How to Become a Better Critic

Huh what?

Hi, Communism will win AKA Scantron here. As of late, I've noticed a problem with how this site handles feedback. Specifically, a lot of it is bad. This essay exists to help people leave better comments.

Thanks, but I already give good feedback.

You may very well be right, seeing as how I don't know who you are. If you think you can do better, though, keep reading. And if you really DO give good feedback, this essay can help you teach other people how to do it.

Who are you? Why should I listen to you?

I joined the site in 2010, racked up a very high post count, wrote 50ish articles, and enjoyed a stint as a Moderator a while back. I've left a lot of good feedback, received a lot of good feedback, left a lot of bad feedback, and received a lot of bad feedback. I got banned for the third one of those, and then came back a year later to see people making the same mistakes I've made, plus a few.

But there's only one way to find out whether I have anything to teach you, and it's not by looking at my credentials.

Why shouldn't I just read Kalinin's essay?

You should read it, actually. That essay explains the goals and issues with the site's criticism that I only reference. When you're finished, come back here so I can give you tips for bringing that philosophy to life.

Alright then. How do I become a better critic?

Let's start out with the golden rule: Tell the author what they need to hear. This is not an exact science, but you still need to try to figure out who you're dealing with, and then give them advice that suits their needs. Your own need to feel superior, getting attention, and the approval (or disapproval) of your peers are all irrelevant.

As a corollary, If the problem was obvious, the author would have already fixed it. This is actually codified in the Criticism Policy, but it goes a bit deeper than that. The principle applies to any critique that implicitly assumes the author already knows what they did wrong.

If you follow those guidelines, you can make consistently helpful posts no matter how good you are at writing, but that's easier said than done. Let's go over the kinds of article you'll be reading and some tips that you can fall back on when criticizing them.

The Train Wreck

What it is: Exactly what it sounds like. The Train Wreck is usually posted by users who have very little experience with the site. Formatting, clinical tone, logic, and/or the overall tone of the site are not attended to, and as a result, these often bear little resemblance to successful articles. There is a serious possibility that the author is underage, given their awkward use of English.

Tips for commenting:

• Don't. Usually, the authors who make Train Wrecks give no indication that they even read the discussion page. These authors need language skills, internet fluency, and patience — which you can't give them — more than they need critique. Your energy, and the site's attention, is better directed towards people who will benefit from it.
• Speak plainly. If the author did demonstrate that they are reading the discussion page, try to use grammatically simple sentences and common words. Avoid any and all site-specific terms or jargon. They might get confused otherwise.
• Address the broader problem. The problem is not the specific mistakes they made in this piece, it's that they don't have the skillset to do better. Instead of picking apart the article's issues, suggest that the author should focus on their overall reading and writing skills, and they might want to wait a few years before writing SCPs.
• Don't grandstand. Making fun of a Train Wreck is easy. Whether you do so is not my concern, but absolutely do not do it on the site or chat. Nobody needs to hear how this is the Absolute Worst Piece You've Ever Seen, or how you could totally beat it in a fight because you're half dragon, or whatever clever comment you were going to add. If you want recognition that badly, write your own article, or make a memorably helpful post.
• Be nice. Being overly harsh is dickish and not particularly helpful — kids who respond well to harsh criticism are few and far between. Kids also don't respond well to condescension, so don't talk down to them either. You can attend to problems that arise on account of age while still treating them as an equal.

The Fender-Bender

What it is: A less-severe Train Wreck. The piece is more or less coherent, and the author managed to copy the template from How to Write an SCP, but it still has egregious errors. Much like the Train Wreck author, the Fender-Bender author is wet around the ears, but they are usually able and willing to improve their writing.

