Taking Up Reviewing
Do you have what it takes to be a good reviewer? Can you devote hours to inspect a site you have a strong dislike for? Or should you just give up? On top of all that, can you live with lack of a fool-proof recipe for the perfect review?
Note: This article contains ‘footnote links’, illustrated as follows: textnumber. I strongly urge you not to dismiss them, in order to prevent any misunderstanding.
Long vs Short Reviews
If you’ve read my feedback on the reviews I received, or even checked the review qualities page, you must have come to the (logical) conclusion, that the longer the review is, the better I appreciate it. Nevertheless, that is not always true (see this review); so which one is it?
For easier exemplification, I’ve sorted sites into 4 main categories1 .
- Beautiful layout with bad quality content
Keen on making a good first impression, these webmasters tend to spend a lot more time on the layout(s), than on the content. This is not a particularly wise idea as layouts are changed much more frequently than the content.
Basically, you need to tell the webmaster that a beautiful layout alone is not enough to keep visitors. More specifically: compliment the layout and criticize the content. The latter doesn’t (generally) take long, as such sites tend to consist of:
- a typical mall-type-adventure blog
- a few details regarding the site (host, online period and maybe past layouts)
- a couple of lists masquerading as content about the webmaster
- possibly some ‘goodies’, mostly small graphics (avatars, pixels, icons, brushes, buttons…)
- … and an insane amount of links (for ‘pimping’ reasons)
Such reviews, don’t take longer than one screen2 .
- Ugly layout with bad quality content
Compared to the above, these types of sites tend to warrant longer reviews. Not surprising, as it is easier to criticize, than to compliment; we tend to notice unpleasant things much faster.
These webmasters are generally newcomers, so their content is similar to the above sites, while the layout tends to consist of one huge image with some text, patterns and/or brushes slapped on it. These reviews are also the easiest to write. Length-wise such reviews should take up between 1, 1 and 1/2 screens.
- Beautiful layout with good quality content
These types of sites tend to be a (good) reviewers’ nightmare. These webmasters have been online for quite some time, have been reviewed lots of times, and have possibly dabbled into reviewing others as well. In other words, they know what a good review entails.
Starting out from the concept that no site is perfect, you as a reviewer, need to carefully browse through each and every page of this site analysing every little detail, lest you end up sounding as a sugar-coater3 . Considering an average of 15 content pages, these reviews take up around 2 and 1/2 screens.
- Ugly layout with good quality content
These are the hardest sites to review. The webmasters are long-time veterans of the geeky online community. They have long ago realized that good content beats good layout by a long shot. Promising new visitors in exchange for a more pleasing layout, will not have any kind of effect.
Beware of your review’s quality. If you put too much emphasis on the necessity of a ‘fancier’ layout, ignoring their content, you could ‘lose face’ pretty soon. The secret here, is to find a way to convince these webmasteres, that putting a little more effort into their layouts will not damage their self-esteem. I admit, it’s difficult to find such a way, but if it weren’t so, everyone could be a good reviewer. Such reviews generally take up around 4 screens.
Most sites however, tend to be somewhere inbetween, which of course adds to the review’s length. Ultimately, you’re the one who decides how much or how little you should criticize/praise a site. Don’t be afraid to write more, webmasters are always interested to read about themselves and their work.
Objectivity
Contrary to popular belief, there is so much more to website reviewing than simply telling the webmaster your dislikes about his/her site. In the end, you are unlikely to be an authority4 when it comes to any aspect of a site.
Being a good reviewer entails noticing not only the bad aspects, but also the good parts. Aside from these, the most important aspect is disregarding personal opinions, such as like/dislike of a certain color, celebrity, movie, cartoon, object, layout-type etc. You can, of course, mention such things, however don’t let your overall opinion of the site be influenced by such things.
Another aspect you must take into account is difference of opinion. Many webmasters have these so-called ‘opinion pages’, where they rant about a certain topic. There is a reasonable possibility for you to disagree with the webmaster’s opinion, a fact you’re fully entitled to. Nevertheless, as a reviewer, you should look for the way the reviewee presents his/her facts.
For example – an opinion article on racism5 :
I’m extremely annoyed by all these fights caused by racism. People are just plain stupid to pick such fights. Such MORONS. There should be more severe punishment for such acts. Yet the majority of people ignore it, even turn a blind eye against such acts. How can they be like THAT??
The only thing the reader gets out of it, is the fact that the author has a strong dislike against racist people, without giving any reasons. No matter how right the webmaster is, an opinion article is nothing if not backed up by at least a few facts.
Racist fights are particularly worrying me, especially now in the era of communication when we spend a great amount of time online. Lots of us find great friends by means of the Internet, and sometimes we don’t even know what these friends look like. They could be muslims, asians, gypsies or africans – afraid to reveal their ethnic background for fear of prejudices.
