Take site review out of supporters forum and make it non-refundadble pay-per-review.
There could still be supporters site reviews, but this would allow non-supporters to get a site review as well for a bargain fee.
5:22 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)
But keep it in a members only section / non indexed.
5:28 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)
Who would be doing the reviewing? To be taken seriously as a paid-for product, the people making the reviews should have some vetting process.
5:32 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)
T.C. kinda beat me to it and in more terse terms . . . .
While I'm **partially** in agreement with incrediBill's suggestion, there's a couple issues very difficult to resolve.
Who gets the pay? The reviewer or this site?
If the reviewer, how do you manage that, or moderate, or arbitrate? "rocknbil's review sucked and he didn't tell me a single thing I wanted to hear, so you should ban him and gimme my money back . . . "
Which leads to another problem, we have a wide variety of skill sets here, some who perceive their skills as much better than they really are, but for the most part, many who are far better than they admit. So how does one determine if the reviewer is providing an educated assessement or a simple opinion that may or may not be helpful?
Many of us would offer a "site review" based on our skill sets, one would review for SEO implications, another for accessibility, many for just presentation and layout, how would you define parameters of a "site review?"
I see a can of worms, don't know that it would work.
5:43 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)
don't know that it would work
I agree, not a great idea.
5:50 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)
if you were going to do it, maybe you could just return five different opinions. you've got plenty of mods, so just get any five of them to write a review, completely independant of each other, and stick them all down without names. then the user will be treated to a range of different opinions. if all 5 come back saying his website sucks, then that would be pretty definitive.
5:52 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)
get a site review as well for a bargain fee.
The supporters fee is already modest enough. Surely you can't get a serious review for less.
And the review requester gets the added benefit of access to the full supporters forums as a bonus already.
8:06 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)
Here's my thinking - the PAY FOR REVIEW is literally a fee for a link drop which is permitted nowhere else. I've been told many times by people in lower income areas they would love a site review but can't afford supporters fees so a one-shot price came to mind.
People that review the sites wouldn't get paid, just as they currently aren't, but often end up getting some work from the process.
It would literally be no different than a paid item in classifieds IMO, buying services, services for hire, site review...
People giving good site reviews obviously build a good public reputation for their knowledge which often leads to paid gigs.
9:41 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)
I think a modified review system would be a strong draw to non-subscribers. I'm not a subscriber, but I might become one if the review service here became a full-fledged professional service as part of a "premium subscription." Those giving reviews would have to be certified in some way or marked as "trusted" to be dedicated, helpful, disinterested, and all that. 1 review per year could be be included with the subscription, or you can pay a premium subscription rate for more reviews and perhaps more services. No refunds offered for reviews not deemed as valuable. Or some such thing.