I have just come across the review of Social Europe Journal on politics.co.uk which I found quite interesting. Here is what they wrote:

There are some genuine items of interest in this blog collective – shame about the website.

This site would be a good source of commentary on European politics, and many of the articles are informative and well-written.

However, the site has the look of a corporate brochure from fifteen years ago and the same articles appear repeatedly on different pages for no apparent reason.

Instead of giving the impression the site contains more content than it does, it just left us disappointed. All of which is to the detriment of the writing, some of which was rather good.

We got an overall rating of 5/10.

This was a rather strange review I found because I have always thought the writing was the most important thing about a publication. A few points about this:

First, design questions are always down to personal taste. In our last reader survey 35% gave the website design an A and 46% a B (on a scale from A-F). So at least our readers are happy with the design of the website. At any rate it doesn’t look like a corporate brochure from the mid-1990s. This is a somewhat strange comment.

Second, articles are posted in different categories (that’s how WordPress works and they surely know that) for one simple reason: to enable the reader to search thematically. If we published an article only in the category “Columns” for instance it wouldn’t appear in any of the thematic categories. This wouldn’t do justice to the wide variety of topics our columnists write about so we make sure there are also other ways to find the right articles.

In a nutshell, we don’t post in several categories to artificially boost our output but to improve usability.

Glad though they liked the quality of our writing