Tips for commenting:

• Address the biggest problems first. Too many times have commenters gone line-by-line pointing out technical errors and lost interest before telling the author that 682 did it better, and also the object is never actually described. You, however, should work from severe (bad concept, totally disorganized, unclear description) to problematic (poor clinical tone, bad pacing, bad dialogue) to merely irritating (containment errors, imperial units, pointless doctor's notes). While the voters might cut an interesting, well-constructed SCP some slack if it has technical errors, they will toss a squeaky-clean, unappealing article to the dogs without a second thought.
• Brainstorm. When you're reading a piece and think to yourself "If they had gone this direction instead, that could have been interesting", tell the author. They'll get a better picture of what things readers like, and it could inspire their next article.
• Say what you liked. There was something that appealed to you in the piece, right? Rarely does a piece come through with absolutely no interesting ideas or vivid imagery. Make sure to point it out, because the author is probably getting a lot of negativity, and could use some positive direction to figure out what they want to do next.
• Encourage them. Do you know what our retention rate is? Me neither, but as far as I can tell, it's not good. If you think an author could succeed if they kept working at it, tell them so. You may convince them not to give up writing.
• Don't throw guides at them. The author might click through and read that link, but they might not. If you truly can't be fucked to distill the information from these guides, just copy+paste the relevant sections into the discussion page.
• Avoid dogpiling. This is also highlighted in the Criticism Policy, but it bears repeating. Don't be the fourth person to tell the author to read the guides. It's useless and spammy.

The Nice Try

What it is: A good attempt that just isn't right for the site. The Nice Try has proper formatting, it's mostly logically consistent, and objective errors are easily corrected… but it's just not inspired. Maybe it's like a worse version of an existing SCP, or it doesn't go anywhere, or it's cliched, or the clinical tone isn't up to snuff. These sometimes come from good authors, new or otherwise, and the classification of a Nice Try as such is subjective.

Tips for commenting:

• Speak emotionally. If you can't pinpoint exactly what the problem is — and if you're new to the site that can be difficult — just tell the author how the article made you feel. Were you bored? Confused? Annoyed? Skeptical? Which parts made you feel that way? This is useful information coming from anyone, and can be useful to any author.
• Suggest alternatives. Otherwise-competent authors are prone to a sort of 'tunnel vision' where they think the way they did their piece is the only way to do it, or the only version of the idea they could have done. This can negatively impact the article and make them resistant to suggestions that their article is bad. To combat this, toss out an idea or two that you think could salvage the article.
• Give the benefit of the doubt. From here on out, if you see a decision the author made that you don't understand, you should seriously consider that it might have been deliberate. You can still be opposed to it, but tailor your criticism to an author who's not just making a series of blunders.
• Accept backtalk. A corollary of the above tip. While they may not have made a good article, these authors clearly put effort into making a piece that's presentable to the community. When they disagree with your feedback, perhaps even vehemently, take them seriously.
• Don't just vaguely comment about bad clinical tone. This is a weirdly specific tip, but it's also a weirdly specific recurring problem. Remember the corollary to the golden rule? If the author knew where the tone problems were, they would have fixed it already. Point out the passages you don't like, or at least ones that are emblematic of the problem, and say what in particular is wrong with them.

The Original Character

What it is: When the Train Wreck, Fender-Bender, or Nice Try focuses on the establishment of an original character, be it an SCP or a researcher / agent / O5 / mysterious stranger that is involved with it. Less of an actual subtype than it is just a matter I wanted to specifically discuss.

Tips for commenting:

• Avoid thought-terminating cliches. Forget that you've ever heard the terms "Original Character Do Not Steal", "Mary Sue", or "X-Man". Look inside yourself and figure out why this article is unappealing, then tell the author. That's it.
• Suggest alternatives. Even if it's just "do the opposite of what I said is bad", mentioning it explicitly will at least give the author a better direction to take this character, if they're still interested.
• Explicitly address self-inserts. Self-insertion is not necessarily bad, but writers often make other characterization mistakes when writing them. Suggest that the author try to write characters that are less like themselves.
• Don't get your hopes up. Users who write Original Characters are usually pretty attached to their characters. They're prone to just leaving if the reception is poor, or getting unjustifiably upset or defensive about the article, or making another piece about the character… decide for yourself whether they're worth salvaging, and if not, move on.

