Little Things You Hate

[Kevmaster]

I find critism constructive whenever someone explains WHY something was bad instead of simply saying that it's bad without giving any inside.

[JaddziaDax]

What if there is nothing positive to say?

I'm not stating that everyone must always give constructive criticism. I'm just stating what it is, as far as I've learned.

Simply pointing out something positive which has nothing to do with the the things you're offering advise on is redundant and pointless.

I'm not sure how it's redundant, unless many other people tell them the same thing over and over again. But I'm not taking this as a group discussion, just a one on one.

As far as being pointless, I don't think it is. Doing so at least gives the person some kind of idea that they might have done at least one thing right. If all you do is point out everything they did wrong, then they could just easily assume they did only wrong things. Letting them know what they did right might keep them from making a mistake on it in the future.

Very rarely have I seen a video that has done only "wrong" things. So, the situation of "what if they did only bad things" is an extremely unlikely "black and white" situation. In my belief there are only "shades of gray".

From an AMV standpoint, it helps no one to provide constructive criticism for a video that you think is rather awful all around then say "Oh, but the sound quality was great!"It doesn't serve any constructive purpose to point that out just because, under your definition, in order to provide constructive criticism, you must say something positive about what is being criticized.

For fear of sounding horridly redundant, it does help because at least then they know they did that right and then they can repeat the steps they took to make good sound quality on their next video. If they didn't know they did it right, then maybe they will botch it up.

"Well your audio didn't sound hollow or tinny, so that is good."
Besides if someone is asking me for a full opinion on something I will go and comment on just about every aspect of the video if I can.

Constructive criticism in of itself is meant to be positive already.

Well at least we can agree on that point.

I find critism constructive whenever someone explains WHY something was bad instead of simply saying that it's bad without giving any inside.

This to me is just what I call good criticism. Explanations on both good and bad are always more helpful than just stating "this is bad" or "this is good".

As I stated above, I'm not stating how people should give criticism, I'm just stating my definition of constructive criticism. It should be balanced.

If people want to flame or if people want to kiss ass, then that's their problem. Either way how it gets taken is up to the person who is receiving the criticism it doesn't matter if it was constructive or not.

[gotegenks]

what pwolf meant by that first quote was that if we're going with your flawed definition, how do you give constructive criticism that does everything wrong? Even if you've never seen a video like that, for argument's sake suppose one exists, does that mean that all criticism is only there to put it down and point out negatives with an obviously flawed video, and its impossible to provide anything constructive because you have nothing good to say about it? or do you just lie in this case.

i agree with you on the role of positive critique, but it's in no way necessary and sometimes, yes, redundant.
in the case of audio, i highly doubt anyone that's already properly done audio is going to go out of their way to change it because it wasn't complimented, but that's beside the point.

pwolf's just plain right on the definition of constructive criticism, as there's a clear-as-day definition, the only thing to disagree on is the right way to execute constructive criticism. obligatory:

[JaddziaDax]

I don't believe in absolutes, so your proposition of a super flawed "nothing good in it" video in my head doesn't exist.

Even IF that were the case, then you don't have to give constructive criticism. How hard is that to process?

[Dr. Derpface, J.D.]

I don't believe in absolutes, so your proposition of a super flawed "nothing good in it" video in my head doesn't exist.

See, now you're just tempting me to throw some DBZ tracks at random into a cliche Linkin Park song, and encode the whole thing as a 32kbps 320x240 RM file....

[gotegenks]

I don't believe in absolutes, so your proposition of a super flawed "nothing good in it" video in my head doesn't exist.

Even IF that were the case, then you don't have to give constructive criticism. How hard is that to process?

so despite the fact that you have zero imagination, just try your darndest to pretend we're talking about a video with absolutely no merits. not that one really does exist, just for the sake of principal let's pretend there is one, and we're talking about it right now. You're really in the mood to give constructive criticism, your only motive right now is to help someone out in the nicest way possible without lying or fluffing things up. You realize you don't have to, but you want to so bad, and you select a video with absolutely nothing good in it, and you're determined to help the editor out with some constructive fucking criticism. If his video is indeed without merit, is it impossible to give him constructive crticism? Never mind do you have to, or should you, or is it a good idea, but is it POSSIBLE?

