CC Threads

[Samantha]

Yes another thread whereby complaining and giving feedback on Graphics Forums, the joy eh? I got told a Feedback Thread for views for various posts I have discovered would be the best for this before anyone thinks I'm just moaning for the sake. I'm really not.

Anyway, the Graphics Forum Rules clearly state this:


3. If there are any threads that use the [CC] prefix then you must reply to the thread with constructive criticism. You should not be replying to these threads which have this prefix with replies such as: "That's good" or "That's nice". You must state your reasons why you find it nice and also any improvements.

This thread: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=757036 has two posts that don't give CC and haven't been edited. I would report but I went directly to a Smod who didn't agree that they should be edited and then they then told me that he asked others and they had agreed they won't be edited either. The 'CC' tag requires CC and if you don't give it you should be warned.


I like the last one though

The last one is super hot,
I love that one <3

Not too keen on the plastic one, but the other two are also good

Now, referring back to the rule given, it does state that you must say WHY you like or dislike it, these posts didn't yet will not be edited as apparently it's CC?

If the rules aren't going to be used yet again then why have them? We're falling back into that trap whereby anything is allowed and it shouldn't be that hard of a forum to moderate.

Views?

[Martin]

I think asking questions about the graphics someone has made is enough for it to be constructive and those posts look fine to me and I wouldn't have edited them either.

The first one especially is picking out something she has noticed about one of the graphics and so that straight away is fine.


I think the rule was introduced to get rid of people posting for post count in that section with things like "thats good" "thats nice" "not bad" etc, which was annoying some people in that section, and neither of these replies are 'basic' or 'short' and both offer something to the thread and are fine. It was annoying for the designers to be getting replies like that and so the option to get cc was introduced. This can't really always be strictly followed in threads like that though, and I think as long as the post offers something then it is fine.


I think the rule could be changed slightly or loosened up a bit so that people don't go back to posting short one worded replies to all the graphics threads, however posts such as these two should be fine and so perhaps its just the wording. Either way these are fine.

We do not want to be too strict, this is what we are trying to avoid with the forum, so editing posts like these would be silly imo. :P


Common sense needs to be used, and these posters made valid comments which were fine and not made for post count at all which is why the rule was introduced. As long as a post is more expanded than a simple "thats good" etc, then I personally see no problem with it. Asking questions to find out more etc are all constructive replies. The rule was introduced under previous management.

I think a balance needs to be found because I find it unfair to warn people when they are asking questions about someones work.


We are currently discussing this rule in the moderation forums as a team and will come up with something, however I believe that dealing with the above would be too harsh. :)

[Chris]

This is being discussed currently and are so far in agreement that those posts are fine. The CC rule should never have been introduced because all it does it limit people and makes them scared to post in fear their post doesn't follow the rule. Whether the CC tags are there or not, if people want to make CC then they're going to do it regardless. Why a few comments which don't exactly add CC would bother anyone is beyond me.

Remember this is a discussion forum and not a professional graphics forum, so not every member has an eye for graphics and is therefore unable to comment in that way.

Also, in your example you did miss off part of Kikalis post. Funnily enough the part you missed is what makes the post ok to be posted.

[Samantha]

I think asking questions about the graphics someone has made is enough for it to be constructive and those posts look fine to me and I wouldn't have edited them either.

The first one especially is picking out something she has noticed about one of the graphics and so that straight away is fine.


I think the rule was introduced to get rid of people posting for post count in that section with things like "thats good" "thats nice" "not bad" etc, which was annoying some people in that section, and neither of these replies are 'basic' or 'short' and both offer something to the thread and are fine. It was annoying for the designers to be getting replies like that and so the option to get cc was introduced. This can't really always be strictly followed in threads like that though, and I think as long as the post offers something then it is fine.


I think the rule could be changed slightly or loosened up a bit so that people don't go back to posting short one worded replies to all the graphics threads, however posts such as these two should be fine and so perhaps its just the wording. Either way these are fine.

We do not want to be too strict, this is what we are trying to avoid with the forum, so editing posts like these would be silly imo. :P


Common sense needs to be used, and these posters made valid comments which were fine and not made for post count at all which is why the rule was introduced. As long as a post is more expanded than a simple "thats good" etc, then I personally see no problem with it. Asking questions to find out more etc are all constructive replies. The rule was introduced under previous management.

I think a balance needs to be found because I find it unfair to warn people when they are asking questions about someones work.


