Welcome

looking for a site? you've come to the right place.

Please check back after December 9th! Thank you!

Welcome to Eclipse! Eclipse has totally revamped, turning from a plain old directory into a directory that reviews and rates sites as well. I found that often when looking through a directory I would click on a link and it wouldn't be the kind of site I was looking for. With my system of rating and reviewing, I am hoping that more people will be able to find exactly the site they need.

Please use the navigation to your left and in each category to get around the site, and if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to neomail me!

Updates November 12, 2010 Eclipse is going on hiatus. Why? Finals! As you may have noticed, I haven't been here for a while. School has gotten extremely demanding, and I would be failing my classes if I was on here. My last final is on December 9, and the site should be off hiatus after that. I have listed everyone, but the reviews will be very slow right now. Thanks for understanding, and sorry for the inconvenience. October 15, 2010 I just wanted to stop by and say thank you for your support in Dreamer's Site of the Month contest! I already have 2 votes, and I have a very good feeling about this competition! 6 sites have been listed, and I think I will be completing more reviews tonight. October 2, 2010 Just wanted to stop by here and say no, I haven't abandoned the site...I'm just suffering from a giant homework load, most of which should be complete by tonight. Then I can finish up a few reviews. I feel bad for making you guys wait so long, but thanks for being patient! September 24, 2010 I apologize for the lack of time spent on this site - this week was exam week, and it was really important for me to study. The homework load is getting worse, so I probably won't update as much although I will still add, review, and re-review sites. So don't worry - Eclipse is still in business! September 18, 2010 I deleted two of my old link back buttons off my image site today - I don't think anyone was using them, but if by some chance you were, my site isn't closed! Just please replace my missing image with one of my new and prettier link back buttons. Unimportant updates were cleared again. Requesting has been a little slow, but with my homework load, that might be a good thing for the moment. August 29, 2010 ~ Grand Reopening! May 12, 2009 ~ Grand Opening!

Recently Added Reviewed Closed Paralyzing Adoptions Meepits Are Love Bubbles Dream Pets Directory Seabound Banners Picturesque Typeface Refont Venita Mollie's CSS Pixel Lane Sprinkles Profound Pixels Velvet Paintbrush Prices Petpet Matching Guide Classic Roots Miracle Royal Savings Meepitopia SS & EN Cupcake Reviews Inspire Sketchy Reviews Felornia's Screenies Untouchable Utensil The Bookshelf Removed

Information

all about the site and its creator.

About Eclipse | FAQs

About Eclipse

Eclipse is a directory that rates and reviews all sites for your convenience. Have you ever wished you knew more about a site before you visited it? With Eclipse, you'll know quite a bit about the site before ever seeing it.

For each site, Eclipse features an 88x31 button that links back to the site. If you hover over the button, you will see a short description of the site.



Over each button is the site's rating out of five stars. The sites will be organized by their rating, with the highest rating at the top and the lowest at the bottom.



Underneath the button, you will see other images for some of the sites. These images are used to show important things about the site. Not every site has images associated with it.



Underneath these images is the review. Several main points are described here, and the rating is based off of the review. Underneath the review is a short sentence saying what browser the site was reviewed in.

FAQs

[What qualifies you to rate and review our sites?]
I am a web developer, and my work involves creating layouts, making sure they are functional in all browsers, checking to make sure everything is organized and explained so everyone can understand it and use it without problems, and making sure the site doesn't include anything extra that would waste space on the server. As I critically look at sites all day at work, I feel fully qualified to look over yours.

[Why do things like functionality and organization matter in our ratings?]
If it takes you forever to find the navigation, are you likely to stay on the page no matter how good it's reputed to be? I certainly wouldn't. Are you likely to want to use a site where you're constantly encountering broken code? No way. Bottom line is, if you can't find what you're looking for quickly, and you can't see it well if you do find it, that's not good. If you can't tell if a site is still being used and is current or not, that's also not good. If your site excludes certain people from using it, that's not good either, as well as being extremely unfair. I'm trying to warn you away from that stuff, and help you find and fix it in your own site.

[You said my site was listed, but it isn't there!]
I use several different computers to update this site, but never close my browser windows. Sometimes I lose information by updating on one computer, and forgetting to refresh the page before updating on another. Please just neomail me again if this happens!

[Is a site bad if it has less than five stars?]
Of course not! I'm not trying to say if a site is bad or good in terms of what they offer, I'm just saying how easy it is to use their site.

[Why is there a * above some sites?]
The asterisk above a site simply means they haven't linked back to me yet - it's a personal reminder to myself to neomail them, check out their site, and to eventually take them off my site if they won't list me.

[Does it matter which award we take?]
As long as it's in the category I told you to take it from, it doesn't matter. I thought some color variations would be nice to have.

[Is Eclipse named after Twilight?]
No, it is not. Eclipse was in the works long before the Twilight craze, and it has no association with it.

Rating System

an explanation of the 5 star system and key.

The Five Star System | The Key | My Preferences

The Five Star System

I will be using the five star system to rate sites. I do not judge a good site on what other people might. Even sites considered to be of "low quality" can still be eligible for a five star rating here.

Here are some of the main points I'll be looking for:

[Organization]
A good site will be organized in such a way that people will be able to find everything they need without too much trouble. If your site is difficult to navigate around, no one is going to want to use it. In this section I will be looking at your navigation, layout, and position of content to make sure it's easy to find everything.

[Accuracy]
A good site will always have accurate information. Not only will I be checking to make sure you have included everything you need to, but I will be checking for broken links and to see if you provide usable code or not.

[Visibility]
A good site will make sure that all content is easily viewed by everyone. Here I will be checking to see if the text in your site can be read easily, and I will be making sure you have nothing overlapping in a way that makes it impossible to see the content clearly.

[Quality]
A good site does not need to have the finest content in order to be considered so. What I will be checking for here is to make sure that if you run a graphics site, your graphics can be used by everyone, and if you run a review site, that your reviews are fair. Other sites will be held to other standards for quality.

[Additional]
These are just things I notice about you or your site that don't fit into any of the above categories. They can be good things, and they can be bad things. If you have nothing that fits into the additional category, it will not count against you.

