moreover... -- Insert witty title here

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 17:58:01 12/14/01 Fri
Author: Val
Subject: moreover...
In reply to: OG (copied & pasted from valerian.signmyguestbook.com) 's message, "Diary review reasoning" on 17:24:56 12/14/01 Fri

>The ideal reason for requesting a review is to
>hopefully find some way of improving the site

Ah, but I'm sure you've noticed that we're not living in an ideal world. ;} Just because you request reviews in the sincere hope of improving your diary doesn't mean that everybody (or even the majority of diarists) share your motives.

I can personally think of one change I've made to my diary that was suggested by a reviewer (changing the table alignment to "center"). All of the other "improvements" that have been suggested have either been laughable (spelling out "and" instead of using ampersands), inexplicable ("show more emotion" Uh... whah?), or matters of personal taste. Although many suggestions would, in fact, make my diary slicker & faster loading (plain black background, text links), they're changes that I just don't feel comfortable making. Yes, I want people to read my diary, but not enough to forget that it's *my* diary.

> - not
>because the reviewer is some all-mighty God of
>diaries, but because sometimes others notice faults
>that the diaryist does not.

Mmm. Like how to correctly spell the word "diarist"? ;}

Really, I don't think anyone expects reviewers to be almighty gods of anything, but I for one would at least like them to be competent at what they're critiquing if they expect to be taken seriously. There are a few reviewers whose opinions I sincerely respect (Nakedreviews being one of them), but most of them I just find amusing in their incompetence. Why in the name of nine hells would I follow someone's advice regarding writing & webpage design when they can't figure out the difference between "accept" & "except", or use yellow text on a white background?

>If a reviewer says that, for instance, the text color
>should be lighter because it's unreadable, and the
>diaryist writes an entry saying "What a bitch! It's my
>diary and I can hav whatever text color I want!" -
>that is ridiculous. It makes me wonder what the
>diaryist EXPECTED a reviewer to say.

That it was the most amazing diary that they ever read, & they wouldn't change a thing. :D No, you're right. People like that are very silly.

>If I offer a suggestion as a reviewer, I do so not to insult, but
>because I honestly believe it will improve the diary.

Ah, if only all reviewers were as nobly-intentioned as you. Unfortunately, there are probably as many reasons for people to start reviewing diaries as there are reasons to be reviewed, & I assure you that they aren't all philanthropic.

>Even if I were to say something petty, the advice
>about the text color is still good. Do you see what I
>mean?

Yes, but if you say something petty, the object of the critique will tend to get defensive, & any actual good advice you might give them will bounce off their anti-insult defenses.

But, yes, I do see what you mean. :}

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

reply to the reply -- O.G., 11:06:17 12/17/01 Mon
- fluff -- Val, 18:31:00 12/17/01 Mon