Review from Dispiacere Reviews

While the spelling and coding corrections are welcome, I'm not truly satistifed with the actual review. My site name is "It all comes down to...". And I asked a SCORED review. Honestly! Read those application forms, otherwise why ask all that?

First Impression

Your site has a very clean impression and the colors are very pretty. I really like how you used tabs for the navigation, and the text is readable.

Layout

The colors are very attractive, if I haven't mentioned already. The text, "It all comes down to…", To be honest, I’m not going to pretend to be a genius, but I don't understand it. I don't know how it has to do with anything on your banner, and the quote has nothing to do with the images.

That's because it's the site title... And the text itself is explained in "A Deeper Look", had you cared to look.

Also, the white in your banner really stands out. I think it's because of the white polaroid containers around the photos. It just looks like something is missing. If I were you, I would make a light purple gradient going up to down, purple to white [preferrably the color of the background in the box that reads: What to Expect? and place it in the background of the polaroid. Other than that, it's wonderful. I love the neatness of your site too, it's very organized.

That's a good idea. I'll think about it, and will most probably implement it, when I have the time.


Content

I'll start from the Profile of Culprit section.

Facts:

"General Facts | Favourite ... | Least Favourite..."
Though it is a little convenient, I don't understand why you feel it's nessecary to add this when your page is very short and is only cut into three sections.

Mostly, to follow the pattern on the rest of my sites. True I had been debating on whether or not to remove it, but in the end, unless more people protest: it stays.

I keep noticing that you have a knack for always striking out your text. In fact, I think you overuse it. I don't know why you do this if you could just delete it completely off the page. The striked words don't provide a lot of information.

I beg to differ. I have a whooping mass of 3 (or 4) such cases in the whole site. Considering the amount of pages I have, I think that's hardly a crime.

You're a bit too sarcastic, and although it is a little entertaining to me, it might not be to a portion of other guests.

No complaints up until now, plus I find it IS truly me. A sort of outlet... that I can rarely allow myself offline.

"Everyone loves me or rather, those who don't, are really evil people who have no idea just what they're missing out on. In other words, I'm simply perfect."
(LOL moment.)

Nostalgia at Its Best:

I still don't understand why you broke the page up, once again, with these links. There are, again, only 3 sections.

The breaking up, has nothing to do with the number of section, rather the length and different subjects touched upon. Then again, I'm begining to think maybe this page doesn't need it. Keeping its purpose in mind.

I applaud you for this section though, as many of these opinions created on the net are just saying the same thing over and over again, because some people take it up as a 'trend' to have their opinion on vegetables and vegetarians. Some of the opinions are really well written, like yours. Though, your article is similar to those opinions too. So, there's a little bit of hypocrisy here.

I present you my reasons for creating a section populated by blog entries and opinions « second line from the top. it means that this is an INTRODUCTORY page. And kindly read the WHOLE CONTEXT before throwing out random accusations.

WPRs:

An introduction:
" This is all nice and fine, you might say, but that's what visitors do. " Hm? I don't understand.

It refers to the previous section's topic, that someone issues an opinion about your web site.

Also, when it says, "Pupose", I think you mean, "Purpose".

Oh yes, sorry... after so many re-reads it's harder to spot mistakes. Fixed!

What's your website for?

"While many of use build website because we believe we can do it better than many others; we need to think about their durability in the long run. Why build one, that you'll abbandon after 3 months? "

When it says, "While many of use..." I think you mean, "us".
When it says, "Why build one, that you'll abbandon after 3 months?" It should be revised to, "Why build one that you'll abandon after 3 months?"
When it says, "Then kindly don't start talking about Christina Aguilera's latest video, where she fell and scrapped her knee". Usually, people say, "scraped," instead of "scrapped".

*dies* I'm so sorry... Fixed!

First impression:

"Impress the visitor, so he'll stay, and look more in-depth than your first page."

I would say, "Impress the visitors so they'll stay and look more in-depth than your first page."

Either way is fine. Though my use of singular is meant to make the webmaster aware of every single visitor, instead of "visitors" as a whole.

What's there to see?

"If you hand't cared about them, then why would you waste time and money publishing it?"
Instead of "hand't" it should be had not or "hadn't". But I rarely use "hadn't".

Oh yes: "didn't" would be better in this case.

Whew. You have a lot of content. It's great, and the articles are very helpful.

Thank you, though I would've liked some input on the PHP ones... then again, no reviewer wants to touch them... wonder why?

Coding

Your coding has 9 errors.

Considering I didn't check it (lazy)... that's not even that much. Will fix them asap.

I can't help but ask why you wrote an article on valid coding when your coding is not valid either.
"<textarea name="message" ></textarea><br />"
You didn't specify the number of rows, which is why it is incorrect.
Also, you did not specify the columns needed. [cols] I can't locate where this link is, but it is unvalid. You'll know what I'm talking about here.

