History Main / ConstructiveCriticism

->"Okay, I've read your script, and it's retarded. You should just use it for toilet paper. [[OpinionMyopia Nobody likes car chases anymore]], and your crappy jokes make [[Creator/ArnoldSchwarzenegger Arnold]] look like [[Creator/WilliamShakespeare Shakespeare]]. You thought that shit was funny? Oh, the love scenes were good. [[RealMenHateAffection I always knew you were gay]]."

Yet it's still the form of criticism most likely to actually get results. In fact, most good artists even give this to themselves, hence the phrase "I'm my own worst critic."

* [[OhGreatASnarkIndex Snark]], {{Cluster F Bomb}}s, {{Caustic Critic}}ism, and [[ItSucks any use of the word "sucks" outside of the context of describing particle movement]] automatically transform even the most well intentioned critique into a ReasonWhyYouSuckSpeech. And perhaps the most important thing: ''Don't mock the work OR the author''. A critique is not a [[TheRoast comedy roast]]. When you start doing any of these things, most people will think you are {{troll}}ing them- ''[[TomatoInTheMirror because you are trolling them]]''.

This kind of criticism is about being honest, clear, and considerate in your comments. In particular, a respectful tone is crucial in proper constructive criticism. [[GoodIsNotSoft There is no handholding]], and this does not mean making only positive comments: it is not constructive to say a bad work is good. Proper critique, however, also avoids unmitigated BrutalHonesty. The ideal Constructive Critic is a master of VerbalJudo: honestly and directly pointing out flaws while simultaneously highlighting strengths and unexplored avenues of a work, all while maintaining a neutral to positive tone. In short, you are trying to help the artist improve both ''positively'' and ''honestly'', not shame them into improving.

Unfortunately; finding criticism is rather hard in the internet age. It's easy to ''get'' criticism on the internet, but when it's mixed with the {{GIFT}}, people will often take that as an opportunity to act like a complete dick and call it criticism. If someone walked up to you and asked you for critique and you gave a very rude-sounding critique, then they won't ask you again and you won't get to critique anything. On the internet, there's loads ''loads'' more random people and works to critique, especially since you can find it anytime you want.

Now you might be wondering if Constructive Criticism is appropriate for this site. Of course it's better than Administrivia/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike, but describing tropes and listing examples doesn't actually call for criticism. There are some places where it can fit, particularly in {{YKTTW}}. You can help a new trope a lot more with this kind of criticism than insulting the new trope, the troper that posted it, or [[YourMom that troper's mother]].

* [[OhGreatASnarkIndex Snark]], {{Cluster F Bomb}}s, {{Caustic Critic}}ism, and [[ItSucks any use of the work "sucks" outside of the context of describing particle movement]] automatically transform even the most well intentioned critique into a ReasonWhyYouSuckSpeech. And perhaps the most important thing: ''Don't mock the work OR the author''. A critique is not a [[TheRoast comedy roast]]. When you start doing any of these things, most people will think you are {{troll}}ing them- ''[[TomatoInTheMirror because you are trolling them]]''.

->"Okay, I've read your script, and it's retarded. You should just use it for toilet paper. [[OpinionMyopia Nobody likes car chases anymore]], and your crappy jokes make [[Creator/ArnoldSchwarzenegger Arnold]] look like [[Creator/WilliamShakespeare Shakespeare]]. You thought that shit was funny? Oh, the love scenes were good. I always knew you were gay."

This kind of criticism is about being honest, clear, and considerate in your comments. In particular, a respectful tone is crucial in proper constructive criticism. [[GoodIsNotSoft There is no handholding]], and this does not mean making only positive comments: it is not constructive to say a bad work is good. Proper critique, however, also avoids unmitigated BrutalHonesty. A good Constructive Critic is a master of VerbalJudo: honestly and directly pointing out flaws while simultaneously highlighting strengths and unexplored avenues of a work, all while maintaining a neutral to positive tone. In short, you are trying to help the artist improve both ''positively'' and ''honestly''.

