Call To Arms

Summary:

A frank evaluation of criticism on posted pages. Dexanote helped with some words, thanks dex.

page 1 of 212next »

Call To Arms

RJB_R 13 Mar 2019 01:47

Recently I left a highly critical post on a new SCP. The author was appreciative, but also shocked that they had received more than half a dozen positive reviews from other critters. It got me thinking about a trend I’ve been noticing, fewer critical reviews and less discussion in general on articles.

The SCP Wiki’s reputedly harsh criticism is slipping away. We’ve lost that critical edge. I’m not saying it’s become a circlejerk, but it’s more than a little soft.

When I first joined the Wiki, a lot of harsh criticism was also dripping with personal attacks on the author. We made an effort to stop this; personal attacks aren’t acceptable. We attack the work, not the author. So personal venom is no longer the case, but in taking out the venom we’ve lost our critical bite.

There are those of you out there who upvote the content of your friends without really providing critical thoughts, or felt intimidated knowing an author had a big-time reputation and didn’t want to go too far in critique. This is understandable but it doesn’t help the Wiki grow.

The time for such timidity is over. I have a call to all members of the SCP Foundation: You have but one life to live, and one vote to give. Don’t just give away upvotes. Make sure every single one is earned. Be especially harsh on your friends and established authors. If you have their best interest at heart, you want to make them the best author possible, nitpick the hell out of their page.

Downvote a poorly constructed tale. Wreak havoc on an underdeveloped SCP. Develop your own criteria for what you find acceptable and stick to it.

Critique does not mean ‘find problems for the sake of problems’. People post to the Wiki with an understanding that their stuff will be analyzed, broken down, and appreciated by people who want this site to be the best it can be. Letting less than amazing stuff slide because you wanted to spare the feelings of the author hurts the Wiki.

Dear reader, you can probably think of a few critics you expect to see downvote your works and thrill to see the rare upvote. You can count yourself among their ranks very easily if you hold everything you read to high and consistent standards. This isn’t snobbery, it’s high standards.

Do you want to be regarded with awe? Make your vote something to be earned. Downvote your friends and those big names along with critical feedback and you will earn their respect.

If you want the wiki to be the best it can be, you must lose all restraint and hesitation when considering whether you vote up or down. The author I mentioned in the opening here was shocked by the harshness, but also grateful. If you can bring back the bite without becoming toxic, I urge you to do so. The fate of the community depends on it.

---

Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!

Re: Call To Arms

RJB_R 13 Mar 2019 03:38

I wish to reiterate that this is primarily a call for critique, being more selective of your vote is important but doubly so is leaving constructive criticism to explain any vote, up, down or neutral.

---

Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!

Re: Call To Arms

Woedenaz 13 Mar 2019 01:58

I agree with this fully. Criticism is a net good for the entire wiki in every way.

One thing I, personally, wish to mention though: downvotes are not criticism. They are a measure of whether you, the reader, enjoyed something or not. But they are not criticism. Your downvote alone is not going to help an author improve, not in the same way a well thought out critical post will.

I am worried that this post will be misconstrued, causing people to just downvote willy nilly without actually, actively contributing to the discourse. If you truly want to see the writing on the wiki improve, you are going to have to critically outline why you are downvoting so the author can see and actively improve on it.

I understand if sometimes you dislike something and you cannot outright say why you do not, that is fair. And I am not here judging people who downvote without giving their thoughts. But I do not think it is unfair to say that those that do downvote and explain why are actively contributing in the improvement of the wiki in a more productive way.

Take that as you will.

Last edited on 13 Mar 2019 02:01 by Woedenaz Show more

Re: Call To Arms

notgull 13 Mar 2019 02:09

I’m honestly a little lax with my voting. If I enjoyed it at least a little bit, or if I thought it was interesting, i upvote. If I didn’t find it interesting or enjoyable, but I see how someone else could, I novote. I only really downvote if I think it doesn’t belong on the site/is in need of a rework.

I definitely could shift that scale, though. I’m not a bastion of quality control, and considering the growth of the site I might need to start taking my vote more seriously.

Re: Call To Arms

Shaggydredlocks 13 Mar 2019 02:15

If I didn’t find it interesting or enjoyable, but I see how someone else could, I novote.

To that I'd say, your vote is yours and yours alone. One shouldn't vote based off whether someone else may or may not enjoy something, because with aggregate votes, the people who do enjoy it can keep it afloat or sink it should enough find it lacking.

Re: Call To Arms

ModernMajorGeneral 13 Mar 2019 02:26

I can see why people might have this system, but I really think everyone should be downvoting things they don't enjoy (although I admit to not always doing it). People can upvote something I don't like, everyone has different tastes, but I find it ridiculous when someone says 'this was boring, unoriginal and the dialogue was wooden… novote' which is not an uncommon kind of post. If you only downvote stuff that is irredeemably awful, as many people seem to do, the amount of mediocre articles will always grow at a faster rate than the amount of very good articles.