We are currently discussing this rule in the moderation forums as a team and will come up with something, however I believe that dealing with the above would be too harsh. :)

Really then you should go off what that rule actually says, it says you must say why, having difficulty reading the first one is not CC it doesn't say why she is having difficulty and her last comment saying she likes the last one isn't CC anyway thus should be edited.

The other on the other hand says he isn't too keen on one, again he doesn't say why thus not giving CC - if the rule was altered then it would be fine I agree but at the given moment the rule says state why and those did not.

I do see where you are coming from but it looks like we're having the case of rules being poorly written like before!

[Martin]

Really then you should go off what that rule actually says, it says you must say why, having difficulty reading the first one is not CC it doesn't say why she is having difficulty and her last comment saying she likes the last one isn't CC anyway thus should be edited.

The other on the other hand says he isn't too keen on one, again he doesn't say why thus not giving CC - if the rule was altered then it would be fine I agree but at the given moment the rule says state why and those did not.

In your first example:


I like the last one though

You actually missed off the top half of the users post which was:


I'm having a difficult time understanding what's written in the first one. S:

I like the last one though :D


The first half is picking out something she has found about the graphics, saying she cannot read it properly and is her reason why.


I cannot honestly see what problem people would have with such posts providing they are not basic short replies. Not everyone can be graphics gods and everyone is entitled to comment and reply. They are asking Questions about the graphics, trying to find out more about them. I do not think that should be penalised at all so the rule is rather silly. The rule was put in place to avoid people posting for post count/giving short one worded replies to all the gfx threads and offer people cc when they require it. I dont think a couple of posts like this would hurt anyone and to act on them would be too strict.

[Samantha]

In your first example:



You actually missed off the top half of the users post which was:




The first half is picking out something she has found about the graphics, saying she cannot read it properly and is her reason why.


I cannot honestly see what problem people would have with such posts providing they are not basic short replies. Not everyone can be graphics gods and everyone is entitled to comment and reply. They are asking Questions about the graphics, trying to find out more about them. I do not think that should be penalised at all so the rule is rather silly. The rule was put in place to avoid people posting for post count/giving short one worded replies to all the gfx threads and offer people cc when they require it. I dont think a couple of posts like this would hurt anyone and to act on them would be too strict.

Before the rule was put in place the graphics forums were too lenient on the rules in there, fine the first one could just scrape CC the other one couldn't. Not everyone can be graphic Gods I agree but when the rules are written stating you must say why and some don't then they should be edited. If you don't agree with the rules then rewrite them, you're the Forum Manager it's one of your roles to enforce the rules - it's not just me who thinks they don't include CC and frankly if they were reported you usually say you MUST edit them, so why is this case different?

---------- Post added 23-08-2012 at 05:46 PM ----------

It's fine if they don't get edited as obviously we have different views but if more than one person picks up on it then maybe there's something wrong there? Namely the rule in place - like Chris; said he didn't feel the need for CC tags and I think they haven't been as popular as first thought so maybe remove them or something?

[Martin]

Before the rule was put in place the graphics forums were too lenient on the rules in there, fine the first one could just scrape CC the other one couldn't. Not everyone can be graphic Gods I agree but when the rules are written stating you must say why and some don't then they should be edited. If you don't agree with the rules then rewrite them, you're the Forum Manager it's one of your roles to enforce the rules - it's not just me who thinks they don't include CC and frankly if they were reported you usually say you MUST edit them, so why is this case different?

Mainly because it's never really been brought up before/nobody has found any issue with it.

Now this has been brought to our attention we are discussing the rule and will decide what action to take with it. Previous forum management introduced the rule, however personally if posts like this are to be penalised then I find the rule way to strict and that is something we are looking to eliminate on the forum. I do not want the forum to be that strict, I want people to be able to comment on graphics and I think everyone should be entitled to do that.

Both those users asked valid questions about the graphics, trying to find out more about them, that is good discussion and I don't think eliminating that kind of discussion from the forum is good at all.


I think the most likely scenario is that the rule will be kept in place in some form, but will be rewritten so that people are free to ask questions about graphics, make valid posts, however not reply with short one word answers in multiple graphics threads.


It is currently being discussed and thanks for bringing it to my attention. :)

[Samantha]

Mainly because it's never really been brought up before/nobody has found any issue with it.

Now this has been brought to our attention we are discussing the rule and will decide what action to take with it. Previous forum management introduced the rule, however personally if posts like this are to be penalised then I find the rule way to strict and that is something we are looking to eliminate on the forum. I do not want the forum to be that strict, I want people to be able to comment on graphics and I think everyone should be entitled to do that.

