Hi everybody, my first post here
(and a late entry to the poll)
I'd like to see more reviews (although that was a tough choice), especially file managers (there are *so* many, tough to try them all thoroughly).
I like the concept to have an in-depth representation of one program (the one "pick" or "winner") while giving an additional overview of the pros and cons of the competitors. I can't remember having seen that combination elsewhere.
But I have some gripes with the reviews, which I wanted to express for some time:
You should be very cautious regarding the quality of the review. The two reviews here that I was most interested in over the last time was e-mail clients and archivers, and both reviews were very interesting to read. But both of the reviews had major flaws: First, both added major entries afterwards, which should have been there in the first place. And they had other major shortcomings: The mail clients review lacked a closer look at IMAP, which I find very important, and it's hard to find a good client for (esp. now that Mulberry's gone). And the archivers review was heavily biased towards RAR creation, a format that (in its newer variant) is strictly proprietary and by definition cannot be created by another archiver. This could only give one winner, WinRAR.
So reviews should give a better overview of all the competition from the start and the major funtionality to be expected from the competitors.
Otherwise, I appreciate the work of the reviewers very much and still think they did a great job (oh, and don't forget to add the name of the reviewer).