Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

@blacksails you are confusing constructive criticism with feedback. Constructive criticism means looking at faults and merits. Pointing out faults and offering solutions isn't the full equation, but half of it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying every piece of feedback must include both, but feedback doesn't always have to be constructive criticism (which is the focus of the thread.) Some might only want feedback on how to improve, in which case listing positives might be nice, but not what has been requested.

 JamesY wrote:
Some might only want feedback on how to improve, in which case listing positives might be nice, but not what has been requested.

Aye, though often people don't post much save for "here it is critique it". In fact it takes a while before people gain confidence and knowledge to learn to specify certain areas they want feedback on (and some never learn it). So often as not those giving their opinions have to guess at what the poster wants in terms of critique. So the good and bad approach works best as you reinforce the good and point out the flaws (as well as possible solutions; or admit you don't know the solution but can at least point out the problem).

Once you know a person better or if they display clear understanding of certain concepts you can leave those out and focus on the bits they don't know.

It's also generally useful just to have a list of 'things i did that didn't suck' for those of us who aren't amazing at painting.

Not just softening the blow, but I legitimately can rarely tell what I've done well as individual decision on a miniature.

 JamesY wrote:
@blacksails you are confusing constructive criticism with feedback. Constructive criticism means looking at faults and merits. Pointing out faults and offering solutions isn't the full equation, but half of it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying every piece of feedback must include both, but feedback doesn't always have to be constructive criticism (which is the focus of the thread.) Some might only want feedback on how to improve, in which case listing positives might be nice, but not what has been requested.

No, merits and positives aren't required to be constructive criticism. Breaking it down, criticism is pointing out flaws, errors, and issues, or the analysis of something, which doesn't require merits or positives to be included. The constructive part is offering a way to improve.

Saying nice things and discussing positives is great technique to ensure the criticism is well received, but its not mandatory. Good constructive criticism can simply be as my paint example was.

Feedback is a synonym of criticism, and by definition, is simply the information about reactions to something.

Criticism = pointing out flaws.
Constructive criticism = pointing out flaws and offering advice to improve.

Good technique is to add something positive, but not required to be considered constructive.

Those are great points. I think a lot of it for a lot of people is that if you aren't including something positive, and they really like the thing that you are pointing out your perceived flaws on, that they take personal offense to it.

auticus wrote:
Those are great points. I think a lot of it for a lot of people is that if you aren't including something positive, and they really like the thing that you are pointing out your perceived flaws on, that they take personal offense to it.

Booty-pat and hollow praise mindset. A lot of people want validation, not 'you need to work on this'.

When I show my work to other people, and ask, "What do you think" it's not so they can tell me I'm good. The way I figure, if I'm 'good' they'll come up to me and tell me that when I'm playing. What I'm actually saying is, "I'm not sure how I've done here, tell me what I could do better".

Take the idea of ‘criticism’ out and see it more as suggested improvements for future. Focusing on the criticism gets you off on the wrong foot, you achieve nothing from simply saying something is bad because the recipient has nothing to work with.

Further, tailor your suggestions accordingly. You can be fairly picky with an experienced modeller because they’re looking for specifics to improve their standard, often to a competition standard. A novice needs simple suggestions and encouragement, like thin your paints and remove cast lines. Telling them their work isn’t very good is unnecessary, they know their work isn’t very good because they’re a beginner asking for help.

There are people and communities that take any comments that aren’t a pat on the back to be an attack, but this lacks maturity, they will never learn or improve if they refuse to acknowledge advice and seek only validation.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:


There are people and communities that take any comments that aren’t a pat on the back to be an attack, but this lacks maturity, they will never learn or improve if they refuse to acknowledge advice and seek only validation.

In my experience there are honestly very few people like this on forums.
There's often only a couple who ever attack back at well given critique; of course internet fights get big fast and can easily put everyone involved off very fast. A few hours and it can be pages of bickering back and forth.

More likely you get some who might argue back at critique, which is totally normal and part of the learning process. Debate should be a positive element that makes the person being debated with raise the level of their comment.