Now you might be wondering if Constructive Criticism is appropriate for this site. Of course it's better than Administrivia/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike, but describing tropes and listing examples doesn't actually call for criticism. There are some places where it can fit, particularly in {{YKTTW}}. You can help a new trope a lot more with this kind of criticism than insulting the new trope, the troper that posted it, or [[YourMom that troper's mother]].

You'll notice that most people don't actually ''understand'' the concept of Constructive Criticism. As you'll probably learn if you take a college-level creative writing course, one of the most ''important things'' about Constructive Criticism is ''don't rewrite the work'' to suit your desires. The point is to make it into something that ''[[TargetAudience the intended audience]]'' will like. This is actually one of the ''biggest'' things that people need to learn about being constructive, because it is not very constructive to try to suggest the author to write a work into something that ''you'' want to enjoy. You will notice this as a trend in people who are members of the PeripheryHatedom, especially if they have a BiasSteamroller.

This kind of criticism is about being honest, clear, and considerate in your comments. In particular, a respectful tone is crucial in proper constructive criticism. [[GoodIsNotSoft There is no handholding]], and this does not mean making only positive comments. It is not constructive to say a bad work is good. It does, however mean you're , but neither is there unmitigated BrutalHonesty- a good Constructive Critic is a master of VerbalJudo: honestly and directly pointing out flaws while simultaneously highlighting strengths and unexplored avenues of a work, all while maintaining a neutral to positive tone. In short, you are trying to help the artist improve positively.

While flames are designed to [[KickTheDog put people down]], constructive criticism is meant to help an artist improve his/her work. It's rarely shown in fiction, but it's important to it, since it's meant to help people improve their writing or artwork.

While flames are designed to [[KickTheDog put people down]], constructive criticism is meant to help an artist improve his/her work. It's rarely shown in fiction, but it's important to it, since it's meant to help people improve their writing.

This kind of criticism is about being honest, clear, and considerate in your comments. It doesn't mean making only positive comments (it's not constructive to say a bad work is good), but it does mean you're trying to help the artist improve positively. It should also be noted that politeness, while appreciated, isn't necessary to make the criticism constructive. So long as the problems are highlighted and suggestions are made to make things better, [[ClusterFBomb Cluster F Bombs]] can be dropped without the criticism becoming trolling.

It's not perfect. For one thing, you have to be aware of your biases, and admit them. There are times when you are asked for criticism, but are probably not the best person to be asked about something. For another, you could make claims that turn out to be wrong, even if you thought otherwise at the time. Finally, the artist could misunderstand your criticism, and take it as bashing, even when you mean otherwise. Some simply CantTakeCriticism anyway.

Yet it's still the form of criticism most likely to actually get results. In fact, some artists can even give this to themselves, hence the phrase "I'm my own worst critic."

Now you might be wondering if this is appropriate for this site. Of course it's better than Administrivia/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike, but describing tropes and listing examples doesn't actually call for criticism. There are some places where it can fit, particularly in {{YKTTW}}. You can help a new trope a lot more with this kind of criticism than insulting the new trope, the troper that posted it, or [[YourMom that troper's mother]].

However; you'll notice that most people don't actually ''understand'' the concept of Constructive Criticism. As you'll probably learn if you take a college-level creative writing course, one of the most ''important things'' about Constructive Criticism is ''don't rewrite the work'' to suit your desires. This is actually one of the ''biggest'' things that people need to learn about being constructive, because it is not very constructive to try to suggest the author to write a work into something that ''you'' want to enjoy. The point is to make it into something that ''the intended audience'' will like. You will notice this as a trend in people who are members of the PeripheryHatedom, especially if they have a BiasSteamroller.

And perhaps the most important thing? ''Don't mock the work or the author''. When you start doing this, then it stops sounding like a Constructive Criticism and sounds more like FlameBait or HateDumb. Doing this will make people think you're flat out ''bashing'' them.

Now you might be wondering if this is appropriate for this site. Of course it's better than ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike, but describing tropes and listing examples doesn't actually call for criticism. There are some places where it can fit, particularly in {{YKTTW}}. You can help a new trope a lot more with this kind of criticism than insulting the new trope, the troper that posted it, or [[YourMom that troper's mother]].

