honp9@menudo.uh.edu (Jason L. Tibbitts III) (01/26/91)
Submissions Guide For Comp.Sys.Amiga.Reviews (Last Revised 20-Jan-91)
This document is directed toward those individuals who would like to do a
service to the Amiga UseNet community by submitting a product review.
I intend to use a stepwise approach, detailing my suggestions (and my
rules!) for each step of the process. This is quite long, but it is
imperative that you read this if you intend to submit a review for my
consideration. I have included information at the lowest common
denominator with the risk of annoying the advanced user. Bear with me,
for this is a group where anyone who wants to, not just a hacker, can
submit articles.
If you have any suggestions for refinements of this document, or of the
rules, feel free to mail me at:
HONP9@menudo.uh.edu
I read and answer all mail, and usually log on several times a day, and
at least once on weekends.
So, how do you write a review to submit to comp.sys.amiga.reviews? Well,
the first thing to do is to read this document. Since, however, I can
see that you are already doing this, I'll say no more on that.
So really the first thing you must do is have something in mind to
review. This can be anything Amiga related: hardware, software, PD,
shareware, commercial, even a magazine or a newsletter. As long as it is
of interest to a distributed portion or Amiga users.
All this means is that I cannot post a review of your town's user's
group, since the entire world wouldn't be interested (a drive across
the ocean might be a little much for some.)
Please, if there would be a conflict of interest if you were to review a
produce, don't attempt to review it. I don't need the hassle.
You can review more than one related thing in a single article, in the
form of a product comparison. Be sure that you would be able to review
each product separately, though. Don't talk about X, Y, and Z if you
don't know beans about Z. If that's the case, just concentrate on X and
Y, and leave Z out altogether.
After you've picked out the thing you wish to review you must consider
one last selection criterion:
do you know the product?
This is an important consideration. A review should not be a quick
glance, or a three liner saying that you saw some game at a friends house
and it looked neat. That does nobody any good. You must have some
familiarity with what you intend to review. You needn't have gone to
such lengths as disassembling the code or anything. It's not imperative
that you win a game before you review it. Just put in several days
getting familiar. (For a big program, say a 3D modeler, you might want
to put n a couple of weeks.)
OK, you've learned it inside out, and your fingertips as your keyboard
softly whispers. The VT100 screen beats softly as vi awaits. Oops,
sorry to spoil such a good image.... Now you need to type up the actual
review. Some pointers (in no particulr order):
Write clearly, write politely, and try to use good English. If
nobody can figure out what you are saying, or if it makes people
angry, your review will reach no one. Why is this? Because I
won't post it. Please spell check your post, too.
(I understand that many of you employ English as a
secondary language. My English is far from perfect, but
I am willing to help. I'm not rude, and I won't bite, so
don't be afraid to ask for guidance.
Don't lose sight of what you're reviewing. Don't start off by
reviewing X, and then start writing about how Y is so much
better, and finally end up forgetting X. It's all right
to bring in references as to to how another product performs,
but remember to keep such references short.
Don't use tabs, control characters, or anything but standard ASCII.
Some readers use very basic terminals, and some UseNet gateways
will fail to correctly interpret them.
Don't include rumors or fabrications, or downright lies. Just the
facts.
Be sure to include the name and address of the publisher. I keep
these on file for future use.
Please include your full name, email address, mail address, and phone
number. I will remove this from the final posting if you wish,
but I will keep this information on file also.
Try to include information on system requirements and compatibility
(if applicable.) At least give an idea of RAM and disk drive
requirements. It's always good to know if the program is good on
the A3000, under 2.0, if it works with faster processors, and if
it will work with a 1meg Agnus. Of course, nobody will have
enough systems like this to test everything, but try to find out
what you can. If, say, you couldn't test for A3000
compatibility, then tell me that and I'll add a note asking
someone to try and find out.
Try to be organized. Think it out a little before you write. Make
an outline. If the reader can't follow it, the moderator won't
post it.
That's about it for the short pointers. Now for the format: there is
none! Just write the body of your review in whatever writing style you
wish. Show your knowledge of the product and tell us as much as you can
about it.