I agree with what Roget has said. It's a difficult issue because it has a positive feedback loop; the more articles are posted, the less time is devoted to in-depth critique for any given article, the more articles stay up and so on, so one has to be relatively efficient with their feedback and downvote fairly often as a time-saver.

Re: Call To Arms

Woedenaz 13 Mar 2019 02:48

Whoops, that's me.

If I read something and do not upvote, I do my best to give helpful critique to the author. Which, to me, is far more valuable than my downvote.

Granted, I do not comment as much as I should and Roget's post has inspired me to do so. I will not be downvoting more often, though.

Re: Call To Arms

Shaggydredlocks 13 Mar 2019 02:10

If you truly want to see the writing on the wiki improve, you are going to have to critically outline why you are downvoting so the author can see and actively improve on it.

Absolutely, however, with the sheer amount of work that's produced, it's unfeasible to leave something constructive for every single article (depending on how much one both reads and downvotes, of course).

I genuinely wish I had the time to leave as much in-depth feedback as I used to, but it's just not in the cards.

---

Beyond that, I've noticed the same thing over the past year and a half. The state of our site critique is virtually non-existent outside lending helping hands to coldposts.

Re: Call To Arms

Woedenaz 13 Mar 2019 02:24

To be clear, my comment isn't directed to those like you, Shaggy, who do leave feedback when you can. I just wanted to outline how much more helpful a critical comment is than just a single downvote.

Re: Call To Arms

Shaggydredlocks 13 Mar 2019 04:25

I didn't take it as such, just a passing thought.

Though I should elaborate on the point I totally forgot to make: that downvotes — even sans comments — can¹serve to improve the writing on the wiki, though it is systematically (via just-passable items getting the axe) rather than on an individual level (by writers workshopping posted works in response to feedback).

Footnotes

1. Not will — insert obligatory comment about rating not correlating perfectly to quality here.

Last edited on 13 Mar 2019 04:27 by Shaggydredlocks Show more

Re: Call To Arms

Gearhart 14 Mar 2019 23:05

no, this actually won't; it just creates the illusion of improved writing by raising the standards so high that only really talented writers can meet them. So at the end of the day, all that's really being accomplished is the exclusion of everyone who isn't a naturally gifted and/or experienced writer. That's only going to make newer members of the site feel alienated, which is never a good thing for a community that wishes to grow.

Re: Call To Arms

RJB_R 13 Mar 2019 02:25

I think a lot of it has to do with how demanding forum crit has become, the Site Crit team has effectively ceased to exist because any critters joining staff inevitably become enveloped by forum crit.

---

Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!

Re: Call To Arms

notgull 13 Mar 2019 05:24

This is a complaint I’ve had for a while. No offense to anyone who is on Site Crit, but I pretty rarely see SC members consistently crit main site articles outside of coldposts.

Re: Call To Arms

RJB_R 13 Mar 2019 06:25

I don’t know if there’s anyone left on site crit, the 05 roster is a ghost town.

---

Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!

Re: Call To Arms

Zyn 13 Mar 2019 07:19

I believe Site Crit recruited at least one new JS member within the last month or so. Soulless has an open recruitment thread (though to be fair, not a lot of posts responded to it).

Re: Call To Arms

Mafiew 13 Mar 2019 07:05

Thank you, Roget, sincerely. This is a tendency we've noticed some time ago, but we are helpless spectators.

Last edited on 13 Mar 2019 07:08 by Mafiew Show more

Re: Call To Arms

DrGemini 13 Mar 2019 14:49

Seconding this. White lies, abusive politeness and, well, circle-jerking are traps that can quickly undermine any creative discipline.

Re: Call To Arms

Modern_Erasmus 13 Mar 2019 07:32

Honestly I don’t think this is as big an issue as it seems. People thinking standards aren’t as harsh is a perennial thing, don’t you remember when people accused you of causing site quality to drop because people in rogetbox were upvoting each other back in like 2013? 😛

The simple truth is we have as much good stuff and as much mediocre stuff as before percentage wise. But we have more of everything so it can seem like the mediocre is becoming more common. It isn’t. The only tangible change I’d say is that a greater percentage of stuff falls primarily under weird fiction or comedy than it used to be.

Re: Call To Arms

RJB_R 13 Mar 2019 14:09

I’m thinking more of the lack of comments I see on new pages, even before we had a contest there’s been a decline. I’d just like to see more comments and criticism on posted pages.

---

Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!

Re: Call To Arms

ratking666 13 Mar 2019 14:27

i think i need to be better at rating things because i have such mood swings trying to assemble why i want to rate something the way it is, and i want to change that so i can know what i want to see out of a scp.

---

pastarasta1 is quick-talking and often scheming

Re: Call To Arms

Lamentte 13 Mar 2019 17:09

_{i wrote this before but wikidot did wikinot let me save it heh}

Hi, the author mentioned here.