The Matter of Opinion

What it is: An article that some people like and some people don't, leaving it with a marginally positive (or negative) reception. The Matter of Opinion could just be a slightly more interesting Nice Try, or it could be a genuinely compelling piece hobbled by some other problem. All of the advice about the Nice Try still applies here, but a few other tips become relevant.

Tips for commenting:

• Understand both sides. Some people are upvoting this. Why? Some people are downvoting this. Why? A good criticism of the Matter of Opinion incorporates both of these, building on the things people like while avoiding the things they don't.
• Consider analyzing it. Remember when I told you to get attention by making really helpful posts? These are the articles that you, the random user with a New Post button and nothing to lose, can most easily turn from a failure into a success, thereby gaining fame and fortune. Summarizing other people's issues and getting at The Core Problem, then offering a new direction the author could take, can be a great tool for the author.

The Bread and Butter

What it is: The kind of piece the site subsists on. The writing is good, and the users like it. It's not the best thing ever, and you might even personally dislike it, but you wouldn't mind having more articles of its general caliber, unless your standards are particularly high.

Tips for commenting:

• Nitpick. From here on out, readers will often choose to ignore their minor quibbles with the article, because they like the piece as a whole. That's where you, the critic extraordinaire, swoop in to point out the parts that could be worded better, or the technical issues, or whatever.
• Be a special snowflake. Look at what other people are talking about, then focus on some other aspect of the piece. If they're talking about how it makes them feel, get cerebral. If they're dissecting what makes it tick, share how you felt about it. If they liked it and you didn't, say why. A well-rounded discussion of an article can be a learning experience for the whole community.
• You can use jargon now. If you think it's a more concise, evocative way of getting your point across, then feel free to use site-specific terminology and slang. Be cautious if this is the author's first piece, though — you can still use it, but try to include an explanation of what it means.

The Blockbuster

What it is: Awesome. If you didn't enjoy it, you are part of a rather small minority. The Blockbuster is outstanding and everybody knows it, and there is usually little, if anything, actually wrong with it. These are not a big concern for you, since there are very few of them.

Tips for commenting:

• You don't have to. If there isn't anything you need to say, feel free to just leave an upvote (and maybe an 'I loved this, +1') and move on. Positive feedback is still nice, but it's a lot less important here than it is with most articles.
• Highlight the positives. If there's something you thought the article did really well, call it out specifically. You might inspire someone else to emulate it in a good way.
• Try to understand it. Statistically, if you're reading this, you probably haven't written anything like the Blockbuster. The Blockbuster is probably on another level, so if you don't understand why it's so popular (or even dislike it), study the reception for your own edification. If that's not enlightening, feel free to ask for some clarification.
• Don't be afraid to disagree. If you have any concerns about the article, or if you don't like the piece as a whole, don't hesitate to point them out. Even if the concerns are minor, this kind of article is usually produced by authors who are interested in putting out the best work they possibly can, and the author is probably more than happy to take your comments into consideration.

I don't have the [time/energy/fucks] to read or follow all these guidelines.

You don't have to. Not every post has to be long enough to incorporate every relevant suggestion. However, keep in mind that sometimes it's better not to post at all. Nobody's assessment — not yours, not mine — is worth anything before it has some effort and insight put in, so if you don't have any to spare, let somebody else handle it. Half-assed critique can be confusing and/or misleading.

The article I want to criticize doesn't fit into one of these categories.

Improvise. These categories are generalizations, and while I happen to think they're useful generalizations, there's always something that breaks the mold. Consider this essay a toolbox that you can pick ideas from when they seem appropriate.

I don't like [insert tip], or it's just not relevant any more.

Let me know in the comments section. I'd like for this to be a living document, not something embedded in site lore that users ape from here to eternity.