Is this going to go in the official guide?
Criticism Policy / Discussion
Forum
» Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions
» Criticism Policy
This is the discussion related to the wiki page Criticism Policy.
Almost certainly not exactly this text, but some form of this information will be in something that is a guide at some point.
Anyways, needs more gore.
if your reading this your gay
That will depend on what it reads as when it's done being edited. We don't normally have works-in-progress on the wiki, but we felt it was important to be able to link to this, even in the interim.
Essay or guide, I think this is something we all need to read. Aside that point I'd suggest to clarify that there's no need to give an uber critique using concepts and ideas that don't really fit to criticize the average bad article (and I remember a post where certain member wich name I don't remember posted a critique at least twice long the original article, explaining so detailed and giving so personal opinions about said article that another member wich name I don't need to mention said: "huh, those criticism classes are paying by themselves").
I… honestly don't see why we should disallow this? I've never personally seen it happen. I mean sure, I believe that it did, but even if it did, there's not really much wrong with it.
Wut? No, seriously, I don't know what you're asking.
if your reading this your gay
tag as creepypasta
Dr. Mann has the final word on it, but probably essay would be suitable.
It'll likely be "guide" (like Site Rules), and rewritten. In fact, I'm working on some revisions right now based on staff discussion (and the fact that some of the info in here is out of date).
EDIT: Updated to current version.
Side note: The current version heavily draws from (if not outright copies) material written by Scantron and Mann and is influenced by input from a number of staff, which will surely only go up as we continue to draft this. Since I've removed authorship notes, noting this here for clarification.
Please continue to feel free to give input on this.
Needs more gore.
if your reading this your gay
(account deleted)5. It's fine to just agree with someone else. If someone else has pointed out the problems of an article? You can say "This is bad for the reasons so-and-so posted." If you just want to piggy-back on someone else, that's fine.
7. Avoid dogpiling on bad articles. If it's at -50 and dropping, and twenty people have already said it's terrible, you don't need to drop in just to let people know that you think it's terrible too.
…aren't these two rules sort of contradictory?
Not really.
There's a difference between "I agree with this guy" and "I agree with these other twenty people, also your article is terrible."
Also, moose, this is terrible and the problems with this article should be obvious trollface.jpg
This, and also a lot of the issue is twenty people all trying to come up with the wittiest way to say "your article is the worst thing I have ever read in the history of ever."
Same thing occurred to me.
I think we all know what is intended; but the sort of person who needs a guide like this is going to read a paradox into "Let your voice be heard." and "But you don't need to talk just to make yourself heard."
the sort of person who needs a guide like this
I don't really agree there! I would have personally found this helpful if it had existed when I first joined.
Also keep in mind there's no real penalty for misunderstanding the Guidelines. We'll ask you to follow them, but unless you get into being a giant dick about it, you aren't going to see people be banned over those. That's the main practical reason why we divvied those up into two categories.
We might refine some of the Guidelines and make them Rules, but not til we're prepared to enforce them and clarify them as much as possible.
I did not mean to imply that "those who need" were inferior, just that they would benefit best from a certain approach. Being green is not something to be ashamed of. At least not if one is trying to correct the condition.
But a person who, whether thru personality flaw or simple newness, has not yet internalized advice like this is a person who would benefit from language that is as plain and unambiguous as possible.
To be most effective, we must speak to the level where they are; and this is the "101" class material.
So no more posting hilarious things unrelated to articles, huh? :(
So no more posting hilarious things unrelated to articles, huh? :(
Not if it's a Take That to the author. ;P Or if it's free of actual criticism with a newer author. I mean, use your best judgment. If you do this to someone who you know won't mind, we're not going to suddenly ban you over it.
Oh look, now even harsh constructive criticism can get you banned, at least if it fits in with someone's agenda *cough*Roget1*cough*Vezaz*cough*.
Especially ridiculous in light of that one of the reasons stated by Bright behind harsh being OK is that some people need to be driven off. But sure, let's make a fuss about it, embrace the likes of Dr. Oak and shit over people like Aleanna who actually do stuff for the site.2 In fact, let's all see Vezaz personally raise KEric Hannigan into one of our top ranking authors! Wee!
As said in one of old classics, A velebnosti, du blejt!
So long, and thanks for all the fish upvotes! Yes I'm that cliche.
PS Unless he protests, Voct gets to rule all my stuff including sandboxes. We talked about this when I wanted to leave a few months ago.Sorry.