The main reason why you're critique hit me so hard is, well, Roget you're basically the R.L Stine of the site. You're good at what you do and do a lot of it, and have been around long enough to know how to do it well. I wasn't necessarily shocked by it, it was more like Bob Ross or Vincent van Gogh telling someone one's painting is bad.

That being said, you're still right.

I feel like critique has been more centered around the basic idea than the full composition itself. My article that you critted (which I'll be deleting soon guess what i just diiiidd) had a somewhat comedic and interesting concept, but in pretty much every other way, it was flawed. I feel like concepts are latched onto in some cases instead of the full article in it's entirety and in vice versa, even if it isn't directly intended.

All parts of an article should be treated equal. If a piece's concept is good but the composition of it is lacking, then that's bad. if a piece's composition is good but the concept is uninteresting and mediocre, then that is also bad. Most articles in the single digit positives that I've seen have either of these archetypes (or in some cases a mixture of both). I am definitely not attacking the critters of that article, it's not their fault that I didn't go get more people and didn't notice these problems myself. I just feel like more people should focus on the whole instead of a portion of it.

If something sizable about an article feels off to you, don't just brush that aside. If it's too big of a problem, downvote. Anyway that's my personal thought dump I guess.

Last edited on 13 Mar 2019 17:15 by Lamentte Show more

Re: Call To Arms

The Great Hippo 16 Mar 2019 03:48

I'm firmly on the side of "more honest crit" (though, as always, I rush to add that while honest criticism is far more important than gentle criticism, there are precisely zero reasons why you can't be both honest and gentle). There are a few simple problems in regards to criticism I commonly see:

+ show block

• Producing good criticism is a skill that is separate from producing good writing. You can be great at writing and give shit-crit; you can be great at critiques and shit at writing. When you fail to recognize this, you fail to develop your abilities as a critic.
• Good criticism requires you recognize your role as an adviser, not an authority. You're not here to tell authors what to do. You're here to 1) Understand what they want to accomplish, and 2) Help them accomplish it. This is about them, not you.
• Good criticism is always: 1) Honest, 2) Constructive, and 3) Encouraging. I presume the first two points are obvious ("honest" does not mean harsh, and "constructive" means you provide some explanation of what the author can do to address their concerns), so let me focus on that last bit:

Good criticism always encourages authors to write, even while it explains the problems with their writing. It does this by insisting that writing is not an innate talent one 'possesses', but a skill that one develops. Because behind every piece of writing that works are a thousand that don't.

Good criticism doesn't just point out where the author failed; it points out where the author succeeded. And if you can't find any place where the author succeeded? You affirm that while the author's competence might not be high enough to produce a successful piece yet, improvement is possible.

Let me be clear: You don't lie. You don't hide the truth. If a piece demonstrates a fundamental lack of competence, you say so. But you follow it up by providing links (like this one) to places where they can gain that competence. You don't mislead them — you make it clear that it will take time and work to achieve competence — but you make sure they understand that competence can be achieved. Writing is a skill. Not a talent.

No matter the competence of an author, make sure they understand that good writing is not something you either can or can't do. No one becomes a good writer by just being good at writing. You get good by being bad — and sticking with it.

(Sorry, I ended up writing a lot more than I expected!)

ETA: In retrospect, reading over this, it occurs to me I'm putting a lot of responsibility on the critic. Treating every prospective author with this much reverence can burn you out — especially when they're not putting nearly as much effort in their pieces as you are in critiquing them. It can also, depending on the author, come off as a bit condescending.

With that being said, I would emphasize that while you might not need to always be super-encouraging, you must always strive to never be discouraging.

Last edited on 16 Mar 2019 04:03 by The Great Hippo Show more

Re: Call To Arms

crocodile_dreams 05 Apr 2019 11:05

This was a great response Hippo, and I think you hit the nail on the head. Its the balance of understanding what good criticism and peer review should look like, married with measured response that neither discourages writers, nor burns out the reviewer with excessive niceties.

Good, clinical criticism and a high bar for submission approval should be the broad aim.

Re: Call To Arms

UraniumEmpire 19 Apr 2019 21:56

Gonna add to this: read outside your comfort zone.

A big reason why these people downvote so much in comparison to other people is that, more often than not, they read beyond what they're familiar with. They read mainlists by number, tales attached to certain tags, etc., meaning they're often exposed to mediocre but obscure works that'd otherwise only be read by the author's friend circle. And that's a good thing, because every piece on the site deserves a critical eye.

That tale about an obscure Series II from 2011? Check that out. The Series I in the 600s slot that got added in 2013 and subsequently slept on? Ask if it needs to be on the site. That one obscure GoI format? Take a look, the author might still be around to take crit.

---

… and I'm not Robert Frost.

page 1 of 212next »