TWCL

[mcmasters]

That post was kind of cranky, wasn't it. Sorry. Point is...I can understand reviews of on-going dramas and similar comics but humor/gag-a-day comics? Go to the actual webcomic, read five of the strips and you'll know whether you think it was funny. Actually, you'll know after one but read five; maybe the creator was having a not-funny week. You don't need somebody to say "the artwork is..." whatever. It's not a movie. You can click on the comic. And see the art, humor, etc.

[Marscaleb]

mcmasters wrote:

That post was kind of cranky, wasn't it. Sorry. Point is...I can understand reviews of on-going dramas and similar comics but humor/gag-a-day comics? Go to the actual webcomic, read five of the strips and you'll know whether you think it was funny. Actually, you'll know after one but read five; maybe the creator was having a not-funny week. You don't need somebody to say "the artwork is..." whatever. It's not a movie. You can click on the comic. And see the art, humor, etc.

Well said.

That's why what I do for the links page on my comic is just a simple short description, and an arbitrary overall scale. And it seems to me like that's what a review for any humor-based comic should really be.
I mean, if it's one of your favorite comics and you're really just trying to give it some serious lip service and talk up how great it is, sure, spend some time and talk it up.
But for an honest review on a site dedicated to reviews, really all you can do is give a paragraph or two to say if you liked it and why or why not. It's purely subjective content.

For free comics that are just a click away, all I could really see being necessary for a review is why you liked it or not. Occasionally there might be a comic where it is worth saying "Read at least X because Y" but seriously, don't waste my time giving your opinion when I can read the actual comic just as easily and gain my own.
_________________
My webcomic: Mischief in Maytia
http://maytiacomic.com/

[mcmasters]

Yeah, I guess a large part of my peevishness comes from the reviews having a sub-part called "funny?" As in, let me tell you if it's, objectively, funny. Which is ludicrous. How about, as you suggest, "Why I thought it was funny:" And then explain, and explain why you thought it wasn't if that was the case.

I haven't done a links page yet and have been dwelling on how to handle it...I have friends, and I have webcomics I like...and they ain't always the same. I'll post this without seeing your links video or taking in your exact method, but I'm going to look at it in more detail. You have clearly taken the time to give it some thought.

[LifeInPanels]

I'd love for my comics to be reviewed!
http://www.facebook.com/LifeInPanels

[Marscaleb]

mcmasters wrote:

You have clearly taken the time to give it some thought.

My biggest thought was really just "Links pages on other webcomics look ugly!"

Followed by "I can't find button-banners in the same size for all the webcomics I want to list!"
_________________
My webcomic: Mischief in Maytia
http://maytiacomic.com/

[Spencey]

Whenever a review thread appears on this forum it quickly fills up with people wanting their comics reviewed (often people who have never or rarely posted here before) and then they are typically disappointed when the review then doesn't materialise.

Call me a cynic if you must (go on, I know you want to), but usually in my experience the reviewer only selects webcomic sites with lots of traffic because they want the creator of the comic to then post something saying "my webcomic was reviewed (here) go and have a read!". The reviewer's site then gets a load of traffic. So, they review another popular comic and repeat to fade.

This may not be the case here. Not knowing the original poster or what he is trying to achieve I couldn't comment on that.

---

It is worth considering the distinction between a review and a critique. A review is intended to simply look back ('re' and 'view') at your work and comment upon it (probably for the benefit of a reader who has not yet read it). On the other hand a critique is written for the creator and is intended to help them improve their work. It will focus, constructively on specifics that could help the creator's technique.

When requesting a review, you are asking that your work, as it stands, is presented to the audience of the reviewer. If you are requesting a critique, you may intend to do something with that information, in which case it is worth knowing a bit more about whether the person giving the critique is sufficiently knowledgeable to deliver meaningful and constructive feedback.

The suggestion box thread had an interesting proposal regarding round-robin critique threads. If there is a demand for it (and I guess this thread proves that there is) maybe the forum should have something along the lines of a 'critique the comic above you' topic, so you get feedback ...but only after giving feedback! I would suggest two flavours: one for a 'quick critique' ie 200 to 500 words (to provide feedback on say, the last 5-10 strips/pages) and another for a more 'in-depth critique', over 500 words (to provide feedback on an entire body of work to date) and where the reviewer is willing to put some work into giving an appraisal. Whatchoo think, chums?
_________________

[Marscaleb]

Sounds good to me.
_________________
My webcomic: Mischief in Maytia
http://maytiacomic.com/

[mcmasters]

Spencey wrote:

Call me a cynic if you must (go on, I know you want to), but usually in my experience the reviewer only selects webcomic sites with lots of traffic because they want the creator of the comic to then post something saying "my webcomic was reviewed (here) go and have a read!". The reviewer's site then gets a load of traffic. So, they review another popular comic and repeat to fade.

Well it occurred to me right off (and I didn't have a problem with it) that it was primarily a content exchange, I link/you link back. But it didn't occur to me that they would only respond to popular high-traffic comics. That's understandable but slimy.

[Jeroen Willemse]

Spencey wrote:

The suggestion box thread had an interesting proposal regarding round-robin critique threads. If there is a demand for it (and I guess this thread proves that there is) maybe the forum should have something along the lines of a 'critique the comic above you' topic, so you get feedback ...but only after giving feedback! I would suggest two flavours: one for a 'quick critique' ie 200 to 500 words (to provide feedback on say, the last 5-10 strips/pages) and another for a more 'in-depth critique', over 500 words (to provide feedback on an entire body of work to date) and where the reviewer is willing to put some work into giving an appraisal. Whatchoo think, chums?

Yes! This sounds like it could be a great idea. I think a lot people are still just hanging around on this forum to try and get some feedback on their work. This might be a good way to get everyone a bit more involved with each other? Maybe? Quid pro quo. I think it's worth a shot.

[Spencey]

Your wish is my command! I have added a quick critique thread and an in-depth critique thread.

I'm looking forward to reading and writing some critiques!
_________________