sake-bento wrote:Hey gang, PyTom just posted this on his twitter:
Can people hold off adding the LSF critique tags for a few hours? I want to add a bbtag for them, but I'm on a jet plane.
Also, echoing CheeryMoya's statement. Critique is also a skill that needs to be learned, and part of improvement isn't just pointing out what can be better, but articulating it in a way that is useful. Those are very, very handy references.
Definitely. I really wasn't expecting this to take off the way it has so far -- I'll edit my post to tell folks to STAND BEHIND THE YELLOW LINE. Or something.
As for your and CheeryMoya's points, I agree. I'll add the links and the sentiment of useful critique being a skill once I finish up this post. Good input, and something I overlooked too -- my OP (as it stands now) is part "why" and part "how"; if the idea is favoured by a majority of people, then perhaps I can orient it to be more "how" focused.
chocojax wrote:Greeny wrote:Am I the only one who has a problem with this? I never agreed to anything.
I thought that part could be entirely left out, since critique by anyone should be valid. (Of course, I understood the, "say X is bad because of Y" rather than "X is bad".)
Also, I kinda feel like this would make certain people look down on members who wouldn't display this in their signature.
You're not obligated to agree, Greeny. It's only by displaying the button / text, that someone agrees to the terms. I don't want to come off like I'm trying to impose some regulation of behaviour or that I think I have the authority to do so -- I'm not and I don't. If you have suggestions on how to improve it (or even something entirely different) I'd be interested.
As for chocojax's point, that wasn't the intention, but I can see how that might occur. I'm not sure whether it would or not, but if it did I don't have any ideas off the top of my head for how to remedy that. For me personally, I know that people's lives always involve circumstances beyond their peers observation -- if people don't feel comfortable opting in I wouldn't think less of them, nor do I think it necessitates anyone being excluded from a discussion.
(by the way, thank god for people quoting each other so I don't have to quote too much
)
Caveat Lector wrote:The fourth point in particular feels odd and contradictory. The point of these guidelines is so writers can agree to be critiqued out of the hopes they'll improve their writing skills through others' feedback, right? Which would sound more helpful?
"You need to cut back on the adverbs in this scene." OR: "At least you're trying to improve and that's all that matters!"
I think you and I are in agreement -- the former is definitely the most useful. However, I think that's a false dichotomy in that encouragement doesn't exclude honest critique; they can coexist. I worded that point very carefully trying to tread a fine line and maybe I failed. So no one has to go back a page, here's the point being referred to:
- [Anyone posting critique does so understanding] that someone is trying to get better by displaying the button. If you can't think of anything good to say, that's okay -- perhaps consider encouraging someone based on the fact that they want to improve instead.
The long form intended meaning was: sometimes a critic is going to be writing a long, detailed critique of someone's work and the critic mightn't have anything obvious to praise or they don't have time to find something (because they're spending what time they have to assist someone in the areas they struggle with) or the critic feels insincere praising someone for mere competency. In those cases, after writing a critique consisting mostly of someone's flaws, it's not hard to simply tack on an honest "good luck, let us know how it goes for your next piece" or "don't be nervous, everyone starts somewhere" -- and it's optional. It's a thing to keep in mind, not a dictate. If you feel weird or insincere doing it, you don't have to. But a few kind words can be the difference between acceptance and rejection of a critique. In short, it's not intended to advocate encouragement as a replacement for criticism, but in addition to it. Maybe the wording could use improvement? Or maybe you still disagree?
Didules wrote:I honestly think that everyone wants an honest critique on their work. Then, I guess not everyone actually puts an honest critiques.
I don't think I'll display this in my signature
No worries! Though I do disagree that everyone wants an honest critique on their work. As LateWhiteRabbit said in other thread recently,
"Too often [people asking for feedback] don't mean, 'Tell me what I can improve' and instead mean 'Don't be shy about telling me how much you love my stuff'." To put it frankly, some people aren't cut out for honest feedback at certain stages in their lives and some people never are.
Didules wrote:EDIT N°2: I was reading on the websites CheeryMoya gave and found this: "Don't critique the work without first being asked to" and then I checked on the first post: "Critique of their work may be given that was not requested and they cannot pick and choose when to be critiqued, nor by whom"... Err... Contradictory? Maybe it's more tactful to only give critiques when requested? "Feedbacks welcome"s, "What do you think of my idea"s and this kind of thing?
Placing the button / text in your signature is asking for critique. The honest critique button / text is absolutely useless people can give unsolicited critiques. Otherwise it's back to square one where people still have to ask everyone or wait for them to ask for it. This is the state we have now where talented forum members are passing up chances to critique because they (justifiably) can't see the point in giving a critique which will simply be dismissed or misinterpreted as some unfair attack. Ultimately the choice is up to members to opt in or not.