|
Straylight
|
|
|
|
At the moment, I think the biggest factor is that people tend to "skip" assignments they don't like reading, and so some stories tend to get completed reviews from those who have liked them and not those who eg have abandoned it after one page because of POV confusion. This think this might limit itself as they go up the charts as people hold them to higher standards. As for level of feedback, I try to pitch it at the level I think a writer is at and stop at a quantity that seems reasonable to cope with, or I might do one or two negative for every positive until I run out of positives! I mark the scores relative to the overall standard however. That's one reason I'm in favour of anonymous marking, because if someone read a constructive review and then saw a line of 2's, they might feel crushed and forget that with some time and work it might become a row of 4/5's. Very few people write a masterpiece the first time they put pen to paper This has misfired on occasion...
Skye is unimpressed by the sock monster
|
|
kimshaw
|
|
|
|
Quote: youngun, Friday, 6 Jul 2012 08:14I know this issue comes up regularly but willow55's remarks will give pause to all those considering posting new work. From time to time we all have dark thoughts about stories we may regard as merely average but that seem to enjoy wide popularity. I have always put this down to the extremely subjective nature of this activity of writing and reading. And surely we can all name even acknowledged 'great' authors who leave us personally cold. I would like to continue to refuse to believe that people who call themselves writers would stoop to such influences. And for what? Just to get themselves or their friends a 'pro-crit.' Isn't life just too short? However, on a purely technical level, isn't the random issuing of assignment reviews by the YWO site software specifically designed to counter any such favouritism? And doesn't the large pool of reviewers involved in reviewing make this impractical? I'm pretty new to the site, have so far posted a chapter and read/reviewed two writers' work - and so far, only 1 review on my own. So - I have no idea how others review work, or much idea how the systems works. What I was hoping for was a system that, unlike the authonomy site, is not based on a marketing campaign and scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours, with reviewers gushing over work that is, well... frequently not something to gush over. Any advice on how to make use of YWO effectively would be greatly appreciated! How long on average, does it take to get sufficient feedback in order to be able to view my own stats, and see how other work is rated? I'm trying my best to review honestly, but sometimes it is a little hard to know how much or how little to say... I admit - I have already had one reading assignment that I promptly deleted after struggling horribly to read the entire text, let alone formulate some kind of critque on it. If anyone has any helpful advice, my email is gjcromie@gmail.com but i will also watch this thread
|
|
willow55
|
|
|
|
Quote: anaislace, Monday, 23 Jul 2012 19:38I joined YWO a few months ago and rarely stray into the message boards. I spent a couple of years in a professionally-focused critique group, and although that sounds really pretentious a lot of the reviews I got at that time was focused on getting a manuscript ready for publication, with the distinct aim of avoiding the most common mistakes that keep us caught in the slush pile. I still pitch critiques at that level, again I know that sounds quite pretentious of me. But if the flow of a story is interrupted by eight paragraphs of infodumping and exposition, no professional agent or publisher will take on that story. Like the original post I am often surprised when I read glowing reviews of manuscripts that are somewhat... confuzzled. However, I don't think this necessarily means that a large number of people are voting tactically. I have started to notice that may people don't seem to care about getting a manuscript ready for serious submission, and as such I am starting to feel guilty for writing quite direct reviews. I have noticed myself slowly give higher ratings and kinder comments to work that would have previously made me grimace. I read the previous comments about literary police with a bit of a sinking feeling (I have no sense of humour). If we're aiming for professional publication (and I am, that's my long-term goal, rather than eBookery or the like), then there are a few basic things which are going to get our manuscripts chucked in the bin at the first page. I think it's a bit cruel to tell people that their work is four or five star when it is clearly slush. But if someone isn't really pitching at that level, it seems cruel to give them two or three stars when they might just want a pat on the head and to be told what a great writer they are, and that the ideas have promise. It doesn't feel great to see people get offended when I'm just trying to help, that just makes me feel bad about myself. I find myself being more and more lenient because I feel more and more guilty about being "pretentious." At the same time, I'm just utterly desperate for professionally-pitched reviews on my own work because I want honest, detailed advice which will help my novel become more professional. Sorry, that was a blurt