2^4 +1 Ways to Get Your Reviews Accepted to ticalc.org
Posted by Michael on 23 September 2007, 04:03 GMT

In the same vein as Michael's earlier article about how to get files accepted properly, I've made up a list of ways to get reviews approved. So, without further ado, here are 17 ways to get your review published at ticalc.org.

1. The best review is a short review. So write reviews saying "this program doesnt work the author sucx". The reviews editor will be glad to fix the program.
2. If you're rating a file numerically in several categories, it's always a good idea to use new and innovative ways to communicate your ratings to readers. You can use bar graphs, such as "+------O--+". The reviews editor will see how much work you've put into your review, and approve it unread.
3. Similarly, it's always a good idea to line up things with a dozen or so spaces. People will be happy to view the HTML source to see your layout tricks. (Seriously. Have you not noticed that it doesn't work on the discussion board, here and most other places? What makes you think that reviews are different?)
4. There's no good reason to use capital letters. Readers will thank you for leaving out all capital letters, sparing them the trouble for having to recognize fifty-two different letterforms.
5. Don't forget to address the author directly in your review! Reviews go directly to the author as an email. They aren't posted online for anyone to see, regardless of what all the text above the form says.
6. Always advertise your own programs in reviews. This will drive the thousands of people reading the review to download your program instead. Remember, folks, your worth in life is determined by your download statistics on ticalc.org. (When I see an ad for another program, I delete the review forthwith. I don't care about how good your review is otherwise. No ads.)
7. Recruiting friends to write reviews of your files is encouraged. It's advised that you be blatant about it, writing six reciprocal reviews for each others' files in rapid succession.
8. When you try to review your own program, the reviews system says that you're not permitted to review your own files. Because the page has the word "Error" on it, this is a bug. Sign up for a second account and write an implausibly positive review for your file. It's a great way to push the most recent negative review to the "more reviews" page. Just like the previous tip, it's best to be blatant about this. If your name is "Brian Wotsit", name the second account "Whosit Bryan" and give it your secondary email, "brianwotsits_spam@example.com".
9. Spelling is for wimps, as is accurate typing and any use of the backspace key. Show the world that you're a man (or woman). Type with your feet!
10. There's this really awesome punctuation mark; the semicolon; it makes you look educated; so use it everywhere you can; especially where normal people would use a comma; which looks like this, it's right next to the period key; which probably also fell off your keyboard.
11. Write your review in Spanish. This is an English website, with a sprinkling of French in the TI-89 assembly section. It'll fit right in.
12. MirageOS needs more reviews. Seventeen isn't enough.
13. It's easier to write a review than it is to submit a report that a file is inappropriate. (It's better to report using that form. If you submit a review, I'll probably send the word along, unless I'm feeling lazy or busy or cranky.)
14. The reviews editor knows exactly what you're talking about. It's not necessary to make sense in your review. After all, he has nothing else to do but rewrite the first thing that you dribbled onto your keyboard this morning.
15. A rating of 7/10 is absolutely the worst rating possible. If a program is simply really lousy, rather than mind-numbingly terrible, give it an eight.
16. The author's description of what the program does is not visible enough. People will find it easier to skip over their comments and go straight to the reviews section, way down on the file page, to read your description of how you think the program operates.
17. A review is a great place to discuss possible improvements to the program, as well as the cause of any bugs you might have found.

Ok, end of sarcasm. That was fun!

I don't want to delete your reviews. It makes me sad to see twenty minutes of someone's life go down the drain because they can't wrap their head around the concept of standard punctuation and decent grammar. I'd love it if I were able to approve all reviews without doing any editing at all. Here's a quick guide on how to format your review for speedy approval.

This program is lousy. (Some more text goes here. I'm too lazy to come up with convincing text, so you'll just have to suffer. Sorry. Thanks for waiting, anyway.)

Usability: 2/10

The whole program is done with menus. This would be all right, except that half of the menus don't show up on even-numbered days.

Speed: 6/10

It's all right. With some work it could be good. In some places it takes too long, for no particular reason.

Usefulness: 9/10

I use this program /every day/! I could not live my life without it. (You can underline with _underscores_, italicize wth /slashes/, and bold with *asterisks* if you want. I'll convert it to real formatting at my end.)

Graphics: N/A

See the Usability section. It's all menus. No graphics, not even on the title screen.

Bugs: 10/10

This program has awesome bugs. I like the part where it always generates the same random numbers.

Overall: 6.75/10 (Personally, I prefer the average score in all the categories. Another popular style is to add up all the numbers without averaging. In this case it would be 27/40. You can even make up a number if the average feels wrong to you. It's your review.)

The program is more or less useful, though it's nothing to call home about.

This is just one style of review. Another popular format for reviews is a few paragraphs of text, without any numerical ratings at all. No one format spells instant death for a review—it's a combination of factors, plus how long I estimate that it will take to edit into something I'd publish. As long as it's decent prose, without any wonky formatting or other nonsense, I'm usually happy to publish it.

-- Astrid Smith

The comments below are written by ticalc.org visitors. Their views are not necessarily those of ticalc.org, and ticalc.org takes no responsibility for their content.