Do they have the rightful judgement?
Netiquette, Trends, WebsitePosted on Feb 07 by YdreeceAdd comments
This blog item is all about Review Sites I recently read during the past months. I left a very interesting question on the title which I shamelessly pointing out new and old review sites in the fields of graphic, designing and resource community. “REVIEWERS” on this field have gotten all their nerve to put up a site dedicated to criticizing others’ sites as per request. As far as I know, being a reviewer is not being a critic. You may also visit this post as a trackback.
The question is “DO THEY HAVE THE RIGHTFUL JUDGEMENT?” Under any circumstances, almost all reviewers on this field ended up offending their client through their review because they tend to not review sites but to criticize it. That’s the biggest mistake of almost all reviewers. They call themselves as reviewers while in fact the sounds of their statements are with arrogance and can only be delivered by only a critic.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, is a very popular saying which is truly magnificent to all designers. That is why every designer has their different tastes, strategies, experiences and aesthetics to hold whatever they have on their own. Website is a fruit of experience, strategies and knowledge that only its author understands why their site was delivered that way.
Reviewer’s point of view over a client’s site is not actually the issue when you aim to be a reviewer. You have to put yourself first on your client’s position. Over and over again, understanding and conceptualization is the bold part of being a website reviewer.
For Clients: First of all, before asking for reviews always consider your reviewers experience before asking them to review yours. Take a look at their achievements, how their site looks and how they code it. You don’t want to flare up while reading their reviews, right? If you think you’re good enough, then don’t ask them to review yours.
For Reviewers: First of all, always read first the Code of Ethics of Webmasters before you write your reviews. That is if you know the Code of Ethics. Second, avoid dramas and unnecessary comments such as: “I feel miserable to see…”, “I’m disappointed because…”, “You can just dump your site because…” and alike. This is to those who sometimes says, “I’m not sure on/if/in…. “; how come you’re not sure anyway? You’re there to review sites and you’re not sure? Would you think, if someone reviewed back your site and tell you all those things you won’t get annoyed? Besides, you call yourself as a “Reviewer”.
Second, always remember the reason why you are there. You are there not to rant over your client’s site nor be the greatest judge according to your own very special way. Take time to look over your client’s experience and/or history before pretending you know everything he/she does to his/her site. Lolz! You are there to give second thoughts, suggestion for improvements, explain the hot and what’s not, proposal for the betterment and how others might think about their site in general and don’t rely on your own point of view as you always say I, I, I, I. Remember being a reviewer is not about you. Always think that you are not the only audience he/she has. You are just a part of it.
Third, you cannot review a client’s site without understanding how or why they do that. So, please be careful that you as a reviewer should have an exceptional experience than your client to understand every single detail they put on to their site. You can’t suggest anything about CSS if you don’t even know what it is all about.
Fourth, don’t name yourself as a Reviewer if you are a critic. Critics, evaluators and reviewers have different methods and aspects on delivering constructive writings. Critics are well-known on pointing out faults, deficiencies and short-comings on-site. Critics rely on what they see, what they want and what they feel. They may not consider your hard work because what they see is based upon their own perspective and not yours. Whether you like it or not, they may insult you in any way they want just to knock you out.
On the other hand, evaluators are the one who rate things base on their own point of view. They might consider your effort as well as never points out good things and bad things about you. What you ask them is what they deliver. They have to give an overall ratings and that’s the essence of being an evaluator.
Reviewers are supposed to be the most considerate people among the three. They have to see the depths of the things in order to deliver good ways for improvement. Reviewers are there for second thoughts, giving you more information on how you’ve done or what else needs to improve. Unlike critics who have the right to point out your mistakes on this and that.
Reviewers can suggest, optimize and propose better ways for you to improve yourself and your stuffs. Pointing faults are not their specialty. They are not up to what your mistakes are nor insult you for what you’ve done. They are heroes who can actually help you get around with your stuffs. They see mistakes but they have to deliver a good statement out of it for you to get it better. In anyway, you will notice a good reviewer has a fair judgement, very constructive and professional in pointing out what’s hot and what’s not. They don’t only see their side but see you as a whole to give you unique strategies out of the blue.