Both those users asked valid questions about the graphics, trying to find out more about them, that is good discussion and I don't think eliminating that kind of discussion from the forum is good at all.


I think the most likely scenario is that the rule will be kept in place in some form, but will be rewritten so that people are free to ask questions about graphics, make valid posts, however not reply with short one word answers in multiple graphics threads.


It is currently being discussed and thanks for bringing it to my attention. :)

No problem yeah I think a rewording is in order. Thank you.

[dbgtz]

I think asking questions about the graphics someone has made is enough for it to be constructive and those posts look fine to me and I wouldn't have edited them either.

The first one especially is picking out something she has noticed about one of the graphics and so that straight away is fine.


I think the rule was introduced to get rid of people posting for post count in that section with things like "thats good" "thats nice" "not bad" etc, which was annoying some people in that section, and neither of these replies are 'basic' or 'short' and both offer something to the thread and are fine. It was annoying for the designers to be getting replies like that and so the option to get cc was introduced. This can't really always be strictly followed in threads like that though, and I think as long as the post offers something then it is fine.


I think the rule could be changed slightly or loosened up a bit so that people don't go back to posting short one worded replies to all the graphics threads, however posts such as these two should be fine and so perhaps its just the wording. Either way these are fine.

We do not want to be too strict, this is what we are trying to avoid with the forum, so editing posts like these would be silly imo. :P


Common sense needs to be used, and these posters made valid comments which were fine and not made for post count at all which is why the rule was introduced. As long as a post is more expanded than a simple "thats good" etc, then I personally see no problem with it. Asking questions to find out more etc are all constructive replies. The rule was introduced under previous management.

I think a balance needs to be found because I find it unfair to warn people when they are asking questions about someones work.


We are currently discussing this rule in the moderation forums as a team and will come up with something, however I believe that dealing with the above would be too harsh. :)

Well no, the rule was introduced to allow those who only want constructive criticism to only get a fairly good quality reply and none of these "that X one looks good". Whether you like it or not, that is not criticism and is barely helpful mostly because it is down to personal preference rather than the actual quality of the graphic. I also don't understand how you see a post like "that's good" to be different to "I like the last one" when they are completely the same, just one more specific.

Against your belief, you do not need to be good at graphics to criticise it. It's not hard to see fault or errors with most things.

[Kyle]

Martin; why do you separate your paragraphs so widely so it looks like you wrote loads? It's hard for me to read. :(

Was never really a fan of the introduction of these prefixes and can't say I'm surprised that there's already some conflict surrounding the specifics considering how swiftly the rules seem to have been thrown together. Rules should always be open to interpretation but when they're so poorly thought through as this it makes that sort of difficult.

Myself, I wouldn't edit any post in that thread. The first reply quite plainly points out a flaw in the first image and another, although the first half seems to mirror the post before it, has a section that promotes discussion by asking what kind of tutorial the OP used. There aren't many offers in terms of ways to improve the pieces but sometimes pointing out what's wrong with something is sufficient enough for the poster to take action themselves rather than waiting for specific instructions on how to improve. It's constructive enough in that it causes the OP to realise that there's clearly something wrong with their work and allows them to re-evaluate it.

I posted a habbo alt recently and didn't tag it with CC tags but still got a hell of a lot of criticism and made improvements based on it. Surely the poster of that thread has the same initiative to make improvements based on the criticism given.

Are people really so uppity that they're prepared to banish any and all posts that aren't entirely constructive even though they might contribute in a different way?

My suggestion for the rewrite (if you haven't already realised that the prefix thing is silly) would be to allow people to post criticism on the thread with no further expansion and just penalise those that post outright rude comments like "this is crap". Just because it isn't "constructive" criticism, that doesn't mean it doesn't necessarily help in some way. Also allow posts that ask questions about the piece as any sort of discussion is good.

[Kardan]

Surely the CC tag only means that if you dislike it, you can't just be like "That's crap".

So surely this means that the posts highlighted are fine, because you are allowed to simply say you like them, I mean, if Habbox say that it was introduced to stop people abusing post counts, then maybe they should look at every single 'Post your...' thread or the whole 'Congratulations' sub forum.

If I wanted too I could raise my post count massively by spending all day in the 'Post random images' thread, I mean, heck - why is that even there?

