I’m a nice guy, believe me … and so I don’t like to pick out individuals for criticism. But today (although I shall not name them) I really feel it’s for their own good. (And, of course, all of you will learn from this.) So please read this as helpful advice. Let’s start with the following, copied below in its entirety:
Once your connection allows you access Napster you soon discover one basics layout for a web 2.0 allowing anyone and everyone to download just around 4 million tracks from its library fitting the definition of Tim O’Reilly’s view of a web 2.0.
Once you have finally reliased that you want to become part of Napster music downloading club and found enough money to become a member all you need to do is click on the large button which clearly says “Download Napster”. Once you have signed up you can start searching for all your favourite songs and artist just buy typing what you want
One great advantage about using Napster is that it very easy to use which is esspecially helped by the layout of its page making Napster very user friendly and very easy to navigate. unlike one of its main competitors like limewire which is a PHP and not a web 2.0 like Napster.
Hey, c’mon! what do you think you’re doing here? don’t you care about your work? are you really pretending to be a university student?!? then write like one!
To begin with, this is w-a-a-a-a-y too brief, and tells the reader very little about the app. You do not even say what Napster is! In the first sentence you write “allows you access Napster”–might I suggest that the little word “to” is missing from somewhere? In the final paragraph you write “it very easy to use”–in this case, a missing “is”. And what on earth is “one basics layout” and “a web 2.0″ (which, incidentally, ought to have an upper-case “W”)? When you later write “just buy typing” I really start to worry about you.
Spelling errors (“reliased”, “esspecially”) are, of course, UNFORGIVABLE–the editor in your blogger has a spell-checker that highlights spelling errors as you write.
You write “fitting the definition of Tim O’Reilly’s view of a web 2.0″ and yet you fail to specify what O’Reilly’s characterisation of Web 2.0 actually is and how precisely Napster ‘fits the definition’. If it does, then explain clearly how and why it does.
You write “found enough money to become a member”. So how much money is that, then? Is it membership itself that you pay for? or is it per download? or is there any cap on the number of downloads?
And Limewire (note the upper-case “L”, by the way) definitely isn’t a “PHP”–it’s a P2P application, and consequently not seriously comparable to Napster.
In conclusion, I think you’ll want to do a really major overhaul of this review. And, when you do so, pay some attention to my notes in the Assignment 1 spec–give me at least a detailed walkthrough of the paradigmatic user experience from the moment the user find the site to the moment s/he starts downloading.
The next review I’m going to pick up on is (again reproduced in its entirety):
FOAF (Friend Of A Friend) , foafing the music is recommender system, base upon the users own profile. It works by the user inputting what they like? (i.e. sports), what sort of music? (genre) and even to the extent to where you live. From this the system will recommend music, artists accosted with the users selected profile.
It’s always the little words that seem to slip off the edge and disappear, isn’t it? and there seems to me to be a “a” missing from “is recommender system”. And while on the subject of things missing, what’s missing from “base upon the users own profile”? yes, that’s right, the “d” at the end of the first word and the apostrophe (both here and again in the final sentence) in “users”. And what on earth is “accosted”?
How about explaining exactly what a “recommender system” is, and what specific information may be in a user’s profile that determines how recommendations are made?
This ‘review’, like the first, is again f-a-a-a-a-r to brief!!!! and the same concluding advice applies.
The final ‘review’ I’m going to comment on is probably about the right length I’d expect … but utterly misguided! I’m quoting about half of it below:
The website I reviewed is http://secondlife.com/. The layout of this website is very appealing as the first thing you notice is the bright colours and eye-catching image. It is laid out in a simple way which displays a variety of infomation available to the user.
There is a style sheet (CSS) on this website, which enables the hyperlinks to change colour when the mouse is hovering over them. This is very attractive and appealing for user.
A positive point about this website is that there are no pop-ups which can be very distracting and irritating for users.
Also available on this website is a link to join up for a membership. This was a simple task and was a very quick process. The membership is free and clearly shown on each page to interest users.
Clearly stated on the main page is the number of users logged in. This is a good thing to include as it shows the user how popular this site is, which generates a positive feel and may encourage users to join for a membership to understand why it is so popular.
As you work your way down the page you then come to many links provided for users to continue their search. They’re organised in a way that makes it easy to use and find what you are looking for. This is also displayed as a faded table which gives the website a modern and stylish look.
The first thing I have to say is that nowhere in the entire review is there any statement whatsoever of what Second Life is all about! But then, reading through it, I get the sense that you actually don’t care what it’s about (viz, the web portal for a ‘multi-user virtual environment’–there! wasn’t difficult to say that, was it?) … because that’s not what you’re talking about. Kicking off with “The layout of this website is very appealing as the first thing you notice is the bright colours and eye-catching image” is committing the cardinal sin you were warned against in Week 1: telling me how pretty the colours are, etc. You were asked to “explore, describe, and assess the full functionality of the site … you need to provide good evidence that you have USED the site and have in-depth understanding of what the site offers the user”. Instead you offer vague, unsubstantiated, generalities such as “bright colours” (even if I were remotely interested in the colours, you don’t actually state what these colours are!), “eye-catching image” (duh! what image is that? and what exactly is the public meaning of ‘eye-catching’?), “laid out in a simple way” (so what specifically counts as ’simple’?), “displays a variety of infomation” (uh-huh … but then you give absolutely no indication at all of what exactly this ‘information’ is), “This is very attractive and appealing for user” (so what precisely is the objective and independently attestable correlate of your subjective and impressionistic ‘attractive’ and ‘appealing’?).
Heck, I’m going to give up right there … life is too short and precious. Short conclusions for the attention and edification of the cohort:
- first of all, read the rubric for the assignment! ensure you are following the instructions I have given you
- be careful you get your facts right! there is indeed a Second Life web site, but there’s little that is Web 2.0-ish about the site per se. Second Life is an interesting case study for ’social media’ only as a MUVE, and this figures nowhere in the review.
- if you find yourself incapable of resisting impressionistic terms such as ‘appealing’, ‘eye-catching’, etc, at least explain very precisely what you mean by these terms by identifying and describing quite specific features
- but, better still, don’t use such terms at all: you’re supposed to be describing the functionality of a web site, not engaging in fine art appreciation!
Other students–quite disgracefully!–haven’t even written their reviews yet. Do so now! And whether your review is written, half-written, or unwritten, please revisit the Assignment 1 spec and ensure that your review meets all the requirements!
Have a nice day 
No Comments Yet