’re on about. Ok, you have some clue..but not enough.
I’m not being horrible, we see them everywhere. Others have noticed- cat of foobar reviews has even written a full length article on how to run agood review site (which I suggest you read). So- what’s so bad about these sites?
Their layout sucks: Look at proper review sites layouts then look at your own. Doesn’t compare right? A review site is something professional and formal, you have to give an air of “I know what I’m doing”- you don’t do that with your anime blend.
They use smilies: On your personal or graphics website it’s fine to stick in a 
or whatever people use these days, but I’d like to think you treat a review as something more formal.
They use moderate chatspeak: Same as above. Lol and whatever people use these days is very out of place on a review, and makes me doubt your intelligence and how professional you really are.
It’s only the “validation thingy”: ..
What’s funniest about these WPR sites is that notice only their friends and affliates of their graphics site go there to be reviewed. Maybe they’ll realise this one day and maybe..just maybe they’ll realise how bad their site sucks.
Fine, have a rubbish blog or rubbish graphics site. Just don’t think you’re that good to open a rubbish WPR and review someone else.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:05 am
For a moment there, skimming through, I thought you’d used FHReviews as an example of The Worse Possible WPR or something… *swt*
I remember submitting FHReviews to a review site that only reviewed WPRs once, and they picked on us back then for not having our coding validated and all these tiny layout errors. We ended up being given a bad rating because the coding validation and the layout weren’t up to par with what they wanted. However, our reviews, according to them, were fairly well-written.
Personally, I think it should be more about the quality of the review than the layout itself. Looking professional might be a plus, but who can really decide what’s ‘professional’ and what’s not? I’m pretty sure a lot of the more elite WPR owners out there who aren’t into Anime think that FHReviews is a horrible site owned by a bunch of Anime-obsessed teenagers by looking at our layout. But I don’t really care, because as long as our reviewing quality doesn’t go down, I’m okay with being viewed as air-headed Anime freaks.
Personally, I don’t think you need to know how to design in order to know how to critique design. I could have one entirely white page written in Times New Roman font, but still be able to write an excellent review that can blow you away.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
I agree with Mei on her points, especially about designing and reviewing. You don’t need to know how to design to know how to critique it. So long as a person has an opinion and pretty good writing skills, the review should be decent enough.
Although I do judge WPRs according to their present layouts, it isn’t so important to have it “professional” looking, so long as it’s functional. I’d also like to point out that what I dislike most about review sites are those whom lower scores (or write about) because of validation yet their own layout/coding does not validate. I think that point out to be made clear. The way I see it, if your WPR site validates in HTML/XHTML and CSS, then you have more credibility when stating that validation is necessary. Also, simply stating, “your layout doesn’t validate” with no reasons as to why the reviewee must validate is also annoying to me.
Anyway, there are some people who have plenty (or at least some) of web design experience and yet, I doubt they’d make good reviewers. Sometimes, it seems to me like those who do have experience in web design tend to fall more towards having a large quantity of archived reviews over taking time to write quality reviews. This, of course, does not include certain WPRs. But, all in all, a reviewer must be able to write clearly so that the reviewee understands what is being said. Advice actually has to be given, rather than simply sugarcoating or tearing a site to shreds too. People have to realize that it doesn’t take just an opinion to open a WPR.
January 20th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Both Mei Zhu and Megori have already pointed out that a WPR’s layout is irrelevant to its quality of reviews. But first impressions does influence the perception of a WPR’s qualification (e.g. the layout makes it difficult to even read the reviews). That kind of psychology comes with the territory, and reviewers themselves should be aware of this and present themselves in a manner that will inspire confidence.
It’s ironic that your biggest problem with WPRs is the way they present themselves, yet your “critique” of such sites is exactly what makes a bad review site, that is, bad reviews topped with the lack of professionalism.
- You don’t prioritize important issues like the content of such sites: their reviews. E.g, whether or not problems are identified and solutions are offered, whether or not the suggestions they give are useful or relevant
- You arguments fall flat because you don’t support them: What’s with the”..”?! If you’re going to make a point of something, don’t drop it midair. If it’s worth bringing up then it’s worth the trouble of pointing out exactly how ludicrous it is. (Bad reviewers do this often, by the way.) Calling it a “validation thingy” precisely summarizes reviewer’s confusion about the whole nature of validation. Having an opinion is not about being speechless unless your silence speaks volumes, and that’s hard to translate to a written medium. Furthermore, it’s only effective then if you lead up to the point, but chatspeak isn’t even in the same field as ignorance.
