The new Psi-Links

[apollo]

I am very proud to present the new Psi-Links! After a long time of programming, I have finally finished the new version of Psi-Links! Personally, I think it looks great, but feel free to leave your own comments either on the news item or in the forums. Soon, I will be coding a new forum for us. That is my next project!

As you can see, I put a lot of effort into this new website. It runs on a completely new code base (all custom made). Of course, there is one person who I must thank. Tassadar made the template, and he did a wonderful job! If you see him, give him a big hug!

I am completely open to suggestions on what you would like to see! I know that you cannot currently rate the links. I will make a feature soon that will enable you to do that.

If you have written any articles, made any videos, or recorded any podcasts while we were gone, please submit them via the "Contact Us" page listed on the right. The submit page is being worked on.

I listened to the podcasts I had made a while ago and realized that they are completely worthless. I will record new ones soon.

This is Psi-Links version 2. I hope you like it!


www.psilinks.net


DA: I would like your input on what you think. I know you don't like dark sites, but that is what it is going to be so comment on something else . Hows life going? I haven't talked to you in.....quite a while!

[The Devil's Advocate]

On design: What purpose do the statistics serve and are the add place holders necessary? Plus side, it is readable and not overly hard on the eyes. There's enough contrast between letters and background in most places though definitely not one to read in low light.

Website ratings: There seems to be little correlation between the rating and the description of the site. In most cases sites that sound like they should be decent specialist sites based on the one sentence are given under a 5. I haven't been on your panel for a while, but there seems to be a difinitive disconnect between the actual rating and the description, which should at least give some justification for the rating.

It's definitely a step up in professional look from the first one. I will give you that. It's got some polishing to go. The key thing I'd work on is making your rating criteria clear. And make absolutely certain your spelling is accurate. You have several places on just the first set of links where you have 'weary' (tired) instead of 'wary' (cautious). That'll hurt your credibility.

As for my life. It goes.

~The Devil's Advocate

[apollo]

Oct 3, 2008 6:48:17 GMT -5 The Devil's Advocate said:

On design: What purpose do the statistics serve and are the add place holders necessary? Plus side, it is readable and not overly hard on the eyes. There's enough contrast between letters and background in most places though definitely not one to read in low light.

The statistics serve as an indicator of what Psi-Links has to offer. Instead of "# of members on the side", without any indication of how many links/articles/etc, I put it all in the center. Since Psi-Links is a directory, I thought it necessary to display this. I think it looks nice and, since it doesn't hurt anything, will stay. The ads are places where either a website can get an ad, or where I will soon put google ads up. I don't have enough income to support my server yet, so I have to find a way to make a small amount of money. If you login, there is an option to get rid of ads in your "Edit Profile".

Website ratings: There seems to be little correlation between the rating and the description of the site. In most cases sites that sound like they should be decent specialist sites based on the one sentence are given under a 5. I haven't been on your panel for a while, but there seems to be a difinitive disconnect between the actual rating and the description, which should at least give some justification for the rating.

Agreed. I am going to go back through them and rerate them (and probably "curve" it so there are some 10s. Also, soon to come is the ability for users to rate the websites. This should balance it out some, as well.

It's definitely a step up in professional look from the first one. I will give you that. It's got some polishing to go. The key thing I'd work on is making your rating criteria clear. And make absolutely certain your spelling is accurate. You have several places on just the first set of links where you have 'weary' (tired) instead of 'wary' (cautious). That'll hurt your credibility.

I know I rated them in a hurry when I first made the site (and when I remade the site, I never went back through and rerated). I shall do that this weekend.


Thanks for the review

[The Devil's Advocate]

*Grins* because I can't keep my nose out of things.

The content of the site should speak for itself. You make a favorable first impression on your front page, though you might want to stick to a simple introduction rather than an "I put a lot of work into this!" style appeal. Give a bit more indication of the /substance/ of your content. What can you offer that others can't? The numbers don't show that.

On your scale. I would strongly recommend NOT curving it. Set standards. Define what you're looking for in a quality sight then put that on the scale. Set standards for a specialist site vs. a generalist site. If a site is just for remote viewing but is a phenomenal site for remote viewing they shouldn't be penalized because they don't also cater to empaths UNLESS they are presenting themselves as a generalist site. Step back and consider it a peer review process. Unless they have erred agregiously (eg "Bow down to the gummy god and he will give you great psionic power, fail and he will destroy you mauahahahaahaha") you want dispassionate reviews with facts about the site that will make people want or not want to go there. You CAN afford more than one sentence.

Some Criteria that might be useful to you (Note, these are suggestions nothing more.)

1) Purpose of the site: If it is a specialist site, how clear is that? If it is a generalist site does it have areas of emphasis? If so how clear is it?

2) Quality of content: what good are having 100 articles if most of them are fluffy? Or obviously lopsided? (Psiworld, in my opinion, would loose rating points on this one, especially for their Empathy articles.)

3) Quantity of content: This is a little less critical 2 or 3 good articles is frequently more useful than 100 bad ones, but if they're claiming to be a major site and have no content there's something discordant.

4) If they have forums how well do those forums treat people? What complaints have their been about them? Are they serious complaints?

5) Drift: If the site is one on Empathy how well do they cover their chosen topic? Are the tangents they indulge in relevent.

6) Blogs: Do they actually have a point to the blog beyond self gratification?

7) Presentation: If it's written in klingon it's probably going to loose points for being unreadable, unless it's suposed to only be readable to klingons. (It's still likely to loose points to an english speaking links site, though. on the order of "if you don't speak klingon don't bother.")

~The Devil's Advocate

[wolfdancer]

LOL I like that last one DA. I agree on the ratings process. Those are some great questions to ask and questions that every site should probably keep before them over their years online. Re-reading or having someone else do some proof-reading through the links would probably be a good idea. It is hard to catch all of the spelling stuff, but does help with presentation. In addition to weary/wary there is at least one are/our.
My opinion is that it is currently the best source for identifying psionic related websites which might be of interest and I like that fact. Revamping the ratings will only improve it and as has happened thus far, I am certain the site will continue to improve.

~Wolf