A few months ago, I requested to have this blog reviewed at a site devoted to reviewing blogs, in the interest of getting some honest feedback and improving it. (Note: if you don’t like profanity, you will not be fond of this site, beginning with the URL.) The review got posted today, and seems generally more positive than most of the reviews on the site, so I’m pretty happy with it. (I’m also getting a lot of hits from readers of that site – welcome!) If you’re a regular reader, you might find the review interesting; and if you have any taste for philosophical puns, you should definitely check out the comments on the review.
But I would also like to hear readers’ opinions on a couple of the reviewer’s comments. First, (s?)he notes that the blog is difficult for a lay reader to follow. This is a balance I knew would be hard to strike from the beginning. I wanted to make it complex enough that professional philosophers and religionists would find it valuable, but also simple enough that a nonspecialist audience could follow along. I’m wondering if I’ve pitched it a bit too far in the first direction. What do you think? Should I try to simplify future posts more than I have been?
Second – and this is more for those of you who read the blog at the site, rather than by email or in an RSS reader – the reviewer hates the white-on-black look of the blog. The reviewer thinks that, while this might be pretty to look at at first glance, it creates eyestrain after one tries to read the site for long period of time. I am hoping to make some changes to the blog’s workings in the not-so-distant future, and this could be among them. But what do you think? Does the white on black work, or not?