Posted: 8/23/2008 8:23:28 AM EDT
|
Hey guys, since I'm no longer an Industry Partner on the site and BigDawg Tactical was a dream I got to live for about a year, I've moved back into the corporate America world and back into technology. I'm currently working as a professional services consultant, Internet architect for a Fortune 100 company. Things are great there, but I'm trying to work my way into becoming a professional technology writer for one of the larger tech media companies out there such as Ars Technica, CNET, Engadget, etc. I'm trying to build an "online portfolio" of articles for companies to go out and read. If you get a minute, please check out my website and give me your opinion on it. It is fairly technical, so if you don't care anything about technology, social networking, or the sorts, it probably isn't the site for you. The site is called Tech Junkie and can be found at techjunkie.me |
Thanks for the feedback. Unfortunately, advertisement is what helps pay the bills on sites like this. I'm going to play around with the layout some and see if I can get it more appealing. |
|
Overall I think the presentation is good. It's simple, crisp, and easy to read/see. I happen to like that and I think a lot of people are sick of too much flash, etc. I don't really mind that it looks like it's from a template. The content is good, but it doesn't do anything to distinguish you from the thousands of other tech writers on the internet. It just reads like some guy's personal blog. If you want to get noticed you have to find either a voice or an audience. Unfortunately, I don't think this website serves as either. It seems like a lot of the articles are directed at people who aren't tech-savvy. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm just trying to give some constructive criticism since you asked for it. I guess my problem is that as someone who enjoys reading tech stuff, it's not in-depth enough for me and on the flip side, I think you make a lot of jumps if you're trying to reach an audience who isn't tech savvy. I think you're just too far in the middle. |