If you think you’re good enough, try to ask critics who can give you every single mistakes you’ve done. If you’re unsure of what you are doing or if you think your knowledge is limited, then try asking for a second thought from reviewers. Now, if you are contented with everything you do, then you might want to consider asking an evaluator who can rate you.
February 8th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
In terms of “rightful” judgment, no one has it. Anyway, your post somewhat confuses me.
First of all, always read first the Code of Ethics of Webmasters before you write your reviews. That is if you know the Code of Ethics.
Exactly what Code of Ethics for Webmasters is there? I would assume that if we don’t know it, that you would’ve kindly given us a link to it…that is, unless that was supposed to be a sarcastic remark.
Also, on the point of beauty is in the eye of the beholder…sure, I suppose that may be true. And heck, web design is a form of art and thus, can’t really be viewed as pretty or ugly (that is, without it being debatable anyway) but there are some aspects of the design that can be considered not-so-beautiful. In terms of web designing (that’s not like traditional arts), you have the multiple browsers and resolutions that it must be displayed in. Those functional aspects of the design must be kept, no matter what the graphic style of the designer is and a reviewer (or critic or evaluator…whichever) should have a say in regards to the beauty of the design in that. If that makes sense.
Wow, I confused myself. Lol.
February 9th, 2008 at 12:30 am
Beauty in the eye of the beholder is a cheap catch-all clause that can be applied to any website as an excuse to have bad, useless garbage. Design isn’t the same as art. Design, by construction (of web sites in this case), has a definitive purpose. Artistic vision does not excuse illegible text, invisible scrollbars, etc, in the design world.
Re second:
I disagree that reviewers should put themselves in their reviewee’s position. When people ask for reviews, they want a second opinion–the visitor’s experience, not an echo of their (the creator’s) intentions. But suppose the reviewer doesn’t correctly guess reviewee’s intentions, then it’s a hint to the reviewee that his delivery is weak–so all’s well and good except the starting point is wrong. The focus of the review would be much stronger if the reviewer gives his point right off the bat because it’s tailored to do so. No detours.
Being a reviewer is precisely about reviewer as a sample of the audience. A site created solely for the creator is best stored on his hard drive.
Re third:
I think what you’re trying to say is that reviewers should take into account what the site owner’s trying to do, and that the review should be relevant to what the owner wants to emphasize. E.g. visual aids for the visually impaired on a portfolio site versus an educational site. But it’s equally important to review the function of the site is and make sure the delivery and purpose are in line with each other. E.g. school accounts have no place in a graphics site.
Re fourth:
Relevent definitions from the Canadian Oxford Dictionary:
A. Reviewer: a person who writes or broadcasts reviews of books, performances, etc.; a critic.
B. Review:
i. a general survey or assessment of a subject or thing.
ii. an account or criticism of a book, performance, etc., esp. when published or broadcast.
iii. a second view.
C. Critic: a person who judges the merits of literary or artistic works, especially one who does so professionally
D. Critique: a detailed analysis and assessment.
E. Evaluation: An examination or judgement about the worth, quality, significance, amount, degree, or condition of a project or object.
In other words, the responsibilities of a reviewer include providing a second opinion (which you seem to be quite muddy about) as well as to provide criticisms. A critic judges merit which is justified with positives and/or negatives, not necessarily both or one or the other. Likewise, I do recall there’s two sides of quality in an evaluation.
In none of above definitions do I see a component of compassion or recognition of hard work. There’s no degree of harshness or hint of specialization in finding faults. If you don’t measure up, you don’t measure up. You can’t pass a driver’s examination just because you’re really sincere, and you’ve tried very, very hard. Your history, intentions and experiences are irrelevant. In the end, what matters is what you’ve demonstrated and whether or not that is enough. If it isn’t, well, enter reviewers.
February 9th, 2008 at 12:36 am
While it is notable that most reviewers out there are not as competent (I believe that’s the right word) as we would like them to be, I agree with Megori - I quote, “In terms of ‘rightful’ judgment, no one has it.”