[Pwolf]

Just want to say that I'm really not trying to make a big deal out of this by dragging it on beyond the "lets agree to disagree". I'm sincerely curious as to why your definition of being constructive while critiquing work is so strict and would really like to try and understand it more.

Merriam-Webster defines "constructive" as: promoting improvement or development and
Dictionary.com defines "constructive" as: helping to improve; promoting further development or advancement
It also defines "constructive criticism" as: criticism or advice that is useful and intended to help or improve something, often with an offer of possible solutions

Based on those definitions, If I were to critique a video without mentioning anything positive, would it not be helpful at all under your definition? Would it not be constructive? for example:

"The scenes you used between, ~1:23 - ~1:53 don't make a whole lot of sense, it feels out of place. They are quite random and don't provide much to progress the story you are trying to show. I would suggest finding scenes that show the two characters' growing hate towards each-other, perhaps a flashback of some sort. Show why they are mad at each-other instead of just random scenes of different people that never show up anywhere else in the video."

How would you define that critique? If it's not helpful or constructive, then is it just plain old "criticism". Is it no different than if I had just said:

"The scenes you used between ~1:23 - ~1:53 don't make a whole lot of sense."

And to interject on the "pointless and redundant" part. I think it really depends on the situation. If I were critiquing a new editor, I would be more inclined to point out the positive as well as the negative. However, a well seasoned editor, whom I am familiar with, I would be much less inclined to to do so. I'd like to use an example of someone sending me a beta to critique. The first time, I'll most likely say something positive, if the video isn't completely terrible (as you said, it's pretty rare that this would happen, there's always something positive to say). If I like the video, it serves the purpose of the first beta viewing to let the editor know that I liked it or that they did a great job. However, after the first viewing and after I have made suggestions for changes or additions, if they send me the video later to critique again, it's redundant to say that I like the video again. It would be rather silly for them to be upset if I didn't say so. They already know I like it. At this point, they have probably made the suggested changes or tried something else (or did nothing at all). If at that point I still don't like the changes, I'll simply say so and offer another suggestion. In this situation, I can still be constructive and helpful without having to mention anything positive.

[meleechampion]

When a remix is close enough to the original I can't tell which song I like more and therefore should go on the SUMMER JAMZ MIXTAPE/PLAYLIST/CD

[dj_ultima_the_great]

When a remix is close enough to the original I can't tell which song I like more and therefore should go on the SUMMER JAMZ MIXTAPE/PLAYLIST/CD

Quoted for annoying truth. I had that problem with Pendulum's "Hold Your Colour" for the longest time. I had like three versions on my .mp3 player.

[JaddziaDax]

See, now you're just tempting me to throw some DBZ tracks at random into a cliche Linkin Park song, and encode the whole thing as a 32kbps 320x240 RM file....

Then you would be doing it on purpose and therefore the fact it was done horribly would be for "artistic" reasons. There would be at least merit behind the effort and reason you made it, so I could point that out as something good. I may not like the end result but at least you had good intentions. Besides I could also point out that I like linkin park. O:

If it were made by a newbie, I could point out that they got as far as to at least make a video on their own, and that is a good thing. Just need to work on some fixes to make their video better.

~~~~~~~~~~

so despite the fact that you have zero imagination, just try your darndest to pretend we're talking about a video with absolutely no merits. not that one really does exist, just for the sake of principal let's pretend there is one, and we're talking about it right now.

Nice way of attempting to insult me by saying I have no imagination, since for the sake of argument I DID in fact tell you the answer already.

You're really in the mood to give constructive criticism, your only motive right now is to help someone out in the nicest way possible without lying or fluffing things up. You realize you don't have to, but you want to so bad, and you select a video with absolutely nothing good in it, and you're determined to help the editor out with some constructive fucking criticism. If his video is indeed without merit, is it impossible to give him constructive crticism? Never mind do you have to, or should you, or is it a good idea, but is it POSSIBLE?

Since this is pretty much what you are wanting me to say: YOU CAN'T. At least not in the way I was taught to give constructive criticism.

Constructive criticism isn't your only option though, and any person with imagination can come up with several ways to handle this situation. I know I can. You really shouldn't limit your options like that.

Here are some OTHER options for you:
1. Give helpful criticism by pointing out flaws and how to fix them.
2. Just shut the fuck up and keep your lame ass mouth shut. AKA: if you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all
3. Flame that fucker for torturing me with their video.
4. Give unhelpful advice by stating the flaws, but not how to fix it.
5. Gush and squee over it like it's the most amazing thing out there (troll).
6. Sit back and watch the flame fest but don't get involved because everyone else is jumping down this person's throat already, and you don't need to add to it/everyone else already said everything.
7. Flame them but insert some valid advice to see if the person can even pick apart the criticism enough to get anything out of it (I miss godix ).
8. Sugar coat your criticism.
9. Lie and tell them that as long as they like their video then that's all they need. (I do see this platitude used a lot.) Who cares about the opinions of others?

~~~~~~~~~~

Just want to say that I'm really not trying to make a big deal out of this by dragging it on beyond the "lets agree to disagree". I'm sincerely curious as to why your definition of being constructive while critiquing work is so strict and would really like to try and understand it more.

Thanks, I'm not holding any grudges on you

So, end of argument: because this is how I was taught to give constructive criticism, in school, by a teacher, during art lessons. I like it, so I decided to keep it with me. We were also taught how to take it, and to not be insulted by it because it was meant to teach us not insult us.

I was taught that there are two sides to constructive criticism.
1. Constructive: the positive side
2. Criticism: the negative side
If you don't have both then your criticism is just criticism. That doesn't mean it is not helpful, or useful, that just means it's lacking the positive, therefore lacking the constructive.

Stating a few good things about a piece can help the artist to know that you aren't just badmouthing their piece, or criticizing for the sake of criticizing. That you are indeed looking at all aspects of their video and not just nitpicking the bad.

I personally like giving balanced criticism. I don't like pointing out flaws unless I can point out some good points too.

Also I never said that criticism couldn't be helpful if it doesn't fall under my definition of constructive criticism, so don't please put it that way. My definition is more so about HOW to give it, and what it looks like.

I'd like to use an example of someone sending me a beta to critique. The first time, I'll most likely say something positive, if the video isn't completely terrible (as you said, it's pretty rare that this would happen, there's always something positive to say). If I like the video, it serves the purpose of the first beta viewing to let the editor know that I liked it or that they did a great job. However, after the first viewing and after I have made suggestions for changes or additions, if they send me the video later to critique again, it's redundant to say that I like the video again. It would be rather silly for them to be upset if I didn't say so. They already know I like it. At this point, they have probably made the suggested changes or tried something else (or did nothing at all). If at that point I still don't like the changes, I'll simply say so and offer another suggestion. In this situation, I can still be constructive and helpful without having to mention anything positive.

I can see from that standpoint where it would be redundant to state it again, but the thing is as a person who receives such criticism, I'd take all correspondence as the full criticism, as opposed to taking each bit as separate criticisms. Even if the video has changed a bit, and if you said that you liked it before then it falls under my definition.

Besides working on a beta is when I actually care about detailed feedback, that way I can take in what may or may not need to be fixed. For me it doesn't matter at that point if the feedback is "pure" constructive criticism or not. I'm looking to work out the bugs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the end all this arguing is getting nowhere, you all aren't going to change my mind, and I really don't care if I change any of your minds, so arguing with me about it is pointless. Attempting to insult me is even more so, because I don't think much of your opinion anyway, and insulting me is definitely not going to win me to your "side".

However I appreciate that Pwolf is just attempting to understand, and hasn't resorted to insults.

In the end (it doesn't even matter) a good criticism is meant to get the editor to think about their decisions and the choices they make, it doesn't matter if it is a constructive criticism or not.