Have to agree with ranlo
I had better luck with my reviewers and out of a total of 23 I had 4/5 that I would consider acceptable and the rest were clearly people doing it solely for the money. Leaving reviews like;
'Keep up the good work!'
'looks good'
'WORST EVER' - despite leaving high reviews
I think a min character rule needs to be enforced to at least 20/25 characters. Perhaps a new feature could be the choice of the minimum characters to be written can be chosen by the webmasters. They can chose min 20 char for
BTCxxx a review, min 100 char for
BTCxxxx and 250 for min
BTCxxxxx
That way at least people have a choice on how well their sites are reviewed.
My other idea is to dispute a review, if you pay for someone to write a 100 or 250 character review and they come back with some repeated characters x 100 or they just write complete bullshit, you should be allowed to put their payment on hold until they have written a proper review.
The rating idea is a good one and it is important to know how users view your site. But knowing that I score from 3 - 10 in errors really doesnt help me bug test. And knowing that my contact form is from 1 - 10 is useless information. I think also adding a comment form with at least 10 characters per rating will help to justify the given scores.
Remember that you are charging for each review, currently I wouldn't pay to use this site based on the poor quality of reviews I received. I have absolutely no problem with people slandering my site if fact I would encourage it, if people could justify why.
My review for BitVisit
First Impression - 5/10 - slider is not needed and adds nothing to site content - if anything it confuses what the site is about. I found it quite difficult to sign up a top menu/sidebar menu would be a good idea. That being said the member's portal is nice and easy to navigate. Site functions well as expected started to receive traffic almost straight after campaign was set.
Navigation - 3/10 Homepage | 7/10 - Member (as above)
Content - 6/10 - Hard one to judge but there are a lot of good features that could be improved over time. Reviews are a good idea and pay per view is nice for traffic storms
Contact - 5/10 - Contact form on homepage only place I found it. Maybe would be nice on Members portal in case of any queries
Errors - 3/10 - Members portal, under review section hyperlinked table titles - would be better to add a title='title' tag so that titles are easier to understand - or just remove <a> tags completely. My point is I don't understand what authority means in this sense.
Authority - 0/10 - As above I don't understand what it means, domain authority has nothing to do with reviewing a site, perhaps it means how much you trust the site?
Layout - 5/10 - Clear and easy to navigate Member portal - Points lost for index page
Visit Again - 6/10 - Perhaps should be boolean yes/no rather than a rating, you'll either visit a site again or you won't. But it is a nice site and with some improvements could be really good for cheap reviews and traffic
Overall Score - 5/10 - Review quality really let the site down, with some work and some restrictions on what members can get away with, the site could be much better. Remember that you are asking people to part with their hard earned money to use your site for the services you offer, reviews and traffic. If your member's reviews are not up to par, no one will use it
Hope this helps
Luke
*Thank you to anyone who took the time to properly review my site - I will be going through and trying to improve the flaws that were highlighted