PPS Saved you the trouble of removing me - I know how it's done. And, Echo, I know nothing of value was lost! =^.^=
Footnotes
1. Can't say I'm surprised, in fact I expected it ever since Little Stalin(Oh, that one refers entirely to how he climbed up - doing all the stuff nobody else can be arsed to do, and gathering a like-minded powerbase around him, plus backstabbing everyone in the way. Much like comrade commissar of nationalities) got made mod
2. Why is this reminding me of anti-abortion arguments so much. Maybe the deaf fetus will really grow up into the next Beethoven.
We appreciate your opinions, but do not care for the manner that you go about expressing them. We are sorry that this was the course of action you chose to take.
I would like to request nobody responds to this post in the future, as it will probably go nowhere.
Also I believe Beethoven grew into deafness, and was not born deaf.
THIS ACT OF RESISTANCE HAS INSPIRED ME! NO MORE SHALL WE LIVE UNDER THE TYRANNICAL BOURGEOISIE AND THEY'RE SO-CALLED "CRITICISM POLICY", INSTEAD LET US TAKE TO THE STREETS IN BLOOD LUST AND TEAR ASUNDER ALL THOSE WHO DARE STAND IN OUR PATH. THE TIME OF OUR COME-UPPANCE IS UPON US, BROTHERS AND SISTERS. I AM THE BUTT GHOST
Edit: Bob Saget
Edit: sorry, was replying before Mod Post
Added an eighth Guideline. Read, critique, etc.
Also, to be clear, we still would like to hear feedback on our policy, both the way this is written and the policy itself. Please leave comments if you have thoughts or concerns.
We do not currently have an effective system for gathering feedback on these things, so the comment thread is the best way. All comments here will eventually be read & responded to (and likely rather quickly).
As per staff consensus (and frankly, it was a long time coming), the criticism policy has been edited and "meh" on its own is no longer considered valid critique. If you must say "meh", back it up with some further feedback that gives the author an idea of what they need to fix.
As always, contact staff if you have further questions.
As this is an OPEN staff post:
"Meh" *IS* a valid response, it's a cultural shorthand that implies "Meh - this is boring and does not grab the readers attention."
Constraints on feedback need to be limited, not expanded to "Well, we found this annoying so we added a Rule against it." Similarly to why The Big List of Overdone SCP Cliches is an essay and not guide
This is not a healthy practice.
What would be a healthy practice? It was my understanding that most writers would feel frustrated if the only feedback they received from someone was "meh"/"it's boring". Getting critique that gives the author a direction to follow shouldn't be like pulling teeth.
Of course, I'm personally more lenient on feedback once something's on the mainsite, but if we're going to encourage more people helping out writers with drafts, I'd want reviewers to be more concise so the author doesn't have to run around the issue of what people think needs to be fixed.
Seconded.
I never found 'meh' to be a good hill to die on, so I'm open to reconsidering this, but it hasn't seem like we lost anything of value along with 'meh' posts.
The nail in its coffin was when Bright said he'd stopped leaving "meh" posts because he felt they were pointless.
A post consisting solely of "meh" doesn't really represent much of use feedback-wise or commentary-wise; you can learn very little about the writer's opinion due to how generic 'meh' posts became.
But I have some inklings of where I might be wrong: for instance, while our technical standards have risen, our content standards have sunk (in the specific realm of 'how interesting something needs to be').
Maybe 'meh' posts helped encourage people to strive to create more interesting content? I don't know.
(BTW, The Big List of Overdone SCP Cliches is a totally unrelated issue as far as I can tell.)
Actually I have, for months, been stating that there is a very appropriate role for a "meh" comment.
Specifically, the draft posts. And the reason for that is that you cannot vote on drafts.
When one person leaves in-depth critique saying why they don't think an article is great, while a number of others say "meh", it means you have a problem. If the same amount of people say "I like it." you can probably afford to ignore the malcontent (20% of people are against everything, remember?). If the same amount of people say nothing, then you know is that all you have is the one critic's voice to go, so well, go as will go, perhaps wait for more. In the current situation, all of these scenarios collapse into one and and verbosity / vocality can easily get mistaken for popular opinion.
In fact, the preference for walls of text and stringent rules on feedback is part of why so few people bother to leave feedback anymore on draft threads, and it hasn't by far addressed the main problem - that of, to say frankly, incompetent people often giving feedback and falsely encouraging (or in more rare cases, falsely putting down) new authors when they don't really represent the opinions of the gross of the site.
A far better solution to address with would be to say that to actually be eligible to advise to people in the draft forums, the minimum of one individually produced (can be a rewrite of someone's work, just not the opposite - someone rewriting yours) article/tale should be the standard, with special dispensation granted to people the forum criticism team deems competent enough to offer advice. Let's give the forum criticism peeps something to do beyond gruntwork!
