How should furry site submissions be critiqued? (feel free to comment)
Posted by Rakuen Growlithe on Mon 1 Oct 2012 - 11:22 — Edited by crossaffliction as of Mon 10 Aug 2015 - 02:36
All should be open to critique through comments
35% (19 votes)
All should be open to private critique
20% (11 votes)
Critique should only be provided at the creator's request
45% (25 votes)
Votes: 55
Comments
I think that for most sites the default should be "open to critique through public comments", but ultimately it should be up to the creator. Perhaps more importantly, sites should help artists communicate their preference for each piece, and allow them to set their own default for whether they want critique and how it should be delivered.
I agree. I had a quick chat about it with Toumal the other day and he said he'd made a critique feature on Yiffstar at one point but had to take it down after just a couple of hours due to all the drama. I don't have any more detail on what happened though. It might also be interesting to see what people think of Flayrah's content as this isn't "flat." You edit and have to approve everything that shows up. Do they think the quality here is better then elsewhere? And how often do you reject submissions?
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
New features are often disruptive, and should be deployed with care. Sometimes a little disruption is good, though.
As an editor, I try to provide a consistent level of quality while preserving each contributor's unique tone (at least when it comes to opinion-based pieces). Basically, it's my job to make everyone else look good, without changing the essence of what they're saying. Because we accept submissions from anyone, this often entails a lot of work. I like to think the end result is valuable; certainly, other sites seem keen to syndicate it.
Almost all content benefits from having more than one set of eyes on it before publication. Some submissions have flaws in grammar, spelling or punctuation; others are vague, factually deficient, or present opinions as facts. Often pieces lack links and embedded images, or a compelling title. In a few cases, I will suggest substantial changes to clarify an argument, or carefully rewrite it myself.
Only the contributor knows what changes have been made. In general, they seem pleased; I get very few complaints.
I can think of only a handful of rejections, and in most of those it was for issues unrelated to quality, such as inappropriate venue.
Why do some artists not prefer public critiques? Are they...
Worried about getting comments that are less than polite?
Tired of people pointing out things they already know they need to improve?
Wanting to keep the discussion civil?
Having a big ego?
Or just getting comments that aren't at all helpful (too high a signal-to-noise ratio)?
For that matter, why do other artists embrace critiques?
Something to think about. Except I'm tired and don't want to think now, so I'm not even sure if this has anything to do with the discussion.
I don't know if calling it "having a big ego" is exactly true. It could also be a self-esteem issue where they beat themselves up over small things so when someone comes in at publicly says even the smallest criticism they go into a self-defense mode.
Happens to all of us, it's that kick in the stomach when you realize you did something wrong. The difference between success and failure is whether one lets that kick wind them or be a guide to not feel it again.
Holy @#&% how fast do you type?
Post new comment