The Key

The key is located to your right, and shows you a short description of the images at all times so you don't get confused when searching for a site. Howevever, here we will go more into detail about all the images.


Top Quality: A top quality site is a site that provides the best in their category. This does not mean that only one site in a category can be of best quality. These are the sites that go above and beyond to make theirs the best. Any sites with this image are ones that you should try to associate yourself with.


Brand New: A brand new site is a site that hasn't been open very long. The amount of time varies depending on the site - for example, a site that has been open two months and seems to be doing well may not be considered new, while a site four months old that still seems to barely have gotten started would be considered new. Any sites with this image are most likely looking for affies and listers, and finish requests fast.


Well Advertised: A well-advertised site is a site that has many affies and is listed in quite a few directories. They can also be sites that have quite a few visitors each day. If you associate yourself with these sites, your site is much more likely to get visited.


Unique: A unique site is a site that has some sort of idea that I haven't seen anywhere else. This idea could be an inventive layout, button, coding, or even the idea of the site itself. Any site with this image is definitely worth checking out.


On Hiatus: A site that is on hiatus is a site where the owner has announced that they are going away for a little while, or they simply haven't updated their site in a long time. Some of these sites still have have useable content, but other sites will not.


Under Construction: A site that is under construction is a site that has announced that they will be changing a lot of things on the site. Some of these sites are completely revamping, while others are simply changing a few small things on their site. It is best to avoid sites with this image, as typically people will close down their site during reconstruction. Any site with this symbol is one that is in need or will be in need of another review.


No Updates: A site with no updates is a site that could be quite current, or a site that is completely out of date. It can be very difficult to tell that when a site has no updates. There is no reason not to go to sites with this image, but simply be aware of it potentially being out of date.


Accepting Requests: A site that is accepting requests is a site that is currently allowing users to neomail them for something site-related. These sites are often graphics sites that allow you to request graphics, review sites that allow you to request reviews, and directory sites that allow you to request to be listed.


Music: A site with music on it is a site where you may want or need to adjust your computer volume before going on the site. Many people find it annoying to go to a page and suddenly hear loud music blasting at them, so this image serves as an advance warning.

My Preferences

As a reviewer, I try to be as fair as possible, but we're all a little biased for one reason or another. A layout that someone likes a lot, I might not like at all...and likewise, something on a site that I love might be something other reviewers have knocked you down some points for. So here are a few things that I like and don't like. I ask that you please keep them in mind while you're searching for a site!

I like most colors, but if there's too much of any one of them it doesn't make for a very good site.

I enjoy rather chaotic looking layouts, with lots of things overlapping - provided it doesn't interfere with how easy it is to see all content.

I love being distracted by swirls and other fun things on a layout - the more enchanted looking, the better.

Politeness counts. If I see a site owner continually being rude to other people, it will definitely count against you.

I believe in never turning down anyone that wants to be affiliates, so I really dislike sites that have an "affie limit" or restrict the type of sites they will link back to.

I have Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Google Chrome for browsers. Reviews are mainly conducted in IE.

Rules

follow these if you want to be listed!

Directory Rules | Following the Rules

Please remember that being listed here is a privilege, not a right. If at any time you do not follow these rules, I reserve the right to take you off the directory.

Directory Rules

[1]
Your site must be on Neopets.

[2]
You must link back to me as either a directory or a review.

[3]
You must have or be willing to let me make you an 88x31 button.

[4]
Please do not ask to be listed if you plan on changing your layout often.

[5]
Everyone listed gets a review - if you don't want one, don't ask to be listed.

[6]
All reviews are final until I notice or your alert me of a change to your site.

[7]
Do not ask why you have not qualified for something. The review explains everything.

[8]
If you are not happy with your review, do not treat me as if I'm the enemy.

Following the Rules

Many people seem to have trouble following what I view to be simple rules, so this is where I go more into depth for those of you who don't understand.

[1]
This should be fairly self-explanatory, and I doubt that many people with off-site websites will be asking me to list them, but since I have had a few I will explain. All of your website content must currently be supported on one or more Neopets pet pages, with no plan to move to a different website.



[2]
This should also be rather self-explanatory. Affiliates and listers may request to not list me in the appropriate spot since they are already listing me; everyone else must link back to me on their site in either the category of directory or reviews.



[3]
If you have looked at my directory, you can see I use the 88x31 button with site reviews. I will still list you without one, but I will make one for you before reviewing you. If I make you a button, I will tell you and I will place the code on my site for you to take it and put it on your own site.



[4]
It's okay to change your layout every once in a while, and obviously people make minor changes to their site all the time. But every time you make a major change to your site, I have to re-review you. I have a life outside Neopets, and it gets to be too much work to re-review a site every week. If you plan on changing your layout more than once a month, please don't ask to be listed.



[5]
While I try to make my review fit web design standards, obviously my opinion does come into play when reviewing and rating. I outline my preferences, as well as the entire review process, so that you know if you want my opinion or not. If you don't want my opinion, don't request to be listed, because if you do you'll get it whether you want it or not.



[6]
I don't change my mind about sites unless they have undergone a drastic change. If you don't like your review, and want me to change my opinion of your site, I at least hope to see a change on your site. Your review is final until a change has been made. Remember, if you feel I have made a mistake when reviewing your site, please just explain to me what the problem is and I will consider re-reviewing it anyway. After all, I'm only human!



[7]
If you haven't qualified for something, that's not my fault. If you are striving to be a top quality or unique site, and I didn't give you that qualification, that just means you need to work harder. I do not mind giving you advice to help you get there, but I do mind being forced to explain something that has already been explained to you. There is a big difference between asking why you didn't qualify, and asking what you can do to help receive those qualifications.



[8]
I have received many rude neomails from people claiming I have intentionally given their site a low rating to hurt them. This is not true. We all think our own site is great, but in reality there is no site out there that is perfect. I am simply trying to help you get as close to perfection as possible. Many neomails claiming this can be considered harassment or spamming, which is against Neopets rules. I can and will report you if you break those rules.

I hope that this helps explain everything to everyone.