While it is true that a well written review must not contain any malice of any sort, you must hold that a review is there to “critique” your web site. In that sense, the reviewer has the right to point out faults or else how can they offer any advice or suggestions to “optimize and propose better ways for you to improve yourself and your stuffs (I don’t quite understand what you imply by ’stuffs’).” To offer any piece of help, you must point out the wrongs, for instance, if I say that your CSS needs a bit cleaning up, particularly in the uses of lists, I am pointing out a fault - your knowledge on the use of the list attributes are wrong and must be corrected, therefore, either I teach you how to correctly use it or I refer you to a better tutorial.
Like all movies and books, web sites also receive critique - from a reviewer (which also encompasses being a critic), such as the reviewers for movies and books, they point out the good and the bad aspects. As to whether or not it is offensive to the receiving party, it is naturally common to know that not one site can be perfect. A review is to point out the areas that need improvement while praise the areas that are well-done and if it is found offensive, then so be it, but the job given to the reviewer is done. Pointing out faults and wrongdoings are offensive anywhere, but if you submit yourself for a review, you submit yourself to a critiquing of your site.
Though I’m confused as to why you separate a critic from a reviewer, all in all, they both evaluate a subject but as to their approach for evaluating, I can say that they are quite different.
(Again, I must agree with Megori, what is the Code of Ethics? Is it being polite and courteous? Amiable and agreeing so as to not offend the other party? Though I find it contradicting that a review mustn’t be fluffy and flowery yet maintain a strict sense of gratuitous remarking so not to offend. A review that doesn’t at least strike a sense of thought instead of egoism is rather useless, don’t you agree?)
February 9th, 2008 at 2:26 am
As a web page reviewer, I believe that a review is simply someone else’s opinion. And as someone who enjoys applying to web page reviews, I - as a web designer and a reviewee - apply because I want someone else’s opinion. If I simply wanted someone to tell me exactly what I want to hear, then why ask at all? I’d just end up listening to myself talk. I don’t think anyone would willingly submit themselves for a review thinking that it’s going to be completely to their liking.
I believe in reading prior reviews of a site before applying. In that way, one can get a view on how the reviewer operates. That way, if there’s something the reviewee does not like [ie: language, focus, etc.] they can skip that review site. Hence, I fully believe that when a reviewee gets a review they really don’t like, they had it coming.
I think a reviewer should be reviewing on a visitor’s perspective. Web designers don’t need other people telling them what they were thinking when they created a site. Web designers want to know what visitors think when they enter; does the site work in different browsers, do the colors work well together, does it take a long time to load, is the navigation too confusing, the content too wordy, etc. etc.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:07 am
Code of Ethics/Conduct can also be seen as Privacy Policy or sometimes known as Terms of Service. Here you will explain what are your standards on making a review. Your do’s and don’t(s) as well as your criteria on how effective you are on doing reviews for one’s website. This is for you and your client to know some possibilities on your write-ups and on balancing your reviews. As well as to hear from them that they have to agree and accept everything that you will write. You can include here the critical thinking that as a reviewer, you have the right to criticize and to respond with certain disagreements which will occur while reviewing their site. In short, this is a prepared article by you as a webmaster about your ethics and conduct about your site, which if we are to base it on our topic is for webmasters, reviewers and clients to agree in one point.
The International Webmasters Association has successful wrote a wonderful piece about their Code of Ethics. Which can be found on their site - iwanet.org.
Reviewers are vitals of the industry. I’m not generalizing it and I don’t point my fingers to anyone who does the wrong thing here. Well, second opinion varies. You may not be satisfied or get satisfied, am I right? So while being satisfied there’s no issue, and when some reviewers are not, they ended up being ruthless judge and almost want to say, “get that junk out of my sight”.
As they said, “There is a vital relationship between critical thinking and ethics that must be kept in balance if both are to be viable and useful.”
Reviewer is also known as Critic of the industry because of the trend. Some just copied the concept and applied it without even thinking what these guys do and what they want to attain. So the essence was lost or we could probably say “too much”. Being polite is not an issue on having or knowing the Code of Ethics, and whether your client likes your review or not they have to accept it as they asked for it, isn’t it? So, it would be very helpful on both parties.
