5-star rating system for deviations: yay or nay?
I was wondering what the impact of implementing such a rating system would be. I proposed this in the first place because many people consider the fave system and the llama system a weak way of determining how well-received they are. Watchers are not bad, although many of them can be inactive. Also, comments come by more infrequently than rain in the Sahara despite being far more substantial than the aforementioned ways.
Perhaps the current dA system of expressing gratitude towards an artist is fine as is?
Perhaps the current dA system of expressing gratitude towards an artist is fine as is?
Comments173
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
YouTube abandoned five stars because most people rated 1 or 5 stars, so they switched to like/dislikes.
Kongregate (game site) has 5-star rating system but most people think "4 star is good but 5 star is perfect" so it doesn't suffer YouTube's problem.
The critiques system have 5 stars but it's fine grained and serious enough so people actually rate the in-betweens, except critiques are harder to write than comments and it's for Core members.
I would propose a simpler and faster and freer critiques system where users rate a deviation on 3 criteria in 5-stars, such as creativity and technique.
Kongregate (game site) has 5-star rating system but most people think "4 star is good but 5 star is perfect" so it doesn't suffer YouTube's problem.
The critiques system have 5 stars but it's fine grained and serious enough so people actually rate the in-betweens, except critiques are harder to write than comments and it's for Core members.
I would propose a simpler and faster and freer critiques system where users rate a deviation on 3 criteria in 5-stars, such as creativity and technique.
AW HAEL NOOOOO-OOOOOOOOO-OOOOOOOOO-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Yay.
No!
On a site like this, that would be a very bad idea. As others have said, people would most definitely get upset over their ratings and others would abuse the system. Not only that, but it would cause a huge uproar in the community here, just like Core did. After that whole ordeal, a lot of people left and others are even still upset by the change.
Lol, noooo. It would be overrun by trolls and butthurt people. Also asskissers.
I don't get why the 5-star rating system works so well on Newgrounds though. Whenever I look at the art portal, the artwork are not masterpieces but they're still way better on average than the BS on dA.
Perhaps if it were a system that could be turned off and on, it would work better? If you're feeling bold, you turn on the star system, if you're not, then you turn it off. I understand that there are some budding artists who just aren't there yet quality-wise, and having a feature like this could be counterproductive if used incorrectly.
So yes, make it possible to turn such a system on and off, and that should be a plus. Also, if it were set up in such a way that only the watchers of the artist could vote, that might help too? The voters would have to have been a watcher for at least a week or two in order to vote (that way its easier to deter trolls). And it would have to be anonymous.
At the end of the day, if making it easier for artists to get feedback is the goal, there's really only so much you can do? Because it all depends on how lazy, genuine, knowledgeable, mature, etc. the person giving the feedback is. Emphasis on "lazy". If people don't feel like giving feedback, they won't.
So yes, make it possible to turn such a system on and off, and that should be a plus. Also, if it were set up in such a way that only the watchers of the artist could vote, that might help too? The voters would have to have been a watcher for at least a week or two in order to vote (that way its easier to deter trolls). And it would have to be anonymous.
At the end of the day, if making it easier for artists to get feedback is the goal, there's really only so much you can do? Because it all depends on how lazy, genuine, knowledgeable, mature, etc. the person giving the feedback is. Emphasis on "lazy". If people don't feel like giving feedback, they won't.
That sounds like a good compromise. I was also thinking that dA should give watchers the option of watching an artist's faves. That way, faves can be more meaningful since they will produce more views. I brought this up because I have found that excellent artists tend to be great filters for excellent work via their fave folders. Furthermore, there wouldn't be any downsides to this idea.
No. Critiques went to shit a long time ago, no need to amplify it.
I didn't know Critiques were not as effective as intended. But, how exactly are they ineffective?
People typically end up asskissing just praising the art without giving any pointers or pointing out where the artist could improve, or they just shitpist.
True. I guess comments and feedback seem meaningless these days.
I don't think that would be a good idea. I feel like if there was a rating system, it might homogenize all the art into a perfect formula that appeals to the most people, as people try to gain higher ratings. It might improve the quality of the average artwork that you see, but it might become generic. It'll be like public television. I think it's worth looking at a hundred MLP fetish pictures to see one perfectly flawed work of art.
I guess the reason why I proposed this idea in the first place is because I have seen it work quite well on Newgrounds, where the average quality of artwork is higher than the stuff on dA. Besides, dA already has plenty of generic art so I'm in favour of raising the average quality of artwork.
If you still don't think the 5-star rating system would be a good way to deter people from posting junk, what solution would you propose?
If you still don't think the 5-star rating system would be a good way to deter people from posting junk, what solution would you propose?
