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

  • Athanasios_motok, Is the korean war really over: 68 (Non-fiction: 29, 10, 9, 10, 10, 0) Well written but no references, which for geopolitical and historical subject matter is fundamental. A shame because author has obviously incorporated sources in original piece, but not followed that through in submission and supportive information. Marked up refs by 10 due to writer’s other work.
  • Backa18, Myths and their similarities between cultures: 67 (Non-fiction: 27, 10, 10, 10, 10, 0) Interesting. A few bold claims in the introduction, which would benefit from fleshing out. No references, which lets down an interesting article. Without them the writer’s outline cannot itself be differentiated between myth and reality. Marked up refs by 10 due to writer’s other work.
  • Bittzy78, In defense of walmart: 63 (Non-fiction: 23, 10, 10, 10, 10, 0) Needs references and justification is weak, however right/wrong the basic assertion. Economic and trade claims require quite a bit of evidence, highlighting the referencing point. Otherwise they’re just suppositions and means the article doesn’t work as a defence. Marked up refs by 10 due to writer’s other work.
  • Bloodstone, The power of a clipboard: 51 (Non-fiction: 15, 10, 10, 10, 6, 0) Not sure what purpose article serves, but considered writer's other submissions and rated on that basis.
  • Cryptaur, Java jobs: 89 (Non-fiction: 25, 25, 10, 10, 10, 9) Nice succinct summary.
  • Fuzzybear, Bytecoin: 75 (Non-fiction: 30, 10, 10, 6, 10, 9) Too short so assessed different_forms_of_writing_-_the_inca_quipu instead. Pretty interesting - both the content and how author ties the relevance to knowledge, cryptos and civilisation generally. But let down by lack of references, which for topic seems pretty important. Also needs spell-checking and category. Marked up refs by 10 due to writer’s other work.
  • Kermett, The rise of bitcoin: 58 (Non-fiction: 28, 0, 10, 10, 10, 0) Quite well written, in easy to understand terms. No references/links though. Note: '10 times what it is today'??
  • Max2838, How to survive climate change: 54 (Non-fiction: 15, 0, 10, 10, 10, 9) Writer needs to decide whether they're writing book reviews (analysis/critique) or summaries. The latter makes it hard to interpret and rate for non-fiction, because evidencing a summary requires either re-quoting the source's references or providing alternative means of justification. Regardless, neither are done here, but big claims need some big evidence otherwise not clear whether ‘inspired by’ means this what the book says, this is what devtome writer thinks, this is what evidence says. E.g. ‘Earth’s temperatures have risen by 1.5 °F’ Has it? Since when? Says who? The author? Scientists? You…? So it also makes it impossible to differentiate between fact and fiction.
  • Serena, Political results lobbying vs mass enthusiasm: 86 (Non-fiction: 28, 30, 10, 10, 8, 0) Quite well argued, although perhaps could do with a simpler introduction to concepts outlined (and why certain conflicts can be ignored from the onset e.g. why define ‘best results’ in those terms, rather than another). Actual hyperlinks would make the reader's ability to engage in this better.
  • User932326, Feminism and misandry: 39 (Non-fiction: 5, 5, 10, 9, 10, 0) Interesting initial position. Then awful rationalisation. Inadequately justified; references are not adequate to support claims (eg. ‘…brains tend to think emotionally rather than logically’. Evidence? ‘…muscles in a woman’s body are not as capable of growth’. What growth? Is combat mostly muscular or strategic? What is ‘capable’?) There are many further examples. Without evidence the article suffers from the same counter-productive failings the writer outlines of the subject matter. Taking core philosophical, sociological, economic positions on the basis of sweeping and sometimes logically-inconsistent statements hugely weakens arguments and turns them into rants. You may have interesting things to say but do yourself a massive disservice in the final output.
  • Vehementchrome, Spelunky guide - character list: 90 (Non-fiction: 26, 25, 10, 10, 10, 9) Relates to author's comprehensive articles on topic so lack of actual references considered in context of backlinks and other submissions.
  • Whoisthelorax, The third way philosophy explained: 88 (Non-fiction: 30, 28, 10, 10, 10, 0) Writer has found a good means to summarise a huge area of thought, and in an engaging way. Refs marked up in light of subsequent articles getting into more depth on particular considerations.

Non-Fiction:

  • 30 for the content, how interesting or useful the article is.
  • 30 for links and references
  • 10 for grammar and readability
  • 10 for spelling
  • 10 for formatting
  • 9 for images, 0 for no images, 5 for one adequate image, 9 for more than one image or for one perfectly suited image

Fiction:

  • 60 for the content, how interesting or original the book is.
  • 10 for grammar and readability
  • 10 for spelling
  • 10 for formatting
  • 9 for images, 0 for no images, 5 for one adequate image, 9 for more than one image or for one perfectly suited image (image requirement may be binned and incorporated into content if not appropriate or expected).

QR Code
QR Code rating_weisoq_33 (generated for current page)
 

Advertise with Anonymous Ads