Rating on Squidoo

Consistency: One of the hardest things any website like Squidoo has is to get a consistent rating system - some people will vote five stars for everything regardless of how good or bad the Lens is. However, if more people rate Lenses, using similar ideals on how to rate, then overall the ratings will be consistent - the key here is to rate - the more you rate, the fairer the rating system becomes.

The five star controversy: Currently it seems that the majority of people who rate give a Lens five stars; in fact I've seen many messages on Squidu complaining that someone dissed them by rating a mere one star.

The whole point about a rating system is to differentiate between poor Lenses and great Lenses. If every Lens is rated five stars regardless of content, format and quality then there really is no point in having a rating system. Some people are scared to rate Lenses as they deserve, but they are doing a disservice to the Lens and to Squidoo.

Some will not give a bad rating to a Lens designed by and Angel or a Giant Squid - but if the Lens deserves a poor rating, then it should be given one!

Constructive Feedback: currently if I receive a low rating I don't get upset. If the rater has left a comment, I'll read it and amend the Lens appropriately. If there is no comment, then I'll do an objective review of my Lens and try and improve based on my own criteria for good Lenses. Without proper ratings I'd assume that all my Lenses were great - that simply isn't the case!

Content: a Lens with sixty Amazon Modules and no unique content will not get a high rating. Content is perhaps the most important element of all - without decent content, then the Lens becomes simply a list of products.

Relevance: a Lens titled 'Star Trek - the best series in the world' that goes on to explain about fried bananas is not relevant. If the title is being used to 'grab your attention' and then the content is on a totally irrelevant subject then it'll get a lower rating.

Also, the module you use should be relevant. If you're doing a Lens on Star Trek, then why is there a module showing me trips to New Zealand? It is not relevant to the subject.

Format: the first thing I look for in a Lens is how good it looks. If it is cluttered with plain text, no pictures and no logic to the flow of the content then it is an instant turn off for me - I'm likely to ignore the Lens. The better the format, the more chance I'll stay and therefore the better chance I'll rate highly.

Use of headings: it's annoying when you come into a Lens, read some decent content and then see "New YouTube vids". You've put in a lot of work on your Lens, but then can't customize one simple heading. If you're site is a Star Trek Lens, then change the heading to "Cool Star Trek videos on You Tube' - it adds context, and makes the Lens look less generic.

Commercialism: there is nothing wrong with a decent site that has many links to Amazon, or a many other commercial sites. However, there is a fine line to tread. If you have a Star Trek Lens with one text module stating "Star Trek is really cool, buy something" and then fill the Lens with six hundred links to Star Trek products with generic descriptions then you'll get a low rating. Personalize the product description, tell me why you like a product etc. Add plenty of content to persuade me into buying a product.

NOTE: These are my suggestions - each of us will have our own methods to rate and review Lenses and that is OK - take what you want out of my ideas and apply your own ideals - nothing is set in stone!

Content: As I look at the Lens the content doesn't really tell me much more than the heading. While there is a very brief introduction to Nanowrimo, the Lens doesn't explain much about the concept for writing the novel, the background to me as a writer, or give any context for the reader to understand what exactly the Lens is trying to achieve. It simply throws the reader straight into the novel.

Relevance: The title of the Lens is confusing. Novel: The Road to Nowhere. Is this published? Who wrote it? What is it about? The title does not tell me anything about the Lens or what I can expect as a reader.

Format: Text, text and more text. There are no pictures to break up the text; the text is plain and boring. The format shows little effort and makes the Lens look poorly constructed and, if I were the reader, I'd probably read one paragraph and then leave. There's simply nothing in the format to excite me. There are also two guest books - why are there two? It's sloppy and not relevant.

Use of headings: The headings are terrible. Nanowrimo, Chapter 1, Chapter 2 - very boring and they give me no insight into what the Lens is all about. Even if the content had been great, I would have rated this Lens poorly.

Commercialism: What has Twilight and Harry Potter got to do with this Novel? Sure, they are loosely in the same Genre, but they really have no place on this Lens. The Lens is more about wanting a critique on writing, so why even have any commercial aspects to the Lens - they are not relevant and not needed.

Conclusion: the problem with putting a part written novel on a site like Squidoo is that there are not really many people that will take the time to read and critique it - there are better places to ask for critiques on writing; there are hundreds of sites dedicated to budding authors. Unless the story is short, then Squidoo probably isn't the place for a Lens like this.

Content: Oh, where's the content? You asked me a question, but didn't give me any context, any arguments for or against Obama, or even a simple opinion. OK duels are nice, but I like to have something to go with it.

Relevance: The title of the Lens is great. I immediately know what the Lens is asking and what I can expect to see. Immediately I see a duel module asking me exactly the same - great - good idea, get to the point straight away. Suddenly, I'm asked to choose a candidate -what? The election is over - why are you asking me this now? OK there's a little blurb at the top of the Lens, but there's no place for this question any more - it simply should be removed.

Format: There's no pictures, no text and nothing to make this Lens stand out. It simply is boring and staid - there's nothing, aside from one simple question, to keep me reading - why bother.

