Review Replies (4)
|
Replies to the user review above. |
| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
mbaya (Disabled)
|
Based on the negatives that you mentioned, I was expecting a lower score.
|
07-06-09 05:08am
Reply To Message
|
2
|
lk2fireone (0)
|
REPLY TO #1 - mbaya :
I am not following the PU suggestion of rating an individual site that is part of a network as an individual site.
Instead, I am rating the overall network of sites.
I have reviewed several different sites in this netFameSolutions network, and I gave the same score to each site. Each site has a different individual value, but most of the value comes from the ability to access all the sites in the network, to access all the videos (and pictures, which are a minor part of this network).
I explained in each separate review in the BOTTOM LINE (summary) section the basis of my score: that I was not giving the site a score based on the value of the site itself, but on the network of the sites.
Perhaps I did not make that point clear enough.
You are entirely correct that, if I was thinking consistently, based on the negatives I reported about this individual site, my score would have been far lower than the 87 I gave the site--if I was rating the site on an individual basis. But I am not rating the site on an individual basis, but on a network basis.
I wrote at the end of this review: "I'm giving this site a score of 87 for its network value. As a stand-alone site, this site personally has zero value for me. But tastes vary. Some PU members might find it worthwhile to visit."
Technically, I am being too hard when I say the site has zero value, but I basically regard this site as a waste of time for me, personally.
But I wrote in this review, "I'm giving this site a score of 87 for its network value". What I meant was that the network of sites has a score of 87, even though this individual site has, for me, little or no value. Individual tastes vary, so maybe some people will enjoy at least some of the video clips.
Sorry to write such a long explanation to a simple remark, but I am trying to explain clearly what I meant when I said I was giving this site a "network score", instead of a score as an individual site.
|
07-06-09 06:16am
Reply To Message
|
3
|
lk2fireone (0)
|
REPLY TO #1 - mbaya :
Separate from the site or network score (although related), I do try, when writing a site review, to mention some of the positive and negative aspects of the site I am reviewing.
In the case of White Ghetto, the major positive factor is that it is part of a nice network. I searched really hard to find something positive to say about the site. :)
On the negative side, other than I didn't like any of the models or the video clips or anything else about the site, I tried to say it in an intelligent way. But I'm afraid that it mainly came out as "I just don't like this site".
So I'm glad that I finished with my review of that site, and will hopefully focus more on sites that are easier for me to enjoy.
But the truth is that a site score has limited value. What is more important, on an individual basis, is whether the site caters to your personal tastes. My tastes are mainly softcore. I don't mind some hardcore, but I would like it to be good-looking or glamorous or nice. I don't like rough.
Site content (quality and quantity) and ease of use and price are the main factors in determining score, for me. My approach is different than the TBP approach, which does not consider price. But those are the factors which are important to me. Price does matter.
But I do try (and hope) that my reviews will have some usefulness or value to a PU member who might read the review, as an indicator of whether a site might be worth a membership or not. Based on individual tastes, of course. For a lot of PU members, my personal tastes are far too softcore.
|
07-06-09 07:02am
Reply To Message
|
4
|
mbaya (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #3 - lk2fireone :
I agree that scores are extremely subjective. I read the bottom line very closely to see where a reviewer is coming from so I can assess their biases. It is impossible to be totally unbiased.
|
07-06-09 07:17am
Reply To Message
|
| *Message rows highlighted in light orange are replies to replies. |
|