[MKR&*42]

Oh God, don't even bring up the "Post random images" thread. Sure there was a massive debate about it in feedback the other month lmao^

[Kardan]

Oh God, don't even bring up the "Post random images" thread. Sure there was a massive debate about it in feedback the other month lmao^

Was anything done? Does post count go up in it? If it does, I think I might restart the debate on it ;)

[MKR&*42]

Was anything done? Does post count go up in it? If it does, I think I might restart the debate on it ;)

I genuinely don't know. I think the debate was over whether it should be moved to spam or not, because it offers very few constructive replies.

Then again, so does "what are you listening to", "what are you wearing", "what was the last show you watched" et al. So lord knows, I'll check the post count now? :P
-
I believe post count is enabled in it. Mine went from 4,494 to 4,945 when I posted in it, so it must be enabled.

[Kardan]

I genuinely don't know. I think the debate was over whether it should be moved to spam or not, because it offers very few constructive replies.

Then again, so does "what are you listening to", "what are you wearing", "what was the last show you watched" et al. So lord knows, I'll check the post count now? :P

I would easily campaign for them all to be moved to spam, I mean, the only one I can imagine people would be unhappy about would be the music thread...

[MKR&*42]

I would easily campaign for them all to be moved to spam, I mean, the only one I can imagine people would be unhappy about would be the music thread...

I think the issue with it being moved to spam is that

a) not many people post in spam anymore, unless someone does the mention that includes everyone online (and we know that pisses some people off, as saw in a feedback thread :L)
b) spam threads tend to die quite quickly because so many get created irregardless of how many people post in spam (because it tends to be the same people xD),

"Events discussion" has done quite well to stay on the front page of spam threads. But when "What is your mood" or something got moved into there, it lasted for about a day then completely vanished.

I do agree that many of those types of threads aren't constructive though. Lord knows what to do with them - I only use the music one to help remind me of some music haha.

[Samantha]

Surely the CC tag only means that if you dislike it, you can't just be like "That's crap".

So surely this means that the posts highlighted are fine, because you are allowed to simply say you like them, I mean, if Habbox say that it was introduced to stop people abusing post counts, then maybe they should look at every single 'Post your...' thread or the whole 'Congratulations' sub forum.

If I wanted too I could raise my post count massively by spending all day in the 'Post random images' thread, I mean, heck - why is that even there?

No I believe for the CC tags it's both whether you like or dislike it, I think mainly it's the rule that states 'why' you think a part is good or a part is bad which would suggest a rewrite.

[Chris]

I agree that perhaps to avoid confusion the rule could be re-written. I'm sure Martin; will take it into consideration! :)

[Kardan]

No I believe for the CC tags it's both whether you like or dislike it, I think mainly it's the rule that states 'why' you think a part is good or a part is bad which would suggest a rewrite.

The rule should be rewritten, I always interpreted CC as, don't just say it's bad, suggest ways it could be improved. I'm pretty sure CC never meant you couldn't say 'That's great, well done!'

[Samantha]

The rule should be rewritten, I always interpreted CC as, don't just say it's bad, suggest ways it could be improved. I'm pretty sure CC never meant you couldn't say 'That's great, well done!'

Before the rule stated that 'don't just say it's bad, say something that could be improved' or something, but this was never followed and members just said things like 'that's rubbish' and never got warned. Apparently, it wasn't fair to warn those who were negative but not those who were positive regardless of it being written in the rule. The CC tags then came requiring CC whether it was good or bad, however, it looks like it's fell back into its old ways minorily too. A rewrite is definitely needed!

[Kardan]

Before the rule stated that 'don't just say it's bad, say something that could be improved' or something, but this was never followed and members just said things like 'that's rubbish' and never got warned. Apparently, it wasn't fair to warn those who were negative but not those who were positive regardless of it being written in the rule. The CC tags then came requiring CC whether it was good or bad, however, it looks like it's fell back into its old ways minorily too. A rewrite is definitely needed!

I agree :) Posts should have a discussion value, and not just a post for the sake of it, that's what spam is for :)

[Martin]

Okay, I have made a small update to the graphics forum rules, mainly the rule about CC, which is hopefully more clear now, and will prevent such posts as discussed in this thread being penalised for.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=727626&p=7340594#post7340594


This should hopefully still elimiate short replies, but also ensure that people back up their reasons when making negative comments about peoples work, and offering improvements etc.

Does this look okay to everyone? :)

[Kardan]

Okay, I have made a small update to the graphics forum rules, mainly the rule about CC, which is hopefully more clear now, and will prevent such posts as discussed in this thread being penalised for.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=727626&p=7340594#post7340594


This should hopefully still elimiate short replies, but also ensure that people back up their reasons when making negative comments about peoples work, and offering improvements etc.