Why yes… Beauty is the eye of the beholder, and it is not a cheap statement at all. As we do our works with passion and what we believe in on what is beautiful for us. It is not an excuse, it is a fact and even used ever since the 3rd century BC by well-known writers, artists and dramatists.
Design is art.. design is the same as art. You can’t get into designing without artistic passion and knowledge, only that putting it up into coding has standards that is why there are some validation. You might want to probably say that Design and Coding should jive in together to make it more usable. Now, there will enter a reviewer that would just say “I’m disappointed..” or alike which is unreasonable.
On Erica’s statement on her 2nd paragraph which is appropriate in stressing faults/short-comings without any necessary statement such as the above. Same on paragraph 2 by Mei Zhu. I definitely agreed to that.
Now take a look at the given meaning by Veve which is quite obvious that there are some differences between Reviews, Critique and evaluation. They all fall into the same category which is to judge/assess/criticize but here are more meaning about them…
Reviewer/Review - one who reviews; a person who evaluates and reports on the worth of something; to look over, study, or examine again; go over again; To consider retrospectively; look back on.
Critic/Criticism - The word critic comes from the Greek κριτικός, kritikós - one who discerns, which itself arises from the Ancient Greek word κριτής, krités, meaning a person who offers reasoned judgement or analysis, value judgement, interpretation, or observation. The term can be used to describe an adherent of a position disagreeing with or opposing the object of criticism.
Criticism can also be a tool of an anti-social behavior, such as a passive-aggressive attack. Constructive criticism is a form of communication in which a person tries to correct the behavior of another in a non-authoritarian way, and is generally, a diplomatic approach about what another person is doing socially incorrect. It is ‘constructive’ as opposed to a command or an insult and is meant as a peaceful and benevolent approach.
See below article at http://www.answers.com/topic/critic-4
Evaluation/Evaluator - to ascertain or fix the value or worth of; evaluate as to make a judgment as to the worth or value.
Now, whether you are a reviewer, a critic or an evaluator, do you use the constructive type of criticism? Or you just attack them? That’s what this article is all about.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:58 am
Your article doesn’t seem to follow in what you’re trying to point out. That is, from your comment, you’re trying to get across whether or not these “reviewers” use constructive criticism but it doesn’t seem apparent whatsoever in your actual article. In fact, I was completely lost by the time I finished reading your article as to exactly what you were trying to get across to the readers. From what I read, I thought you were trying to differentiate the three (Critics, Reviewers and Evaluators) and have people stop using the title “Reviewers” to cover up the other two. Or something along those lines.
Anyway, now that I’ve somewhat stopped being so confused (although not yet completely un-confused), I believe that a website layout, although a design, is not in and of itself the same as traditional art. Then again, I believe that a bunch of code can also be art (again, not traditional art). There are standards to which it must abide by, and not just the coding of the web design (since the “artistic design” portion…or images…of it must also be resolution friendly and whatnot, else be useless to those using resolutions that are unfriendly to it). In that regard, the idea of beauty is in the eye of the beholder does not ring entirely true in the sense of web layouts (designs…or whatever else we’d like to call them).
Anyway, better hurry before I end up confusing myself a lot again…
I believe the three titles to be close enough in terms of what they do that I can use them synonymously. I don’t really care what people choose to call themselves either, so long as they do what they’ve said they’d do. That aside, people who apply for reviews should have already known ahead of time what they should expect in the review (as they should do their homework and read previously written reviews like any logically thinking possible applicant).
Anyway, when I review, I review from the standpoint of a visitor. I believe all reviewers (critics and evaluators too) should do so as well (because your article seems to state otherwise, and your comment states the opposite).
And finally, your article confuses me. Your comment seems to contradict your article as well. Perhaps you should consider rereading your article and comment and fix your grammatical mistakes and any other mistakes that makes it so incredibly confusing to follow. Then again, it may just be me that’s unable to fully comprehend what either is saying. if that’s the case, then ignore this part of my comment.