'''No examples, please. We're just defining the term. But any wicks must be [[InUniverseExamplesOnly In-Universe Only]].'''

It's not perfect. For one thing, you have to be aware of your biases, and admit them. There are times when you are asked for criticism, but are probably not the best person to be asked about something. For another, you could make claims that turn out to be wrong, even if you thought otherwise at the time. Finally, the artist could misunderstand your criticism, and take it as bashing, even when you mean otherwise.

However; you'll notice that most people don't actually ''understand'' the concept of Constructive Criticism. As you'll probably learn if you take a college-level creative writing course, one of the most ''important things'' about Constructive Criticism is ''don't rewrite the work'' to suit your desires. This is actually one of the ''biggest'' things that people need to learn about being constructive, because it is not very constructive to try to suggest the author to write a work into something that ''you'' want to enjoy. The point is to make it into something that ''they'' want to create. You will notice this as a trend in people who are members of the PeripheryHatedom, especially if they have a BiasSteamroller.

Unfortunately; finding criticism is rather hard in the internet age. It's easy to ''get'' criticism on the internet, but when it's mixed with the {{GIFT}}, people will often take that as an opportunity to act like a complete dick and call it criticism. If someone walked up to you and asked you for critique and you gave a very rude-sounding critique, then they won't ask you again and you won't get to critique anything. On the internet, there's loads ''loads'' more random people and works to critique, especially since you can find it anytime you want

->"Okay, I've read your script, and it's retarded. You should just use it for toilet paper. [[OpinionMyopia Nobody likes car chases anymore]], and your crappy jokes make [[Creator/ArnoldSchwarzenegger Arnold]] look like [[WilliamShakespeare Shakespeare]]. You thought that shit was funny? Oh, the love scenes were good. I always knew you were gay."

Flaming:

->"Okay, I've read your script, and it's retarded. You should just use it for toilet paper. [[OpinionMyopia Nobody likes car chases anymore]], and your crappy jokes make [[ArnoldSchwarzenegger Arnold]] look like [[WilliamShakespeare Shakespeare]]. You thought that shit was funny? Oh, the love scenes were good. I always knew you were gay."

However; you'll notice that most people don't actually ''understand'' the concept of Constructive Criticism. As you'll probably learn if you take a college-level creative writing course, one of the most ''important things'' about Constructive Criticism is ''don't rewrite the work'' to suit your desires. This is actually one of the ''biggest'' things that people need to learn about being constructive, because it is not very constructive to try to suggest the author to write a work into something that ''you'' want to enjoy. The point is to make it into something that ''they'' want to create. You will notice this as a trend in people who are members of the PeripheryHatedom, especially if they have a BiasSteamroller.

And perhaps the most important thing? ''Don't mock the work or the author''. When you start doing this, then it stops sounding like a Constructive Criticism and sounds more like FlameBait or HateDumb. Doing this will make people think you're flat out ''bashing'' them.

Unfortunately; finding criticism is rather hard in the internet age. It's easy to ''get'' criticism on the internet, but when it's mixed with the {{GIFT}}, people will often take that as an opportunity to act like a complete dick and call it criticism. If someone walked up to you and asked you for critique and you gave a very rude-sounding critique, then they won't ask you again and you won't get to critique anything. On the internet, there's loads ''loads'' more random people and works to critique, especially since you can find it anytime you want

'''No examples, please. We're just defining the term.'''
----
<<|MetaConcepts|>>

It's not perfect. For one thing, you have to be aware of your biases, and admit them. For another, you could make claims that turn out to be wrong, even if you thought otherwise at the time. Finally, the artist could misunderstand your criticism, and take it as bashing, even when you mean otherwise.

->"Okay, I've read your script, and I have a few things to say about it. It needs work, but you've got something going here. I wasn't impressed by the car chases, but those aren't my thing. But I do know that cheesy one-liners aren't really done anymore, unless you're [[AffectionateParody spoofing those kinds of movies]], and this isn't a parody. I did like the romance scenes. You should probably expand that relationship. These kind of movies [[RomanticPlotTumor don't do relationships well]], and this would help your movie stand out."

