** Images For Use By Upgraded+ Only **
Wow! For a new member, you sure have a lot of opinions to what constitutes a bad review and also seem to know a lot about WDC. I will try and make this review as constructive as I can and TRY and keep my personal feelings out of it. That might be hard, while I address certain contradictions in your review of reviewers.
You write:
There are aids, of course. There's a public review section of the site, where the reviews that other people have written can be viewed. There's also an article on writing good reviews.
perhaps it would be beneficial to the reader if you listed that link.
So rather than list off the elements of a good review, let's take a look at some common bad reviews.
In the description for your post, you say tips on good reviewing. There was a lot more ranting about what was bad about reviewers than helpful tips or perhaps it is the way you presented your point of view that made this entire piece seem negative (To me)
In your section, The Knee-Jerk Review, you make a comment: The problem is, the reviewer here hasn't really justified anything; in fact, she sounds like an angry feminist on her period. Laden with insults, this review offers little more than the reviewer's opinion, and is anything but constructive. Worse, this seems to be a judgment of the author, without much emphasis on the story. Let's examine this in detail.
did you not just assume that the person is angry and the insults you just made to what the reviewer might or might not be is insulting in my opinion. This remark about the feminist on her period canceled out any argument you might have had, IMO.
In your section: The Kitty-Cat Review (AKA The Fluff Review), I feel you are assuming again. How do you know that the only reason people are writing reviews the way they do is to pad their WDC wallets? While this might be true, you do not know for sure. Do you? I do not know, perhaps you know something I do not. I, personally, appreciate any review. I used to wonder about some reviewers and wanted feedback on all sorts of aspects and then I realized something. I should be grateful that the person read and commented on my work at all. true, some might not be reading the entire piece and may be browsing through it. I do not offer auto-awards unless I can afford to get a few people who are not going to give me an in-dept review. I think one of the better choices when looking for a certain review style would be to go to specific reviewing groups who offer a variety of types of reviews. I know one review who reads my work (and many, many people's work) around the site. she actually takes the time to read and her reviews are basically her telling us what she saw in our piece as a reader, not an editor. Does that make her review less valuable? Not in my mind.
Focusing on the negative aspects is unhealthy and unproductive, as we have established. To conclude this article without including a good review would be hypocritical.
Bear in mind, this review should not set any standard. It was given to me by a "professional" WDC-Reviewer, i.e. he is part of a review group, and he is also a preferred author. But, this review is ripe with examples of good reviewer-ship skills.
just because a reviewer is a yellow case or part of a reviewing group does not mean they are professional. You did not include the entire GOOD review, and while i agree it is a good review (IMO), it should not set a standard of what constitutes a good review (again, IMO).
This site, I believe, used to be called reading dot com. I am not 100 percent sure of this, but I do know that many reviewers review as readers not professional editors. I personally feel attacks of any kind, in reviewing or in reviewing reviewers is wrong.
I think this piece should be categorized. You have it listed as 'other, and 'writing'. It is your opinion and should be listed as such. I think this would be a better piece if you told us in the beginning this is YOURS, not WDC's thoughts on what constitutes a good review.
|