Does this look okay to everyone? :)

Seems perfect to me :)

[Samantha]

Okay, I have made a small update to the graphics forum rules, mainly the rule about CC, which is hopefully more clear now, and will prevent such posts as discussed in this thread being penalised for.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=727626&p=7340594#post7340594


This should hopefully still elimiate short replies, but also ensure that people back up their reasons when making negative comments about peoples work, and offering improvements etc.

Does this look okay to everyone? :)

So if they just say 'looks good' it's still an edit offence? So works for negative and positive? :)

[Jordan]

So if they just say 'looks good' it's still an edit offence? So works for negative and positive? :)

That always applied?

[Chris]

Looks fine now to me.

[Samantha]

That always applied?

No it hasn't :O

I got told it wasn't fair to warn people saying 'that's nice' and such unless they repeatedly did it? :(

[Kyle]

Okay, I have made a small update to the graphics forum rules, mainly the rule about CC, which is hopefully more clear now, and will prevent such posts as discussed in this thread being penalised for.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=727626&p=7340594#post7340594


This should hopefully still elimiate short replies, but also ensure that people back up their reasons when making negative comments about peoples work, and offering improvements etc.

Does this look okay to everyone? :)
That's okay but still doesn't seem to leave any leeway for posts promoting discussion like the one asking what tutorial was used.

[Jordan]

No it hasn't :O

I got told it wasn't fair to warn people saying 'that's nice' and such unless they repeatedly did it? :(

I always thought the CC tags on a thread meant that any reply had to be constructive explaining what they did well and not just "love it" and what they did not so well and not just "don't like it sorry".

[Kyle]

No it hasn't :O

I got told it wasn't fair to warn people saying 'that's nice' and such unless they repeatedly did it? :(
I would say it is fair in non-CC threads unless it's obviously a post count boost attempt when they do a pigperson and go through every thread in the section, only read the first post and make a generic reply.

[Kardan]

I always thought the CC tags on a thread meant that any reply had to be constructive explaining what they did well and not just "love it" and what they did not so well and not just "don't like it sorry".

Surely they would just be labelled as C then? :P CC means Constructive Criticism, so only applies to negative comments.

But the post still says you're not allowed to post pointlessly, so surely 'I love it' would still be against the rules.

[Samantha]

I would say it is fair in non-CC threads unless it's obviously a post count boost attempt when they do a pigperson and go through every thread in the section, only read the first post and make a generic reply.

I believe that's Aaron; not Pigperson; ;) ly Aaron.

Oh Jordan; I meant before CC tags sorry :D!

[dbgtz]

Would it not be easier just to say when the [CC] tag is there that you have to state a reason for your opinion? Therefore it applies to both negative and positive. For example, "I dislike it because the eye looks weird" or "I like it because the eye is perfectly done". It's a much simpler statement and would then apply to anything, so when someone says "I like the last one", they would still have to provide some reasoning. While it may not be the most detailed description of errors and stuff, it can perhaps make them more noticable to the person who created the piece.

[Kyle]

Would it not be easier just to say when the [CC] tag is there that you have to state a reason for your opinion? Therefore it applies to both negative and positive. For example, "I dislike it because the eye looks weird" or "I like it because the eye is perfectly done". It's a much simpler statement and would then apply to anything, so when someone says "I like the last one", they would still have to provide some reasoning. While it may not be the most detailed description of errors and stuff, it can perhaps make them more noticable to the person who created the piece.
Saying something is good isn't criticism and elaborating further as to why you think is good doesn't make it constructive. To my understanding, the tag is there for those that only want to improve their work and are on the lookout for those negative points so that they can make changes. People seem to be using the tag with no intention to alter their graphics whatsoever, so why is the option to tag even there?

[dbgtz]

Saying something is good isn't criticism and elaborating further as to why you think is good doesn't make it constructive. To my understanding, the tag is there for those that only want to improve their work and are on the lookout for those negative points so that they can make changes. People seem to be using the tag with no intention to alter their graphics whatsoever, so why is the option to tag even there?

Yes but evidently they don't like that concept as it doesn't promote discussion or w/e.

[Kyle]

Yes but evidently they don't like that concept as it doesn't promote discussion or w/e.
Which is why the tags should be scrapped completely!

[Chris]

I agree the tags should be scrapped, but the rules have been re-written and thats I think thats the only fair thing we could have done to please everyone.