It is unbecomin of recent that sites posted for review are been condemned without intelligent
suggestions for the poster

it shld b noted that sites posted for review are under construction thus reviews shld nt b done as if site has been concluded

Let us review and help poster, not condemn

Thanks

@webguru
I agree with you on the "criticizing without offering a solution is vain" part but not the "sites posted for review are under construction thus reviews shld nt b done as if site has been concluded" part. Allow me to explain:

I have gone through tons of review posts and from reading the initial comments, I have seen many instances where the developer would say something to the effect that, "the site has already been launched so I might not be able to change anything" or even, "well, i like that font size and will not change it and/or the client likes it." Feel free to confirm for yourself my assertions.

Sure, a review is as it is stated, a review. A true review would actually be done in stages. So the first one might involve say, the layout, the next might involve the navigation, etc etc. Be that as it may, I hereby propose that anyone posting a site for review should:

1) do so at least a week prior to the site going online. This allows the developer ample time to make any changes, and
2) CLEARLY state what parts he/she wants comments on. That way, we don't waste time on parts the developer knows are not ready.

Any takers?

nice suggestion

bt how do u review when the site is not online?

I guess I need to clarify:
A site can be online without it being officially launched. In other words, I can put up a site for a client and they wouldn't even know until I told them the name. Of course, it is your choice whether to show the client your localhost version or the live web version.

What I tend to do is provide password access if I put up a site live so that the client can't get in and say, "why the hell is the background blue?" when in fact, I might have been experimenting at the time.

So again, in order for us to see the site, yes, it has to be online. However, the client doesn't have to know the site is launched. Make sense?

@yawa-ti-de has said it correctly.

I usually provide a client to view temporarily site at my web hosting server with secured password without launching them on client's web hosting server. It allows the client to view live site to be corrected, added, or suggested before the final development project. There are three design phrases. 1. initial designing, 2. development/criticisms, and 3. finalized.

It is written on my contract agreement that the client understands fully including daily/weekly working progress report via email letting the client know about my status because of contract agreement that client must pay 3 increment payments: 20%, 30% and 50% according to the three design phrases.

Upon the finalized phrase, i either furish my finalized work files into CD giving to the client or upload the client's web hosting server with the client furnish their hosting username/password to the webmaster (me) depend on the written clause of the contract agreement what client wants me to do.

This is win-win situation to satisfy client 100%. The written contract is excellent enforceable court evidence in case of client fail making payments or client sue me for any wrongdoing that whether should i will be blamed for liability or not.

Verbal contract is NOT WORK to win in court like that!!!