Is it fair to these people? Are they to blame for the acts of others with similar physical traits? Doesn’t everyone deserve the benefit of doubt, at least?
The text above is a better example at expressing the same thing. It is also much more intelligently worded, the author not needing to resort to name-calling in order to prove his/her point.
In other words, you need to approach a site, without taking your purely subjective views into account. I’m not saying that you need to reform in order to be able to be a good reviewer, far from me, after all writing website reviews is not some sort of saintly activity. Reviewing sites means ‘giving webmasters the benefit of doubt’, even though the first impression is not particularly flattering. Reserve final judgement until you’ve gone through the whole site.
Necessary Experience
The main difference between a website reviewer and a random visitor expressing an opinion, lies within the suggestion(s) given by the former. Regular visitors express their opinions without thinking much about the webmaster. In contrast to this, the reviewer will also provide possible solution(s) for the problem(s).
Such problems can be of three types:
- aesthetic and functional -> related to loading time and appearance (see details)
- content -> related to originality, usefulness and attitude (see details)
- coding -> may affect the functionality and/or aesthetic appeal (see details)
It stands to reason, that in order for you to be able to give suggestion(s) on these topics, you need to be familiar with these aspects. The only way you can be familiar with such aspects is by having created and maintained a site, yourself.
As a regular visitor, you only notice an unflattering color choice, long loading time, weirdly aligned layout and/or boring content.
As a reviewer, and consequently experienced webmaster, you are familiar with the possible cause(s) of the layout showing up differently in different browsers, the difficulty of finding the right color choice, the hard work necessary to come up with interesting content, as well as loading time reducing methods. Your opinion is (in theory) much more valuable to a webmaster.
In other words, until you have:
- a halfway decent amount of visitors (at least 15 per day)
- been flamed6
- been forced to start it all over from scratch
- spent hours crouching over the keyboard, fiddling with the code/layout or a script
… don’t even think of making your own WPR site. Not only aren’t you qualified enough, but you won’t resist more than a few months – AT MOST.
Of course, even if you HAVE gone through all these, it takes a lot of practice until you get the hang of things (like proper reviewing attitude). This kind of experience can be gained by joining – and subsequently being active in – WPR communities, such as Rev.iew.me.
Reviewing Attitude
The biggest problem that reviewees encounter while searching for a reviewer, is the latter’s attitude. No webmaster likes to be put down without any further ado, on the other hand neither are sugar-coaters an option. How to tell it, then?
There are two main extremes you need to avoid at all cost:
- Mightier- than-thou Reviewers.
They’re extremely sure of their abilites, always try to force reviewees to accept their opinon(s) and just plain act like they own the whole reviewing world.
Why is this WRONG? There will ALWAYS be someone ‘better’ than you. Accept that you can learn from the reviewees as well. As a reviewer you must also point out the good things of a site. Don’t just put the webmaster down. Everyone has to start out somewhere.
- Sugar-Coater Reviewers
They never criticize you outright… or if they do, it is done in a profusely apologetic way. These reviewers tend to be part of the newcomer ‘clique’, bent on showing innocent webmasters that not everyone is “so mean”.
Why is this WRONG? These reviewers basically aim to “spare your feelings”, yet they inevitably end up insulting you. After all, they deem you fragile enough to need sparing from the opinion of a complete stranger. Also, doesn’t it get old constantly hearing how great you are?
Ideally, make sure that you’re not in a rush, cranky and/or angry with the webmaster. Try to see how much you’re entertained by the site in question. Don’t promise short reviewing time. A job well done will – generally – be more welcome. Also, don’t feel ashamed for not having the webmaster’s ablities in a certain field. Compliment him/her, but don’t hesitate to point out his/her mistakes. There’s no need for any kind of ability (aside from eye sight) in order to have an opinion, which makes up 80% of what you need for writing a review.
- Extremely few websites can be fitted into one of these 4 categories; these are simply basic guidelines to start with. [↩]
- Considering the generic tendency in layout creation, I measure the length of a review in a resolution of 1024x768px, where the content area takes up around half of the screen’s width and uses a font size of 10pt (11-12px) [↩]
- The equivalent of the pariah, in the world of WPRs. You DO NOT want to be qualified as a sugar-coater. [↩]
- This article is primarily intended for newcomers, who after having received a couple of negative reviews, decide to ‘get back at them’, by setting up their own WPR site [↩]
- The two examples above, have been created entirely by me (Vera), at the moment of writing the current article [↩]
- gratuitous name calling, criticism for having a certain opinion or content relating to a certain subject [↩]