Get Listed

need to get listed or re-reviewed? just fill out the forms.

Get Listed Site Name: Site URL: Site Category: How long have you been open? Do you have music playing on your site? Do you have an 88x31 button? Thank you! Please don't ask to be listed if you change your layout often - it makes it very difficult to keep your rating current.	Get Re-Reviewed Site Name: Site URL: Why would you like to be re-reviewed? Thank you! If I notice a major change to your site, I will most likely re-review you regardless of you requesting a re-review or not.
Get Removed Need to get your site removed? I can do that too. I just ask that you state why you would like your site removed - if it is something with my site itself and it is a fixable error I will strive to change it in the future!	Re-Review Waiting List Katie's Fonts

Your Awards

pick up your site awards here!

Due to how busy I am, I can no longer take the time to neomail people about their awards. If you fit the description of who can take an award, please just grab one you like! :)

Top Quality Site Awards

If there is a heart icon underneath your site button, feel free to take one of these awards!

<a href="/~IvyLeaves3"><img src="http://i56.tinypic.com/6xyxxy.jpg" width="170" height="140" border="0" title="I was rated as a Top Quality site at Eclipse!"></a>

<a href="/~IvyLeaves3"><img src="http://i55.tinypic.com/35k7j9l.jpg" width="170" height="140" border="0" title="I was rated as a Top Quality site at Eclipse!"></a>

<a href="/~IvyLeaves3"><img src="http://i55.tinypic.com/2wnp95k.jpg" width="170" height="140" border="0" title="I was rated as a Top Quality site at Eclipse!"></a>

Adoption Agencies

places you can find pets that are UFA and UFT.

[Organization] The organization of this site is not quite as good as it could be. There is no navigation, and everything is just put into one column so you have to endlessly scroll to reach the end. Everything is in its proper place on the site, though. [Accuracy] This site is very accurate, there are no broken links or code anywhere, and all the pets are still currently available. [Visibility] Everything on this site is clearly visible, all the text jumps out at you and the pictures of the pets shows you exactly what you're getting. [Quality] The quality of this site is excellent. Even though these pets are actually all up for trade, there are a lot of well named and rare pets listed here. All info needed to see if you want the pet is listed. [Additional] I love the end of the site, where people can place their dreamies. If someone really just wants to give up their pet, they can give it to someone that would really care about it. I would suggest to expand on this idea also have a list of people with extra PB clothes that they would be willing to give up. Reviewed in Internet Explorer.	[Organization] The organization of this site is good. It is a simple one-page layout with clear navigation, and all content is where it should be. The adoptions are even kept separate, so as not to confuse them with the UFA pets. [Accuracy] This site is very accurate, there are no broken links or code anywhere. [Visibility] The visibility on this site is very good, although having the site name at the top and then a banner underneath does throw you off a bit. [Quality] The quality is hard to judge, as there are not many pets listed. However, in time I believe many nice pets will be put up for adoption here. [Additional] I notice nothing additional about this site. Reviewed in Internet Explorer.
| [Organization] It's good to be directed to the rules first, but once you get to the main page there is no way to get back to the rules (except hitting the back button), and there is no navigation to help people find the pet they are looking for faster. However, the pets are at least in alphabetical order. [Accuracy] All the links on this site are accurate, and it is easy to tell that the agency is kept up to date with which pets are currently available. [Visibility] The text and the box it is in is a little small, but still clearly visible. [Quality] The quality of this site seems fine, there are a lot of painted pets to choose from here. [Additional] I noticed nothing additional about this site. Reviewed in Chrome.	[Organization] This is an organized site. The navigation is easy enough to find and use, and the layout is simple. The tables are also perfectly centered, there is nothing at all out of place on this site. [Accuracy] This site is accurate. There are no broken links or unusable code anywhere on the site. [Visibility] Everything on this site is easily visible. The text is easy to read, and the pictures are easy to see. There does not seem to be a problem with the site in any browsers. [Quality] It is hard to measure quality in an adoption agency, but there are many nice pets that are offered here, and there is a way to find and apply for all these pets, so I would consider the quality to be good. [Additional] I noticed nothing additional about this site. Reviewed in Internet Explorer.
[Organization] This site doesn't seem to be all that organized. Some things are off to the left, while other things are in the center. Also, there is no navigation around the site, and the only links to other places are in the top right corner, making it difficult to look around. [Accuracy] Accuracy is hard to measure here, but considering the dates of the last update (July and August of an unknown year), I would say it's likely that this site is inaccurate. [Visibility] This site has average visibility. The entirely red background is hard on the eyes, making is a little difficult to keep reading the text. I also find that the cursor image sometimes blocks the text if you are hovering over it. [Quality] It is hard to measure quality in an adoption agency, but I see many nice pets on the list, so I would say the quality is fairly good. [Additional] All the pets are kept in one scrollbox, instead of out in the open where you can see them, so at first glance it looks like there is only one pet. Also, all the pictures of adopted pets are of different heights and don't have transparent backgrounds, making the layout look sloppy. Reviewed in Internet Explorer.

Directories

places with collections of pets or pages.

