Ratings for writer writersammy
 |
Real name Username |
writersammy |
This account has been discontinued |
|
| Overall rating |  | |||
Rated with
by Quidditch 2012-06-11 for Article: Rated with
by illuminate 2012-04-01 for Article: Nice attempt. Failed to meet the objectives of the article.
Rated with
by edenhpg 2012-03-28 for Article: Poor english
Rated with
by briesamson 2012-03-28 for Article: * Lack of information about Technical SEO
* Doesn't provide title for the article
* Doesn't provide title for the article
Rated with
by ccronje 2012-03-17 for Article: This article was clearly spun and not very good at that.
Rated with
by drumminlogan 2012-03-16 for Article: Rated with
by leannemordue 2012-03-16 for Article: Rated with
by ntao33 2012-03-15 for Article: Rated with
by josip 2012-03-14 for Article: Rated with
by hobblecreek 2012-03-14 for Article: The article was difficult to read. There were many incorrect words used and grammatical errors.
Rated with
by patch1308 2012-03-14Completely the wrong article subject with none of my keywords.
Rated with
by tnphoneman 2012-03-12Good article
Rated with
by kashem 2012-03-05Rated with
by 26weekplan 2012-03-05Sorry, but it doesn't read well
Rated with
by adamsg 2012-03-03Rated with
by tonytovar 2012-03-02Good copy
Rated with
by rohanrossouw 2012-03-01Writer did nor follow instructions. No title, no paragraphs and the article was not well written either.
Rated with
by chris.kluis@mintek.com 2012-02-24lack of understanding about product. ex:we discourage spreadsheets. Regurgitation of features page was inaccurate.PM and inspections are separate functions. It would take me hours to fix
Rated with
by liquidhealth 2012-02-24Well Done. Quick Turnaround.
Rated with
by endumn 2012-02-24The article doesn't doesn't talk about the product.
Rated with
by soniqq 2012-02-24Rated with
by scutter 2012-02-20Good article. A few minor spelling and grammar issues but overall a solid job.
Rated with
by LewisSellers 2012-02-20Comment was removed by admin
Rated with
by Webworld 2012-02-19Just OK
Rated with
by Webworld 2012-02-16Nice Article!
Rated with
by kocasio 2012-02-16Nicely written article. Thanks!
Rated with
by gallawa 2012-02-15Rated with
by ziana61 2012-02-14Some of the sentences don't make sense, but the general theme is ok.
Rated with
by netking 2012-02-13incorrect English and subject not explained. The specifications were clear to write about riders on catastrophic health insurance and not just mentioning it in the article
Rated with
by carobrown 2012-02-13Rated with
by carobrown 2012-02-13Rated with
by carobrown 2012-02-13Rated with
by carobrown 2012-02-13Rated with
by carobrown 2012-02-13Rated with
by carobrown 2012-02-13Rated with
by carobrown 2012-02-13Rated with
by carobrown 2012-02-13Rated with
by carobrown 2012-02-13Rated with
by carobrown 2012-02-13Rated with
by carobrown 2012-02-13Rated with
by carobrown 2012-02-13Rated with
by carobrown 2012-02-13Rated with
by carobrown 2012-02-13Rated with
by carobrown 2012-02-13Rated with
by carobrown 2012-02-13Rated with
by carobrown 2012-02-13Rated with
by carobrown 2012-02-13Rated with
by carobrown 2012-02-13Rated with
by carobrown 2012-02-13Go to page: 1, 2
