Do you trust internet review sites?

I believe most consumers make an instant value judgment based on what they see. The site design has that content farm look, in my opinion. It was immediately off putting to me. It looks like a site designed to make money via affiliate programs, not a site that is a labor of love by somebody with way too much interest in shoes. When I'm looking for reviews I frequently try to find the forums where the hard core obsessives about the subject hang out.

I personally would not trust your site. The stock photography and the content-mill feel all put me off immediately. Sorry.

It's not about style--it's about the efficiency of the data. Are there too many distracting ads? Is it hard to find what you're looking for? Are the articles written in a way that gets the best info front and center? Good sites have heart. This means they are really cared for and everything is considered. This can happen well on either a slick looking site (that communicates power, but risks warmth) or a home-made site (that communicates warmth, but risks power). What's the best power-to-warmth ratio? Completely depends on what you're talking about and your voice as a writer. This is art, not science.

I had the same reaction as several above - the site design is nice and clean and professional, but also generic looking. In a market where content-farm and shill sites all tend to go for "nice and clean and professional" and land at "generic-looking" you as a real person are better off trying to set yours apart. That doesn't mean that the only alternative is something that looks handmade. Suggestions to build on what you have: - Introducing yourself (and other contributors) on the front page would help - photo and brief statement about why you're doing the blog. Don't be afraid to use a more personal tone throughout - I skimmed copy here and there but didn't get any sense of the voice of the person writing it. - Take your own photos. Anyone who is looking for reviews wants to see the real product they'll be getting, not a glammed-up marketing shot. Even if yours are a little lower quality, this is a case where that won't really hurt you, and it WILL make the site look more authentic. - Maybe add some related non-markety content for those who really love running - I'm assuming that you love it yourself and visit lots of other related blogs, so folding that kind of passion into yours would be another step away from "this dude's getting paid to sell me stuff."

Speaking only for myself -- and I am Joan Q. Public, not involved in any way with the online economy, except as a consumer -- in a review site, I want to instantly find the review of the one thing I am searching for. I don't want to click my fingers to the bone trying to find what I want. I don't want to scroll forever. I don't want Flash or javascript unless it truly serves me in some way, which it never does (but if it is really cool-looking, that is OK). I don't want to register. If I find the review helpful, I'll bookmark the site and explore a little more later -- but on my first visit, if gratification is not immediate, I'll go to the next search result. So to the degree that your proposed site redesign increases usability, that's 100% positive. As far as professional vs. amateur appearance influencing perception of integrity, I don't know. I think most people know that Joe Blogger and Acme Website Company are both very likely to be shilling, and the one not more likely than the other. After all, vendor swag, review copies, whatever, are pretty motivating for the guy in his mom's basement. It's the tone of the reviews that I either trust or don't, not how the site looks. One other thing -- if the comments are unmoderated, and full of spammy crap, that's another clue that this is not a labor of love so much for the blogger.

It's not that I prefer homemade, it's that I prefer sites that seem to have been put together by a person who is clearly an expert at what he or she does first. Usually that means a ton of information -- otherwise it's just a crappy site that didn't even get a decent design.

I don't think your site looks like a content farm, but it does look, as PhoBWan pointed out earlier, rather like a shoe store. I think it's all the generic pictures of the shoes. Nothing stands out and me and grabs me and makes me want to read it. And I'm a running fanatic! Folks above have already mentioned the two main things I would change: 1) a personalized About page, with pictures, and 2) a more personal tone in the reviews, using the first person. I always click on the "About" page right away to see what I'm reading, and your page screams "cover up for corporate shill." It's way too vague and generic. I want to know who you are, what you look like, what your style of running is, favorite shoes...something that lets me know I can trust you! As to the more personal content,http://www.candyblog.net/ (for candy) that I think does a good job of balancing personal with professional. She writes in the first person and you can sort of sense her personality through the reviews, but she also gives detailed information like packaging, calories per ounce, etc. It's a pretty homemade website but she's very well-regarded in the industry. For your site, I would love to see pictures of you wearing the shoes, running in the shoes, the shoes compared to other shoes in your closet if they're significantly larger/smaller/more awesome looking, etc. That may be just my bias, though. (http://www.runningwithsugars.com/2011/07/22/hoka-one-one-bondi-b-review/, and even though it's nowhere near as professional as your site, I think it does give a sense of my personality and how these shoes stack up against other shoes, which could be helpful for readers.) Obviously I'm a reader and not a designer, though, so take all of this with a grain of salt...

With clothing, I'm far more likely to trust a reviewer if it seems like she's genuinely worn the clothes. for example, I completely trust http://www.alreadypretty.com, despite the fact that she gets kickbacks from sales. I suspect a lot of this is because of the high quality, professional photography of her actually using the products. If you're logging miles in these shoes, I think it's time to get a decent camera and show that. This will also help illustrate issues of wear and styling that you don't get with a stock photo. As it is now, you have some pictures on there that you might have taken yourself, but without people in them, they're really indistinguishable from stock photos. Agree about the author information, too. I don't necessarily think you need to go fully Craigslist ugly, but if you want people to trust you, I think, say, a wordpress blog-style blog rather than something like what you already have (which looks more like a shoe store) would be smart.

Seriously? Try making the site Craigslist ugly. One redesign idea: Use a gray background and unstyled links. Split the site in half. A simple, text-only, long list of all reviews on the left side, sortable by simple links at the top (not buttons or fanciness) by date of review, name of shoe manufacturer, and rating. On the right side, a list of opinion articles/advice columns/whatever else you have. In the articles, drop the lightbox etc. and take pictures of the shoes on your stained carpet. Somewhere on each review, say at the bottom, but in big ol' letters, state how you got the shoes. Then include the shopping links, styled in a way to fit in with the rest of the site. And somewhere have a big ol' page with poorly lit webcam portraits of every reviewer and funny biographies. I would trust the site I just described without reservation.