Site | Pet | Gallery

Site Directories

| | [Organization] The organization of this site is very good. There is a noticeable in-site navigation no matter what layout this site uses. [Accuracy] This site is very accurate, there is even an up to date list kept of what sites have recently closed. [Visibility] The visibility of this site is in general quite good. [Quality] The quality seems excellent, there are a variety of different links featured here and everyone is sure to find what they need. [Additional] This site changes layouts frequently, so I have made this review much more general than ones for other sites. Reviewed in Internet Explorer.	| [Organization] This site has very good organization. It is set up nicely and is very easy to tell where everything is located on the site. [Accuracy] This site is extremely accurate, and is kept very up to date. This is quite an accomplishment with a directory of this size. [Visibility] On most layouts, the site content is quite visible, although the text can be a little small. [Quality] The quality of this site is excellent, many different types of sites are listed, so no matter what you are looking for you are sure to find it at this directory. [Additional] This site changes layouts frequently, so I have made this review much more general than ones for other sites. Reviewed in Internet Explorer.
[Organization] The organization of this site is wonderful. The navigation is very easy to see, and everything is in its proper place. [Accuracy] This site is quite accurate, although I do notice some links to closed sites are still up. [Visibility] Most of the things on this site are visible, but the light green headers are difficult to read. Some of those headers are blue instead, so I would suggest keeping them all the same type/color. [Quality] The quality of this directory is excellent. [Additional] I noticed nothing additional about this site. Reviewed in Internet Explorer.	| [Organization] The organization of this site is very good, it is easy to find everything and to use the navigation. [Accuracy] This site is very accurate, there are no broken links or code anywhere. However, some of the sites on here are inactive or on hiatus, which is not marked anywhere. [Visibility] There is only one issue with visibility, and that is the text areas, where you can grab link back buttons and fill out the listing form. They are so tiny that it's impossible to get the text from it unless you use Google Chrome, which allows you to expand the text areas. [Quality] The quality of this site is good, there are many different sites listed here and everyone should be able to find everything they need from this directory. [Additional] While the site is unique, I found the concept confusing at first. What does Lemon represent? What does Lime represent? What happens if we pick neither? The answers might seem straightforward, but just a small explanation of the idea of the directory may be helpful. Reviewed in Internet Explorer/Chrome/Firefox.
| [Organization] This is a very nicely organized site. There is nothing out of place, and everything is perfectly centered. Organization is really everything on a directory. [Accuracy] I would say this site is half-accurate. The owner has been on hiatus for about a year, and so has not fixed things to fit the change in coding, nor have they taken out their broken links and images or seen what sites they list still exist. [Visibility] This site has excellent visibility. It is very easy to see everything on it, making it quite easy for everyone to use. [Quality] This is a quality site. There are links to many different pages, and everyone should be able to find the site they need there. [Additional] The directories that list you are a marquee, so it's a little hard to see what the site is or click on the link before it goes by. This would be a huge problem if this site was listed in more directories, but at the moment it's only slightly annoying. Reviewed in Internet Explorer.	[Organization] The organization of this site is very good, nothing is out of place on this site. [Accuracy] This site is mostly accurate, although I do notice some links to closed sites are still up, and some things are incorrectly labeled. [Visibility] This site has a few small issues with visibility. It is difficult to see the navigation as it is white with light gray text, as opposed to the rest of the very dark layout, and the neon headers can be a little hard on the eyes. [Quality] The quality of this directory is excellent. [Additional] I noticed nothing additional about this site. Reviewed in Internet Explorer.

Pet Directories

| | [Organization] This is a perfectly organized site. The navigation works, but even without it everything is listed in perfect order and is very easy to find. [Accuracy] This is a very accurate site, even though there are a lot of links none of them are broken, and the site is updated quite often so all the information remains accurate. [Visibility] This site has excellent visibility. While the layout is patterned, it is pastel to avoid being too distracting. The colors for the columns and text work well together, and everything is easily seen. [Quality] This is definitely a top quality site. Even though it is a pet directory, there are so many additional things here. Anything and everything that is baby is listed on this site, with as much information as you would ever need. [Additional] If a scrollbar was going to be put on one column, it should be put on both to make them the same height and a little shorter. It's just a style difference, though. Overall this site is amazing! Reviewed in Internet Explorer.

| [Organization] This is a well organized site. Most things are very easy to find. The only thing is two categories, "seedlings" and "link back." They are in the navigation over the left column, but they are in the right column. It's a little confusing. [Accuracy] This is mostly an accurate site, but there is a problem with the coding on the buttons. You will have to change the code if you want to link back to this site. [Visibility] This site has good visibility. The layout is faded enough that it is possible to read the text, which is close to the same color. There are no problems seeing anything on the site. [Quality] This is a good quality site. There is a lot of information here about how to get a strawberry pet, including prices of the necessary items. [Additional] This site has a very beautiful layout, and a cute and funny picture on the banner! However, there are no updates, so it's hard to tell if this site is still used. Reviewed in Internet Explorer.

[Organization] You have to scroll down to get to the navigation, which isn't good. Sometimes people leave the site if they can't spot the navigation right away. However, everything seems well-organized aside from that. [Accuracy] This site is mostly accurate, but some old images and links need to be cleared out. I suspect this site is in need of devoting a day to the process of "sweeping." Thankfully there is no broken code. [Visibility] There isn't much of an issue with visibility, but I suggest letter spacing on the links, or possibly changing the font. The letters run together a bit, which doesn't cause too much of a problem, but still isn't good. [Quality] I would say that this site is of good quality. You can tell that all the pets listed here have been worked on very hard, and it's almost possible to feel like you know them after seeing their information. [Additional] It's nice that all the goals are listed along the top, it really shows people how far along the site has come. Reviewed in Chrome.

Gallery Directories

[Organization] The organization of this site is okay, although I do find it strange that the category navigation is kept inside a scrolling box, and that there are two sections of navigation that are not located close to each other. [Accuracy] This site is very accurate, all of these galleries are still open and there are no broken links or code. [Visibility] The only problem with visibility is that the category headers are smaller than the links. It makes them very difficult to see. [Quality] The quality of this directory is excellent. Many different galleries are listed here. [Additional] I noticed nothing additional about this site. Reviewed in Internet Explorer.

Graphics

your center for artwork of all kinds.

Art Requests | Banners | Buttons | Clipart | Fonts | Layouts | Pixels
A Little Bit of Everything

Art Requests

[Organization] This is a well organized site, but only because there is not a great deal of content. There is no navigation at all, but it doesn't pose a problem. [Accuracy] There isn't really much of a way for this site to be accurate - the only useable code is not broken, and the updates are rather unimportant. [Visibility] This site has good visibility. The layout is not distracting at all, and it is very easy to read the text, even on top of the pattern. [Quality] This a very good quality site. The artwork is beautiful, and all the images are transparent so can be easily used (please keep in mind the owner does not allow everyone to use her images). [Additional] I noticed nothing additional about this site. Reviewed in Internet Explorer.

