At what point is constructive criticism no longer useful?

[BasharOfTheAges]

Unless you're arguing that we should simply APPEAR to be more critical of senior editors so that the newer editors don't feel singled out;

Not more... just provide it if it's warranted. Don't dig deeper than you normally would to find something to say. Don't dig shallower either. Treat everyone the same. Vets can get rusty and sloppy too. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong at pointing it out if it's just as obvious as some new person's mistakes. That said, if you're pointing out things you wouldn't normally mention just to say something, you're doing it wrong.

[Ileia]

Since you used me for an example, I'd just like to point at that I've almost always gotten the "I thought" or "I felt" or "I would've liked" type comments.

Anyway, it's a pretty good video even though you made some wierd scene choices, I thought.

I thought it was pretty good It matched the overall flair of elfen lied in terms of action and seriousness, I would've loved if you had focused more on the story though.

It's not specific to me or to any level of editor. Go look in the AMV announcements, find new editors or old, this is what is generally seen. Usually, the only cases in which "you need to do this" or "you should do that" is seen is in technical aspects, like interlacing, aspect ratio, that sort of thing and not in the editing technique.

[CrackTheSky]

Since you used me for an example, I'd just like to point at that I've almost always gotten the "I thought" or "I felt" or "I would've liked" type comments.

Anyway, it's a pretty good video even though you made some wierd scene choices, I thought.

I thought it was pretty good It matched the overall flair of elfen lied in terms of action and seriousness, I would've loved if you had focused more on the story though.

It's not specific to me or to any level of editor. Go look in the AMV announcements, find new editors or old, this is what is generally seen. Usually, the only cases in which "you need to do this" or "you should do that" is seen is in technical aspects, like interlacing, aspect ratio, that sort of thing and not in the editing technique.

Interesting...I suppose I shouldn't assume that language is a universal issue. I think the way I present criticism to editors changes depending on how experienced they are, but I may just be assuming I do. So maybe language isn't an issue, and I'm not about to go digging through thread after thread to verify this. Does anyone else have any thoughts concerning the use of language?

Not more... just provide it if it's warranted. Don't dig deeper than you normally would to find something to say. Don't dig shallower either. Treat everyone the same. Vets can get rusty and sloppy too. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong at pointing it out if it's just as obvious as some new person's mistakes. That said, if you're pointing out things you wouldn't normally mention just to say something, you're doing it wrong.

So along with the end of Ileia's comment I guess here would be a good place to make a distinction between technical criticism and criticism of more subjective aspects of a video. I fear that this will just end with a "make what you want" consensus, but if that's the direction this discussion goes then so be it.

When I initially was considering these questions I guess I was thinking of "constructive criticism" from a more technical angle, not so much from a subjective one (as I think most can agree that technical aspects are less subjective than more abstract things such as pacing or flow). So technical criticism doesn't interest me anymore, and I rarely get it because after three and a half years I'm pretty competent with such things. So I guess that begs the question for those who give criticism: Do you avoid giving technical criticism to vets because you know they're probably already aware of such problems, or because most of them are able to make a video with few if any technical flaws?

And I guess I actually did kind of touch on the subjective side of the coin in my first post, when I said that the reasons people dislike my current video are the same reasons I like it. In that sense then such "criticism" doesn't do anything for me either, because I made the video exactly how I wanted it. It's all interesting to hear, but it's probably not going to affect how I view my video or how I'll edit future videos.

Do others feel this way? Or do your feelings on your own videos change after you receive negative feedback? Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[Knowname]

If your tryin to tell me what to say I aint doin dat ... ok just playin around but lol.

So I guess that begs the question for those who give criticism: Do you avoid giving technical criticism to vets because you know they're probably already aware of such problems, or because most of them are able to make a video with few if any technical flaws?

Since your asking FOR THE OPINION OF THE CRITICISER I'll go ahead and answer you from the perspective of an editor *rolls eyes*.... /sarcasm no, of coarse I won't :/ lolololol

anyway, yes when somebody continually releases technically 'complete' (I don't mean perfect... we can all probly find better avs scripts to use or something) I usually forgo the 'technicalities check'.

But still I canNOT believe all the 'I make perfect videos I don't even NEED your technical info' attitude here. This is why everybody considers the org elitist. Now I know ppl in this thread are just being truthful but you can AT LEAST hide it!! Geeze. Are you trying to help the hobby or help yourself.

Why does the org even have help sections?? Sorry that's a whole other discussion too.

[BasharOfTheAges]

I think the way I present criticism to editors changes depending on how experienced they are, but I may just be assuming I do. So maybe language isn't an issue, and I'm not about to go digging through thread after thread to verify this. Does anyone else have any thoughts concerning the use of language?

Flowering up your language with all sorts of clauses, contingencies, and clearly labeled opinion is a trick to passive-aggressive internet debate. It ensures that you can always go back and say you weren't wrong because you phrased what you said just so. It's an affront to clear, concise language and muddles the point you're trying to make. That said, people unable to correctly gauge tone will automatically assume you are being nice if you obfuscate your meaning and they'll think you're being an asshole if you're clear and to the point.

Not more... just provide it if it's warranted. Don't dig deeper than you normally would to find something to say. Don't dig shallower either. Treat everyone the same. Vets can get rusty and sloppy too. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong at pointing it out if it's just as obvious as some new person's mistakes. That said, if you're pointing out things you wouldn't normally mention just to say something, you're doing it wrong.

