03/10/2003
This is a review of rockkid.diaryland.com.
Content - 24/75pts.
[-]Execution - 10/45pts. I can't believe that you wrote about the movie rendition of "The Scarlet Pimpernel," and you did NOT mention Sir Percy saying (rather inanely, as he is supposed to) "Sink me." God. I knew that there HAD to be something wrong with you from the almost-get-go.
Sigh. I'll tell you what that something is. I'm sure you've heard of Maddox? And "Something Awful"? Those links lead to the pages where they make fun of Internet bloggers and the INANE blabber that they blog out into the indifferent world. Do you know what inane means? You've got an opinion on Iraq, eh? Just like every other American teenager who waxes holier-than-thou on us, only you've got an Online Journal Thingie, so you've got to whine about Iraq there! Sigh. Bush is a moron? "Bush is flippin' war hungry"? Where's your proof? Where's the meat? I want to see the meat.
Because if there isn't any MEAT, then don't write about it. Just don't. Every word you write that has no MEAT backing it up is still hosted graciously by Andrew, for free! And every word that Andrew hosts and is wasted (as meat-less words always are) is another word that those poor starving kids in that former Communist or African (formerly African? erm.) nation can't eat. Can't you think of the children?
By the way, I would totally want to beat your little pansy, happy-wee-hee bum up if it weren't for this bugger of an entry. What happened there? Instead of beating you up, I'm going to take off a point or two because you didn't elaborate.
In fact, a lot of time you don't elaborate. You say, I did such-and-such at school, and oh-my-gosh, this class is fun! Wee!
I totally don't care!
But you knew that. You know that WE, the discerning and intelligent (snort) Internet crowd, do not care about your blah-blah, my locker-mate sucks, bits about your life. So then why do you bother writing them?
Anyway, this review is getting a bit long, and you've got a million other reviews and I feel about as special as a bug on an ant pile that is going to be nuclear bombed to Heaven by France's "little man." And that is not very special. The final conclusion? You write like a fourteen-year-old. But then you ARE a fourteen-year-old. I'm so conflicted.
Ha, ha.
I wish you wrote more about being bisexual. (I guess that explains the star!) I wish you read a little bit about Bush before you wrote IHATETHATLOUSYwarmonger all over your site. Where are the jokes? Aren't you funny? I thought all Jewish kids are funny.
(I have no clue if you're Jewish or not. Are you? I guess not because I didn't see any jokes.)
I had a rough day at school. I wanted to see jokes.
In case you're STILL wondering why I gave you such a low "execution" score, it's simply because I was bored by your entries. How 'bout that. And I would have been entertained with emotion. Maybe in another two or three years though. Freshman scum.
[-]Grammar/Mechanics - 2/10pts. First of all, HOMONYMS. Do you know what a HOMONYM is? I don't think you do! A quick grammar lesson:
they're = they are
there = weird pronoun/noun/adverb/adjective/interjection. There are cars. There goes my car down a ditch. That there dog is mine. That there dog wants you.
their = possessive pronoun. Their dog wants you. Their dog wants that there little boy. They're gonna hide him behind their ears.
And so on. Please stop mixing them up. Infinitely annoying. What's this about "pseudo-intellectualism"? Can't have it unless you know those homonyms.
You made any number of typos also. Boo. Hiss. I'm a Nazi in this section. You have to type like me to get over a five. Ha, ha.
[-]Readability - 6/10pt. Most of your entry titles are vague. "Bah" and "Maria!!!!" and "mm-diddly-dum-dum" don't help me pick good entries to read. One entry was actually titled "FDSJLKSGHGSZJOFES[P." Ahem. But then I suppose that should be forgiven because you DID lose some sort of friendship with some girl for some reason. I couldn't follow the story because you were vague and didn't explain why you liked her hair and angelic eyes and such. I want sordid details, and you didn't deliver. And this makes me lost at times.
[-]Style - 6/10pts. Hiss. Please, use paragraphs. Please. If you have entries that are one loooong paragraph, your reader will inevitably become bored and skim. Even those giggly girls in your guestbook skim the Really Long Paragraph entries.
It's doubly strange because your sentences themselves are short and choppy, like in this entry. It makes me a little woozy.
Also, you're all over the place! You skip from subject to subject, in the same paragraph, without stopping for breath, making for uncomfortable reading. In this entry, for example, if you don't believe me. I thought you were going to talk about sex, and I was excited, but it didn't happen. And then I became less excited.
Layout - 4/10pts.
[-]Aesthetics - 3/5pts. For personal reasons, I like to see the scrollbar, and I couldn't. It was aesthetically displeasing.
Note- I can't stand it when people do something strange to my mouse. When you don't let it turn into a little hand when I hover over links, I don't know if I'm hovering over links. Please, make it into a little hand, or a crosshair (which I also dislike, but it's better than it staying a mouse), or something.
I liked your slightly homosexual stars. I like Arial (the font, yo). Therefore, I really have nothing else to complain about. You're happy in a slightly homosexual way. Good for you! Your site reflects you perfectly and so on. Unless you aren't happy in a slightly homosexual way. In this case, you write like your happy in a slightly homosexual way brother.
[-]Navigability/Legibility - 1/5pts. Herm. In Netscape, your background shows up white, and your font is a sort of light purple, so it's difficult to impossible to read your entries without highlighting them. In all browsers, the "before" and "after" links are too far south on shorter entries like on this page. This is because your table is so tall.
Suggestions? I would move the before/after links to inside the table cell or page division or whatever contains your entry so that they'll come up right after the entry itself. I would also get rid of the buddy list, the "currently I am" (by the way, hardly anyone actually cares about this bit. I'd just get rid of it completely. Unless.. you're not being stalked by a crusty forty-year-old, are you? He likes to know what color underwear you're wearing. In this case, I'd remove it because it's creepy!), the "about you" bits (these should go into their own page), and Mr. Rogers. And, no, Creepy Mr. Old-Dead-Man-Who-Wants-to-Be-My-Neighbor, I WON'T be your neighbor.
I wouldn't have given you any points except I use IE and everything looks fine for me. Got lucky there.
Contact - 5/5pts. Yeah.
Updates - 5/5pts. Uh, huh.
Errors - 2/5pts. In Opera, the tables on the side are completely messed up. It doesn't appear to allow you to have smaller windows within the main browser. Or something. You should look at it in Opera, it looks awful.
And CSS! What on earth are you doing! Your site looked so awful in Netscape and Opera that I took the liberty of taking a gander at your code and what I saw made me want to rip out my eyeballs! Okay.
Listen, the reason that the background stays white in Netscape is because you left out the "#" before the color code. NEVER do that in your CSS bits. EVER. It's all right in IE because the people who made IE are LAZY PROGRAMMERS that want to let HTML and CSS become even less standardized. Lousy jerks.
There are a lot of other things wrong with your CSS, but I'm no expert. (That background part is the main one. I'd fix it immediately.) If you want to check your code, this is a nifty CSS validator site. It's the "official" one too, so that'll be great.
Total - 40/100pts. This makes you one of the "bad." But, really, this is your own fault. You shouldn't write such horrible code. (Although, when I was fourteen, I hadn't even heard of CSS. Nevertheless, I am older and irritatingly wiser now.) Good luck with your diary, and tally-ho!
Previous - Next - Back to Top
|
|