Review by Failed to Say
She really rushed through my review, but at least she didn't grade me on spelling/grammar after continuously misspelling 'site'.
First Impression - [7/10 points]
Its very plain. Not many colors. But its not to busy or tacky either.
Loading Time - [5/5 points]
It loaded really fast.
Layout / Color Scheme - [9/15 points]
Its pretty plain. Nothing to tacky again. The colors on the layout all makc. Except the links, they are a teal color when the layout has no teal in it.
I had a hard time choosing the link colour so I just chose a random green one: not a very good idea, I know.
Navigation / Organization - [5/10 points]
It was organized well. It took me awhile to find the content though. Only because its not labeled "You" ect...
If it was organized, why did it take you 'a while' to find the content? Also, technically everything is for "you", otherwise I wouldn't have published it.
Content - [9/15 points]
You didn't have that much content. You had things about you and then your past layouts. Nothing that really kept me at your sit.
Well: it's a BLOG, a fact which you asked me to mention the submission form. Might want to consider it.
Originality - [5/10 points]
There was some things that I've never seen before but most of it I could find at any 'ol website.
Obviously it would have been too much of an effort to actually exemplify this...
Errors - [5/5 points]
I didn't see any.
Link Back - [9/10 points]
yes you linked back. I had to search for it.
Understandable, especially since the sidebar sports a link labelled "Reviews": truly criptic - if I might say so myself.
Reviewer‘s Choice - [7/10 points]
It was alright. I would have changed some things. Making font smaller so it looks neater and just making a more colorful layout.
Smaller? I'd really prefer to be able to read my own content, so I'll have to decline.
Overall - [10/15 points]
with some work I think you sit would look great.