[Organization] The organization of this site is simple, minimal and straightforward. The navigation feels a bit awkward and doesn't really pop out to me, it might be better off in the center below the banner considering the layout is column. [Accuracy] This site is accurate, all the links are working. Although the back to the top link would be more convenient to link an anchor at the top instead of just reloading the current page. [Visibility] This site has no problems with visibility. [Quality] The quality of this site is good. There are many hand-drawn art images uploaded to the computer, so te backgrounds may not match your page very well, but they look nice and are of good quality. [Additional] I noticed nothing additional about this site. Reviewed in Internet Explorer/Firefox.

[Organization] The organization of this site is good, and the navigation is easy to use but a little difficult to read the text on. [Accuracy] This site is very accurate, I see no broken links or code anywhere. [Visibility] There are no issues with visibility on this site. [Quality] The graphics here are really good, the artist's drawing style is absolutely amazing and they do a great job on all of their graphics. Also, while this is mainly an art site, shield are also made here. Those also look very nice. [Additional] The link back buttons are not fantastic, and only one is the proper size. Reviewed in Internet Explorer.

Banners

[Organization] The organization of this site is good, but there is no navigation. Not that a site like this really needs it, but it still might be a good idea to have one. [Accuracy] This site is accurate, there are no broken links or code anywhere. [Visibility] This site has no issues at all with visibility, unless you are using Internet Explorer, in which case the compressed images will remain just that - compressed. [Quality] The quality of this site is very good, the banners all look very nice and the form to request includes every aspect of the banner that people need to know. I would say that banner size should be included, however, as not many people will think to say it if they don't know it's necessary - lots of people think banners come in some "standard size", which they don't. [Additional] It's strange that when you come to the site, the first thing you see is not a true banner, and that the real site banner that was made is put under it. It sends out a message that the owner is not able to help you with putting your banner up, which is not good. Reviewed in Chrome.

* Review pending, please be patient! [Note] This site will be reviewed when they link back to me.

Buttons

| | [Organization] The organization of this site is great, there are many different little parts to the site and you can find them through exploring all the navigation tabs. There is just one thing that's a little confusing - the main page is named "Clear" on the navigation. Can't really figure out why. [Accuracy] This site is accurate, there are no broken links or code anywhere. [Visibility] The only issue with visibility is the background on the layout - It's not totally distracting, yet for some reason it doesn't match the amazing quality of this site. Everything on this site is clearly visible, and there is no trouble seeing anything. [Quality] The quality of the buttons here is excellent. There are tons of unique button styles that you will never see anywhere else. There are also a lot of text sizes and animation styles to choose from, along with a list of what things look best with each style. Every button made here is distinct, so if you want something high quality for your site then you should definitely go here. [Additional] The merit buttons on this site are very unique, and a really nice way for people to keep track of their site accomplishments. Reviewed in Internet Explorer.	| [Organization] The organization of this site is wonderful. The navigation really pops out at you - it's the first thing you see on the page. Everything is in the perfect order, and nothing at all is out of place. [Accuracy] This site is accurate, there are no broken links or code anywhere. [Visibility] There is a slight issue with visibility, and that is the animation on the layout. Surprisingly enough it's not an animation that totally takes your attention away from the site, but it's still a little distracting. It might be better if it was only on the background, and not on the banner as well. [Quality] The quality of the buttons here is very good.There are several different button styles you can choose from to help personalize the button you request, and all buttons from this site are high quality. They even do buttons for "About Me" pages and other places that many button sites exclude from requesting. [Additional] This site also contains a BOTM contest, which I feel is a nice addition, and also gives people the chance to get their buttons reviewed by a professional. The little pixel images all over the site are also very cute, and give the site a nice touch. Reviewed in Internet Explorer.
| [Organization] The organization of this site seems good. It is very easy to find everything, and all content is located in a predictable order. [Accuracy] This site is accurate, there are no broken links or code anywhere. [Visibility] Everything on this site can be seen clearly; there are no visibility issues. [Quality] The quality of these buttons seems okay. They are not the highest quality I have seen, but they are still very nice, and the instructions for putting up buttons make them very easy for everyone to use. The quality of the banners also seems to be okay, they would make a nice addition to any page. [Additional] The ranking and interviewing of other button sites is a very unique idea. Reviewed in Internet Explorer.	| [Organization] The organization of this site is okay. There is no navigation, but with a straightforward one column layout a navigation is not really needed. Everything is in the proper order and it is easy enough to find what you need. [Accuracy] This site is accurate, there are no broken links or code anywhere. [Visibility] I missed seeing the text when I was first looking at the site - it is in between the templates and the animations. Also, where the button portfolio is, the div box wasn't closed - the "goodbye" portion of the site is in there, and I think it's supposed to be located after that. The visibility is okay otherwise. [Quality] There are many different styles of buttons located here. Some of the templates I would be curious to see used, because they look so unusual. Some button base pictures are also provided, which is nice. The completed buttons look very nice. However, it's difficult to tell what the completed button will look like. The text is not located on buttons, nor is it to scale (unless you have a very short site name). The animations are shown on text larger and different looking than anything used. This makes it very difficult for people to determine what they want on their button. [Additional] This site also codes the text area box for people - this is useful if you're unsure of how to do this yourself. Reviewed in Internet Explorer/Firefox.
Review pending, please be patient!	Review pending, please be patient!

Clipart

[Organization] The organization of this site is good, and the navigation is very easy to find and use. [Accuracy] This site is very accurate, but their images all need to have border=0 included on the image tag, otherwise all images that are linked will have a thick border around them. [Visibility] There are no issues with visibility on this site. [Quality] The graphics here are okay, but nothing special. The user has the capability to make much better graphics, as well as adding all sorts of variety to their designs. Hopefully as the site progresses more images will be added. [Additional] There is no introduction to the site as there is with most sites. One should probably be added. Reviewed in Internet Explorer.