Bland is right on the spot, never mind the fact that the whole criticism policy is one quietly moving goalpost, but that's neither here nor funny. Let's keep to the topic at hand, dumb VAE. x3
EDIT: As a response to Bland, I still love the original Yoric definition of Meh.
"This is an overall lackluster idea, presented in such a way as to actively emphasize its mediocrity. It is theoretically possible that a rewrite for tone and the addition of materials intended to up the ante of the article could bring about improvement, but I find it unlikely. So unlikely, in fact, that I'm not quite willing to go on the record saying so, and prefer to remain noncommittal. Chances are the boring concept makes this one unsalvageable. One out of ten."
Again, I feel like getting critique that one can actually use as a guideline of what to fix shouldn't feel like pulling teeth.
I'd rather have two thought-out feedback responses than twenty "mehs". For experienced writers, getting little amounts of feedback might not be that much of a deterrent, but for new or first-time writers, having someone shoot down a draft with a few words can be not only disheartening, but frustrating as well. Unless there are more experienced site members willing to tutor or the like, how can we expect those new to the SCP'verse to know what to fix when given minimal advice?
In regards to the whole "we can't vote on drafts" bit… the draft forums exist to improve drafts if necessary, and help the authors before the mainsite and the actual votes. Why would we vote on drafts?
In regards to the whole "we can't vote on drafts" bit… the draft forums exist to improve drafts if necessary, and help the authors before the mainsite and the actual votes. Why would we vote on drafts?
Because a big part to why you want feedback on a draft is to gauge audience response. This is why chat is and has been always a superior tool for feedback to forums - you simply tend to get more fairly experienced people looking at things, and doubly so, you can gauge where things are going easily at early phases of the draft.
but for new or first-time writers, having someone shoot down a draft with a few words can be not only disheartening, but frustrating as well.
What's a lot more frustrating is when someone gets encouraged by a couple people while in draft stage, and then their article completely fails on the actual site.
I'd rather have two thought-out feedback responses than twenty "mehs". For experienced writers, getting little amounts of feedback might not be that much of a deterrent,
I dunno. I'm not exactly a new writer, but I find having a solid hand on the audience's reaction as useful as having someone do deep criticism/ bounce ideas off of. In fact, I guess that's part of the reason why some stuff is still languishing in my sandbox, but whatever.
What's a lot more frustrating is when someone gets encouraged by a couple people while in draft stage, and then their article completely fails on the actual site.
I don't see how allowing "meh" will help with that.
I find having a solid hand on the audience's reaction as useful as having someone do deep criticism/ bounce ideas off of.
I don't know how solid of a reaction "meh" is, though. If what I've written isn't interesting, I'd like to know why, and if possible, which parts need to be fixed, or if it's an overarching issue of the plot or characters not being compelling, etc. etc. "Meh" doesn't tell me any specifics whatsoever, and makes me wonder if the reader actually bothered reading any part of the piece at all.
That said, if there are authors out there who are willing to accept "meh" as criticism of their own work and have the ability to translate said "meh" into something that leads them to create genuine quality work, all the more power to them.
If you got 20 "Meh" responses, you KNOW you've done something wrong, and have a pretty good idea what it is. Sure any author would love a detailed analysis of their works - but you can't demand it.
A "Meh" is direct negative feedback on the work and it's more specific than a mere downvote.
20 "meh" responses would tell me the same thing as 20 upvotes without explanation, or 20 downvotes without explanation, or 20 "I'm no-voting" posts. It doesn't tell me what I did wrong with the skip, where I can fix it, what to improve, what it is, etc. How does it tell you what exactly you're doing wrong? All it does is tell me the person posting "meh" would rather flaunt the fact that they don't like it for some vague unspecified reason and can't be fucked to point out a single detail to make it better. In effect, that just makes the poster look worse and tells me that I should not trust their opinion for good critique.
It's not for an unspecified reason. It's for not being interesting.
I can expound at length on and something (and have) but if I write six paragraphs that can all be summed up as "You haven't put a damned thing in here to make me care about this one way or another" then I'm not helping you. In fact, I'm pounding in the same fact over and over.
It's not required to give feedback (although there HAVE been people that wanted to demand it) but the thing to remember about virtually all non-fiction writing is that it needs to be creative - and sometimes your best effort on something just doesn't do it. You may have tried to keep something mysterious but don't too good a job (or did WAY too good a job and missed dropping clues). You may have accidentally missed a crucial paragraph when you posted it. You could have tried a format screw that failed for technical reasons and no one realized it. Or the writing could have just sucked the oxygen out of the room.