So along with the end of Ileia's comment I guess here would be a good place to make a distinction between technical criticism and criticism of more subjective aspects of a video. I fear that this will just end with a "make what you want" consensus, but if that's the direction this discussion goes then so be it.

When I initially was considering these questions I guess I was thinking of "constructive criticism" from a more technical angle, not so much from a subjective one (as I think most can agree that technical aspects are less subjective than more abstract things such as pacing or flow). So technical criticism doesn't interest me anymore, and I rarely get it because after three and a half years I'm pretty competent with such things. So I guess that begs the question for those who give criticism: Do you avoid giving technical criticism to vets because you know they're probably already aware of such problems, or because most of them are able to make a video with few if any technical flaws?

And I guess I actually did kind of touch on the subjective side of the coin in my first post, when I said that the reasons people dislike my current video are the same reasons I like it. In that sense then such "criticism" doesn't do anything for me either, because I made the video exactly how I wanted it. It's all interesting to hear, but it's probably not going to affect how I view my video or how I'll edit future videos.

Do others feel this way? Or do your feelings on your own videos change after you receive negative feedback? Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

No, I'm talking about technical criticism. If you're doing it wrong, expect to hear it. I don't care if you don't want to hear it; people who legitimately want to improve need to see as many examples of problems they should be able to overcome and they'll see them in your announcement thread if you failed too. Deal with it.

As to the later points... there are far more technical aspects to all of this than AR, interlacing, masking and encoding errors. They're a lot harder to pin down in exact words or to say you should always do X instead of Y, but they're no less technical. If you throw off the flow with late cuts or leave entire scenes with different energy than the music calls for, you're making errors that anyone has the right to call you on. It's not all as subjective as you think (unless you're focusing on the 30,000 ft view).

[BishounenStalker]

Exactly at that point now, and I know what you mean. The only concrit I really listen to is on the technical side ("try settings XYZ for cleaner encoding/smaller filesize). Because even before I create a project file, I know what I want to do editing-wise. And I find that yes, a lot of the editing "tips" I receive are things I meant to do. Like the video I released a few days ago. Sure, it could've been "better" synched for the tastes of the person reviewing it, but I used a lot of internal sync because for that project, I was more concerned with lyric synch and narrative than with hitting every last drumbeat. Sorta the way my style's always been.

[CrackTheSky]

As to the later points... there are far more technical aspects to all of this than AR, interlacing, masking and encoding errors. They're a lot harder to pin down in exact words or to say you should always do X instead of Y, but they're no less technical. If you throw off the flow with late cuts or leave entire scenes with different energy than the music calls for, you're making errors that anyone has the right to call you on. It's not all as subjective as you think (unless you're focusing on the 30,000 ft view).

Ah-ah-ah, okay. So I guess I should have done this a long time ago, but here are my definitions of "technical aspects" and "subjective aspects".

While things such as video quality, audio quality, aspect ratio, etc. are indeed technical elements of a video, when I say "technical aspects" I'm more referring to the things you said: accurate beat sync, appropriate energy of a scene given the tone of the music, etc. It's important to note however that in the case of beat sync, it's not whether or not there is beat sync, but if existing beat sync matches the beats.

"Subjective aspects" are those more abstract elements of a video like flow, pacing, atmosphere, etc. that will mean different things to different people. This also includes things like "You should have done X here", "You shouldn't have let Y go on for so long", etc.

But still I canNOT believe all the 'I make perfect videos I don't even NEED your technical info' attitude here.

With the above definitions in mind...why? I don't see it as elitism, because as a "veteran" editor I don't release a video until I'm completely satisfied with it. And as I've been saying, I've edited and watched enough AMVs to know when there's a technical problem. If I don't see it as a problem worth fixing, then I don't really need anyone telling me that it's there. I KNOW it's there, and if someone points out something that I don't see as a problem, then that falls into the realm of subjectivity and that's simply their opinion.

I suppose I can see how it may seem vain to think that one can catch each and every technical problem any video has, but I see it as more of a gut-feeling thing. If I go looking for problems, I'm sure I'd find them all over the place, but if I just watch the video and just enjoy it rather than combing through it and trying to find technical issues, I'll catch the most important and glaring problems without any difficulty. Those technical problems that make you pause the video and go through the timeline until you've fixed them are the ones worth fixing.

[godix]

This all kind of brings up another point, why focus on technical bullshit anyway? Honestly now, would you consider a video that was technically perfect but boring as shit to be better than a video that was entertaining but had some ghosting? Any place other than the org this would be a rhetorical question. Here, it's an honest question because 90% of you guys seem to think that getting the AR right is much much more important than actually making something fun to watch. Anyway, if the answer is that an entertaining but technically flawed video is better than a technical perfect but boring vid, then why are we focusing so much on pushing the tech bullshit anyway? If tech is wrong then mention it, but why make it the main focus of constructive criticism?

[CodeZTM]

90% of you guys seem to think that getting the AR right is much much more important than actually making something fun to watch.

QFT.

[Castor Troy]

I've been at it long enough to already know what I'm doing and can justify my reasons. However, I recall Fluxmeister being the slave driver on my VG3 Resident Evil 2 video. Without his constructive criticism, I wouldn't improved the video.

It's always going to be useful, no matter how long you've been at it.