[Organization] This is definitely a well-organized site. There is no navigation, but it doesn't matter because it is still very easy to find everything. [Accuracy] There are a lot of broken code for links on this site - everything you take from this site will need the code to be slightly changed in order for it to work. I would say that because of that, this is a rather inaccurate site. [Visibility] This site has good visibility. It is easy to see all content. The images are shrunken down to save space, but depending on your browser there are ways to see the images full-size. [Quality] This a standard quality site. There are not very many images here, and they will not appeal to everyone who is looking for graphics as only Taylor Swift is depicted in them. [Additional] I noticed nothing additional about this site except that there are no reviews, and the owner is on hiatus. Reviewed in Internet Explorer.

Fonts

[Organization] The organization of this site is good, it is easy to find everything on the site and the navigation is easy to use. However, the special fonts section should have a mini navigation. [Accuracy] This site is very accurate, I see no broken links or code anywhere. [Visibility] There are no issues with visibility on this site. [Quality] There are a lot of fonts on this page, one for nearly every avatar as well as seasonal and uncategorized fonts. However, being picture previews instead of text previews, they may not look the same on your computer as they do on the site. [Additional] Although the little symbols for font functionality are a great idea, I can't tell if they are actually being used. Reviewed in Internet Explorer.

Review pending, please be patient!

Review pending, please be patient!

Layouts

| [Organization] This site seems to have an okay organizational system. As the site grows, I would hope to see different layout categories and a navigation, but none of this is necessary right now. [Accuracy] This site is brand new, so naturally it is accurate. There are no broken links or code located anywhere on the site. [Visibility] There are no issues with visibility. [Quality] As this site is new, the content cannot yet be rated for quality. A re-review for this site will be done in another month, when it can be more accurately judged. [Additional] I noticed nothing additional about this site. Reviewed in Internet Explorer.

[Organization] The organization of this site is okay, but the navigation is hard to see. Although I find it strange that the affiliates are static while other elements of the sitely section are contained within the main layout. [Accuracy] This site is accurate, there are no broken links or code anywhere. [Visibility] There are no problems with visibility on this site unless you are using IE, in which case the affiliates cannot be seen. [Quality] The layouts are okay, but none of them work in IE. They are nice if you want a simple geometric style for your layout. There are not too many layouts on this site yet. [Additional] I noticed nothing additional about this site. Reviewed in Internet Explorer/Firefox

Pixels

[Organization] The organization of this site isn't too good. There is no navigation, and everything is just kind of lumped together in one box with no particular order. [Accuracy] This site is very accurate; there are no broken links or code. [Visibility] There are no issues with visibility on this site, you can see everything quite clearly. [Quality] The quality of this site is okay, but a few things could be improved. Some of the pixels, like the faerie pixels, are a little big. Most people are looking for very tiny images when they look for pixels. Also, it is very annoying to have to go to properties and copy and paste the link from the properties of the image and then into the code, especially when there are a great deal of people out there who don't even know what the code is or how to put it on their page. People normally choose something easy over something pretty, so individual text boxes really should be put under each pixel. [Additional] I noticed nothing additional about this site. Reviewed in Internet Explorer.

A Little Bit of Everything

| As this is my site, I do not feel qualified to review it. Please check it out anyway, though! :)	| | | [Organization] The organization of this site is wonderful, everything is ordered very neatly and is easy to find. [Accuracy] This site is accurate, there are no broken links or code anywhere. [Visibility] The only visibility issue is the marquee on affies and listers. The marquee makes it hard to visit pages, because even though this is a slower marquee the motion still makes clicking on the buttons difficult. [Quality] The quality of the graphics seems very good. The premades here are all cute and simple, but the requests show that different images can be used to give your layout a different look. If you want something that you know works, definitely use this site. [Additional] I noticed nothing additional about this site. Reviewed in Chrome.
[Organization] The organization of this site is good, it is easy to see and use all the links. [Accuracy] This site is very accurate, I see no broken links or code anywhere. [Visibility] It is very distracting that some of the pages of this site have different colored layouts, and different layout designs. The site should be kept to one functional layout, not several different ones. Also, it is next to impossible to see the scrollbars on any of the pages. [Quality] The graphics here are of fairly good quality, and there are many different ones offered, so there should be something for everyone here. [Additional] I noticed nothing additional about this site. Reviewed in Internet Explorer.	| [Organization] This site has a fine organizational system, but it can be a little confusing. The site is considered a banner request site, yet features several other things, so people may not think at first that they have come to the right place. [Accuracy] This site is quite accurate. There are no broken links and no traces of broken code. However, on one of the buttons there are codes for other buttons inside the text area due to a coding issue with the well known (textarea) as opposed to (TEXTAREA). Watch out for that if you go to grab a link back button. [Visibility] There are no issues with visibility - everything can be seen very clearly on this site. [Quality] This site has mostly good quality. The offered graphics can be used by everyone. However, I feel the personalized banners would be better on a portfolio, so people aren't under the impression that they can use them. [Additional] I noticed nothing additional about this site. Reviewed in Internet Explorer.
Review pending, please be patient!

Guides

places that are here to help.

Game | Graphic | Site | Item

Game Guides

| [Organization] This site has good organization. There is no in-site navigation, but there doesn't need to be as there is only one main category. [Accuracy] There are a lot of broken code for links on this site - everything you take from this site will need the code to be slightly changed in order for it to work. I would say that because of that, this is a rather inaccurate site. [Visibility] This site has excellent visibility. It is very easy to read all the text, and the layout is absolutely beautiful. [Quality] I would say this is a good quality site. There is a lot of good information on the different powerups in keyquest, and is a must-have guide for newbies to the game. [Additional] There are no pictures of the powerups, and I feel that it would be very beneficial in a guide like this to have pictures. Reviewed in Internet Explorer.

| [Organization] The organization of this site is very good. [Accuracy] This site is very accurate, and all the links are working. [Visibility] There isn't an issue with visibility here, except for the headers which are on the background instead of in the box. You can still read them though, which is the important part. [Quality] The quality of this site is excellent. I knew nothing about Deadly Dice before looking at this site, and now I feel like I know everything about the game. [Additional] I noticed nothing additional about this site. Reviewed in Chrome.

Graphic Tutorials

Review pending, please be patient!	Review pending, please be patient!
Review pending, please be patient!