If wrote "Meh - this is boring because no robo-ninja-pirate-dinosaurs." you'd respond with "But it's not supposed to have them!" I'd have to sadly inform you "It would at least make it slight interesting."
So there. From now on instead of "Meh" because its boring perhaps we need to say "Downvoting because no robo-ninja-pirate-dinosaurs."
Meh.
but if I write six paragraphs that can all be summed up as "You haven't put a damned thing in here to make me care about this one way or another"
Anyone can tl;dr a negative critique in this way. Just because they can do so does not mean detailed, concise critique is not appreciated.
So there. From now on instead of "Meh" because its boring perhaps we need to say "Downvoting because no robo-ninja-pirate-dinosaurs."
How often would adding robo-ninja-pirate-dinosaurs automatically fix a "meh" draft?
It's not for an unspecified reason. It's for not being interesting.
Then… why not say "This is not an interesting article."?? This helps the user more than "Meh" since it can mean anything, like "This is not interesting" or "I'm not interested by this" or "There's some stuff you did here that's not done right but I'm too lazy to point it out". It's critique at its worst and shouldn't count as critique.
If wrote "Meh - this is boring because no robo-ninja-pirate-dinosaurs." you'd respond with "But it's not supposed to have them!" I'd have to sadly inform you "It would at least make it slight interesting."
So there. From now on instead of "Meh" because its boring perhaps we need to say "Downvoting because no robo-ninja-pirate-dinosaurs."
No one's going to comment or say that unless they're being an ass and unconstructive. The difference between "Meh" and "I'm downvoting because this is boring due to [x]" is that the latter tells me what to fix, and the former tells me who to avoid when I'm looking for feedback. And since your comment about Kalinin's analogy is actually relevant to this:
You are supposed to realize the the dish is tasteless. Yes, perhaps because you forgot to add the SALT. (I've done that with bread, actually. Taste was just OFF but I couldn't figure out WHY.) Maybe you should re-examine what you've done and consider using the recipe off a box and finding an actual cookbook.
Saying "meh" doesn't tell the cook that the dish is tasteless. Saying "meh" tells the cook the person doesn't like it, or maybe they find it average, or they're making an instinctive guttural response to eating something, and the cook will have no idea why. It probably doesn't take more than a minute to type out a sentence explaining at least one single thing the author could fix to make it better, either conceptually or grammatically or what have you. Honestly, it just seems like laziness to want to say "meh".
ARGH! GOD DAMN IT VAE! Where did you find that? It got deleted at some point, and I looked for it again and it was no where, and… ARGH!
But, the point I'd like to make, as the original, and most well known user of Meh, is that the site has grown to a point where it's not a well known thing. If we were still small enough tthat every users could keep track of all the posting being done, meh would have a place, because everyone would know what it meant. Now, we're at the size that, even if Meh were in the required reading, people would still miss it, and not understand the CONTEXT of meh, and all they'd see is people shitting on thier work with no explanation.
That's why I dropped it, after all, because people were misreading the meh. *shrug* Your opinion may vary.
Admin, SCP Wiki
New York VAE's got the ways and means, just won't let you meh be.
Anyhow, this seems a little ass-backwards. People not reading (or failing to understand) required reading is kinda their damn problem, not the site's. And… what's it got to do with size anyhow? I don't see how the number of others joining prevents someone from properly reading the guides.
If you were making an argument that lots of short posts with such a huge site membership clutters the recent posts, now that'd be something else, and a little more sensible… but you aren't.
I'm saying that in order for meh to be understood, you'd have to explain it every time, and it's just easier to write it out long hand.
Admin, SCP Wiki
That makes a little more sense, but then like, isn't it what the required reading is for exactly?
That would require us to put that in there. In case you didn't see, the required reading is a lot shorter these days. I just feel like it's better all around to just… say it with more words.
Admin, SCP Wiki
I seen that. I also see the idea that people can't be expected to read a lot when they join a writing website as somewhat ridiculous - I mean, required reading was long back in my time, after all.
But, eh.
Do you think the right response should be "I don't like your work - rewrite it THIS way"? Honestly, that's the only expansion there is to some of them.
Sometimes there isn't much really TO say beyond "This is boring." It's not the critic's job to give the author the way to tell the author how fix everything.
There are a LOT of short critiques ("This is confusing" "This is self contradictory" "This isn't interesting" etc.) that really don't require justification or an essay on each point.
"Meh" is simply shorthand for "Your cheese sandwich needs more something."
You can communicate exactly the same thing with a downvote that "meh" does. Because this statement here:
it's a cultural shorthand that implies "Meh - this is boring and does not grab the readers attention."