Eg

A) Thin your paints

B) Why? What's wrong with the paint in the pot it covers just fine

A) You thin your paints so that the paint runs thinner over the model, this helps preserve the really fine detail. It gives it a crisper edge. Of course as its thinner you might need to wait half an hour for it to really dry and then paint another thin layer over the top to get the colour to look at rich; but even those two thin layers are thinner than one thick one right from the pot.

B) Sure but I think the detail looks fine as it is.

A) Ok, well look at the eyes or those buttons, they are getting blurred into the coat you've painted on. Also it made it a lot harder to get those little spots of paint on the buttons; thinner paint isn't as heavy on the brush so you not only get better detail but its easier to control too.


Etc... The original comment was fine, but the person being critiqued showed inexperience and a lack of understanding of the basic fundamentals. So when prompted it gave the opening to go into more detail than was given at first. Continued pushback resulted in increasing of the debate topic rather than fighting back against the ego. Sticking to the subject and avoiding egos is key (esp as many times the person arguing back is often expressing themselves poorly).

@blacksails I have no interest in pursuing a debate with you on the topic, if you wish to stick to the incorrect notion that criticism and constructive criticism are exactly the same thing, or that criticism=negative comment, then that's your business.

 JamesY wrote:
@blacksails I have no interest in pursuing a debate with you on the topic, if you wish to stick to the incorrect notion that criticism and constructive criticism are exactly the same thing, or that criticism=negative comment, then that's your business.

I never said that criticism and constructive are exactly the same thing, so I don't know where you got that from.

I've also stated you can discuss the merits and positives, and it will tend to result in better reception, but it is absolutely not required to be considered constructive criticism.

@ Blacksails: you operate on a different definition of the word criticism than most people in this thread. It is perfectly valid use of the word, but should be differentiated consiously from what other people are addressing here.

"1.
the expression of disapproval of someone or something on the basis of perceived faults or mistakes.

synonyms: censure, reproval, condemnation, denunciation, disapproval, disparagement, opprobrium, captiousness, fault-finding, carping, cavilling;

2.
the analysis and judgement of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work.

synonyms: evaluation, assessment, examination, appreciation, appraisal, analysis, judgement;"

Most of what has been posted here is about "type two" meaning. In this type it is required to point out both merits and faults and such criticism becomes constructive if it offers solutions to those faults.

It costs nothing to be polite - of course not everyone sees it that way (reddit warhammer mods come to mind), but generally constructive criticism is handled better by all involved if it's offered using a bit of tact.

True, CC doesn't have to include a feelings blowjob or anything, as it's definition implies - it still doesn't hurt to offer one now and again though.

Right, which I addressed by saying its generally a good idea to throw some discussion about positives too, but it ultimately doesn't change the fact that constructive criticism can be as simple as 'point out problem, offer advice to fix', which doesn't require a discussion of merits.

I'd consider constructive criticism, at its best, to be saying "This is bad. Here's how you fix it." However, that's not always possible. So even just "This is bad. Here are some ideas to make it better," works.

And, occasionally, even just "This is bad," is constructive. Now, I'd consider that to only really be constructive if you're pointing out SOMETHING SPECIFIC. It can't just be "Your whole idea is bad," it has to be "This part of your idea is bad." That way, you know what specifically you need to improve on.

Overall, I'd say another big part of it being criticism and not insults is tone and phrasing. (Which can be hard to get across on the internet, but hey.) Saying "This sucks, you suck for making it, and you should feel bad," is an insult. I don't care if the entire thing sucks, you're just being mean. But "The whole idea just isn't very good. There are some diamonds in the rough there, such as X and Y, but they're marred by bad implementation. I'd consider focusing on X and Y and making those good before you focus on anything else," is a critique. Might be hard to hear, but hey.

 Blacksails wrote:
Right, which I addressed by saying its generally a good idea to throw some discussion about positives too, but it ultimately doesn't change the fact that constructive criticism can be as simple as 'point out problem, offer advice to fix', which doesn't require a discussion of merits.