- You apologize for having an opinion either because you don’t have confidence in what you say or what you have to say is wrong. Either qualities undermines the review greatly. In any case, just stop.
Reviewing isn’t as easy as you think and correcting the problems you’ve pointed out does nothing to remedy the core, though it may make it easier to see it.
Next time, proof-read your rant and do some more research. Otherwise, your opinion comes off as useless because you don’t seem to have a clue about what you’re talking about. You give the impression that you’re bashing the WPR trend because it’s a trend to do so.
January 20th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
I’ve just realized the emphasis of Megori’s comment was not Megori’s doing.
As an administrator, whoever was the person who changed it, if you’re in a group blog to inspire discussion, don’t you it’s vital to leave the comments as they were left? If you have a rebuttal, do it in plain site and attach a name to it.
January 20th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Megori: I found your comment to be contradicting. At first you state that a person only needs an opinion to write a review but then you state that it takes more than an opinion to write one. Could you clarify if you feel it is one or the other? Or did both points go towards the point that things can’t be stereotyped and should be taken on a case-by-case, “it depends” basis?
Veve: My apologies. I figured that it would be obvious that it was me since Shadow and I are the only ones able to admin here and I’m the one that approves any comments in moderation. I just found it contradicting and wanted to point it out, hoping for clarification. I did not intend any anonymous controlling/editing/stiring of the pot.
January 20th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
@Skye: It is not obvious as a reader. What you did was put words into her mouth as it was under her name with no trace of edit. What you should have done was reply to her comment and ask for clarification directly.
Megori’s comment was not contradicting. You just skipped over the part where it says “and pretty good writing skills” which directly supports her argument that it takes more than just an opinion to write a decent review.
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:09 pm
I was quite disappointed at the fact that my comment was edited without my notification simply because you found it contradicting. I didn’t want to create a fuss or anything of the sort here about it, so I didn’t say anything, here anyway. I was still quite irritated at the fact that it was altered though to make it appear as though I was contradicting myself. However, what’s done is done and apparently the edited parts won’t be unedited, but at least now I know who did it and why.
Anyway, I suppose I could clarify myself here as well. First, I think that in order to write a critique one must first have an opinion. After all, a critique is, in a sense, an opinion (based on a set guideline). However, to make your “critique” sound valuable or more credible, it must contain more than simply an opinion (or opinions).
First, aside from an opinion, you must have decent, if not excellent, writing skills. If you’re writing (or even speaking about) a critique where every other word is abbreviated (such as ‘ur’ for “your/you’re’), misspelled, then it simply doesn’t sound as credible as it would otherwise. Correcting the grammar and spelling of others and yet having plenty yourself just makes you look like the idiot.
Another aspect a good review should contain would be facts, of some sort, to support the points being made or advice on how one might improve. Simply saying, “This doesn’t look good” and not telling why or how to make it better sounds simply like ignorant (or arrogant too I suppose) opinion. Why are we pushing toward validation? Why can’t the white text be placed over a bright pink background? Even if the answer should be obvious, it should still be explained in full. In short, I suppose, a critique/review should contain a bit of intelligence along with the opinion as well.
Anyway, to end this (what seems like forever-long) comment, I’m sticking to my original comment about how it definitely does take at the very least an opinion and decent writing skills to write a decent review. However, to be a good (or excellent) reviewer (or to own one such WPR), it takes more than having simply an opinion. It’s all the little stuff that counts most, since all reviews should be as thorough as possible.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Megori: I didn’t edit it to be mean or to point you out for any negative reason. And, afterwards, I left it so that if you came back you would know what part I was speaking of. I just honestly saw that contradiction and was hoping for clarification.
In my opinion, it does take more than an opinion to write a good review. From your second comment, you seem to agree. To explain why things are wrong, you have to know what you’re talking about. Maybe you don’t know it because of web design experience but it is experience or knowledge, nonetheless.
I really am sorry if you took offence at me bolding the original. I find it easier to SEE a quote someone is referring to if it is shown that way rather than in quotes in a new comment, which is why I did it that way. And I’m sorry that it wasn’t obvious that I had done it; I thought it would be.
Thank you for the clarification. What I originally read sounded to me like you were saying ‘you only need an opinion; nothing more’ and then ‘you definitely need more’. From your second, I see that you meant it differently.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:29 am
the worst review site i’ve ever seen used frames and imagemaps. not some proper review site it was.
I agree with you, Saya.