It's so incredibly vague as to be useless. Since VAE's here and I know he'll enjoy it, I'll use a cooking analogy:
Say I go to make a souffle. I prep the ingredients, go through all the finicky little steps to get it together, throw it into the oven, take it out and serve it to you. You then take a bite, and then tell me "meh." What the fuck am I supposed to do with that? Did I not salt it properly? Do the eggs taste off? Was it too cold? Did it deflate too much? I can't even judge your preference correctly with that kind of response. Did you not like it because you thought it was bland? Or maybe you're some sort of souffle expert and what I made didn't match your idealized version of the dish. Perhaps you're slightly allergic to eggs. So in the end I have no idea how to fix the dish, or even whether I should bother serving you souffles at all.
"Meh" is completely useless, and the only reason to leave such a reply is the internet equivalent of scrawling "USER WUZ HERE" on a bathroom stall. Even "this story bored me" is better than "meh" because it provides some context. "Meh" could mean "I didn't care for your protagonist" or "this was inplausible" or "you don't have any actual characters" or a million other things. Some sort of effort at least generally pointing out where the issues lie is helpful. I'm not really receptive to the "drafts don't receive comments and therefore 'meh' is more helpful than nothing" argument, since I don't think there's any source affiliated with the site that gives people the impression that if nobody says anything, you're good to post.
"Meh" is fundamentally lazy and useless critique. There are many reasons why something can be boring or unengaging.
I wanted to say "Meh", but no. I really liked the analogy. However, I maintain that it's useful /when in conjunction with other crit/.
I maintain that it's useful /when in conjunction with other crit/
I'm a little confused as to why this wasn't made more evident earlier, but…
Yes. Yes this is fine. Saying "meh" isn't going to get anyone warned for breaking etiquette, so long as they're not expecting to just say only "meh" and "meh" alone and have that be considered worthwhile feedback.
Good feedback tells an author what needs fixing. Better feedback also tells them how to fix said things. Best feedback goes further and brainstorms, offers additional resources/references, etc. I feel like this is fairly straightforward.
In conjunction with other crit from other people, I meant. As evident from every prior post.
Oh. Then no, I don't see the use of that at all. I tend to prefer critique that indicates to me "I've read your piece" rather than "I've read what other people wrote about your piece".
It may be an individual difference between authors though, so I feel I've said my piece on this matter.
You can communicate exactly the same thing with a downvote that "meh" does.
Very much disagree. A downvote could mean "I don't like this for ANY REASON IN THE WORLD BUT I'M NOT TELLING YOU WHY!!1"
Say I go to make a souffle. I prep the ingredients, go through all the finicky little steps to get it together, throw it into the oven, take it out and serve it to you. You then take a bite, and then tell me "meh." What the fuck am I supposed to do with that?
You are supposed to realize the the dish is tasteless. Yes, perhaps because you forgot to add the SALT. (I've done that with bread, actually. Taste was just OFF but I couldn't figure out WHY.) Maybe you should re-examine what you've done and consider using the recipe off a box and finding an actual cookbook.
Footnotes
1. Insert Evil Laughter Here
You are supposed to realize the the dish is tasteless.
Authors, being the individual most invested in their own work, often miss things in their writing. That's why they seek different perspectives and eyes that can better pick out inconsistencies or shortcomings.
I'm not sure whether to be glad or confused you think so highly of everyone who tries to write an article on the site, but expecting every newcomer to the site to automatically be able to figure out what to fix in their writing based on a "meh", regardless of prior writing experience and/or site familiarity just seems silly to me.
I won't doubt that there are experienced writers on the site who can work off of extremely limited critique, but I personally wouldn't be able to decipher a "meh" when it comes to pointing out what needs fixing. I'd be much more likely to seek someone else out who can give me the concise critique I need rather than trying to yank the same out of someone who believes "meh" is sufficient.
I don't want to harp on this too much, but wanted to add:
You are supposed to realize the the dish is tasteless.
If authors were reliably able to tell what the problems in their writing were, there wouldn't be any need for criticism.
I think the problem is that after I say "This is boring" there's little more to add.
Why is something boring? Because it has no impact, nothing to hold interest, there's nothing to grab onto. Reading it is like trying to climb a fireman's pole - there's nothing to grab onto.
How do with it? Add something - ANYTHING. Even if it's wrong it's a direction. Even it make us hate it, there will be at least be passion about it.
But how do I fix it? You can't fix it because technically it's not broken enough. Start there.
Dear god, we could take all the comments on "meh" and put them in a macro for every time someone posts an article that resembles a ricecake, because it's one a the few examples of bad writing that we all really do see over and over again.