No it can't. That is feedback. There is a difference, constructive criticism is a form of feedback, but not all feedback is constructive criticism.

 JamesY wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Right, which I addressed by saying its generally a good idea to throw some discussion about positives too, but it ultimately doesn't change the fact that constructive criticism can be as simple as 'point out problem, offer advice to fix', which doesn't require a discussion of merits.

No it can't. That is feedback. There is a difference, constructive criticism is a form of feedback, but not all feedback is constructive criticism.

No, I'm positive my example is constructive criticism. Its advice aimed to improve by identifying a problem and offering a solution.

Looking at practical example for these boards, again, let's say someone is posting their model and its one of their first they've painted.

"Your paints look too thick. This blurs out fine details by being lost in a thicker layer, so I suggest thinning your paints and applying multiple layers. This will result in the same colour intensity, but without obscuring any detail."

Is a perfect example of constructive criticism. I can offer something at the end like;

"Colour choices look good though!"

But its not necessary for my comment to be considered constructive criticism.

@ Blacksails your comments are an example of constructive criticism, but not a definitive one. You can offer feedback on positive attributes too, for example, "your highlighting is really smooth, well done. To make it even more realistic, you could try to build all your highlights towards a single light source." or "your nmm gold is really well executed. Have you tried using green glazes instead of red to give an antique effect?" Saying "this bit isn't good, here is how to improve it" is not the extent of constructive criticism. As I said, that is just feedback.

 JamesY wrote:
@ Blacksails your comments are an example of constructive criticism, but not a definitive one.

Never claimed my definition was definitive. I stated it can be as simple as my examples, which means it can include more elements too.

You can offer feedback on positive attributes too

Never said you couldn't, something I've agreed on from the get go when I've repeatedly said adding positives is a good thing.

Saying "this bit isn't good, here is how to improve it" is not the extent of constructive criticism.

Never claimed it was the extent, simply that it could be as simple as that.

I also want to point out that in one post you stated my example of 'point out problem, offer advice to fix' is not constructive criticism, but my slightly more elaborate paint example above got your thumbs up for being an example of constructive criticism, which was literally 'point out problem, offer advice to fix'.

I agree with much of what has been said here already, but one thing I think is missing is the question of who's the CC for?

By opening a thread and askig for CC, the OPer is asking you to give constructive criticism on THEIR view/idea/artwork/etc. They aren't asking if you like/hate X project. The idea is to evaluate how they should proceed and/or improve whatever they are purposing.

I think that's where so many arguments start. Everyone is looking at a topic from how it would effect themselves and not the original poster.

I am an architect. We have pin-up critiques all the time. What is their purpose? To find those little details that might have been overlooked or a route that had not been explored BY THE DESIGNER. If someone critiquing starts putting themselves into a project, then that's of no help, because they are not the ones working on it.

This can hold true for ideas as much as physical projects. If someone is trying to craft their concept or feelings about a subject, then ideas and help developing those boundaries are welcome, but when people start trying to take over or insist upon their point of view, that's when it is no longer Constructive and just Criticism.

@ blacksails Your comments have repeatedly been that the essence is homing in on negatives to be improved, and that unnecessary positives can be thrown in to make the negatives seem less harsh. Read back over your comments objectively and you will see that that is the impression you have been giving. True constructive criticism needs to be indepth, detailed, explained and possibly exampled (so more than just colours are good, paint is too thick, thin your paint.) Positives can't just be arbitrary throw ins to soften the blow, as then they come across as such and don't offer any real encouragement. There is a world of difference between quick feedback and proper constructive criticism.

 JamesY wrote:
@ blacksails Your comments have repeatedly been that the essence is homing in on negatives to be improved, and that unnecessary positives can be thrown in to make the negatives seem less harsh. Read back over your comments objectively and you will see that that is the impression you have been giving. True constructive criticism needs to be indepth, detailed, explained and possibly exampled (so more than just colours are good, paint is too thick, thin your paint.) Positives can't just be arbitrary throw ins to soften the blow, as then they come across as such and don't offer any real encouragement. There is a world of difference between quick feedback and proper constructive criticism.

