Discussion on Commenting and Critiquing

[khyron1144]

I notice that I don't do a lot of reviewing either.

I think it's partly limited amount of time available for internet stuff these days.  If it would take me three or more hours to read the setting, then it's probable that I'm not going to do more than skim for about ten minutes and see if anything leaps out at me.

I also don't feel much like giving reviews, when I don't get reviews.

[Raelifin]

I know that when I do reviews, I tend to either do realy in-depth reads and comments, or I'll do half-assed comments for developing settings that need a lot of work. I only do a real review when I'm in the right mindset, usually requiring a lot of free computer time. Quickie reviews are easy and fast, because it's easy for me to find things that I think need work when the setting is <1000 words. I think it's really clear how a setting can pass from short to long, and thus stop getting "Easy" reviews.

Note that I don't think that big settings are bad. Like stargate, I enjoy a condensed presentation without other people's posts/comments breaking it up. I think that as a community of world buildiers, we're especially prone to making pieces that are large and complex, but that's what makes them great. Avayevnon isn't cool because it has a monotheism center, it's cool because of how that monotheistic attititude reverberates off of satelite components in a complex and realistic way. Kishar isn't nifty because it has a number of dimensions that break the norm, it's nifty because of how these dimensions facilitate a level of fantasy that serves to create a deep backing for myth within a gritty world.

Sure, getting feedback on a campaign element (such as a language, race, religion, culture, technology, magic, or whatever) can be great! We have a sub-forum dedicated to discussion of these elements. And yes, these elements are easier to review than full settings, especially when coupled with direct questions. But what is really special about the CBG, something which you don't see anywhere else, is the willingness of outsiders to pick up an entire setting and comment on the meta-systems, the things that cannot be seen in a mini-thread, such as thematic direction or consistency in tone.

Thus, I belive that what's really to be desired, if you want to get a review of your world (not just an element) is building interest in your setting, and quite frankly, population of the CBG. Using element discussions, review swaps, play-by-posts, name-dropping, whatever, you can get more people to take that initial glance, and with luck, you'll find someone who likes your work and is willing to keep chewing on it until they can make world-encompassing critiques that are in such short supply.

 - Raelifin

P.S. Also, I think it's important to avoid guilt-reviews. I never read settings unless I'm interested in them, and I think this helps me enjoy the setting and stick with it. The setting of the week was a failure, I belive, because it was just more guilt-tripping. Guilt leaves people feeling down, and I want the CBG to stay a "place of happy-happy sunshine sparkles!" ^_^

[Epic Meepo]

Define irony. A thread about lack of feedback gets more responses in two days than most setting threads get in two weeks.

[sparkletwist]

Here's two more cents. I'm now up to four cents!

I really like settings with a clear sense of national and factional identities. That is, for each group with power and influence to also have an agenda, a purpose, and aims for what it wants to do in the world. What do the followers want? What do the followers disagree on? (Both with other groups, and within the group-- it's unlikely to be monolithic, even if it seems that way from the outside)

Oh, and in the realm of visual aids, if the countries/factions have pretty little emblems or flags, all the better.

Finally, I will say, some settings are quite rough and undeveloped, and like everyone else here, I have my own little pet peeves about settings, so, if a setting is such that I would likely have a lot of negative things to say about it, I figure either it must just suck that much, or I'm being unfair and not giving it a fair evalulation, and either way, my comments probably aren't worth much, so I simply don't comment.

[psychoticbarber]

- Linkage and definitions. This is contrary to at least one opinion from above, which I guess just means no one thread will ever satisfy everyone, but I like having a somewhat wiki-ized feel. If there are a lots of new words (or words used in a new way), it's nice to be able to easily get a definition of the word. It's also nice to be able to hop around the concepts, and such things.

I think you've hit upon something here. My campaign world is not yet up (and probably won't be for another month, I'm a perfectionist sort), but I've been using TiddlyWiki to contain all the information. When the time comes, my post is going to be a short introduction and a link ;).

I know for myself that one of the things that gets in my way when I try to review is intimidating walls of text (and lack of sleep, but that's another story). Part of it also comes from trying to divide my time between other settings and work on my own, which on paper isn't remotely like what's in my head yet.

My last comment is that, as a reviewer, if I don't know what the writer is looking for in a critique, I can't give a good critique. I recently read through the material on the Shattered World, and I thought it was wonderful (and I said so), but with no idea where the creator felt it needed to improve, I couldn't focus my attentions to making it any better.

[Seraph]

I honestly think I have yet to read all the way through any of the settings that were already major settings when I arrived (Jade Stage, Dystopia, etc.).  I think realizing that I have been lax on reviewing has inspired me to be more active, at least for now while my time is as unlimited as it will ever be.