I think the problem is that after I say "This is boring" there's little more to add.
Personally, if this was the response I got from someone who read a piece of mine, I'd ask them a few follow-up questions. If their repeated response is "I dunno, add something", chances are very good I'm not going to bother asking them for feedback for my next piece.
And the reverse is equally applicable. If you don't realize that when something is boring you have to do something to make it interesting, I'm probably not going to want bother reading anything further by you.
If you don't realize that when something is boring you have to do something to make it interesting
I'm honestly not sure that's the problem being pointed out. The problem with "meh" wouldn't so much be that the person doesn't realize that they need to make it un-boring, but that they actually need something to go off of so that they know what parts need fixing, and how you would suggest going about said fixing.
This looks like it was written by a blind monkey with a crack pipe.
+1
:D
I think this community can be extremely harsh. I get that you guys get a lot of bad content and you don't want to encourage that.
I also understand not wanting to give undeserved positive statements.
Still, there is a difference between constructive and cruel and every time I've tried to participate in this community it's fallen closer to the later. Maybe this is a good response when someone refuses to take a hint, but it seems to be the default.
I guess I'm wondering, is this an intentional strategy? My contributions aren't likely to be missed, but I'm sure I'm not the only potential author who is reluctant to participate in a community with this kind of attitude.
It's disheartening to suggest a total of two ideas, less than a paragraph of words, and hear something along the lines of, 'No one likes your ideas. They are boring and cliche.' That is probably a true statement, but is it a necessary one?
I love reading the output of this community, but I don't think I'll try to participate again. Whose to say all my efforts won't be met with that level of hostility? I'm sure you won't miss me, but there might be dozens of others whose work you will miss out on.
It's disheartening to suggest a total of two ideas, less than a paragraph of words, and hear something along the lines of, 'No one likes your ideas. They are boring and cliche.' That is probably a true statement, but is it a necessary one?
I'm not entirely sure how you can come to the conclusion of "no one likes your ideas" when your ideas threads, based on your posting history, seem to have fewer than five respondents all around? Seems like you're being a bit too hard on yourself. Some people spend years trying to find a good idea.
Whose to say all my efforts won't be met with that level of hostility?
I can only speak for myself, but I don't think my comments (in all of your threads, incidentally) were hostile. It's the same sort of advice I'd give to anyone else who approached me with those ideas, and I see tons of threads a week as staff captain of the Forum Criticism team. If you feel like someone's feedback is violating the criticism policy, contact a staff member on the Disciplinary Team, or an admin contact for the criticism team in question.
I'm sure you won't miss me, but there might be dozens of others whose work you will miss out on.
If people find that the site isn't their style, then they're free to pursue their writing elsewhere. We're not going to make demands that they stay if they don't like it here, and if they're successful off the site, that doesn't hurt us any.
I did appreciate your critisms and the time you spent making them. Thank you.
I was referring to and attempting to quote, chat room discussions from earlier today.
Idk man even as a newbean I never had much trouble with the crit standards here. They're way less strenuous than any professional outfit I ever worked with.
I think a lot of it has to do with attitude tbh. Everybody gets dumped on every now and then, especially starting out. Thems the shakes, as they say.
Anyway, keep it up. You'll be alright.
There's a line that should never be crossed with criticisms.
'No one likes your ideas. They are boring and cliche.'
This would be crossing said line. That criticism is no longer directed at the work, but at the author, which is generally unacceptable. So, if that's the case, you probably should bring it the attention of a Mod.
However, from what I've skimmed over on your threads, it looks like what's going on isn't that others are trying to put down your ideas, but trying to get you to think of alternate ways of executing them. No matter how stale or cliche'd a SCP is, if you can attach a story or significance to it, your chances at success significantly improves.
Proof? My own SCP-2207. This is literally #11 from the list of cliches, and had I submitted a brainstorming thread for it, I'd probably have gotten something along the lines of "So it just makes portals to other universes and destroys them? That's not all that interesting." By the simple addition of making a log that explores exactly what happens to each universe and a C&D order by a multiversal policing agency, I gave a boring, cliche'd item greater significance beyond just another random object.
However, to get to that point, I drafted multiple SCPs that more-or-less died in the drafting stage. You likely won't hit it out of the park the first time. Or the second. Or even the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, or tenth time. But if you keep at it, you'll get the hang of it, eventually.
No, you guys are right. I don't believe anyone broke any rules and I'm not trying to get anyone in trouble. I'm bringing up an attitude I've noticed in response to myself and to other people.