No, my point is simply that constructive criticism can be a simple thing that aims to address a flaw/fault/negative aspect by providing advice/tips/guides on how to fix it. I'm challenging the assertion and mindset that things have to be positive to be 'true' constructive criticism. Comments shouldn't be dismissed because they weren't positive enough.

You have already agreed that constructive criticism can be that simple. There's no minimum word count required, or minimum positive aspects to be discussed. The entire point of constructive criticism is to improve, where pointing out things that can be improved and how to improve them is fulfilling that aim.

If the problem is as simple as thick paints, then the solution can be a quick explanation to thin paints. It doesn't need an in-dept analysis to be considered valid or 'true' (whatever that means) constructive criticism.

Further, positives can be added before or after to soften the blow. Its an incredibly common technique in instruction. I even described it earlier as the gak sandwich technique, something used daily in my line of work. It helps reinforce the advice given by making the person feel better about themselves even if they made a lot of mistakes and have a lot to improve.

I think it's simple enough to look at the basic definition for constructive criticism:

(per the business world...)
A recommended set of instructions that aims to collaboratively improve the overall quality of a product or service. Often containing helpful and specific suggestions for positive change, constructive criticism is highly focused on a particular issue or set of issues, as opposed to providing general feedback on the item or organization as a whole.


Criticism is, by definition: the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes.


On the face of it, being nice has nothing to do with it - that's just general good manners since we're dealing with a hobby. The fact that we deal in, more or less, art when it comes to painting means that critiquing stuff is even more difficult and confusing. I see a lot of beautiful painted miniatures that I don't like...because of the sculpt, the choice of colours, the design decisions. I can objectively look at something and say "Beautifully done, but I don't like it.". I also can't offer genuine constructive criticism unless it's actual flaws that I see which make me dislike the subject. If your paintwork or your model work is flawless, and I just don't like the look - there's nothing constructive I can offer.

On the flip side if you show off a poorly painted, assembled model...another forum user might say "looks like gak.". Well that's obviously not constructive either. It's general in nature, doesn't provide suggestions for positive change, etc.

The positive/negative thing is just a time-tested "mechanic" used by all sorts of negotiators and interviewers. It's more or less just being nice - this is, after all, a hobby. No one is promoting life-saving devices or life-or-death products. They're toy soldiers and we paint them. It's not necessary but is a societal norm now. There's a reason we often say "no thank you" instead of just "no.". Just comes across as being nice.

Why people behave the way they do online? That's an entirely different topic and one impossible to even scratch the surface of.

 JamesY wrote:
Critiquing something involves discussion of its merits as well as its flaws, which is something that is often forgotten. Many people see constructive criticism as just pointing out faults.

This. . . For example, what I try to do anytime I'm commenting on someone's painting, be it here or FB or anywhere, I look for something they did well, especially if they are obviously new to the hobby.

So, for instance, my comment may run something like, "I think you are showing excellent brush control. Your paint coats are nice and thin with no streaks. I would probably try to use X color along some edges to highlight, or you could work on a bit of drybrushing to really make things stand out. All in all, I think you're on the right track"


In pseudo-academic terms, this is known as the "sandwich method" . . . it has three parts. Praise, "what to fix/work on", praise. Some times this is harder to do. If the person really REALLY needs some help, you may focus more on their color selection, then advise them to work on some basics, etc. I tend to want people enjoying the hobby, so I don't start with the criticism of what needs fixing, I try to encourage them, then give them an aim for improvement without putting them down.

another thing to keep in mind is what exactly the original reason was for the original post

Hey what do you think of this genestealer I've painted? that's very much a post looking for constructive criticism

A post about genestealer cult tactics illustrated by a painted cultist, maybe constructive criticism over the tactics being suggested, but even if the cultist is a blobby mess its not really what the post is about

I've just found out about therse really cool tyranids that prime worlds for conquest by all means tell the poster the genstealers came before the tyranids, explain that they were merged with them and what they are now etc but there's no real call for criticism (and certainly not the NOOB, you know nothing types posts that might appear in response)

another thing to keep in mind is what exactly the original reason was for the original post

I'll answer that. In discussion forums, we often have topics discussing the game itself.

