Politics.co.uk Review

Another of those inbound links led me to a review of this place by Politics.co.uk.

I hadn’t heard of politics.co.uk, so I had a look see, as you do. Actually, their review is fairly positive – even if much of the detail was a straight lift from my own “about” page. Mrs L was disappointed that I had only scored 6/10. So we looked at the marking criteria.

The site uses five categories to score blogs; design, engagement, frequency, interactivity and informative.

On the matter of design, they say this:

DESIGN – Each blog is assessed on how well it is designed and how easy it is to navigate around.

0 points are awarded if we really hate the look and feel of the blog or it is difficult to navigate. In most cases the blog would have to be so poorly designed it hurts to look at it to be given a score of 0.

1 point is awarded for an average design that is relatively easy to navigate.

2 points are awarded for a well designed, easily navigable blog.

I have a clear view on design; less is definitely more. That’s why the design here is a tweaked version of the WordPress original. A single sidebar with easily found links. It is not professionally designed as, say, the Devil’s Kitchen is, as I am not a professional designer. The colours are muted and the main reading pane is off-white as pure white tends to be a strain on the eyes. How this scores, I suspect is middling.

ENGAGEMENT – Each blog is assessed on how well it engages its readers and on how well written we think the blog is.

0 points are awarded to a blog that we considered to be poorly written, boring or simply the mad ravings of a lunatic.

1 point is awarded to a blog that we consider to be well written, witty or entertaining and which expresses the opinions of the author in a well thought out and coherent way.

2 points are awarded to a blog that is entertaining, well written, poses questions that might make the reader look at an issue again or from a different viewpoint and which regularly puts forward cogent eloquent arguments.

This is a difficult one as most blogs I read fall outside of the lunatic category. Maybe I don’t read the right blogs… Again, I suspect most – here included – fall into the middling category.

FREQUENCY – Each blog is assessed on how regularly it is updated.

0 points are awarded to a blog that is only updated on an ad hoc basis such that it is difficult to know when the next blog post is likely to occur.

1 point is awarded to a blog that is updated at least once a week.

2 points are awarded to a blog that updates daily or several times in a day. We consider such blogs to be the work of a serious blogger.

I update most days and sometimes more than once per day, so probably worth a 2.

INTERACTIVITY – Each blog is assessed on how it interacts with its readers.

0 points are awarded for a blog that has no interactivity. As a guide this means a blog that fails to even allow its readers to post their own comments.

1 point is awarded to a blog that allows its readers to post comments but no other evidence of interactivity. The blog is mildly interactive in that it allows users to post comments but nothing more.

2 points are awarded to a blog that has Flickr, is connected to twitter or facebook or another social networking site, uses opinion polls, contains video, or any other interactive tools.

I have to say, I do find this one a bit curious. To me, the comments are the measure of interactivity – and the real measure is whether the author responds to comments left by readers. That is interaction.

Flickr is merely a means of hosting images and creating online photo albums. As I host my own images, I have no need for such a service. Simply sharing images isn’t what I would call interactive. Twitter and Facebook, I wouldn’t touch with a barge pole. Partly because they offer nothing that I would want to use and in Facebook’s case, their somewhat cavalier approach to user privacy is something I am not prepared to countenance.

Opinion polls are pointless – as are the ones carried out by newspapers, television and YouGov. The results are so skewed, any output should be treated with caution. If the sample polled is sufficiently large, it might be possible to draw some general inferences, but even then, a degree of caution is necessary (what were the questions asked and did they lead the interviewee?). Those on blogs have such a small sample they can be regarded as nothing more than a bit of fun. I cannot be bothered.

On the matter of video, I have to say, it leaves me cold. A reaction I share with Boatang and Demetriou. As I use satellite for my Internet connection (being in the French countryside well away from the local exchange and therefore don’t have a fast broadband connection) and when travelling, use a USB stick, I tend to skip posts that use embedded video. I want to read what the author has to say, not watch a slow, jerky video clip. So I don’t and I don’t bore others with them.

Don’t reckon I did too well in that category, eh?

INFORMATIVE – Each blog is assessed on how informative it is. Within this we take into account the fact that blogs have been known to break news stories as well as reveal facts or insights that have gone on to inform the political views and opinions of others.

0 points are awarded to a blog that fails to tell its readers anything new or of interest.

1 point is awarded to a blog that occasionally might tell its readers something they didn’t know but there is no evidence that it does so regularly.

2 points are awarded to a blog that consistently provides interesting information or even goes as far as scooping the press.

Again, I reckon middling. If I am discussing my area of professional expertise, then, yes, I will doubtless tell you something that you didn’t know. Otherwise, what you get is opinion – but that makes me no different from all the other people out there doing this.

So, given the marking criteria, six out of ten is about right.