DEVTOME.COM HOSTING COSTS HAVE BEGUN TO EXCEED 115$ MONTHLY. THE ADMINISTRATION IS NO LONGER ABLE TO HANDLE THE COST WITHOUT ASSISTANCE DUE TO THE RISING COST. THIS HAS BEEN OCCURRING FOR ALMOST A YEAR, BUT WE HAVE BEEN HANDLING IT FROM OUR OWN POCKETS. HOWEVER, WITH LITERALLY NO DONATIONS FOR THE PAST 2+ YEARS IT HAS DEPLETED THE BUDGET IN SHORT ORDER WITH THE INCREASE IN ACTIVITY ON THE SITE IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS. OUR CPU USAGE HAS BECOME TOO HIGH TO REMAIN ON A REASONABLE COSTING PLAN THAT WE COULD MAINTAIN. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT THE DEVTOME PROJECT AND KEEP THE SITE UP/ALIVE PLEASE DONATE (EVEN IF ITS A SATOSHI) TO OUR DEVCOIN 1M4PCuMXvpWX6LHPkBEf3LJ2z1boZv4EQa OR OUR BTC WALLET 16eqEcqfw4zHUh2znvMcmRzGVwCn7CJLxR TO ALLOW US TO AFFORD THE HOSTING.

THE DEVCOIN AND DEVTOME PROJECTS ARE BOTH VERY IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY. PLEASE CONTRIBUTE TO ITS FURTHER SUCCESS FOR ANOTHER 5 OR MORE YEARS!

Writer, Article: 0-99

  • Backa18, The deception of stereotypes: 38 (15, 0, 8, 10, 5, 0). Contradictory assertions make this article's premise untenable (ex: “in no way are they truthful” vs. “One stereotype that can actually be true is that women talk to much…”. Another example to justify this rating is that some people do in fact still hunt for food and not all Americans are so easily stereotyped in their perceptions of non-native English speakers. Minus points for stereotyping and hasty generalizations. No references or links. I found plenty of source material just doing a simple search. Basic formatting, but no section contents tied to the TOC. No images.
  • Bmlzootown, Wuthering heights a poetic summary: 90 (60, 10, 10, 10, 0). Excellent fiction. Very unique poetic summary of the subject.
  • Caramelsunshine, Teacher heals, 5: 90 (60, 10, 10, 10). Another nice fictional piece. Disturbing, but enjoyable. :)
  • Ceebizcut, Healthy oden or durant: 55 (25, 0, 10, 10, 10, 0). With some references or statistics, the writer could potentially receive a much better rating on this article. Main sub-heading is grammatically incorrect “How good would a healthy Greg Oden have made the Portland Trailblazers?”
  • Emilianoz, Monies barter: 89 (30, 30, 9, 10, 10, 0). Interesting and nice article. Could stand some tightening up of grammar, but could arguably stand as is.
  • Hellscabane, Blessed snow: 70 (40, 10, 10, 10). Good, but rhythym and meter are not consistent throughout. I would expect some to be intentionally designed to bring emphasis, but I could not determine a steady tempo.
  • Jackjack, Pywallet: 75 (25, 30, 5, 10, 5, 0). I recommend using a WIKI numbering format instead of bullets since you are suggesting an itemized series and not just a list. Punctuation at the end of sentences is inconsistent.
  • Nik1ab, Governments - the slave drivers of our time: 33 (15, 0, 0, 8, 10, 0). At first, I was going with “Rant-non-fiction” which is fine with me, but without references and sourcing (other than YouTube), the article comes off with little authority. Minus points for poor punctuation and grammar. Spelling is acceptable, but is effected by the punctuation in such a way as to make some parts difficult to read. No images.
  • Redmist, Systems software and application packages: 48 (20, 0, 10, 10, 8, 0). Be sure to include the title of the article on the page, not just in the URL. No references. Consider inserting a link to BCS for a better rating since it was referred to explicitly. No images. Consider including a summary or conclusion. The article just ends with no closure.
  • Shinybitcoins, Do you really need a real estate agent: 55 (20, 15, 10, 10, 0, 0). Seems self-serving. Not inherently bad in itself, but it does suggest to the reader that the content exists to serve as an advertisement. If it were more heavily referenced or filled out with statistics, the inclusion of the email address might suggest that the email address is included to clear up any further questions as a service to the reader instead of appearing as a narrated business card. For better ratings, I suggest using WIKI markup for the resources mentioned, capitalization of industry terms and perhaps some appropriate images.
  • Squeak1972, How to eliminate credit card debt legally: 43 (20, 0, 10, 8, 5, 0). No references. Numbering should use WIKI format. Double check spelling. No images.
  • Unthinkingbit, Alzheimer's disease: 87 (30, 30, 9, 10, 8, 0). This rating is difficult, since it is obviously marked as “in progress” leading me to believe the author would update potential issues that might decrease their rating. However, since it is on my review list, I can only rate what I see currently. I would suggest adding a WIKI bullet (asterisk) or numbered list to the Cause section to match the rest of the article. -2 points for links not embedded in the text (or, optionally, footnoted). This article is incredibly extensive in scope and assertion, so the amount of external references is definitely appreciated.

My rating scheme is based on this information:1)

Raters can rate authors how they choose, this is the just one way to rate an author. Roughly half weight is given to content, and half to presentation.

  • The number of points for each aspect for non fiction follows:
  1. 30 for the content, how interesting or useful the article is.
  2. 30 for links and references
  3. 10 for grammar and readability
  4. 10 for spelling
  5. 10 for formatting
  6. 9 for images, 0 for no images, 5 for one adequate image, 9 for more than one image or for one perfectly suited image
  • For fiction:
  1. 60 for the content, how interesting or original the book is.
  2. 10 for grammar and readability
  3. 10 for spelling
  4. 10 for formatting
  5. 9 for images, 0 for no images, 5 for one adequate image, 9 for more than one image or for one perfectly suited image

Commerce | Devtome


QR Code
QR Code rating_eeharris_34 (generated for current page)
 

Advertise with Anonymous Ads