Site Guides

| | [Organization] The organization seems really great on this site. Not just the navigation, but the actual set up of the content itself. Images split up everything, but not in a way that makes it hard to see where everything is - in fact, it makes it easier. [Accuracy] I haven't even attempted writing for the Times, so I can't tell you if this guide has accurate information on it. However, due to the number of stories this person has submitted, I think it's safe to say that they are an expert on the topic, and can be trusted. [Visibility] Only one thing is not clearly visible on the site, and that is "a guide by laurapet131", which is the text located with the name of the site, Inscribe. Other than that there are no issues. [Quality] As a writer myself (just not a Neopets writer), I can tell that everything on this site is very high quality. Everyone should be able to follow the advice that is given here, regardless of their knowledge and skills, which is part of what makes this site so great. [Additional] I noticed nothing additional about this site. Reviewed in Internet Explorer.

[Organization] This site has nice organization, but there is no navigation. This makes it rather difficult if you're looking for a specific scam, because you have to scroll through everything else before you find it. [Accuracy] This is an extremely accurate site. There is a lot of good information on it, and everyone should be educated about the scams that this site lists. [Visibility] This site has okay visibility, but there is way too much text. You can only read so much text in one giant paragraph before everything starts to blur together. While there are line breaks and pictures, I still feel the giant paragraphs need to be broken up somehow. [Quality] I would say this is a good quality site. This site has just about everything you would ever want to know about how to avoid scams on Neopets. [Additional] I noticed nothing additional about this site. Reviewed in Internet Explorer.

| [Organization] The organization of this site is good, but the site would really benefit from in-site navigation. Most people will not be patient enough to use Ctrl + F as recommended, nor will they want to scroll through the entire page. Everything on the page seems to be in an order that makes sense. [Accuracy] This site is very accurate; there are no broken links or code anywhere. [Visibility] There are no issues with visibility on this site, you can see everything quite clearly. [Quality] The quality of this site is fairly good. There is a lot of information about guilds here, which many people will find helpful. I personally find the guide a bit hard to use because I don't understand anything that is being said - but I'm not very familiar at all with guilds, which could be why. [Additional] Almost every word is capitalized, making the reading rather choppy on this site. Reviewed in Internet Explorer.

Item Guides

| [Organization] The organization on this site is surprisingly good. There is a lot of content that isn't shown on the main navigation, but it's still easy to get to and easy to get back from. The content is also arranged very nicely. [Accuracy] All the information on this site is very accurate and up to date, and there are no broken links or code. [Visibility] There are no issues whatsoever with visibility on this site [Quality] This site has excellent quality - there are so many additional things here, such as a price guide, a painted pets UFA directory, banners relating to painted pets, and several other things that really show the high quality of the research done for this site. [Additional] I like how this site goes out of its way to make sure everyone can use it without problems, and that everyone can find what they're looking for with little to no difficulty. Reviewed in Internet Explorer/Chrome.

Lists

places of reference.

Untaken Names

[Organization] This site has fairly standard organization, with all the names in alphabetical order and listers and linkbacks at the end of the site. There is no navigation. [Accuracy] This is mostly an accurate site, but the link-back button has broken code that needs fixing and I would double check the names on the list before you get your heart set on them. [Visibility] This site has good visibility, it is very easy to see everything on it, and everything is in alignment. [Quality] I would say this site has good quality - the names are very nice, and inventive. However, there are a lot of possible names missing from this list, and not everyone may like all the names that are listed here. [Additional] There is a giant spaced out word above the banner - "navigation." There is none there, so it serves no purpose. Reviewed in Chrome.

Pet-Related

| | [Organization] This site has wonderful organization, although it did take me a while to find the links to the different pages. They're at the top of the page. [Accuracy] This is a very accurate site. It is updated regurarly, and all the pets are still customized the same way. [Visibility] This site has wonderful visibility! There is one part where the text and banner overlap, making it a little hard to read a few words, but that doesn't effect the site at all. [Quality] The quality is rather subjective here. Some of the neopets are what I would consider well dressed, while others I wonder why they're on the site. In general I would say this site is of excellent quality. [Additional] I love how you include user comments and review comments on your site. Also, this site won the Neopets Site Spotlight! Reviewed in Chrome.

Misc

for things that don't fit in the other categories.

| [Organization] This site has excellent organization, it is very easy to find just about everything on it. The one thing that one may not be able to find at first is the requests - they are listed under Rules. [Accuracy] The information on this site is accurate, as is all the code. There are no broken links on this site. [Visibility] While most things on the site are visible, the Screenies/Art section is not. The first screenie is too big for the box it is in, and there is no scrollbar so you're forced to highlight and drag to see it. There are several other screenies there, as well as artwork, so it makes it impossible to really see any of it. [Quality] The quality of this site seems good. All graphics on it can be easily used by everyone, no one is excluded from any part of this site. [Additional] The real neopets links are on the Exit part of the site, which is nice, and makes it much more convenient if you want to go back to Neopets after being on a petpage for a while. Reviewed in Chrome.
| [Organization] This is quite a well organized site. Everything is seperated out into different boxes, and the navigation is in order and works. Also, everything is perfectly centered. Nothing at all is out of place. [Accuracy] This is what I would consider an accurate site. Even though the site hasn't been updated in a long time, the content is not really affected at all by that. [Visibility] This site has good visibility. Nothing is overlapping, and the layout is clear, leaving people the means to focus on the content. [Quality] This is a standard quality site. People have different senses of humor, and I personally don't find the all the chosen board topics funny. However, perhaps out of what else there was that day, they were indeed the funniest. So this is very hard to determine, and it's quite subjective. [Additional] This is a very unique site! It is the only one if its type I have ever seen. Reviewed in Internet Explorer.	Review pending, please be patient!
* Review pending, please be patient!	Review pending, please be patient!

