Warning: Crappyness Ahead
Mon, March 26, 2007
Filed under: Internet, Reviewing, WTF
Considering the number of website reviews I received you’d think I’d seen it all, when it comes to terms/rules/guidelines, however it appears that I can still be amazed. I’m not going to point fingers, as I believe that bad publicity is petty. Technically I don’t really speak badly of the site, I’m just somewhat perplexed by a certain aspect of said site. That said, please don’t start attacking the site in question, should you find out which it is. If I won’t get reviewed because of this… oh well, I’ve endured worse things.
One of this WPR site’s requirement states that the reviewee should state bad graphic design skills in advance. Does that mean that those whose skills are bad aren’t allowed to get constructive criticism? Or maybe it’s a warning of possible reasons of criticism? Or maybe the reviewer has low tolerance for lack of good graphic design skills? Me, being the honest webmistress that I am, clearly stated that my graphic design skills are nonexistent, however I still wished ‘normal’ evaluation for it.
I recently read a review on Captious Pedants (by Veve) where she criticizes a webmistress on confusing webdesign with art. It really made me think on how much of a role does visual appeal play in web design. I always thought that web design can be a type of art, however one CAN have a well designed layout without it being artistic (Susie of Vision is a good example). Nevertheless Veve’s portfolio, Signed by V, is also well designed, and visually speaking more artistic. So which is it?
That being said, are reviewers going to demand a personal evaluation before they start a review? Isn’t evaluation the reason for getting reviewed?
And here I was thinking that the purpose of a review was to point out the webmasters weaknesses…not to have the weaknesses pointed out to them. If the reviewer doesn’t have the ability to make that judgement on the designers ability, they shouldn’t be reviewing in the first place.
Ha, and I figured out which WPR you’re referring to. Can I just say that they hurt my 800×600 screen?
That’s why I stopped signing up for reviews. They are always just a pointless waste of time in which I rarely get any useful information from them.
state bad graphics skills in advance? WTF? If thats not the most lame thing I’ve ever heard! Wow.
@Amanda: oh an 800×600px screen?
That must’ve hurt badly… Speaking of which: What’s happening with Umbrella Reviews?
@Kimmie: I always retain hope. Plus I’m finally being reviewed by Captious Pedants, where I’ll hopefully get a good one. I certainly like all their reviews of other sites
Lol. I found the WPR you are referring to. =P
Stating bad graphic skills in advance is really weird and quite pointless as well. I’m guessing it might be for the reviewers to know what they’re getting into, but they could still just visit the site and judge for themselves.
(And I’m very honoured you listed my site as an example. Whee! =D)
>.
Dammit, my Jap anime face ate my comment.
Anyway, I meant to say…go bug Tracey about U-R. It’s all in her hands now, I relinquished control when O-R died.
Tracy as in Chrasy? Ah good to know there’s someone who I can bug
It seems strange how a review site demands that you submit a self evaluation before they actually get to review you.
So what if one states/does not state bad graphic skills/writing in advance? Are they going to filter the person out and not review them because of that? Are they going to slam the person because of that?
It’s ridiculous!
That’s a really odd request. Do they have a justification for wanting to have bad graphics design stated in advance? :???:
Also, off-topic, do you have a feed link? I can’t find.
I should have one, but with all the layout fixes, I might have misplaced it… I’ll hunt around for it a bit.
Nevermind, found it! It’s this link (got it from your RSS feed for post comments link under the comments).
I’m so embarrassed :shut:. It’s just that I don’t use it, as I honestly enjoy browsing through the sites when I go an look at the content. I’ll put up that link above, though, for other like you. :smile:
I find that odd, to say the least. But I don’t think you should say nonexistent. There are people out there who want to see how you grade yourself. Although one has to be modest, one shouldn’t be too modest. For example, if you have some skills, just say “I can create blah blah…but I don’t have enough skills to do blah blah.” That’s much more specific and gives a much clearer idea then giving a simple vague description.
Veve’s words actually do ring true–in her fifth paragraph. She makes a clear distinction between art and design and still says that design can be considered a form of art, whereas art cannot be considered design. That’s true. It’s like saying all eukaryotes can be considered cells, but not all cells can be considered eukaryotes. Designs have set characteristics that must be maintained or it is not a design, whereas art can be anything. So, because art is such a vague term, you can’t blatantly point out what is artistic and what isn’t. It’s all based on personal opinion.
I think they just want to see how you feel about yourself. I know that there are college professors who ask the students what they think their grades should be before giving them their actual grade (some of the “unfair” professors actually take the grades into consideration, so be sure to never undermine what skills you really have).
At first I thought the same, that they just want to see what the reviewee thought about himself/herself, however then why do you only need to mention bad graphic skills.
The reason I posted a link to Veve’s review was because I don’t think that webdesign necessarily requires skills in graphic design. I also linked Susie’s site, as a proof.
But graphics skill is not equated with art
If I’m interpreting everything correctly, your definition of art is graphics skill…?
Nevertheless, one can always argue that Susie’s blog is artistic because of her choice of colors, font, etc. to bring out certain aspects in the design. Art, in the general term, is everything and anything.
Well yes, art is a much broader term. Then again, rest assured I wouldn’t have told this to someone who’s opinion counts in regards to, let’s say whether or not I will be hired by them or so.
However, with website reviews, it’s THEM who are supposed to tell me their opinion, with suggestions for improvement. If I tell them before-hand they’re bound to be influenced.
As for Susie’s blog, it’s not geared toward looking artistic. It’s clearly a design where functionality and accessibility play a great role. There are many deigns where visual appeal plays a greater role. And those are what I categorize by “artistic designs”.
Oh and one more thing: I can 99.99% of the times get a feel of the reviewer only by looking at their layout (the only exception was Rhiannon of Petshopgirls Reviews): if the layout is professional and the creator put effort in making it look as such, then it’s clear that the review will also offer the same quality, if the layout is rather sloppy, more geared toward sporting a pretty header, then the review will also be somehow superficial.
In such cases I’m generally acting like a smartass. No it’s not very nice of me, but that’s just how I am.