and a waffle from a relative newbie. Just wanted to say that people's motivations for reviews might be guilt based as well as networking or tactically based. It's always difficult for a reviewer to try to second-guess what the writer might or might not want from a review. If I review something, I do it in the way I'd want/hope to be reviewed myself. If someone posts something on here and it's full of basic spelling/punctuation errors, I'll point out one or two example-mistakes but suggest the person edits the work thoroughly. I don't think that's being the 'literary police' as some people view it - it's expecting a basic level of literacy. However, I do think it's always worth looking at a person's bio beforehand: it's sometimes a useful tool in guaging if that person is writing as a hobby or if they have aspirations to publish - and the focus of the review might be slightly different in each case. It also provides an idea of the likely standard of writing - some openly admit to having had problems at school with grammar and ask specifically for help with it. Others are journalists or say they have been editors themselves and in those cases, I'd expect near-faultless grammar/spelling/punctuation. But I take your point that the harshness/honesty of reviews isn't always tactical but perhaps more a result of what the reviewer thinks the writer wants.
|
|
kimshaw
|
|
|
|
Both the above comments have given me a little more to think about in terms of reviews - both given and received - and how it makes us feel to give the advice or receive it.
The only niggle I have is that while I want serious critique, because getting published in print by a publishing house is my goal, it is annoying to have someone say you should do this, or that, only to go and have a look at the quality of their work and find out that they have not applied the same standards to their own work...
|
|
willow55
|
|
|
|
Quote: kimshaw, Tuesday, 24 Jul 2012 05:41Both the above comments have given me a little more to think about in terms of reviews - both given and received - and how it makes us feel to give the advice or receive it. The only niggle I have is that while I want serious critique, because getting published in print by a publishing house is my goal, it is annoying to have someone say you should do this, or that, only to go and have a look at the quality of their work and find out that they have not applied the same standards to their own work... Hi Kim - yes, it can be annoying but after a while, you learn to be selective in the advice you take. If someone who clearly has problems with grammar tries to point out the supposed grammatical errors in your own work, you might be wise to ignore them (or at least think carefully before changing anything). On the other hand, they may offer different kinds of insights which might turn out to be valuable. It's tempting to disregard some comments out of hand if you feel the reviewer can barely string a sentence together, but even the most 'challenged' writer can offer you something as a reader. And it might be some time later (after the initial sting of disappointment) that you see something worthwhile in the review. I was looking at one of my older postings on here the other day and re-reading the comments I had back. I'd thought at the time there were some harsh criticisms, but now with hindsight, I think most reviewers went easy on me and I got off rather lightly given the major flaws in it. So, what I'm saying is, although you might fiercely disagree with some of your reviews or have little faith in their merit, there's usually some nugget of useful comment in there even if it takes a while to unearth it.
|
|
flossy
|
|
|
|
Quote: willow55, Friday, 6 Jul 2012 10:02Quote: notleyab, Friday, 6 Jul 2012 09:46Quote: willow55, Friday, 6 Jul 2012 02:12I used to like Notley’s idea of transparency in scoring but I think it has its down side. When someone has given a gushing review of something mediocre, ending with the words ‘I have scored you all fives’ (or similar), it’s not hard to imagine that the compliment will be returned at some point, particularly if emails are exchanged and friendships formed. I don't see that as a 'fault' of putting in the scores; more an encouragement to do so. If someone has given them all 5s, they are probably more likely to reciprocate, whether it's been highlighted for other people on the site to see or not. Yep, fair point. Although, of course scores can't be seen for the first four reviews, so by someone stating 'I've scored you all fives' there can be no doubts who has given them the top score (should they wish to reciprocate). But, I agree - at least if the scores are stated, it's transparent for everyone not just for the person being reviewed. On occasions I tell the author what scores I have given. It had not occurred to me that they would then mark mine higher should it come across their computer screen. Often it is because I am excited by what I have just read and want to tell them how fabulous I thought it was. I will think twice about doing this from now on. Last night my story Jolted, at number 5 in the TT, was reviewed by the author of number 4 in the TT (both stories moved to different positions now). He didn't mark it down. The scores were fair. So although some may mark scores lower for self gain, there are also writers here doing what is right.