What I'm referring to is actually in the chat room today, not in the forum thread from quite some time ago. I thought the responses on the thread were reasonable and not at all harsh. I decided to return today as I felt I may have improved as a writer in intervening time. If I haven't, that is on me. 'No one likes your ideas' was as close to a direct quote as I can manage without having a log to copy and paste from. It isn't an assumption I'm making from reading more reasoned comments. Zyn I really appreciated your critism when you gave it.
I know writers not writing doesn't hurt you, I just wonder if you're missing out? There may be wonderful authors who are hesitant to contribute here, though I'm not claiming to be one of them. I can't tell if this harshness is an intentional strategy or not. You guys definitely produce wonderful results either way. If it is intentional, it's working. But if it's not, I thought you might like to be aware of how it comes off to people entering the community. People can improve, but they may no longer care to try, at least not here.
People can't improve without critique. Cracking down on critique ("you must make it as nice as humanly possible" counts as cracking down) largely results in no critique at all.
Some people would say, and have said, that this Criticism Policy goes too far with making people be nice as-is.
I don't believe anyone broke any rules
It's disheartening to suggest a total of two ideas, less than a paragraph of words, and hear something along the lines of, 'No one likes your ideas. They are boring and cliche.' That is probably a true statement, but is it a necessary one?
These are contradictory statements. What you said you heard in chat did break rules, assuming it was actually said. (That is a personal attack, rather than simply critiquing the specific ideas, as was pointed out.)
If that is not literally what was said, then… we have no idea what you actually take issue with, and therefore it is impossible for us to be helpful.
I will try to respond anyway.
Unfortunately, part of being a good writer usually involves both 'getting way too upset when you receive critique' and also 'learning to deal with that so you can still improve'. Notice how in the real world, people who stop listening to their editors start writing inferior quality work.
It can be difficult to get practically useful critique on this site (aka, helping you fix something, rather than just telling you it's wrong). That is largely because critique is a difficult skill to learn, and because very good critique requires a lot of effort, which is often wasted when people don't feel like listening to it and simply wanted praise and vanish into the mists, never to be heard from again.
However, this is far, far preferable to the typical alternative: praise for everything regardless of what it deserves. This exclusively results in a sea of works which are boring and/or painful to read for nearly everyone but the writer, and a community which quickly dies from lack of outside interest.
I know writers not writing doesn't hurt you, I just wonder if you're missing out? I can't tell if this is an intentional strategy or not.
We used to intentionally drive bad or mediocre writers out, but that was a very, very long time ago.
Currently, we do lose some writers who cannot handle negative criticism. However, writers who cannot handle negative criticism, who also write very well anyway, are very rare.
We do lose a few writers to established members who are abusive and don't get noticed being abusive. However, this is both relatively rare, and due to human error.
We do lose some writers because of the above issue of not-very-useful critique. However, this is largely due to us simply not being superhuman and/or paid a single red cent for a fairly difficult job, so solving this is difficult.
Collapsed the moose's post. ~Zyn
We probably also lose writers who need more nurturing. Unfortunately, this is the same issue as above: nurturing writers is very difficult and we are not paid for this. And factor in that we are constantly flooded with poor-quality work, and many people who ignore all critique and/or lash out at the nicest criticism. So I'm also not sure how to solve this problem.
What would you suggest?
A final note:
I know writers not writing doesn't hurt you,
Writers not writing does hurt us. However, at present, we do have many writers writing.
I believe that was a direct quote or close to it. So I suppose it did break the rules. I apologize for any confusion.
I have written with people who have offered heavy critism and have enjoyed the process. I suppose the critism here has a different tone.
The situation you are facing does sound difficut. Thank you for taking the time to write such a thoughtful response.
I can't suggest any changes in rules as the ones above seem fair. Perhaps I simply had an atypical encounter.
I could suggest that critism should focus on what exists. For example, when I suggested a one sentence summary of several ideas. I was critiqued for lack of depth and interesting details. When, in response to this, I tried to expand, I was met with the above quote. What was frustrating was not the critism, it was the venemence and finality of it. I wasn't encouraged to try to improve. I was told to stop. Honestly, being stopped from adding detail because of lack of detail seemed like a catch 22.
But I could very easily be misreading the situation. As you said, it's easy to be offended when you are being criticized, no matter how fair the criticism. And I hadn't thought about criticism being a learned skill before. It's hardly fair of me to complain about someone else's attempts to help me.
What I'm referring to is actually in the chat room today
Yeah, chat can be a bit of a crapshoot depending on the time of day. If you're running into people who are taking potshots at you rather than giving you advice on how to improve, notify a staff member or chat op so we can stop that from happening again.
