« she's posting about that damn band again | Main | never thought i'd see you naked : Mariah Carey »
it's all over but for the crying
by mg at 09:59 AM on August 06, 2001
Bad Sam just got reviewed by The Weblog Review. I can’t say I’m entirely happy with the review. I guess they didn’t say anything too bad, but a three out of five is hardly the rating this site deserves. I’ve always felt BS to be one of the best blogs going, but nothing I can do about it now. There is something you can do about it though, go there and give us a high user rating. You can do that for me, huh?
comments (12)
That was pretty cheap. You guys deserved a lot better rating than that. BS is definately the best personal blog ever created. That's why it's the only personal blog linked by Enigmous. We say we don't like and don't link to personal blogs. But alas, we link to BS. That's supposed to say a lot, but I doubt it really does.
by MrAnonymous at August 6, 2001 12:35 PM
I took a look around this site and this is just one dude's opinion. And if you look at the blogs that earned a "5", he seems to only really like simple layouts and writings that focus on geekeness instead of personality. Alison and Julie, who are both friends and who I like a lot each got a "5." They both have nice pages...but this is just really objective. I know I've received some harsh criticism for not having a plain, Jakob Nielsonish boring layout and navigation scheme. I don't blog about Star Trek, SF, UNIX, etc. So I thnk right there this guy would hate my blog. This guy would buy a Ford Tauraus, because it's an easy-to-understand car. Your blog is a Lexus SC430 or maybe a vintage jag. It's complex, it's designer. It does not simply provide information, it takes road trips through the psyche of the authors. It's not Time magazine, it's Metropilis magazine meets the New Yorker. This guy would complain it's too big a format, too hard to read...he wants his Time or his USA Today...at least that what it seems to me.
by Charles at August 6, 2001 2:18 PM
And if you can't do - review. His page:
http://www.christopherwalker.co.uk
Looks like nothing so much as a Blogger template.
by Charles at August 6, 2001 2:36 PM
What a ridiculous review. I don't think you can get even an idea of this site in 10 sentences.
Oh well, at least you've got loyal readers: 4.95 when I was there.
by space at August 6, 2001 5:25 PM
Your right Charles and Space! If all artist (for example) listened to their "reviews" they would just quit! (believe me, on guy reviewed one of my photographs that I loved and was proud of...he hated it...yet six others loved it!) So in a way, this is the same! This was not a totally "bad" review but the group DID deserve better! And as Space said, you have loyal readers who are working on that right about now...
~Hugs~
by Pristine at August 7, 2001 1:21 AM
you get my vote. Bad Sam kicks! - and I personally love the navigation, being a fan of the slightly quirky :)
by suey at August 7, 2001 12:08 PM
whoa, i just went & voted a 5 & it didn't even budge the average score, must be a lot of loyal BS fans out there.
& wtf is a ‘traditional blue-based color scheme’? are all the websites on the internet supposed to be the same *color*. i shudder to think.
by kd at August 7, 2001 5:41 PM
Okay, I think I should at least try to defend my review a little.
First of all, if you want to know what a "traditional blue-based colour scheme" is, I recommend you look through the alistapart archives. Also, bad samaritan does not have a "traditional blue-based colour scheme". This is a good thing, and I would hope that my review was not so badly written that it would seem I felt otherwise.
Secondly, my homepage is not based on a blogger template at all. It is in fact my attempt at a totally CSS-based and standards compliant layout. Search the entire site if you wish; you will not find more than a handful (if any) table tags. The simple appearance is a result of this attempt: CSS is not yet capable of very powerful things, and I am not a graphic artist either, so of course it's going to look a little plain.
I think that a 3 score is probably fair for bad samaritan. I know you'll disagree, because you've all been reading the site for months no doubt. That would make a big difference. To maintain a consistent approach to ratings, I don't review any site I'm familiar with. Therefore I won't be rating bluishorange, which I've read for going on a year, even though it's listed at the weblog review.
I know I've gone on a bit, but I wanted to have the chance to express my opinion. I have nothing against Bad Samaritan. I think it all comes down to opinions and tastes, and as a consequence having only one person write one review for a site is probably a bad idea. Maybe you should email one of the other reviewers and ask very kindly for a second opinion.
by Chris Walker at August 8, 2001 11:00 AM
Sorry kids, I let you down. Had I had a post up here, we would have gotten a 5. Chris only got to sample the spaghetti and macaroni, not the Morels. ;)
by snaggle at August 8, 2001 11:20 AM
MG you got his attention for sure! Poor chap is now in a defense stand mode! Though he has somewhat of a valid point. Having said that I would suggest to your new site reader rather than ask for a new opinion from a different reviewer, how about you hang-out for a week and do YOURS over again? As you will see B/S is reguarded highly by several followers of those "rockstar" writers! Whaddya say Chirs? :0)
by Pristine at August 8, 2001 12:27 PM
Surely you should just accept the fact that you were given a rating of 3. I mean, lets face it there are much better blogs out there. You and certain other readers obviously cannot be that interested in any form of constructive criticism if you don't take in what has been said about the site.
Besides, having your site rated and linked to by the reviewer has surely earned you much more traffic.
And shame on those of you who have gone all defensive and started slagging off www.christopherwalker.co.uk as a result of the review. Besides it must be one of the best designed and most interesting sites about.
by SuperTom at August 9, 2001 5:22 AM
To be honest I just read the review and I thought it was quite complimentary, it praised the maturity, diversity and quality of the content as well as the organistaion and the layout.
The only 'critisims' were that two navigation links point to the same page (which you have to admit is poor) and that the color scheme may not appeal to everyone. Hardly stinging critical words.
3/5 isn't a bad score, and the weblog review is meant to be slightly objective, all reviews are - otherwise they would be very dull.
For the record I think the design and coding for www.christopherwalker.co.uk is superb and concientiously worked out to be cross platform/cross browser compatable - which is more than can be said for about 95% of websites.
by JHarper at August 9, 2001 7:53 AM