 |
|||||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|||||||||||
 |
 |
||||||||||||
This is my first review, so I'm not sure about how to post, but I figured I'd give it a go... "5/10 Intelligence: She shows intelligence on some level, but she uses so many ellipses, and so much interweb jargon, that it really distracted me from reading. I wasn't intrigued at all, honestly, and I felt like I wanted to get the review over with as soon as it started. As I read backwards, her entries basically involved what she did that day, and personally, I wasn't interested in the least bit. I believe she's 19, but by the way she types, you'd think she was 15. 6/10 Emotional Value: I wasn't really touched on any emotional level when reading her entries, it was hard going through and reading all of them because I couldn't get interested in them enough. Her mood avatar usually corresponds with her entry, when she has one, if it isn't blah. If she did write about her feelings, they were on the subject of a subculture, and how she felt about it, or her dad. - There isn't much depth to them at all, just lengthyness and complaining. 4/10 Individuality: She's your typical "oh my goth" person. Her personality is consistent with her entries. 4/10 Customization: She shows the basic knowledge of HTML. She has her background image, her text color, and the customized font. The color of the font isn't very legible on the light blue background [which by the way, is tiled. argh] and the background has a horrible link thats very distracting. Honestly, the color scheme is horrible, I had to highlight things to read them. 7/10 Courtesy and grammar: She uses lj-cut on everything EXCEPT the lengthy entries -this troubled me. I found that most of the spelling is accurate, maybe a freudian slip here or there. Like I said above, there are so many ellipses and interweb jargon, that my head almost exploded as I was reading it. Journal mechanics: 1/5 Bio: Her bio has 3 pictures on it, one which is a red X, and 2 others, which are, well, unexplainable and "ugly". It would be better if she didn't have one. 1/5 User Pics: They have 3 user pics, but they're not really artsy, and don't fit the "scheme" of her journal in any way. 4/5 Contactability: They have a "website", location, AOL, Yahoo!, and MSN - but, they have a friends only journal. 4/5 Quantity: They have a decent amount of entries, and seem to post every day unless they "forget". 5/5 Blurty Involvement: They're a member a 21 communities, not too shabby. She has 73 interests listed, but she doesn't help with any official communities. . Journal Style: 1/5 Impression: I hated reading this journal, actually. Sorray. 1/5 Sense of Humour: I found in no way that these entries are amusing. Again, sorray. 3/5 Style: Her writing style is consistent - internet jargon and ellipses. She changes subjects so many times, its hard to keep track of what she's talking about. Very confusing. 3/5 Openness: This journal is friends only, and if you call ranting about subcultures "open", I guess you could her open. 0/? Bonus: Nothing. Total Score: 45/100 40-49 Awful Post a comment in response: |
| © 2002-2008. Blurty Journal. All rights reserved. |