Rank Reviews

*******************************************************************************

Rank Reviews

By Indelibleink

A funny thing happened on the way to check my email the other day. I noticed I had received a review on a recent piece from someone who had reviewed me on numerous occasions in the past. While reading the review, I had one of those "deja vu" moments - you know...where you felt like you had seen it all before - which got me to wondering, since I knew I had seen this review - essentially "word-for-word" - fairly recently.

So, I went back and checked all of the reviews I had ever received from this individual, and, sure enough, the reviews were, in essence, identical. Same buzzwords, same comments (covering a number of different genres), and oddly enough, same rating for each piece (again, covering a multitude of genres). Now, while I do strive for consistency in my writing, that was ridiculous!

Having noticed the "trend" that I could associate with this particular reviewer, I thought it would be interesting to go back and look for other "hiccups" or trends in the rating process as presented by those who have reviewed my items. As one who hates to do reviews (I am not criticizing the goal of the review - just my qualifications to do a credible one), I have long questioned the value of the vast majority of reviews that grace the screen of WDC.

My research revealed a number of reviewing "types" which I think pretty much encompass the entire reviewing spectrum at WDC (and probably most anywhere, for that matter). Go through the following list and see if any of these classifications describe anyone you know (and, yes, that includes you)!

Rank Review Profile

#1) The "Bluebird of Happiness": This reviewer is quite desirable to most authors. This person will give you way too much credit for any shred of decent writing while tending to overlook recurrent flaws. In fact, he/she has a rating range which starts at 4.0 and would extend far beyond 5.0 if there was any way to swing it. I'm convinced that you could place your keyboard in front of a two year-old, let him hack away on it for twenty minutes, sign your name to it, put it on the review page, and you'd get a few 4's for your "creativeness."  If we were under nuclear attack, this reviewer would look up in the sky, and comment on the "beauty of the mushroom cloud."

#2) The "Lizzie Borden Style": Be very wary of this little vixen. She starts out all "happy-happy-joy-joy" speaking in nothing but superlatives, and you think you're being reviewed by the "Bluebird" as previously described above. You're feeling so good about this review that you start to visualize it (and you) being featured on Oprah in the near future, and then...THWAP!...Lizzie takes a chunk out of your ego with a couple of whacks at your previously assumed-to-be-perfect piece. Comments like "Needs work - lots of it!" become the rule rather than the exception. Stunned, but still conscious, you try to read on. WHACK! SLAM! You've just been cut into more pieces than a frog in the high school biology lab. Lizzie has struck with such fervor that you're seriously considering giving up writing. And all the while, she's laughing at you.

#3) The "Angel of Death": This tends to be males more often than not. My own personal theory is that since there are far more women on writing sites than men, the guys just get overwhelmed by the "touchy-feely" approach that many women take when reviewing, so men have this deep-rooted urge to lash back with considerable fervor. I'm talking about the guy who starts off the review with the disclaimer right up front warning that he's about to - in all likelihood - annihilate you with his review. He makes Jack the Ripper look like Mother Teresa, all the while spouting his rationalization for the vicious attack with worn-out cliches like, "If you submitted this to a publisher, editor, or agent, they'd tell you the same thing that I'm telling you, so it's better that you hear it from me first. " Or, even better yet, "This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you." Sorry, I didn't buy it when my Dad told me the very same thing while the tears were streaming down my cheeks - not his - and I refuse to swallow it now.

#4) The "Outta-My-Way,-I'm-Just-Padding-My-Numbers" Reviewer: The good news is you can spot these a mile a way. Typically, you'll notice that they've only been on the site for a short time - perhaps only as long as a few weeks. However, somehow the number in parenthesis after their handle rivals the Dow-Jones Industrial. There are many of these on the site, and they are obsessed with amassing a four digit Community Recognition number by, like, the end of the week! A quick way of doing that is to average 1 review like, every 12 or 13 seconds! If you've received multiple reviews from this person (and you most likely have - perhaps even the same day), you'll find it curious just how similar each review is to one another. There's a sick side of me that wonders with morbid curiosity just what motivates this person. I mean, seriously, what's up with the number obsession, anyway?

#5) Emoticon Ernestine: On the surface, pretty harmless, don't you think? I'm talking about the reviewer who can't go two or three words without wedging a stinking emoticon into her friggin' sentence. And it "snowballs," too. Pretty soon your gag reflex has been triggered so many times that you've permanently scorched your esophagus. And now, thanks to her, you're taking the purple freaking pill. This right here is the reason that I have never, ever, used an emoticon, and I can guarantee that I never, ever, will! It's a writing site, for Pete's sake, not "Smily Face Central!"

#6) The Sentence Surgeon: This comedian has one goal in life: To inundate you with examples of his self-proclaimed mastery of the English language. This walking dictionary is throwing obscure words at you every second, but at the same time pointing out your obsolete mistakes of writing. He relishes the opportunity to say stuff like, "You didn't know that? Amazing!" Then, in a flurry of criticisms that leave you scratching your head (because even if you wanted to correct the supposed errors, you didn't have a clue as to what "Webster" was talking about), soon it becomes obvious that his true intent is not to help you, but to have you begging "The Master" for clarification. It's a rarity if anyone ever does. It's all about his ego - not your writing.

So, what do we have? Six reviewing profiles? I think this just about covers most of the review "types" found on this site, with the exception of one. That, of course, would be what I consider to be the "optimum" review. Am I going to describe the "optimum" review for you? Well, I was going to, but then I realized it wasn't necessary.

You're about to show me how it's done!

*******************************************************************************

Words: 1178