I say just give it time. A lot of the people (myself included) weren't artists when they found this site. They saw the work of many fantastic artists and were inspired learn themselves. Maybe you should just critique people's art and they might improve faster.
Maybe. I'm in favour of working towards long-term goals although if extremely inefficient growth persists for too long, I start adopting a cruelly pragmatic mindset. I have seen more stragglers who make next-to-nothing progress over one year too many than novices who eventually become masterful. To be fair, I'm a harsher critic towards myself than I am towards others and quite frankly, I'm slightly disappointed at my progress in art. I think I've definitely come a long way since my drawings from grade 5 although I really wish I could have improved a tad faster despite having been in numerous art programs and taking proactive measures to read up on perspective, figure, form, and colour. However, I won't actively beat down a novice because I don't believe in destructive criticism.
I'm sorry if this post sounds critical towards newbies and highly judgmental towards slowness. I have a problem with too much permissiveness because I've been the victim of so-called sympathetic treatment in high-school. I didn't have to address my deficiencies in reading comprehension, and now I'm paying hell for my ineptitude in university. Art isn't as vital, but deep inside, I get irked by anything that's takes too long.
I'm sorry if this post sounds critical towards newbies and highly judgmental towards slowness. I have a problem with too much permissiveness because I've been the victim of so-called sympathetic treatment in high-school. I didn't have to address my deficiencies in reading comprehension, and now I'm paying hell for my ineptitude in university. Art isn't as vital, but deep inside, I get irked by anything that's takes too long.
Oh hell no. How can you not see how this would be abused to death by trolls, SJWs and white knights? This site stopped being about honest critique of art a long time ago.
Perhaps. I still think there should be more avenues to provide artists with more meaningful feedback or some way to deter people from posting low-quality work.
If low quality work is what some people is able to do then so be it. Let them post whatever they want. If you don´t like it then don´t fave them or watch them, it´s that easy.
I mean, you can say my work is low quality and I shouldn´t post it, but it´s what I am able to do now (actually, I´m now far better than what I´ve got uploaded here but whatever) and I want to post it either because at the time I thought it looked nice, or because I want to share what I do or because I want to receive feedback on it, or whatever reason. I have no reason to tell someone to stop uploading stuff because to me it´s low quality. This is a process. I´m doing everything to get better faster, and for now I´m getting better fast, so what you say is low quality work in a future could be outstanding. What if with your comments you just made an oustanding artist dessist? Think about that
I mean, you can say my work is low quality and I shouldn´t post it, but it´s what I am able to do now (actually, I´m now far better than what I´ve got uploaded here but whatever) and I want to post it either because at the time I thought it looked nice, or because I want to share what I do or because I want to receive feedback on it, or whatever reason. I have no reason to tell someone to stop uploading stuff because to me it´s low quality. This is a process. I´m doing everything to get better faster, and for now I´m getting better fast, so what you say is low quality work in a future could be outstanding. What if with your comments you just made an oustanding artist dessist? Think about that
I guess you have a point. Nonetheless, there should be an algorithm which will allow viewers to get feeds based on their preferences. While dA ought to facilitate an environment for improvement, there are viewers who dislike having to sift through a flood of work just to find the few that they care about. Then again, there are trade-offs between satisfying the viewer vs giving posters the opportunity to succeed. One of my favourite Q&A websites, Quora, has boatloads of excellent content with fantastic answers although it can be difficult to gain a following since everybody's feeds keeps showing top-notch content, many of which are written by successful people, graduate students, university professors, and legit scientists.
Man, website architecture is a difficult topic. I had no idea about the nuanced interaction between web structures and online behaviour until now.
P.S. Your artwork is not low-quality at all. I'm sure you'll succeed eventually.
Man, website architecture is a difficult topic. I had no idea about the nuanced interaction between web structures and online behaviour until now.
P.S. Your artwork is not low-quality at all. I'm sure you'll succeed eventually.
Thanks! I would tell you to watch good groups and see which ones get you more good artwork on your inbox. There are groups for each preference, if you search sci-fi you'll get sci-fi groups, and so on.
I've tried watching groups although the quality of art is still inconsistent. It's an improvement over dA's search engine but most of the time when I receive updates from a group, I end up deleting most of them. It got to the point where nowadays I don't watch most groups because it just clutters my feed. However, I have found that browsing through the faves of excellent artists to be a great way to find high-quality content. Maybe dA should have an additional optional watch feature which allows a watcher to check up on faves so they become more meaningful because the artist is more likely to get more views. Even if it doesn't make a world of difference, I don't see how there could be any negative consequences and it sounds like a win-win proposition for both the viewers and the producers.