On warseer I was banned for promoting AOS. The reason given by the moderator was that I was excessively trolling because "no one that was a fan of WHFB would really be promoting AOS to the extent that you claim to like it". That had nothing to do with constructive criticism.

On other forums, such as facebook groups or the AOS tga.community forum, criticism of the game can lead you to being banned unless you are posting constructive criticism.

But constructive criticism's definition seems to vary from person to person. I am looking for a consensus from the overall community on what exactly that term means to them, because it is such a common term being floated around now that it is possible and likely that I succumb to my own reality being real, when often times are own reality or definition of something is not the worlds' definition, and sometimes adjustment of one's attitude and perceptions are necessary.

In regards to commenting on peoples painting, I'm in the camp of 'all work should be celebrated'. It's a hobby, and sure there are different skills sets and, for example, we shouldn't be encouraging certain painting 'levels' to enter competitive level (or similar). But neither is chucking a like on a post or saying something about the piece is 'false praise'. All it is is acknowledging someone in a shared hobby has finished a piece of work.

I absolutely loath anyone that uses meme like responses for peoples painting or variations of THIN YOUR PAINTS. The one that really gets my on my nerves is the Ducan head scale (where his head is the marks out of ten) I think it is disgusting.

False praise is telling people they can do something that they clearly can't, but only when that thing truly matters. Not painting some toy soldiers. If you don't like the paint job, don't comment. If the persons specifically asks for C&C you can still be constructive and give good advice. There is a whole world of difference between yelling 'THIN YOUR PAINTS' and saying 'I like the colour combo you picked, next time try thinning the paint a bit more, so you loose less details'. I've seen people pushed away from the hobby because they know their posts will be met with nothing but those kind of comments.


As for constructive criticism (on other topics) it doesn't really exist any more and places (sites) like facebook are massively to blame. Facebook groups encourage like minded people to gather and use the group as an echo chamber. They all just want their opinions validated and to be patted on the back.

Sadly, forums started dying out a while back. Facebook (and other sites) make it so easy and simple (and most importantly) fast to post up every thought you have and want to share (or rather, have validated!) where as forums require a bit more thought, and effort to use.

I think one of the big reasons that your find a lot of these loud mouthed types on facebook is that posts 'disappear' very quickly and once they are off the main feed people seem to think they have 'disappeared' off the web all together. Forums have a more 'permanent' feel to the data put on them. I don't think these people realise that facebook posts are still there, no matter how long has passed.

I actually love discussion and will often voice my negative opinions on wargaming but not because I want people to validate my argument but for people to actually change my mind, it's one of the best ways of learning something new or even at times passing on knowledge to someone else. But sadly, most conversations end up being:

I dislike X and Y that GW is about to do, because of Z .
Well, if you don't like X and Y what are you doing here, make your own group if you hate it that much.
I don't hate it. I'm just not sure that this is a good thing. I'd rather see A,B,C done, for E,F reasons.
'Mod here: If you don't echo what the admins think then you will be removed.'

I very rarely get to see anyone tell me I'm wrong with facts or reason. It's always the same 'agree or leave' attitude.

For me constructive criticism should be about two people disagreeing but able to see both sides of the argument by the end of a conversation (and often finding common ground) But it feels like that criticism to others is just an excuse to shout 'THIN YOUR PAINTS' or 'AOS SUCKS', and the hobby is all so much poorer for it.

auticus wrote:

Facebook groups are now banning people for having opinions contrary to the moderators, and even on warhammer community there are people being attacked for having negative feedback as "not being constructive and just being salty".

This is absolutely 100% correct. I don't discuss Warhammmer on facebook.