Reviews

helping your site be the best it possibly can be.

| | | [Organization] This is a very well-organized site. Everything is where it is supposed to be; there is not a single thing out of place on this site. [Accuracy] All the information on this site is very accurate and up to date, and there are no broken links or code. [Visibility] There is one point on the navigation where it is a little harder to read the text because of the color blending, but it is still easy enough to tell what it is. There are no other problems with visibility. [Quality] I would say that the quality here is excellent. These reviews are extremely fair, allowing for the updates people could make to the site and being understanding of the problems that happen on sites. It is easy to tell that the reviewer really cares about helping people make their site better. [Additional] There are many different types of reviews available aside from the standard review. This helps you to further personalize your review so you get as much help as possible out of it. Reviewed in Chrome.	| [Organization] The organization looks good on this site. The navigation is a little small, but not too difficult to read unless you have poor vision. Nothing is out of place, and everything is aligned perfectly. [Accuracy] This site is extremely accurate - it pins down every little detail that you could add to your site and includes it in the review, so you can benefit from it. [Visibility] This site has fantastic visibility, it is not hard to see anything on here. [Quality] The quality of the reviews is very good. At first glance they may seem a little unfair, but in truth this reviewer is just stating their opinion, and it is good to have many different opinions on your site. [Additional] I didn't notice anything additional about this site. Reviewed in Chrome.
[Organization] The organization of this site is very good. Everything is arranged perfectly and is centered nicely on the page. [Accuracy] This site is accurate, there are no broken links or code anywhere. [Visibility] This site has no issues at all with visibility. [Quality] The "Ask Maddie" part of the site is very confusing. What kind of questions are expected to be asked? Do you answer them, or do you only let other people answer them? This part of the site is nothing without an explanation. The reviews are very interesting. They might sound unfair when you read through them, but barely any points get taken off, allowing people to not be hurt too badly. I would say these reviews are of excellent quality. [Additional] I noticed nothing additional about this site. Reviewed in Chrome.	[Organization] This site is fairly well organized, although it took me a minute to find the navigation (on the top of the page). Not everything is listed on the navigation. [Accuracy] This is a very accurate site - there are no broken links at all. [Visibility] I feel like something is missing from this layout, so I find it hard to focus on the content. Everything is off to the left, leaving a blank space on the right, and then the content shifts the other way without warning. [Quality] This site has excellent quality - the reviews are very fair, and very in depth. It is obvious that the owner truely cares about helping people make their sites better. [Additional] I noticed nothing additional about this site. Reviewed in Chrome.
| [Organization] This site is very well organized, everything is in its proper place. [Accuracy] This is a fairly accurate site - some linking back and image links are broken, but the owner is currently on hiatus so these will most likely be fixed when they return. [Visibility] There is a little trouble when it comes to reading the reviews - there are double scrollbars (a scrollbox within a scrollbox), but the first scroll box has a sideways scroll and you have to keep moving it to read the review. [Quality] The reviews are a little bit biased. The owner bases their opinion on the colors used, and the emotions they link to that color, which I feel is a little unfair as everyone has different tastes in colors. Even though first impression does not take up too many points, it seems to effect the rest of the review. [Additional] I noticed nothing additional about this site. Reviewed in Chrome.	Review pending, please be patient!

Screenies

funny things that happen all over Neopia.

[Organization] The organization of this site is great! Screenie sites don't normally sort their screenies, but this one does and it definitely helps to improve the site. [Accuracy] This site is accurate, there are no broken links or code anywhere. [Visibility] This site has slight issues with visibility - the images are JPGs, which makes them a little blurry. Saving screenies as PNG images would make them a little more clear. [Quality] The quality of these screenies seems very good. They are in perfect order, and they almost seem to tell a story. Reading through these screenies is an excellent way of passing time. [Additional] I noticed nothing additional about this site. Reviewed in Chrome.

[Organization] This site is definitely a well organized site. It is very easy to find everything on it. [Accuracy] This is a very accurate site. I could not find a single broken link or image code on this site. Keep in mind that the owner is currently on hiatus. [Visibility] The headers are rather hard to read because of the image in the background, and the large bold text. And the screenies are a little difficult to read because the artwork blocks some of them. [Quality] These screenies are okay, but certainly not the best I have seen. Most of them are only a little funny, but I would still say they are okay to pass time with. [Additional] I like how everything is listed before the screenies, instead of after, so you don't have to scroll endlessly to get to everything. Reviewed in Chrome.

[Organization] This site has as much organization as a screenie site needs - all the screenies are located in one column, so it's not at all hard to find them. [Accuracy] Everything on this site is accurate. [Visibility] There are no issues with visibility in Internet Explorer, but in all other browsers the width of the screenies exceeds the width of the column by a lot, sometimes enough to push it off the edge of the page. Also, you can tell these are JPG images, PNG images would be a bit more clear. [Quality] I wouldn't say that these screenies are all that funny. They're just pictures of normal things with conversations next to them. They're more like reference screenies, or personal screenies. So they're okay quality, but not fantastic. [Additional] I noticed nothing additional about this site. Reviewed in Internet Explorer/Firefox/Chrome.

Contests/Ranking

for the best of the best.

Site of the Month

Review pending, please be patient!

Spotlight

Review pending, please be patient!

Sitely

for anything associated with the site.

Link Back | Affies | Listed In | Reviewed By | Awards | Credit

Link Back

<a href="/~IvyLeaves3"><img src="http://i35.tinypic.com/ztdykj.jpg" border="0"></a>	<a href="/~IvyLeaves3"><img src="http://i53.tinypic.com/2hq48ih.jpg" border="0"></a>	<a href="/~IvyLeaves3"><img src="http://i52.tinypic.com/2zo975y.jpg" border="0"></a>	<a href="/~IvyLeaves3"><img src="http://i51.tinypic.com/x4f9yt.jpg" border="0"></a>	<a href="/~IvyLeaves3"><img src="http://i53.tinypic.com/2laqzcn.jpg" border="0"></a>
<a href="/~IvyLeaves3"><img src="http://i869.photobucket.com/albums/ab253/jentulazy/buttons/ecli.gif" border="0"></a>

Sister Site

None yet! Apply?

Affiliates

Statement | Emblem

Listed In

Pending:

Reviewed By

Awards

Credit

Layout, CSS, and graphics all made by cristerwiz15 (that's me!) unless otherwise credited. No stealing!
Pink button by Jen.
Some reviews written by Gio.
Pet images courtesy of Neopets.