Site builders, designers, developers, and clients all wonder how well their site looks and performs. Let’s face it, the people most closely working on the site as well as the people related to those working on it all have a bias when looking at the site. Outside, objective feedback is extremely important to most projects and is often not done—or is done wrongly.

For $29, a person can hire ten people (all independents working for MyTestGroup.com) to come look at their site and give feedback on three basic questions.

“How would you describe this site, what’s its purpose?”
“What is the best or your favorite feature?”
“What did you find difficult or particularly dislike?”

This feedback will be received within two business days from ten users. These are paid reviewers, of course, but it’s a fast feedback review to give you an idea of where your site might be weak, lacking, or missing its focus.

Many site fixes identified by objective viewers, given only a URL and nothing more, can pinpoint oversights in design, usability, and more. Often, these are “quick fix” items that were overlooked during the development phase.

MyTestGroup offers a full refund policy and guarantee and every report is audited and edited by a quality assurance person to maintain professionalism and usefulness.

The only concern is where these users are coming from. It’s hard to imagine that they’re paid much for their service reviewing the site, but given that there are only three questions and most sites aren’t really that complicated overall (especially given the above three questions), a review probably takes less than fifteen minutes to complete.

MyTestGroup does maintain that their pool of users involves hundreds of people from a broad demographic. The testing is definitely good for a broad overview of demographics for a site, though a more focused group would be required for something that’s more targeted.

For the average or normal, small site, blog, or other design endeavor, I would think that the money spent at MyTestGroup would be beneficial for the site’s owners and developers. For larger, more robust and complicated sites, however, a more robust test option would be needed.