What a wonderful opportunity to review ones own peers within a site of such wondrous, objective and exploratory vision as this. How I can use mere words to paint the picture of which I am trying to explain, it is an arduous task of such overwhelming characteristics and slight of hand that I can only presume to allow a few words from an Irish sounding named friend of mine. These words are mine though, as we are one of the same.
I asked if she would review Ciao and maybe help in assisting to achieve the ultimate goal of using everyday grammar to describe a site where expectations are only achieved by volume as opposed to content, quantity or personal experience and her views, which are reflected in my own words here, are as thus.
Ciao is all about being helpful. It contains a great number of words but unfortunately very few of them are helpful. To illustrate this, I shall remind you of George Orwell's five rules for effective writing:
1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. 2. Never use a long word where a short one will do. 3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. 4. Never use the passive where you can use the active. 5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Opinions on Ciao are full of cliché, inappropriate polysyllables, repetition, strangled passive constructions and as much jargon as you could "shake a stick" at, thus bringing us "full circle" and back to cliché.
Oh well. The peer review system will take care of it, I'm sure. Thank heavens for objective marking.
See, by quoting such literary classics as George Orwell, one can not only see where Ciao's strengths and weakness lie but we can also measure the response we receive by using Mr Orwell's advice and uncharacteristically offsetting our own writing style and content to these 5 rules, thus giving an accurate reading of what we prefer to use when submitting what should be a balanced personal review or experience of such value to another similar person seeking to extract truth and fact from materials posted online.
Maybe had we used the works of such greats as Mark Twain instead of Orwell, we could have summarised in a far different way and not in such a manner that would be common place in modern day electronic review site hypocrisy, in fact I would go as far to say that allowing for the volume and characteristically approach sought by the average writer, we are not reviewing a review but in fact we are judging, which is a different entity altogether.
All in all this becomes so much more clearer when we do have a benchmark to judge people on and not the content therefore allowing a difference of not only opinion but social standing and political reasoning. This can be seen to be demonstrated in many a diverse way throughout many of the sections here at Ciao thus allowing for an interesting study of human behaviour.
We are not only reviewing but studying each other as if conducting some kind of scientific experiment on habitual behaviour and human characteristics.
Very interesting and thank you my little Irish minx.
More details
Security & Privacy Statement
Very poor
Customer Service Support
Very poor
Evaluate this review
How helpful would this review be to someone making a buying decision? Rating guidelines
helpful