February 12th, 2008 at 7:08 am
well… that is your point of view huni… in time, you will understand.. in anyway or another I’m not forcing anyone to believe on what I write and what I believe in.
for me as writer its a success not a failure. *hugs* thanks for taking time to read and comment.
and on my credibility side telling me to reread my article is pointless as i wouldn’t revise it. you might also want to try it huni… well even some writers of the books/magazine/etc. can confuse you want you need to believe in. ^.^
honestly, confusion is appreciated as you will take time to know the truth.
PS: making a website is not a traditional art, but a digital art. coding is a complimentary object to build together on a website. its just that the design of the website is the front-end while coding is the back-end part. i wonder where is the confusion on that? art? yes coding is still a part of art and no matter how beautiful your web layout looks in psd, or jpg if you don’t know enough coding to put it together, it’s useless or degraded. also “the few website designers with real training were educated as artists or programmers; the goal of most website designers is to create websites that show off their “creative talent.” if you guys believe on that.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Re: Web design & art
Coding and design are two parts of a whole. They’re equally important when evaluating. I believe there’s a common-place debate between a lot of people in the so-called “design” community and the “blogging” community over which is more important: design or functionality. And I think both are equally important. If you can’t back up your design with competent coding, it’s not worth looking at; but at the same time, if you don’t back up your coding with a nice design, that’s not worth looking at either.
Take two of my favorite sites: Effluence and Sensorial’Org. Effluence largely focuses on graphics and design; she uses beautiful - and often unique - colors that I’d personally think of as ‘artworks’. Sensorial’Org, on the other hand, is, in my opinion, less graphic-intense. There’s more focus on functionality. However, both sites are beautifully ‘designed’; one just focuses more on the graphical aspect while the other on the coding.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:30 am
In terms of the article itself, I got rather confused also, as did with Megori. It seems that, Ydreece, you posted the article without proofreading it and I believe that’s what Megori wanted to point out (grammatical mistakes has a tendency to confuse the meaning that wants to be conveyed to the reader). I also agree with Megori that you need to reread your article to refresh yourself what you actually wrote about because it seems your reply to our comments differ from what you wrote in the original article.
Now, I do believe web designing is an art, from the graphical design to the coding semantics, it’s a “form” of art. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a “digital” art. A more practical design, as Mei Zhu pointed out, is Sensorial’Org, it is less than a “digital” art but a more practicality of coding rather than just graphically oriented, and that is a form of art, the art of coding. Vice versa for Effluence, the art is heavily concentrated on the graphical part of design rather than the semantics, and that’s a form of art also.
In light of these, as a review/critic/evaluator (however you want to call them), they critique/review as a visitor or a person that has never known the backhand of a matter, such as critiquing a movie. They come in as a person who watches the movie for the first time, they needn’t know what went on that created the movie but what the movie is displaying for them at that moment. They critique on that and write their review based upon what they see on that moment. Reviewing from the creator’s point of view is pointless because a reviewer, however you want to call them, reviews from their point of view, how they see things. They profess their opinion to tell you what “they” think not what you want to know what you think.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
huni.. my reply was based on clarifications about the above post before my comment. please try to also re-read the comments first before you get confuse.
they asked about Code of Ethics, there’s my clarification.
On Veve’s Re Second:… I stated what are the facts about Reviewers, what Reviewer’s actually do and how they came across with the idea to clarify my 6th’s paragraph.
Then, i justified “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” that Veve said it is just an excuse; which can also be seen on Migori’s first comment.
Again, I corrected Migori according to the fact that Design/Website/Layout is art, not as a traditional art like paintings and/or hand-drawn but as digital art which is base on technology. Also, explained how they jive-in together and perfectly supported by Mei-Zhu’s second statement as well as on my 2nd comment PS:.
Finally, on my last statements (my 1st comment) I give supporting excerpts about what’s the difference of each roles. Which is according to society as well as in technological advancement. What’s in and what’s not so to speak.
If you’re interested to read the continuation of this comment, its on my blog. I just find it inappropriate here….
Edit by Skye: Just editing to include the link for easier navigation. Ydreece’s follow-up response here
PS: Thanks again for commenting Erica ^.^