I had to change domains recently, which also implies reuploading everything from scratch... so well validation got somehow ditched (shudders) in favour of cross browser/resolution compatibility.

Final Notes

Overall, your site is neat and tidy. I would fix all the grammatical and spelling errors though.

So did you like it or not? Some people don't find neat and tidy to be enough... that's why I'm asking.

Re-review by Dispiacere Reviews

While I did not ask for a re-review, I've apparently made an impression with this feedback, so Heather revised a few points. All in all, I'm quite satisfied with this review.

"While the spelling and coding corrections are welcome, I'm not truly satistifed with the actual review. My site name is "It all comes down to…". And I asked a SCORED review. Honestly! Read those application forms, otherwise why ask all that?"

To find out that you are not satisfied with your review is a true bummer.
I read your comments, and I feel like a complete donkey for not going through your site more thoroughly. This is why I have made yet another attempt are re-reviewing your site (without the horrible mistakes I've made) even though you have not requested for another one.
PS: I thought you had requested for a review before we added the new schema, sorry! Eep, I need to read things more carefully. Thank you for pointing these things out to me too! I'm truly greatful for this, as I won't make the same mistakes twice.

First Impression 15/15

Again, even after visiting your site twice, the image and colors have a very nice first impression. I don't think I told you in the past review how quick your image loads. That's great, especially for people that have dial-up.

Layout 20/25

I'm sorry I neglected to carefully read, "A Deeper Look", however, my opinion stays the same. When it says, "It all comes down to ..." A portion of visitors will not read your A Deeper Look page, so they would be confused, like me. It is my mistake, as your reviewer, but for the portion of visitors that have not read the page, they would be left confused. There would be another portion that wouldn't care, but we needn't mind about them.

I disagree. First thing I notice when entering a site is the text on the header image. If nothing else is present, I assume that's the site title. So I didn't think of mentioning in the introduction. As for meaning... well at least mine has a logic, so I'm not too stumped by that.

I didn't take off any points though, because the text looks wonderful on top of the image, and keeps the color scheme going. The reason I took off 5 points was because the white spaces. I really do hope you take my suggestion! :)

I will change it, though not necessarily with the gradient. I'm also thining of having a different gradient for the comments... I'm overusing that image as it is. Maybe just have a 'less-white' background, and remove the borders on the images, plus elongating their bottom. But I need more time for this.

Content 15/20

Now reading your comments on the review, I feel like I'm being reviewed. And I would definitely give myself an F on this review, because I clearly made a lot of mistakes. I hope you aren't too upset with me.
When it said you were striking out text a lot, the only reason I said so was because you had a page where there were a lot of crossed out words.

Which page? Also, the crossing out, is meant to be a sort of brief look into my general 'opinions'. Meaning that I sometimes forget to censor myself, or just decide that not censoring myself is more 'fun'.


"I present you my reasons for creating a section populated by blog entries and opinions <- second line from the top. it means that this is an INTRODUCTORY page. And kindly read the WHOLE CONTEXT before throwing out random accusations."

Sorry, sorry. I understand why you are so irritated.

"Thank you, though I would've liked some input on the PHP ones... then again, no reviewer wants to touch them... wonder why?"

Actually, I did try to review the content, but I found no errors there, so I didn't say anything. The PHP tutorials are very helpful.

This wasn't so much a reproach as a rhetorical question. You also need to point out the good things in a review, otherwise how should reviewees know whether or not keeping that particular content is ok?

On the Reviews page, where you list everyone's reviews:
"I don't know you well enough to loathe you so much, that I'll feel compelled to hack into your site; don't flater yourself (note: I've been accused of it). "
Instead of "flater" it should be "flatter".

*blushes* I never manage to be sure of these double letters... either I double all of them or none -.-


I took off 5 points because of some of the spelling and grammatical errors you made.

Coding 15/20

You still have 6 errors in your coding, and 9 warnings. I would suggest you look for a more detailed explanation.

Yes, that's due to the tracking script, I'll look into an alternate code.


Overall impression 18/20

I love how your site was very informative. Everything is well-rounded, except for some of the coding and spelling/grammar errors you've made. Keep up the great work.

Final score: 83%

This review seems more like an apology instead of a review. I'm so sorry I made so many mistakes, it's embarrassing. Heh. Your site was very wonderful overall, I would just fix all the spelling/grammar/coding errors. I hope you're not too angry and that this review is a large improvement from the previous one.

I wasn't angry. Especially since you had quite a few valid points. I was annoyed, true, that you didn't read the whole thing, but I guess that's also my fault for not writing shorter/easier-to-read articles.