Use of headings: Apart from the main title of the page, there's nothing but a repetition of the main title - and that's it.

Commercialism: How can you add so little content and then expect someone to buy books that are barely related to the subject. Also, did you notice that the plexo has been hijacked? Always keep an eye on the plexo and if someone adds non relevant books then delete them!

Conclusion: There's a great idea waiting to be unleashed here, but without context and without some type of introduction to the debate, there's simply nothing here. Another problem with this type of duel is that the question will have different answers as time goes by, so it's hard to keep the answers relevant. What made this a two star rather than a one star Lens - well at least the title was relevant and the subject is interesting.

Content: The introduction explains the heading and is very relevant; it tells me what the Lens is about and what the aim of the Lens is. After this the Lens loses itself a little. It tells me the progress I am making, but hasn't been updated for over a month. Then there's a calendar, which is a cool idea but it hasn't been updated. These two sections become irrelevant because they are not updated.

Relevance: The title and introduction are relevant, but then the Lens foes off in a tangent - it is all related in a lose sense to the title, but it's not convincing.

Format: too much text and not enough pictures. It's nice to see the Lens broken up with some colorful backgrounds and a calendar, but the format isn't consistent all the way through.

Use of headings: the headings aren't bad, but don't really tell me much about the Lens. Using a date as a heading can work, but it has to really be relevant to the whole Lens.

Commercialism: OK it's a good idea to have books on dieting listed - but the descriptions are generic; it would be far better to have personalized comments about the books - explain why you think the book is great.

Conclusion: this isn't a bad Lens, it just needs a lot of polishing. It is a personal story, but to make it most effective it really has to be constantly updated. A Lens like this has to be polished and logical for it to have full effect - as it stands it's Ok, but it doesn't really push the story home.

Relevance: The content is all relevant and up to date. It poses questions well, and gives both sides of the argument.

The key to a Lens like this is not to try and force a reader into an 'answer' but give them relevant facts and opinions and let them make their own decisions. This Lens does that well, giving plenty of information, but also listing several additional sites with relevant information.

Relevance: the title of the Lens is straight to the point - it tells you exactly what to expect in the Lens. The content all links to the heading and is relevant. The reader knows what to expect, and the Lens delivers with content that is both relevant to the heading, but also relevant to the duel module.

Format: this is where the Lens perhaps loses that extra star. Overall it is formatted well, but it does get a little cluttered at the top. This makes the Lens a little harder to read than it should. On the positive side it has interesting backgrounds, plenty of decent pictures and even some graphs that are relevant to the discussion. The more graphics that demonstrate a point, but do not clutter the Lens, the better.

Use of headings: generally very good - there is one heading that has 'MOnth' rather than 'Month' and while this is not a major problem, it is a little sloppy. Simple errors like this can detract hugely from the overall quality of a Lens - a reader will get to the heading and wonder why the Lensmaster can't correct a simple mistake.

Commercialism: the books listed on the Lens are relevant to the subject and have a personal comment. This is great as it lets the reader know more about the book than the generic title that Amazon gives - it also lets the reader know that the Lensmaster has read the book and is in a position to really say whether the book is good or not.

Conclusion: this is one of my most successful Lenses mainly because of the subject matter. It's a very relevant subject and very emotive. Overall it just needs a little polishing to make it perfect. It's important that the Lens is constantly updated to keep it relevant.

Content: The content is packed full of recipes; it is clear and concise and very easy to read. Each section is written well and is cohesive and easy to understand. The products for sale are blended well with the content and match well.

Relevance: The title tells you exactly what to expect from the Lens and the Lens delivers on the promise. It's The Lens does not get sidetracked by adding information that is not relevant to the subject. Sometimes simplicity is the key - this site simply lists recipes, not getting too complicated by explaining why the Guinness adds flavor etc. It is concise and straight to the point and is very relevant. The introduction is relevant and not to long.

Format: The first thing you notice is the Index - the Lens uses a Pint of Guinness as the Index - it is eye-catching and cleverly adds an additional element to the Lens. The formatting of the recipes is very good - the font is nice, and the background and border do just enough to highlight the recipe without getting too fancy. The pictures are relevant and add a 'yummy' factor to the Lens. The 'black box' module has been used well - not only does it separate the Starters / Main Courses and Desserts, but it also adds a little fun, and breaks up the Lens well.

Use of headings: the headings are perfect. They explain each section well leaving you in no doubt about what you are about to read. The context is perfect - not only does it tell you what the recipe is, but it also tells you which course the recipe should be used for. They are simple and effective.

Commercialism: all the items listed on the Lens are used in creation of the recipes and the process of cooking. They are all relevant, and the Lensmaster has added his own personal reasons and explanation about why they are great products. The key is the relevance - if it was simply a list of cooking books then it wouldn't quite be relevant, but because it lists ingredients, tools etc then the commercialism blends in well with the rest of the Lens.

Conclusion: The first impressions you get when entering the Lens is that it is well thought out and useful. All the recipes are well set out and the pictures illustrating the end product really help force through the 'yumminess' of the recipes. The Lens isn't overbearing - it presents itself well and doesn't try to do too much.