@ Rob: You said,
"... any criticism we may have is done in a positive light because they are our opinion and everyone is entitled to their own..." and well, as much as I'd agree with you, I do have something to add to that.
Well, if somebody asks me to review her blog, I'd do it, honestly, and she is supposed to do something about (act on) my review/comments. I mean, you asked me in the first place because you thought I could help you improve your blog, right? And after the review, if you didn't like what you read, or if you're not going to act on my comments and suggestions, why did you ask me to review it in the first place?!
If you only want to hear nice things about your blog, no offense, but why don't you get your other half to review it? I'm sure your other half won't say anything bad about your blog.. You get my idea?
But then again, Rob, you're right. More in-depth reviews require more time, and hence should be compensated. Perhaps we need to define "blog review" as well
@ zhuli: I get the part about 2 types of reviews, and I'm OK with that too.. But one of my earlier points was whether it is necessary to mention,
"The navigation on the blog is... The header is... Both sidebars are on the left of the blog..."
I don't know whether *that* is called a review. Moreover, like I mentioned earlier, I experiment with my blog, so I move my sidebars and widgets a lot.
Another thing is, "introduce a bunch of blogs" isn't the same as "review a bunch of blogs". If I introduce you a blog, I'd just say, "Hi, this is so and so's blog." But in a review, I'd mention a lot more than just the mandatory introduction..