After you've written up this wonderful review, think long and hard about
what your review is all about. Now distill it into a three or four line
summary, which you should add at the top of the review body.
Writing this summary can be difficult. It's purpose is to give a casual
reader enough information to tell them if they should read the (usually
rather long) review. Try for something like the following:
[
WordImPerfect by PricklyWare is a limited text editor with ray-traced
output and extensive genealogy features. Unfortunately, this interesting
bit of software mush is crippled by bugs and refuses to run on anything
but an A1000 with 256K RAM and V27 AmigaDOS.
]
Most readers not interested in ray-traced genealogy would probably skip a
400 line review with this summary, as intended.
With that done, return to the top of the article and enter any comments
that you wish to leave to me. I will edit these out before the final
posting.
Then, after you have proofread your article, you can send it to me.
There are several ways to do this. The easiest thing to do is to mail it
to me. Please prefix your Subject: line with 'SUBMISSION:' All mail
should be sent to:
HONP9@menudo.uh.edu
This will ensure delivery. This site is an Internet backbone, so most
mailers should get it here with no problem.
You could also post the article to comp.sys.amiga.reviews, which will
result in the article getting mailed to me anyway. It will not appear in
the group. This method can lead to problems if your site is running
strange or arcane news software. If you know that your site is
nonstandard or especially if you run the 'notes' software, do not use
this method. Bad things may occur, much to the detriment of all readers
of the group.
You can also send me hardcopy. Do not send anything containing graphics;
standard ASCII only. I will transcribe the printed copy and post it.
(Assuming that it is postable.)
You can send me a standard Amiga 880K 3 1/2" floppy containing a single
text file, that being your article with any notes to me at the beginning.
Please, no word processor formats, just straight ASCII.
Finally, you can call me and read me your article, or read it to my
machine. I don't know why you'd want to do this, but the option is
available.
If you wish to contact me, send me anything, or harass me, here's what
you need:
Jason L. Tibbitts III
8339 Wier Dr.
Houston, TX 77017-4736
(713) 649-1891
Email: HONP9@menudo.uh.edu
if for some reason menudo goes down, try:
HONP9@jeston.uh.edu.
These addresses cover seven machines, so the mail will get through.
Now you have managed to get your review to me. Now the ball is in my
court, and I will begin the redaction process. I'll read through the
article. I may make slight alterations like correcting a couple of
spelling mistakes and moving a few lines to fit my format. Then I'l
post the article. I will not make any major edits without contacting
you first, unless you specifically authorize me to.
I may have rare occasion to make a few changes to your article. There
may be an inflammatory comment or an unclear statement which I feel needs
changing. This is usually no big deal.
It is possible that I will reject your post altogether. If you have
shown complete lack of reguard for the above guidelines, or I simply
cannot approve your submission without major alterations, then I will be
forced to bounce the article. You will receive notification of this,
along with indications of what the problems were and my suggestions on
correcting them. This will all remain confidential.
If you and I simply cannot see eye to eye and you feel that I am being
unreasonable in rejecting your post, there is a second opinion available
in the form of Mr. Mike Meyer, the backup moderator. You can mail Mike
at: mwm@decwrl.dec.com
You, Mike, and I will then work together to get your article posted.
Assuming all goes well and your article is posted, the following
attribution headers will be included:
The Followups: line will be set by me to the proper newsgroup.
The Sender: line will contain my address.
The Reply-To: and the From: lines will contain your address.
The Path: line will be whatever I can make of your bang path.
This means that 'f'ollowups will go to the right place, 'r'eplys will go
to you, and I must be mailed directly. If you wish to change this, then
drop me a note with your article.
That's about it. Your review will be read by a great many people, and
you will become world famous. Well, sort of.
--
Jason L. Tibbitts III | Moderator: comp.sys.amiga.reviews
"Blob Shop Programmers:| Send submissions to HONP9@menudo.uh.edu
Because We're Bored!" | Check comp.sys.amiga.reviews for submissions
Disclaimer: Opinions...| guide, disclaimers, etc. Fnord.