I’ve had some of my Squidoo lenses critiqued and the ones that have been most helpful are those that point out ways to improve them. The most annoying, for me, are those that say “Great lens” or “Well done.”

Conceited as I may appear, even I don’t think that my work is perfect and doesn’t need improving. In fact, there is usually something, however small, that could be improved on any web page.

It’s fine to say, “Great lens but I spotted a typo in the second paragraph and it’s ….(whatever)”. This is helpful. Telling someone that maybe the page would read better if some of the information was moved around or expressed in a slightly different way might help too. Sometimes all we need is another pair of eyes and some suggestions to introduce us to new ways of working or doing something.

When we’ve worked hard on a Squidoo lens, we can get too close to it and we read it the way we hear it in our minds. We put the emphasis where we know it should go even if the natural way to read a sentence would put the emphasis elsewhere. Pointing this out helps us to read it with a fresh approach and we can try to forget the way we want it read.

When I read these non-critiques in Critique Me, I assume the poster is just trying to get a bit of exposure for their own work – often comfirmed when they ask for a visit in the same post.

Next time you see someone ask for a critique, read the page carefully. Look for ways to improve it. Here are a few questions to ask yourself.

• Do you get a good first impression? If not, why not?
• Is there a bio and picture in the top right or is it the default text and orange blob?
• Are the pictures good and relevant?
• Are the ads relevant?
• Are there any typos, wrong spellings or errors in grammar?
• Is the text well written?
• Does the page flow well from one point to the next?
• Does anything irritate you about the writing or layout? If the answer is yes, analyse what it is and assess whether this is a personal foible or whether most people would react the same. If you think other people would feel the same, then it is worth mentioning in your critique.

These aren’t the only points to consider but they are probably the main ones. Don’t just point out what you think is wrong, make suggestions on how to fix the problem.

There are benefits of doing critiques – you become aware of problems that you can avoid in your own writing and page making.

I’ve also got a reputation for being blunt in my critiques of people’s lenses. I won’t say something like “You’ve made a good effort but…” when I look at a lens and think it’s terrible without any redeeming features. I cannot bring myself to utter false praise. One reason is that it calls into question my own judgment. People reading it will assume I really think it is a good effort when it’s plainly not. The other reason is that I don’t think false praise helps the person improve.

I always try to offer advice on how to improve the page and the writing when needed. I don’t just say, “It’s rubbish.”

Now I’m an Angel, I have to be more cautious in my approach although I still won’t give false praise to a hopeless piece of work. The reason for my caution is because, as an Angel, I have the reputation of all Angels to consider.

Even when I don’t bless a lens, I sometimes write privately to the lensmaster (when they have contact enabled) to make suggestions for improvement that would make the lens eligible for a blessing or at least 4 or 5 stars.

Helping new Squids is the part of Squidoo that I have always enjoyed the most. I’ve got great pleasure from seeing some lensmasters do a reasonable to good first lens and then go on to become great lensmasters. Some of them are now Giants. It’s great to spot talent early and see that person go on to meet or even exceed your expectations.

If you want to know what I look for when I’m deciding whether to bless a lens, take a look at my Angel in Disguise.