->"Okay, I've read your script, and it's retarded. You should just use it for toilet paper. [[OpinionMyopia Nobody likes car chases anymore]], and your crappy jokes make Arnold look like Shakespeare. You thought that shit was funny? Oh, the love scenes were good. I always knew you were gay."

The above two paragraphs aren't quotes. They're to illustrate the difference between ConstructiveCriticism and flaming (hopefully, you know which is which). While flames are designed to [[KickTheDog put people down]], constructive criticism is meant to help an artist improve his/her work. It's rarely shown in fiction, but it's important to it, since it's meant to help people improve their writing.

Unfortunately, the latter two paragraphs have caused a lot of gray area. Due to the amount of people passing off those kind of comments as constructive, some creators don't ask for critique or sites like DeviantART have options that forbid it on some pics.
Compare/Contrast CompassionateCritic.

'''No examples, please.'''

->"Okay, I've read your script, and I have a few things to say about it. It needs work, but you've got something going here. I wasn't impressed by the car chases, [[YourMileageMayVary but those aren't my thing]]. But I do know that cheesy one-liners aren't really done anymore, unless you're [[AffectionateParody spoofing those kinds of movies]], and this isn't a parody. I did like the romance scenes. You should probably expand that relationship. These kind of movies [[RomanticPlotTumor don't do relationships well]], and this would help your movie stand out."

Unfortunately, the latter two paragraphs have unfortunately caused a lot of gray area. Due to the amount of people passing off those kind of comments as constructive, some creators don't ask for critique or sites like DeviantART have options that forbid it on some pics.

Unfortunately, the latter two paragraphs have unfortunately caused a lot of gray area. Due to the amount of people passing off those kind of comments as constructive, some creators don't ask for critique or sites like DeviantART have options that forbid it on some pics. [[hottip:*: Unfortunately, DeviantART is plagued by elitists who trash art on basis of it being Animeseque, the subjects depicted in the work, or because it's Fan Art/fiction and not because it was poorly written or drawn. This is enforced as a way to ''discourage'' that kind of behaviour.]]

The above two paragraphs aren't quotes. They're to illustrate the difference between {{Troll}}ing and ConstructiveCriticism (hopefully, you know which is which). While trolls want to [[KickTheDog put people down]], constructive criticism is meant to help an artist improve his/her work. It's rarely shown in fiction, but it's important to it, since it's meant to help people improve their writing.

However; you'll notice that most people don't actually ''understand'' the concept of Constructive Criticism. As you'll probably learn if you take a college-level creative writing course, one of the most ''important things'' about Constructive Criticism is ''don't rewrite the work'' to suit your desires. This is actually one of the ''biggest'' things that people need to learn about being constructive, because it is not very constructive to try to suggest the author to write a work into something that ''you'' want to enjoy. The point is to make it into something that ''they'' want to create. You will notice this as a trend in people who are members of the PeripheryHatedom, especially if they have a SteamrollerBias.

Unfortunately, the latter two paragraphs have unfortunately caused a lot of gray area. Due to the amount of people passing off those kind of comments as constructive, some creators don't ask for critique or sites like DeviantART have options that forbid it on some pics. [[hottip:*: Unfortunately, DeviantART is plagued by elitists who trash art on basis of it being Animeseque, the subjects depicted in the work, or because it's Fan Art/fiction and not because it was poorly written or drawn. This is enforced as a way to ''discourage'' that kind of behaviour.]] It's important [[NostalgiaCritic to]] [[TheIrateGamer note]] [[ZeroPunctuation that]] [[TheSpoonyOne many]] [[CausaticCritic critics]] who AccentuateTheNegative aren't trying to be constructive in the ''least bit'', because Constructive Criticism isn't funny to read or watch. You'll notice that when TheAngryVideoGameNerd isn't flat out insulting the work or just trying to make fun of stuff he's not as funny.