I just wonder if you're missing out? There may be wonderful authors who are hesitant to contribute here
The best authors tend to have the thickest skins, incidentally. If someone is going to write for an audience, they're going to need to be able to take the negative responses in stride. I'm not sure if we're missing out on too much, since articles that are never written can't really be missed. Pretty much the only way to tell if someone can write a wonderful article is them writing said wonderful article.
I can't tell if this harshness is an intentional strategy or not.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. What do you think the "strategy" is intended to accomplish?
I thought you might like to be aware of how it comes off to people entering the community. People can improve, but they may no longer care to try, at least not here.
We've had professional writers decide the SCP article style wasn't for them. It's their prerogative, and if they don't like site standards or being told their ideas need work, they're entirely free to bring said ideas elsewhere.
This is very fair and I think you've answered my question. Just to be clear, I don't believe it's site standards or criticism that may scare people away, it's the tone of said criticism.
It's not my place to say you should have a different tone. I just wanted to make sure you understood that the criticism here has a hostile tone to it. If you do, and you think it is effective then I have no complaints. That is a strategy that is very very effective for some people. It may filter out some authors who would write good work, but it likely saves you a significant amount of time and effort in the long run by filtering out people who would never write good work.
I really appreciate you taking the time to engage with me. I look forward to reading your work in the future!
I just wanted to make sure you understood that the criticism here has a hostile tone to it.
Staff will need records of this hostile tone if we're to properly address it. If you're not speaking about the forums, can you give us a timeframe of when you received the hostile feedback? We have people in the chat who can pull logs of the conversation and the names of those who need to be spoken to.
I look forward to reading your work in the future!
Thanks! I do have an author page, if you're inclined to look at it.
I'm disinclined to get anyone in trouble, especially since it now seems that posting in the chat was a poor idea from the beginning.
The criticism might have been true and if it's atypical, then my complaints are groundless anyways.
I will definitely look at your author's page!
What I'm referring to is actually in the chat room today, not in the forum thread from quite some time ago.
FWIW, I find the chat nearly useless for critique and especially was so before I knew anyone here. For my first article, SCP-2323, I was told that it was too much like Dan Simmons' Hyperion because that had a robot called "The Shrike" in it which was inspired by the actual bird, and also that it sucked because it has birds in it and apparently once a taxonomic class appears in an SCP that class is totally played out, regardless of species. For my second article, SCP-2890, I was told (repeatedly, chant-like) that it needed zombies, demons, and child sacrifice. After that I pretty much avoided chat for critique until the MTF contest (both because of my team's insistence and the deadline). So yeah, chat works okay if you know reliable people and do it by PM, but I still prefer the dialog and persistence of forum posts. The big-chaotic-nine-conversations-over-each-other-most-of-them-stupid room that is Site-19 is however just terrible for useful crit, IMO.
So if chat isn't for you, know that you aren't alone.
That may be my problem then. It's probably a bad idea to generalize from one experience. Thanks!
Protip: if you'd like real-time feedback in chat, politely PM someone in the chatroom (ideally, someone who's written at least a successful article or a few pages) and ask if they can give you feedback in private messages. Helps keep out the noise. If/when in doubt, ask an op for assistance.
For my second article, SCP-2890, I was told (repeatedly, chant-like) that it needed zombies, demons, and child sacrifice.
This is ridiculous. Dungeon Master, what do I roll to smite the chanters with lightning?
You don't need to roll anything, they need to make Saves.
Since I'm relatively new to both this community and creative writing in general, I can definitely empathize with what you're saying. It can feel really, really shitty when you put forth an idea and it gets shot down by other people. But just because the ideas that you're presenting now aren't up to community standards doesn't mean that you will never create ones that will be.
I've been around here for a year now, and I've created over 30 drafts of various SCPs, and of those only my most recent one has had any semblance of positive feedback. However, because this community is founded on the principle of people being genuine about their feedback, I know that they aren't lying to make me feel better and it shows that I have improved as a writer.
And if you keep at it, so will you. With every draft you write, you will learn from it. It may not be good, or even close to being decent, but each will be a stepping stone that you build upon. More than anything, it's about persistence.
If anyone ever tells you that you're crap and you will never get better, they are objectively wrong. It may be a difficult path, but it is an obtainable goal.
Thank you!
I definitely plan to continue to write and will likely continue to write horror.
Genuine feedback is very valuable and can sometimes be hard to find. I may not write SCPs, but I will always be looking for that kind of feedback.
Good luck with your drafts! I hope you publish one that you and the community are happy with.
/forum/t-677479/criticism-policy#post-
page revision: 2, last edited: 15 Jan 2023 15:06