I saw someone ask for constructive criticism on how to expand his list and force, and one of the moderators - I didn't know he was a moderator - was openly rude to this guy, and was telling him to scrap his list and completely refactor it. The guy put up some resistance (pretty fair considering he was not asking for "how best to throw his minis in the trash"), and the moderator doubled down on his rudeness and just kept repeating he needed to rework his list. I chimed in, and said hey, here are some of the uses of what you built. Don't totally refactor. His advice isn't gospel. And then of course this guy got on my case, and told me to rework the list, and I was a bit surprised, because it wasn't even my list. I asked his credentials to make such authoritarian statements and he banned me.

I've noticed this hobby really draws some ugly people to it. On the inside, and the outside.

I played competitive sports up until college. I played competitive MTG as well at the same time. I played online video games. None of these communities are as toxic as miniature gaming groups.

 Polonius wrote:
Constructive criticism is, well, constructive. It's aim is point out flaws, but also provide solutions. At a minimum, it has some value or content beyond simply stating a dislike.

Everybody has a right to their opinion, and we all love a good dog pile at times, but if you really want to talk about something, relentless negativity doesn't really add much.

You kind of answered your own question in the OP: "it seemed to simply be the moderator didn't agree with what the person was saying and had enough of hearing it." It's not like these are pure echo chambers, but repeatedly hearing unnuanced dislike isn't really discussion.

Is relentless positivity really that much better though? Is nothing but various shades of undiluted adoration really discussion? Because the OP isn't wrong that the pendulum has swung really far in the opposite direction in a lot of places now. Facebook groups are especially guilty, with many having rules that essentially ban the expression of criticism of any kind, constructive or otherwise, general or specific, to the point where beyond a few back-patting sessions about how super-duper-awesome whatever the group's subject is, they're essentially just image galleries where commenting is superfluous since the only sentiment you're allowed to express is entirely covered by the Like button.

Discussion requires at least some level of disagreement beyond "I think this thing is a 9.99 out of 10", "Well I think this thing is an 11/10!", "You're both correct, this thing is the bestest EVAR!"

 Marmatag wrote:
I played competitive sports up until college. I played competitive MTG as well at the same time. I played online video games. None of these communities are as toxic as miniature gaming groups.

You've obviously never had much experience in RPG gaming groups. Absolute worst toxic people. I've never seen a group of individuals that spend more time trying to tell you how you're enjoying something 'wrong'. The absolute worst were the White Wolf RPG forums. How dare you play an Iteration X technocrat! How dare you play a Hunter with a marksmanship skill higher than 3 dots! How dare you try and run an Exalted game focused on having wild fantasy adventures! You're supposed to be depressingly boring and scared to roll dice for 'combat'.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Constructive criticism is, well, constructive. It's aim is point out flaws, but also provide solutions. At a minimum, it has some value or content beyond simply stating a dislike.

Everybody has a right to their opinion, and we all love a good dog pile at times, but if you really want to talk about something, relentless negativity doesn't really add much.

You kind of answered your own question in the OP: "it seemed to simply be the moderator didn't agree with what the person was saying and had enough of hearing it." It's not like these are pure echo chambers, but repeatedly hearing unnuanced dislike isn't really discussion.

Is relentless positivity really that much better though? Is nothing but various shades of undiluted adoration really discussion? Because the OP isn't wrong that the pendulum has swung really far in the opposite direction in a lot of places now. Facebook groups are especially guilty, with many having rules that essentially ban the expression of criticism of any kind, constructive or otherwise, general or specific, to the point where beyond a few back-patting sessions about how super-duper-awesome whatever the group's subject is, they're essentially just image galleries where commenting is superfluous since the only sentiment you're allowed to express is entirely covered by the Like button.

Discussion requires at least some level of disagreement beyond "I think this thing is a 9.99 out of 10", "Well I think this thing is an 11/10!", "You're both correct, this thing is the bestest EVAR!"

If I had to pick between relentless negativiy and relentless positivity, I would choose the latter. You can think something is good, and still discuss it in detail.

As for groups that become glorified image galleries... if that's what they want to become, what' the problem? There seems to be this undercurrent in this thread that it's a social imperative that we give brutally honest feedback to people about their hobby.

Not all people want the same level of feedback. This is a hobby, not a job or relationship. If somebody uses thick paint and doesn't clean mold lines, that's really okay.