Review for ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
killmissamerica
Oct. 18th, 2002 11:31 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mousmeHere's my first review ever, folks, and my apologies for the delay.
Main: Worth 10 points each
Intelligence: (3/10) I really, really think this girl is pretty intelligent. Sadly, it doesn't really come to the fore in the vast majority of her entries. About 90% of them have nothing to do with anything that I can see, and there's certainly very little thought put into her writing (which is odd, given that she professes to like creative writing and writing in general).
Emotional Value: (3/10) Yowch. Umm, not much emoting going on in the journal. Again, my impression is that this is a sensitive girl who actually does feel a lot about what's happening, but sadly does not feel the desire to communicate this in her LJ. Our loss, not hers.
Creativity: (4/10) I almost feel bad giving such a low grade. The journal is indeed customised, hence the four points. Three user pictures, which do seem to match up with her personality. Otherwise, the view just hurts the eyes. Fuschia combined with zebra stripes, and small fuschia print on black. It's very, very hard to read, especially for someone like me with eyesight problems and light sensitivity. It really, really hurt.
Individuality: (5/10) She's unique, inasmuch as a punk 18-year-old can be unique. I get the impression that she really thinks she's unique, but I can't say that in my 23 years on this planet I haven't seen several thousand people a lot like her. Still, she's uncompromisingly herself, and doesn't care what others think. So, points for being purposefully nonconformist.
Sense of Humor: (6/10) Most of her entries lack any kind of coherence and content, but every now and then I came across entries which just about made me wet myself. Notably one about kids in an ice cream store wearing Creed shirts. It was pretty damned hysterical.
Sub Catergories: Worth 5 points each
Bio: (2/5) The bio is supposed to be provocative, I think. I wasn't really provoked, just nonplussed. But then again, maybe I'm just jaded and cynical. It said nothing about her, except maybe a tendency towards homicide, and even then it was kind of wishy-washy.
User Pics: (4/5) No complaints. 3 user pics, the maximum for a free account. A fair amount of work put into them, and they reflect the image she seems to portray in her writing.
Contactability: (4/5) It's not a chore to contact her. Email, AIM and comments are enabled.
Impression: (1/5) My eyes! The goggles, they do nothing! No, seriously, she only presents a good impression if you're looking for an angry punk teen with dubious taste in colours (fuschia?!?!).
Style: (0/5) Ick. Badness all around here. Not only does she post long rambling posts about nothing, she uses run-on sentences as though they were going out of style. Often enough her posts don't really make all that much sense, unless you know her (and even then I'm not so sure).
Openess: (2/5) See, I'm not a big proponent of this particular category. Is there such a thing as too much openness? As my father is wont to say: "Familiarity breeds contempt." I really don't want to know about her bowel movements nor how much she needs to urinate. Otherwise, yeah, pretty open.
Courtesy: (0/5) Aaack! Nada, zip, zero. No LJ cuts, loooong posts of AIM conversations with no points, although no quizzes, thank God.
Grammatical: (1/5) Good spelling, poor everything else. No syntax, no capitalisation, no use of paragraphs, intense use of homemade abbreviations and netspeak. All in all, it makes for garbled posts that are difficult to get through.
Quantity: (2/5)She's been posting more frequently of late, likely due to the start of school, but there are really long gaps with no real explanation.
Bonus: (3/5) For being unapologetically herself, I guess. It's not her fault that her journal doesn't meet our particular standards.
Score:
40-49 Awful
Main: Worth 10 points each
Intelligence: (3/10) I really, really think this girl is pretty intelligent. Sadly, it doesn't really come to the fore in the vast majority of her entries. About 90% of them have nothing to do with anything that I can see, and there's certainly very little thought put into her writing (which is odd, given that she professes to like creative writing and writing in general).
Emotional Value: (3/10) Yowch. Umm, not much emoting going on in the journal. Again, my impression is that this is a sensitive girl who actually does feel a lot about what's happening, but sadly does not feel the desire to communicate this in her LJ. Our loss, not hers.
Creativity: (4/10) I almost feel bad giving such a low grade. The journal is indeed customised, hence the four points. Three user pictures, which do seem to match up with her personality. Otherwise, the view just hurts the eyes. Fuschia combined with zebra stripes, and small fuschia print on black. It's very, very hard to read, especially for someone like me with eyesight problems and light sensitivity. It really, really hurt.
Individuality: (5/10) She's unique, inasmuch as a punk 18-year-old can be unique. I get the impression that she really thinks she's unique, but I can't say that in my 23 years on this planet I haven't seen several thousand people a lot like her. Still, she's uncompromisingly herself, and doesn't care what others think. So, points for being purposefully nonconformist.
Sense of Humor: (6/10) Most of her entries lack any kind of coherence and content, but every now and then I came across entries which just about made me wet myself. Notably one about kids in an ice cream store wearing Creed shirts. It was pretty damned hysterical.
Sub Catergories: Worth 5 points each
Bio: (2/5) The bio is supposed to be provocative, I think. I wasn't really provoked, just nonplussed. But then again, maybe I'm just jaded and cynical. It said nothing about her, except maybe a tendency towards homicide, and even then it was kind of wishy-washy.
User Pics: (4/5) No complaints. 3 user pics, the maximum for a free account. A fair amount of work put into them, and they reflect the image she seems to portray in her writing.
Contactability: (4/5) It's not a chore to contact her. Email, AIM and comments are enabled.
Impression: (1/5) My eyes! The goggles, they do nothing! No, seriously, she only presents a good impression if you're looking for an angry punk teen with dubious taste in colours (fuschia?!?!).
Style: (0/5) Ick. Badness all around here. Not only does she post long rambling posts about nothing, she uses run-on sentences as though they were going out of style. Often enough her posts don't really make all that much sense, unless you know her (and even then I'm not so sure).
Openess: (2/5) See, I'm not a big proponent of this particular category. Is there such a thing as too much openness? As my father is wont to say: "Familiarity breeds contempt." I really don't want to know about her bowel movements nor how much she needs to urinate. Otherwise, yeah, pretty open.
Courtesy: (0/5) Aaack! Nada, zip, zero. No LJ cuts, loooong posts of AIM conversations with no points, although no quizzes, thank God.
Grammatical: (1/5) Good spelling, poor everything else. No syntax, no capitalisation, no use of paragraphs, intense use of homemade abbreviations and netspeak. All in all, it makes for garbled posts that are difficult to get through.
Quantity: (2/5)She's been posting more frequently of late, likely due to the start of school, but there are really long gaps with no real explanation.
Bonus: (3/5) For being unapologetically herself, I guess. It's not her fault that her journal doesn't meet our particular standards.
Score:
40-49 Awful
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-10-18 11:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-10-18 04:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-10-19 09:15 pm (UTC)*snickers*
Of course, I only speak for myself here.
no subject
Date: 2002-10-20 11:37 am (UTC)get a life!
no subject
Date: 2002-10-20 02:22 pm (UTC)I mean, honestly, leave me to my own interests and bug off! I didn't ask for your opinion, whereas the person I reviewed DID indeed come and ask review_you to do a review of her journal.
If you think this is a waste of time, then don't waste your time coming here.
Re:
Date: 2002-10-19 10:51 pm (UTC)My journal could be a festering pile of pond sludge or contending for the next Pulitzer and it wouldn't matter. I was given a set of criteria by which to rate the journal in question, and I did so to the best of my abilities.
If you think my review was flawed, then you are entitled to voice your opinion on the matter. However, this is not an exercise of "my journal is better than your journal," at least not from the reviewers' standpoint.
While reviewing