Tuesday, 31 January 2017

Old or New Format - Opinions Requested

So, this is just a very brief question which needs to be made before we head over into the next month. Over the past weeks I have been going back and forth experimenting with styles and presentation to make life easier, to divide up reviews into different formats. 

The first of these is your usual, more free-flowing style of just a single text, while the other more recent style is more evenly divided up between the synopsis, positives, negatives and a conclusion. While I was tempted to ask this before now, it seemed best to hold off until there were relatively recent examples of both, which you can find here and here respectively. 

If you wish to favour one over the other please speak up, as I honestly do want to know what my audience prefers in this case. Not to mention what you might want it to be used in beyond books as well.


  1. Personally I like the second style (the one you did with Talon of Horus) better than the old format, though to me it isn't a big deal, it seems that you always end up falling into that sort of style anyway, even if you don't outright state where you're talking about the good or the bad, and the newer style just makes things a little clearer.

    1. Truth be told I felt the same overall, and it seems everyone else here agreed with this. It's not too different from the previous one, but it makes skim-reading or quickly picking out facts a bit easier, and a bit less daunting given the extreme length of some of these reviews. Nevertheless, thank you for the feedback, and I will be using the second format from here on.

  2. Like the new one more, subheaders always make a text more legible.