Zwinkyness

Today I’m going to start the first in a series of unrequested reviews, primarily focusing on WPRs or Web Page Review sites. It is my opinion that people, when opening a WPR, should have basic knowledge of coding, designing, valuable content, etc. When this knowledge goes missing, then what is the entire point of having a WPR? There is much more to critizising other people’s websites than meets the eye: you really have to know what you are talking about. But I also believe that WPR-owners themselves should be able to take criticism, hence why I’m planning on tearing their review sites down to shreds (so to speak…I’m merely going to state my humble opinion) and am confident that most of them will be able to take the criticism well. After all, if you ought yourself capable of critizising others; then you should be able to handle a bit of criticism yourself. Else, I think you’re a bloody hypocrite. Owkay?

Now we got that settled, let’s talk about our subject of the day: Mobile Reviews. My first impression of the website is that it’s a bit dull and boring, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I do think you may have gone over the top with the whole “Less is more” philosophy that is taking over the web right now, but you do have a clean design. Basic, but clean. Everything seems well-aligned (at least in my browser of choice, Internet Explorer 7) but it’s missing a sparkle. I cannot say that your design is original. When I scroll down, I see that you are using a premade WordPress theme. Now there’s nothing wrong with that, but I cannot help but wonder why you chose such a dull theme? It is nice and all, but it lacks personality. If you decided to use a premade theme anyway, could you not have gone for something with the same minimalist style, but with some more glamour and glitter? Defusion is a theme that looks quite a lot like the one you used, but has way more personality and style that give it some sort of extra dimension. And this is just one out of many examples of WordPress themes that stand out more than the one you chose.

Now, the thing that actually irritated me enough to give your website an unrequested review is the lack of link to the homepage. You have all your pages nicely listed in the navigation on the top, but you lack a link back to the index page. Maybe you simply forgot it or have no idea about how annoying this can: this forces me, a lazy visitor, to actually either click my back button or delete some parts of your url in my navigation bar, taken I was browsing your site and suddenly want to go back to square one. My best suggestion is: add a link to your homepage as soon as possible. Since you have plenty of space left in your navigation bar, it will not even clutter it.

Secondly, the site also lacks some sort of archive. I mean, sure you do list the most recent reviews in your sidebar (and since it is so damn empty, I wonder why you even have it) but where are the other reviews and how can I find them? Maybe there aren’t any? Or maybe I will have to browse all the way back through all them reviews, using the most recent ones as a starter base; before I can actually get to your oldest reviews? This seems a bit strange and unnecessary to me. Most people bother enough to add a list of all their reviews, an ‘archive’ of sorts. Maybe you could do the same thing: even with the most recent reviews listed, this would make life a lot easier for your visitors.

First, I’m scanning through the About page. This page seems to have lost its purpose along the way. I mean, it’s more like a compilation of everything that doesn’t have a spot anywhere else, than an actual About page. But maybe that’s just me. You made a few spelling errors/typos though:

As a general guideline, they will review websites with considered “offensive” words, but in order to make Mobile Reviews a safe place for everyone, they won’t swear in they reviews.

“They” should be “their”.

Finally, your review will be posted if you don’t link back to Mobile Reviews; however, it is considered rude not to, since Lily and Clem spend a lot of time on each review, and it’s not very hard to link back.

I cannot help it, but I see this statement as being very offensive and rude. I mean: you consider it rude if people do not link back to you? I don’t know: maybe you do spend a hell of a lot time writing reviews, I won’t argue about that. But you offer reviews. You offer them probably because - at least that is what I would like to believe - you like writing them. If you totally disliked writing reviews, I doubt you would open a WPR. But now you want to be paid back for something you like doing and offered to do? Sure, suggest your visitors to link back to you - I am confident that most reviewees will actually link back. But basically forcing them to do so by stating that it is considered to be rude when you don’t link back? That’s sort of the soft way to say: If you don’t link back, I will be pissed off and ban you and your website to the world wide web - hell.

I have some issues with the ways some of the things are stated in the About your review - Clem’s reviews section.

When you submit your website, you have to realise that you may not get a perfect review. I might point out things that you need to improve.

It seems to me that the use of the adjective “perfect” is wrong here. If you are talking about a “perfect review”, you should be going on about your possible flaws as a reviewer: not everyone is perfect and you can make mistakes too. You should not go on and tell your readers that you might point out things up for improvement. If you want to talk about that, you should not be using the adjective “perfect” or you should rephrase the sentence completely. Something along the lines of: “You have to realise that the review might not necessarily be about how nice or great your website is; I will point out things that you need to improve and blah blah…” See my point?

When I read what it says in the section “Lily’s reviews”, you made ME cry. I’m sorry, but if your standards are that high - which you state yourself - then how come you instantly assume that simply because a website isn’t accessible, you will have to open up Internet Explorer to browse it? I have the idea that you have a very wrong perspective of the term ‘accessible website’. An accessible website is up to standards with the latest software and/or tips and tricks to enable handicapted or disabled people to browse the website properly (or as properly as possible). Whether or not your website is accessible, as in browsable by disabled people, or works in any other browser than Internet Explorer, is an entirely different story. What you mean in your paragraph is: Your website must be cross-browser compatible, not accessible.

Another error on this page:

There’s no rule about when you can or cannot submit your website for a re-review, but I’d suggest fixing up the things I’ll be outlining in your review and adding more content.

You have been talking in the “we”-tense for the entire page now (apart from the Clem and Lily sections) that it would be best to stick with the “we”, rather than crossing over to the “I” -side.

