MrMasochism wrote:All this is very interesting but spg was right that the tail was bad. I don't have time to be personally critiquing models in the model feedback thread so I tend to rely on others to do it for me but if that seadra had come to approval looking like that I'd have sent it back so we do need to make sure that the negative comments are heard. Part of the issue is also the number of people trying to boost the number of posts in their account by just going to model feedback and typing "this model looks great". It gets rather irritating partly because it's so transparent
I'm not saying don't eliminate negative comments on the site. I'm saying it should be possible to make them less negative. There's no reason to bash someone's model with no explanation, but that's not saying that there's no merit in a "hey, this isn't how it's supposed to look, try this instead" post.
My point is that in leaving a comment containing criticism, surely there has to be a better way to do it than flaming the user for their attempt, or flaming a supporter for their support.
Also, I do agree that the postcount mining shouldn't be happening, but I think that goes without saying. Any sort of comments, no matter what they're about, need to have some kind of substance to them. Whether that's saying "hey, good job, I really like what you've done with <insert specific model part here>", or "hey, this was a decent attempt, but here's what could be improved".
Nobody needs to be nasty with their feedback around here, but that's not saying that you don't have to be overly nice or sappy in any way. There's a good middle ground to delivering feedback, at least in my opinion. It's possible to be critical of an attempt made, while still remaining positive about the fact that the user tried.