Workshop Improvements

I'd also point out, mostly because I often do, that constructive critique isn't merely or even necessarily principally correction, the paradigm most of us bring with us from an early lifetime of attending schools.

Nobody achieves excellence or prominence simply by eliminating negatives and focusing mostly on fixing where they fall short.

In fact, particularly in my world of musical performance, but I believe in writing as well, the world forgives many stumbles or bad habits as long as there's a steady show of delightful traits. Excellence is not principally the absence of blemish. It is its own quality, without which the rest is for naught.

Much as it might surprise anyone who reads or receives my critiques, I never go into a piece thinking "What can I find wrong with this?" or "What can I find to change?" I go in at least pretending to myself that I expect to find nothing to comment on. When a phrase or an observation kindles a spark of enthusiasm, I mark it. Because those are the moments that create and define good writing and notable writers. Encouragement isn't only about not discouraging writers, about keeping them in the game. It's more importantly about recognizing what makes them good, what may in time (or perhaps already) make them excellent, and making sure it's not accident or coincidence -- making sure they know it and develop it. Equally, and more often in most writing, when something sounds off -- a lapse in tone, a discordant element, a fumbled idiom, a non-intentional grammatical error, a missed opportunity -- I mark and often explain that as well.

So I see nothing wrong with a purely positive critique, though I can't recall giving one. The closest was a piece of flash fiction in which I marked and gushed over many details and overall, yet pointed out that "oak" is a stronger, more iconic symbol than "oak tree," and highlighted a fumbled parallelism, and not much more. Finding fault with something faultless never improves it. It fosters a breeding ground for mediocrity and homogeneity.

But I agree that superficial "good job, loved it, keep up the good work" doesn't add value. Positive or negative, people need to explain -- if not specifically why, then at least how it affected them as a reader, and which words, phrases, ironies, or other elements in particular.

 

That's how it used to work.

 

I actually think multiple posts in one thread should be allowed as credits for the system to have coherency. Consider: if an author redrafts their work or posts the next chapter of their work the rules state they have to do it in the same thread. This is fine, I had two of my threads merged when I first joined for this reason. And so authors posting updates or next chapters in the same thread happens a lot. But if only one critique per thread is counting it is incentivising critics to respond once to an author and not come back, whereas as an author you often really want the same critic to review again.

 

Reading evil4ave's post got me to thinking (often a dangerous prospect)

even if they have limited FAQ-reading abilities

What if there was a mechanism in place for Newbies who are first logging in, that forces them to at least open the FAQ before they can comment on anything? Would that help anything?

 

Sorry I didn't remember that. I told you my thinking was a dangerous proposition! Time to step up my Prevegen.

 

Different people post in the workshop for different reasons, but I think the 241 rule makes it clearer what the Workshop is for - that is, it's a place to give and receive help. The rule isn't that onerous.

I wouldn't want to see people sign up and post stuff just because they wanted other people to tell them how wonderful they were. I got the distinct impression that's what our lately banned Professor chap wanted.

 

Editing a workshop entry takes away points. Today I started on 5 points, made an edit to an old post, created a new one, then tried to edit the new one and wasn't allowed tp because I didn'thave enough points.

 

Wise words.

 

I like the workshop credit score because it reminds me to make contributing a priority.

 

Due to the issues with the credit system, I've disabled the parts of it that seemed to be causing the errors. If you continue to experience errors please continue to report them. I'm going to do more testing on my test/demo boards. It seems like most of the issues are related to incorrectly charging or preventing qualified people from posting, so I've disabled the function that charges for threads. For now, credits are still accrued. I ask members still try to leave two critiques for each feedback-request thread.

If I can identify the source of the issues and get it functioning properly on my demo-boards, we can re-evaluate and re-implement. Apologies to everyone who's had issues with the system.

 

Just a question about credit accumulation. I was at 6 WC, then I did a review and got to 8. Shouldn't it be 7? Or how is it counted? I know it's not withdrawn right now due to technical stuff.

EDIT: Disregard this, maybe I was at 7. I seem to be having a faulty memory.