A couple of months ago I posted a reasonably well constructed and fairly well received article entitled, "How To Review A Blog". It even tied for second place in the How-To Group Writing Contest/Project at Blue Jar dot com, netting me $62. (Thank you Sarah and thank you voters)
The problem is, I have come to the conclusion the article is terribly flawed. If a writer were to follow the formula I laid out, they would end up writing more of a critical analysis than a review.
Having written quite a few blog reviews since publishing that article, I have come to understand there are a couple of things we must think about before we begin any review.
- Unless we are a guru (writing/site building/seo) who has been asked to analyze the site for improvement, we should stay clear of these areas except for the most glaring issues that effect readability.
- A blog is a collection of entries that together form the content. As a reviewer, we are there to review the blog, not the color pallet of the theme, the type face or the widgets.
Somewhere in our culture we have come to expect a review, be it product, performance or otherwise, to slice and dice the reviewed item. Peeling back all the layers to the absolute core, leaving nothing for the reader to discover for themselves. I fell into this trap with the original article and with some of the reviews I've written.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is; a blog review should review 70% Content, 20% Usability and 10% Everything Else.
Just remember, a blog review is an editorial article, it's all opinion. We should spend our time expressing that opinion about the parts that matter.
If you enjoyed your read, grab my feed!