At what point is constructive criticism no longer useful?

[Chiikaboom]

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.

yes x a billion

[EvaFan]

In this community it's hard not to become more and more analytical of the amvs you watch as you go but it does seem like most people just watch them and point out flaws like it was the only reason they watched it.

Instead of looking for things to comment about in the thread for the video just watch and enjoy it if possible the first time through. Usually you can get your real overall opinion of the video on your first time through. Every other time after you become more and more aware of flaws and the tech stuff, which is ok when your actually going to write that opinion. On threads or QC's it's probably best to comment after just 1 view while your first thoughts are fresh on your mind and before reading any one else’s comments. If you read a comment that says some of the fades are off your going to be watching that AMV waiting and looking for the specific fades they were talking about. You can say otherwise but fact of the matter is you are and you know those comments effect your viewing experience.

"At what point is constructive criticism no longer useful?"

When it's no longer constructive.

[Panky]

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

No, you see, with this I disagree a little. I think that most people call out to these things because they are certainly things that need to be fixen. It's like a call to give someone a piece of advice that will surely help your video. Well, you may or may not fix them, but it's like saying "it's broken there, it's your choice to make it look a little better". It can also get you better, or prepared for your next videos; it's not like you're gonna re-upload the one with the problem, but will be aware for next time. I'm not fond of giving technical details when I review videos, because I honestly suck really hard on them and don't consider it really important at the time of doing AMV's such as creativity itself (instead of learning how to correctly rip/get rid of interlacing/etc., which is straight to the point and 'easy' to achieve).

I'm actually not sure after reading your sentence again if you meant about giving technical advice or personal preferences, but it thought about it the first way. I don't think there are actually that many people that care so much about little technical details vs video content at all.

[Knowname]

In this community it's hard not to become more and more analytical of the amvs you watch as you go but it does seem like most people just watch them and point out flaws like it was the only reason they watched it.

qft! thus I give ppl LOTS of reasons to watch my videos ~.~ lol

for those having trouble puting 2 and 2 together, my videos have LOTS of errors therefore LOTS or 'reasons' thank you thank you and with that I go to bed...

[Infinity Squared]

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?

This brings to mind a criticism I've had over a video I've done in the past year or so (a timeline for which I already considered myself to have reached the level in discussion here).

# 2008-09-19 12:18:08 Even if the idea is funny, fckin do something about the visual quality - it's not that complicated!

To be quite honest I got offended by that, primarily because of the language, but the point of the comment did strike a chord with me. In my ensuing journal post, I wondered whether the person who gave me the comment knew of my videos in that similar time period which were of very high quality and that I didn't need talking down to like this because I knew what I was doing and had clear reasons why the quality level was that way (yeah, ego talking...).

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make I guess is that whether or not you're known to be a "veteran", sometimes these nitpicky technical criticisms will still probably pop up, whether you want them or not just because of the inate need by people to find flaws and say something, whether as a way of proving superiority or whatever.

[BasharOfTheAges]

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?

If you can't bother to do something simple correctly, something that there are tutorials and guides on, why should someone give you the benefit of the doubt that you can do the more complex things you need to do to make a good video?

For examples of how this concept fits into everyday life see entrance exams, placement exams, interviews, performance reviews, most social interaction involving meeting new people, etc. It's not exactly a foreign concept... it's a bad first impression.

[Vivaldi]

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?

If you can't bother to do something simple correctly, something that there are tutorials and guides on, why should someone give you the benefit of the doubt that you can do the more complex things you need to do to make a good video?

There's a categorical difference between those two aspects of video making. Technical acumen isn't a good litmus test for ability or dedication.

Naturally it's best to be technically proficient; however, this ultimately being a amature setting, it's not a deal breaker compared unimaginative ideas and poor execution.

[Knowname]

Basically what Vivaldi says but I'll put it a less complicated way

For examples of how this concept fits into everyday life see entrance exams, placement exams, interviews, performance reviews, most social interaction involving meeting new people, etc. It's not exactly a foreign concept... it's a bad first impression.

this is a hobby not a job interview. Give the noob a break -_-

[ExSphere]

I mean to say that I know what looks good and I know what doesn't. I've been editing for three-and-a-half years now, I've seen enough videos and made enough of my own that no one needs to tell me "You need to sync here" or "This scene doesn't really match those surrounding it". In short, I'm technically competent (or at least I like to think so), and all the rest is just a matter of taste.

I'm going to have to disagree with just about everything you said here man. Your opinion of what looks good, or what needs sync is subjective and relates differently to everyone. As your thread showed, majority of the editor's there didn't agree with your scene selection or sync. For someone who has been editing for three-and-a-half years, you should know by now that not everyone's gonna enjoy your releases. But you don't need people to tell you how to edit ( and I agree with that, I think each person's style of editing should be different and unique ) but if you can't tell people what you think they should do, then there is no criticism.

I'm not even receiving constructive criticism anymore, just people telling me why they like/don't like my videos.

Isn't that what criticism is? Explaining why you didn't get some sort of enjoyment out of the video.

For example, I probably wouldn't post in Ileia's announcement thread saying "You need to do more sync here, here, and here" because she's been making excellent videos since before I even started editing. I would probably say something more along the lines of, "I don't like this video because I feel that there's too little sync here, here, and here". So is it just a matter of language depending on the "level" of editor you're dealing with?

Both of those sentences were constructive criticism, one was just more demanding than the other. Either way you say it, you would still want it to have more sync. So why not say it as if you demand it? And I don't think you should be courteous to other editor's who are better than you.

[Knowname]

thus you get the internet bully stereotype