|
|
dancingsue
|
|
|
|
Quote: kimshaw, Tuesday, 24 Jul 2012 05:41Both the above comments have given me a little more to think about in terms of reviews - both given and received - and how it makes us feel to give the advice or receive it. The only niggle I have is that while I want serious critique, because getting published in print by a publishing house is my goal, it is annoying to have someone say you should do this, or that, only to go and have a look at the quality of their work and find out that they have not applied the same standards to their own work... It's much less easy to see flaws in our own work and to 'kill our babies', than it is to advise someone else to do it! That's why we put our writing out to others, isn't it? There comes a time, after a few uploads, assessing one's reviews and making improvements, when the penny drops and you realise it's not about you but about your writing. That moment is a revelation and a liberation. After that, you can take any amount of criticism and use it to your advantage. You can also tell when it IS personal!
This post was last edited by dancingsue, 24 Jul 2012, 11:03
the long and the short of it
|
|
jancarr
|
|
|
|
Quote: dancingsue, Tuesday, 24 Jul 2012 10:59It's much less easy to see flaws in our own work and to 'kill our babies', than it is to advise someone else to do it! That's why we put our writing out to others, isn't it? ExactlyThere comes a time, after a few uploads, assessing one's reviews and making improvements, when the penny drops and you realise it's not about you but about your writing. That moment is a revelation and a liberation. After that, you can take any amount of criticism and use it to your advantage. You can also tell when it IS personal! Oh Yes
This site is a revelation.
|
|
AlfFry
|
|
|
|
I think there are a number of things that lead to some stories getting surprisingly good reviews that don't arise out of any type of conspiracy. I think the fact that we're a far from homogenous community of writers has a lot to do with it. I'm picking some are more willing than others to give time and concentration to review outside their own preferences, so some material tends to get disproportionately reviewed only by positively predisposed reviewers. (As a science fiction writer myself, I encounter the pre-Star Wars and post Star-Wars rift in expectations about what science fiction is and who the target audience might be.) I think the most common reviewing 'errors' or 'biases' are when a reviewer's review and scoring across the 8 score fields are coloured by their response to the themes and ideas of the story or by their response to the pace. For some reviewers, if they like the ideas and the pace, everything else gets uncritically reviewed, along with high scores too. If they don't like the pace (which may mean they don't get what's between the lines too) they review and mark everything else down.
I've been very grateful for the more meticulous reviews of my own stories - one of which has been in the Bestseller list since March and which I'm still revising in response to insightful reviews, sometimes around quite basic flaws - but it's still disappointing to get reviews that merely reflect the reviewer's own genre or style preferences.
I wonder if some stories get surprisingly good reviews because sometimes it's hard to know where to start in giving a more comprehensive critique and we're asked to be encouraging. For myself, I often focus on one main area for improvement when I encounter a story that I think needs much improvement in other areas too.
Ultimately, we'd be testing the responses of a sample of our target readership to our work, not our fellow writers. I'm more concerned that some excellent and marketable material doesn't get to the Top 10 than I am that some fairly shabby stuff gets favourable reviews.
|
|
youngun
|
|
|
|
Gawd effing help us. [With no particular reference to any posting on this site and no insult intended to Gawd or any other deity, present or past. I just think we could all do with some supreme-being powered help in reviewing our functions]
This post was last edited by youngun, 28 Jul 2012, 08:07
|
|
Is it odd how some stories have surprisingly good reviews?
23 Jul 2012, 22:20
