I am sure that I am hovering somewhere between attempting to push the wind and attempting to piss into it by even bothering to mention this stuff, but I figured I'd bring it up anyway.
I further admit that I've only done about 40 of these things, and that the Opinion Form has worked nicely for most everyone up until now. And I'm also sure that making any alterations would probably be a big pain, so all I'm probably about to make is a very polite rant. But I still feel parts of it are out-of-date or could use updating, so I'm going to be a contrarian and do it anyway.
With that out of the way, let me mention my complaints one-by-one, and my reasons/ideas.
#1) The easiest to comment on. Reviewability is not factored into the final average when we make opinions. Now, as I try to be an objectivist in my opinions (scoring based on the technical merits of the video, rather than whether I actually liked it), I'd originally been planning to use Reviewability as my "Personal Rating" and Overall as my "Objective Rating." I've kind of stopped doing that. After all, Reviewability is essentially a meaningless score, if it's not going to affect anything.
#2) Why are Video and Audio Quality still two separate categories? Why could they not be combined under one category? I realize that back when the sheet was made (2000? 2001?) high video and audio quality were actually fairly(?) rare. But it's been 8 or 9 years since that was developed, and I've got to say, I find that even videos made from fansubs tend to be pretty high quality nowadays. With the exception of a couple of first vids, I think the lowest Video Quality score I've given lately is a 5. Same with Audio. I almost never find I'm scoring lower than 6. (And 8 is usually my maximum.) If these were combined to one category, it would again, lower the weighting of Quality from being 2/6 of the total score (2/8? if a video has lip sync and effects). And really, I think that source quality isn't important enough to be worth 1/3 of a video's score.
If they were combined, this would reduce them to being only 1/5 of the video's total score. Which I personally feel is about right.
#3) I also find that "Originality" is a vague word choice, because it has 2 completely different meanings. Originality could mean "The concept was handled in a unique and creative way" or it could mean "The source material and song are not frequently used". The creators of the guide seem to me to hedge their bets by saying it can mean both.
Again, this worked fine in the earlier years, but it's getting tougher to use Originality to mean "I've never seen this source before". And as time goes on, less and less original sources will show up. Think about it. Let's say there's oh, 1000 animes out there (I think that's an exaggeration, but it's a nice round number). There's 131,000+ videos on this site. That means if each anime was used equally (yah, right.) there's about 131 videos per anime. Even with 131 videos, there's likely to be some overlap of songs. And let's be honest, out of those 1000 animes, prob. 100 have 75-90% of those videos. Making it more like 1,000 videos for each of most of those animes. Again, very likely, in theory for there to be overlap. (And proven by the reality of the situation.)
The point I'm making is that source material overlap is a given. Therefore, deducting points from Originality scores FOR source material overlap isn't really fair. Therefore, I find that Originality really should be handled more like "Creativity" in that it's scored based on how well the concept itself is handled. (And some people do this now, but I find many people use it solely as "I've seen lots of videos with this anime, -3 points.)
4) The weighting seems lopsided. I mentioned this somewhat before, in that Source Quality is 1/3 of the score. Which, in theory, means that a High Quality source (a 10 in video and audio) is just as important as it being Original AND Well Synced (a 10 in Originality and a 10 in Action Sync). Now, I don't think this is true.
But, if you test it (and I did) giving a 4 in Audio and Video and a 10 in Action and Creative, it scores exactly the same as a 10 in Audio and Video and a 4 in Action and Creative.
This, to me, seems like bunk. As already mentioned, I personally think that quality scores should be combined under "Source Quality", but I also think that perhaps the Overall score should count double. This would up Overall from being 1/6 (or 1/8) of a video's score, to being 1/3 or 1/4 of a video's score. I feel this is a much more accurate reflection of how it should be. After all, how good a video is overall, in my mind, is much more important than its separate parts. (less so, perhaps, if you're of the objectivist mindset when reviewing, but for a subjectivist reviewer, the video as a whole is much more important than its individual parts.)
The big one:
5) The blank fields. I'm sure I'm not the only one who can find those very intimidating at times. I mean, I LOVE reviewing. I review animes, AMV's, books, public speaking, anything I can get my hands on, really. But I get intimidated by the setup here. For instance, when I review an anime, I have a basic formula: Quick blurb, short summary, highlight some strengths, highlight some weaknesses, talk about character/plot development, give some numbers. (I feel it's important to explain this for a reason, bear with me.) When I review public speaking, I find a similar strategy works. Quick blurb, highlight some strengths, couple quick weaknesses, offer improvements.
The thing is, with both of those, strengths and weaknesses are easy to find comparisons for (e.g. this anime's pacing is better than DBZ, but not quite at the level of Akira, so it's about a 5). Improvements are easy to offer (you have verbal tics, try doing this). Why? Because guidelines are given within which to work. The Opinion forms do tell you "Give us some good and bad points" (which most people ignore) but they don't really give you any idea of HOW. Neither does the guide. It offers tips, and a couple of examples of what's good and bad, but there's no real "If you're stuck, do it like this" (In fact, no offense meant, but it doesn't do ALL that good a job explaining why the model reviews are actually good.)
The guide/form also doesn't help people who may not be technically skilled (myself included) know what to look for in technical videos. I, personally, have a very hard time reviewing dance/technical videos (anything without a fair amount of plot) because I have no clue what to look for. Give me a story, I can handle it. Likewise, I'm sure some people with a more technical bent are probably like fish out of water when it comes to story videos.
I think this is a major reason why less people do opinions now, if you want the truth. The above are my own gripes, but I definitely think that if even just the fields are fixed, or we were given an updated guide with suggestions or formulas or whatever for reviewing, I think a lot more people would find it easier.
And, as I said at the outset, perhaps I'm paddling upstream on this one. But I wanted to get it off my chest, and since I've got a few more days till I can actually write more opinions, I thought I'd spend the time putting down my thoughts.
And I don't mean for any of this to be taken as complaint about the work put into the guide and forms, or the people who did them. I'm sure there was quite a lot, and to change it would mean more.












