How To Review

[Fall_Child42]

After watching a certain documentary about hecklers and their relation to critics and I began to think about how we here on the org review things.

People here are often complaining about a lack of constructive criticism, and just poorly written reviews. If there is a good way and a bad way to write reviews what differentiates the good from bad?

The good and bad does not refer to the reviewer's feelings towards the video, but instead to the quality of the critique. People should feel free to dislike a video but the dislike for a video often turns out very poorly written. I've often seen negative reviews devolve into personal attacks that have nothing to do with the video itself. Sometimes the negative reviews are trying to point out flaws but they are just filled with such hatred, ire, and vitriol, that any constructiveness is lost. Many reviews take the arrogant stance that that person's opinion on the video should be everyone's opinion on the video, as if this person quantifiably knows what is or is not entertaining. In reality they only know what is or is not entertaining for them. These ways of critiquing a video do not help anything and are what I think people mean by a "bad review"

A good review should say what the person thought about the video, what they specifically liked or didn't like, and should not use unnecessarily harsh language or personal attacks.

The problem with me laying out these Ideas is that they are basic guidelines and still nobody knows what a good review or a bad review looks like. I am a very big fan of teaching through examples, and what I'd like to happen in this thread is for people to take a video, post it, and write what they may consider a bad review, and one they may consider a good review.

If we can gather several examples of what a good critique might look like and show these to other people perhaps there will be less poorly written critiques out there.

[godix]

Before we argue on how to review, shouldn't we actually review stuff? "Your momma sucks dick" is not a review. Neither is "I wanna be in the in crowd so I'll follow everyone else and just post '

[Fall_Child42]

This is what I'm saying.


(x3)

Should be looked down upon just as much as

"This sucks you should DIAF"

Obviously, they can technically be viewed as "reviews"
as they state an opinion on the video, but they are by no means good in anyway.

I would still love this thread to gain a collection of good reviews.
Perhaps a few for both a good positive critique and a good negative critique.

[BasharOfTheAges]

Is the idea that you point to this thread for examples when someone gets butthurt over getting a well-written op that tells them their stuff isn't that good? Because telling someone they're wrong and citing examples when they're already in super-defensive mode really won't help, and a fair number of the people that fly off the handle do so over well-written critique that says their vid sucked.

Related - A passive-aggressive veneer of civility is even more infuriating and deliciously subtle. Trolls take note.

[Fall_Child42]

Is the idea that you point to this thread for examples when someone gets butthurt over getting a well-written op that tells them their stuff isn't that good? Because telling someone they're wrong and citing examples when they're already in super-defensive mode really won't help, and a fair number of the people that fly off the handle do so over well-written critique that says their vid sucked.

This is where a good writer has to be careful, just because you didn't like it doesn't mean they are wrong.

But to answer your question, I envisioned this thread as more of a pre-emptive thing, examples to show what good critiques and reviews look like, something people should consider before they write their Op, QC, Announcement reply, etc.

[Infinity Squared]

In the interest of not singling out anyone else, I’ve reviewed one of my videos which I’ve always considered probably my worst (uploaded). I won’t profess to say that I’m the best reviewer in the world, but I do work for ANN as one of the correspondents doing convention reviews and DVD title reviews. But yeah, to the review:


The Bad

Holy crap, that was total epic fail. I mean, for starters, you used the same song as from the anime itself, I mean, only noobs do that. You have so much interlacing and the quality was bad to start with. Like, I know I can do so much better than this even with my eyes closed. You can go watch my other Gundam video so you can see just how it should be done. Anyway, what’s up with the uneven syncing? My dog in tap shoes could hit the beats better than this. And for crying out loud, get the resolution in the right aspect ratio. It’s so obvious you just cropped this shit however you please but you so should freaking learn that you have to follow the right way.

Reason for being bad: The start is not good because from the onset, all it did was create a fully negative tone that’s destined to hurt the creator. The second sentence also crosses the line into a personal attack. The fourth and fifth sentences also then deviate from the actual review itself and the critic focuses on their own “achievements” which are irrelevant or even condescending to the creator. The comment about aspect ratio is also a very rigid/elitist comment that forgets the fact that this is an artistic creation and is not a commissioned work. Overall as well, the fact that far too much of the review is emanating the critic’s personality or personal stance will just make the creator just think even more, “why should I care what this retard says”.

The Good

Good effort on the video! Obviously in the time constraint that you’ve mentioned in your video description, there was bound to be some issues, but at least you’ve completed it and that’s an achievement on its own. Now, to the technical side; the interlacing is quite prevalent and the aspect ratio is non-standard. The quality is also subpar and I’m guessing this was taken from fansub sources. Anyway, these are things to look out for in your next video. There are some excellent guides available on the org that will fix these issues up quite quickly and you can use some filtering as well to improve the quality, but to start with, I recommend that next time you use DVD sources. Lastly, the song choice didn’t work too well for me; that’s just my opinion. I feel that when using the same song from the anime, it comes out as if we’re just watching the anime again and nothing new. Perhaps if you altered the presentation a bit, or more concretely established the style you were after (e.g. like using the song as if you were creating an alternate opening sequence) then it could have worked; just a suggestion.

Reason for being good: Starts off non-threatening. Second paragraph also empathizes with the creator and helps in making them be more absorbing of the comments rather than becoming automatically defensive. Negative points are shown matter-of-factly and did not include any personal feelings or attacks as these things are purely technical and can be fixed (with suggestions on how being offered). Recommendation for fixes also recognise the fact that this is a finished product and that the creator will more than likely not redo this video – this helps in pushing the creator to look at future successes rather than this current failure. In terms of the song choice critique, it’s been strenuously advised that this is just their opinion based on what the critic saw; this stops the creator from thinking the critic is stating global perception of their video and allows them to think that though they may have failed to get the critic’s approval, it’s not a total lost and somebody else out there might like it (which is probabilistically true).

Anyway, this was just a brief showing of what I think would be worth paying attention to in the context of reviews on the AMVs in the org. First and foremost really to me is that if you’re going to review a video, just think about your language (and probably remember back to how you were taught in school). The more you come across as professional in your presentation, the more it’ll be taken seriously; simple fact.

[BasharOfTheAges]

This is where a good writer has to be careful, just because you didn't like it doesn't mean they are wrong.

A mindset of complete subjectiveness, likewise gets you nowhere. Most recognized "good" (pop-culture) critique is written as fact by individuals whose reputations provide requisite assertions of authority to back it up. Opinion as fact by authority through reputation is kinda how the art/music scene works. That's why it's filled with shallow vapid ass kissing fuckwits. It's the primary basis for the study of critique in general though, so what'cha gonna do?

What was the documentary by the way?

[CodeZTM]

I'm pretty sure Infinity wins this thread. Pretty much everything he said was right on the ball.

[JaddziaDax]

One of the problems I find with writing a good review often is that it either goes ignored or the person gets butthurt about anything bad being said about their video. This is why I often don't write ops anymore (or even leave much feedback unless I liked the video or they ask me to review).

It's much easier to be precise and to the point in an analytical sort of way. If the person asks for more then I give them more.

Also a lot of people would call Infinity's good review "sugar coated". For some reason rude bluntness seems to be a "good quality" to have when reviewing (which I don't get at all). Just because you aren't rude that doesn't mean you are sugar coating.

[CorpseGoddess]

It comes down to the difference between criticism and critique. The first is just being cranky, the second should try to accomplish something constructive.