OSNews

I have come to notice not many reviews are well researched and suffer from precise and entertaining prose. People go to college/university and spend at least four years studying journalism/communications, reporting techniques and information delivery.

It only behooves casual reviewers, users, to go above and beyond average journalistic expectations and deliver reviews that are objective. Objective reviews are free of personal stints and biases. They demonstrate what every user on earth is expected to experience.

However, an objective review is not necessarily a complete review. After all, reviewers are human. The entertainment aspect of reviews come from the character and personality of the reviewers. What does she like? What kind of sense of humor does he possess? Why does she think feature A sucks? Although she found feature B functional, she wasn't to enthusiastic about it. Why? And so on.

The personality of the reviewer should be expressed in his writing style and review. The purpose of which is to deceive the audience/readers into thinking they are interacting or having a discussion with the reviewer, rather than a bot or emotionless entity. In fact, this aspect of reviewing distinguishes good reviews from great ones.

Never say, for example, "Theme A sucks". You'll get many readers offended easily. Instead, describe what you expected out of theme A in detail, and conclude that theme would have been better if those features where touched upon. Do not forget to acknowledge aesthetic tastes are subjective, and that you don't expect all your readers to agree with your point of view.

In fact, if you really want to get points, display a mock up of what you expected theme A to look like. That will impress your readers including those that disagree with you. It tells your readers that you indeed know what you are talking about, you are sincerely interested in making the theme look better and while you biased against the theme, you have given valid reasons for your bias. Some people call this constructive criticism. The opposite of armchair criticism.

But how many people take the time to write reviews the way I have mentioned? Not many. It's not enough to use a product for two weeks and expect to right a balanced review of a product. After using a product for two weeks, you write an initial impression of the product. Not a full blown review.

After 4 weeks you write a revision to the initial impression this time in more detail. Because there is a significant possibility that your first impressions might have been deceiving. After 6 weeks you again write a revision to the first review, probably version 0.2. At this stage you have a deeper understanding of the product. You know it's quirks, hidden features, subtle differences that differentiate it from other products.

After 8 weeks of usage, you can write a final review of the product. At this stage, you deserve to be taking seriously by your audience. You have spent time with the product. You have studied the product. You have watched your reactions about the product change and mature over time. After spending 8 weeks on a product, it will be pointless and meaningless to be intentionally biased. In fact, it will be a pitiful waste of time.

The point is one in twenty articles submitted to osnews can be considered worth reading or entertaining to say the least. In fact, the only reviews I find entertaining are those from ars technica. I also like the interviews.

Saying a product sucks, (glade, gtk+ are notorious for being victims of this) without extensively using it and without providing insights as to what you expected or how to improve it, will be considered blatantly offensive to many and will not be taken seriously by many others. I just ignore them.