Further on, when quickly browsing through your website, I see the “comments closed” tag beneath every single page. Why? If you don’t have comments enabled, and probably never will on those pages, do you choose to keep the tag glued there? It is not only slightly annoying, but it could also confuse some of your visitors (how come comments are disabled? Did this used to be a discussion?) and pose unnecessary problems. Further on; it’s only one bloody line of code you have to delete. How hard can it be? Especially when you, as a reviewer, are keen to critizise others coding skills: you must be able to code yourself too.1

I have some issues with the Links page being placed under About, as a child page of sorts. I mean: what exactly do affiliate links or credits have to do with the about-information of your website? I would get it if you placed credits on the about page - but affiliate links? I suggest you could perhaps turn this subpage into a normal page and list it in the navigation bar.

Mobile Reviews is run by two young girls who love to pick through sites and give their honest opinions on on every page.

Twice the use of the word on doesn’t sound right to me at all.

I live in a big green room somewhere in Canada, and my iPod is never far from my side.

This can be found on the Reviewers page. I suggest ditched the ‘,’ before the word ‘and’. On this page, Clem states that she likes links that change on hover. I wonder why. Why are you so fond of links changing on hover? Do you think it makes a website less interesting if it doesn’t have links changing on hover? Sure this can be a personal preference, but the way you are stating it, in one line with other more valuable points (such as interesting and high-quality content), it makes me believe that it is one of your criteria for a nice website. Surely a website can be excellent, whether or not it has links changing on hover, so I don’t really think this fits a list of criteria. I don’t know; maybe I’m getting the wrong impression but from the way you have stated it, it seems as having links changing on hover is just as important as having unique content. Maybe that’s just me.

The text in the about Lily section sounds awfully familiar. Why do you feel the urge to state the same things twice? Either ditch this paragraph, or talk about something else and be a tad more original. What is the use of telling us the exact same thing twice? You are boring your visitors this way.

I’m now browsing your Format page. The thing that annoys me right away, is again your misinterpretation of the word ‘accessible’ in your Enter page paragraph. You are obviously right to encourage people to make their website work in every browser, but you are referring to ‘cross-browser compatibility’ more than to ‘accessibility’. If you want people to make their site ‘accessible’, you want them to make it cross-browser compatible, you want them to use relative fonts so size can be adapted to preferences, you want them to make sure their website is readable without stylesheet or images, you want them to use the ‘alt’ tag in images and you want them to install access keys. Since here you are only talking about the first of a long series of demands, I suggest you stick to the term ‘cross-browser compatible’.

high-quality non-celebrity graphics made by you,…

You say this in your Content paragraph. It confuses me. It seems as though you wanted to point out that you dislike the idea of using celebrity stock images and turning them into, let’s say a wallpaper. But you are stating it in a rather confusing way. We are all free to make celebrity graphics: there is no copyright law against that. If I were to draw a sketch of Johnny Depp, I would be free to post it on my website. This is a celebrity graphic, but made by me and no infringment to copyright laws whatsoever. Perhaps try to state this more clearly: you don’t want people to use celebrity stock images.

I’m usually not one for adding ratings to a website review, but I do like your stars-system. The paragraphs added, in which you explained the meaning of one star, two stars, etc. are quite witty. So far, this is my favourite part of the website. Using your very own star ratings system, I would probably give you three stars. Your website is nice, but I dislike the theme (too boring) and also the way things are organised. You lack some organisation skills, when it comes to where which pages should go. The fact you don’t have a link back to the homepage in your navigation bar, was a major turn-off for me. It’s basic knowledge for webmasters that visitors are lazy and dislike having to search for a way back to the homepage. We like things clean, simple and easy.

I like your apply page, but I’m still not entirely happy with the fact that, once again, you stated here that it’s rude not to link back. I would like to believe that people, when a review is good enough or very well-written, would link back to it all by themselves. I’m alright with you stating that you would be pleased if people linked back, but it’s the “it’s rude not to” line that is working on my nerves. I probably just have an entirely different opinion about this than you guys. (girls :P)

On your “Pending” page, it is sort of blurry. Blurry as in, it takes people five minutes before they realise what is what. If I were you, I would make the words like “website”, “reviewer”, etc. bold, so they would stand out more since they are actually titles. Perhaps this would help people understand how exactly this page is organised. I also see you have a lot of pending websites. Seems like you’ve got a lot of work ahead of you.

Now I’m going to take a look at your reviews to see if you actually are as well-informed and up-to-standards as you claim to be. At first glance, you are. I’m currently reading the review you did (who actually reviewed it? I don’t see it stated anywhere.) of Hannah’s website, Leaving Town. I like it. You have a simple, clean and nice writing style. Your review wasn’t too long, but it wasn’t exactly short either: it had a nice, average length. I like it that you point out the good as well as the bad and that you are against the use of Cutenews (God, I hate that news system.) You give critique, but you know not to cross the line between critizising or simply being rude. Believe me, I have seen reviewers actually being immensly rude in their reviews and I’ve always wondered why. Everyone does their best when creating their website, there is no need in bashing webmasters simply because they have less knowledge than others. Anyway, I do disagree with the fact you stated that most “Site History” blurbs are boring. Most times I find this one of the most interesting parts of a website. Maybe I’m just crazy.

To conclude this review: I like your reviews - thoroughly written, to the point, direct but not rude - but I’m not fond of your website. The way things are organised, the missing link to the homepage (yes I’m whining, I know) and the boring theme kind of brings it down quality-wise for me. All in all, your reviews impress me but your website doesn’t. A short lists of to-do things I would advise you to do: add link to homepage, add a link to an archive with all the reviews listed, and pick a theme with some more personality. Then the appeal of your website will definetely go up; at least for me.

Edit: I only noticed this just now, but the categories in your sidebar (reviews and updates) do not work for me. They lead to an unexpected parse error page.