What method of MOC critiquing do you go by?

[legoman19892]

1. If you could have built it better, you have no issues informing the builder as such
   
2. Inform the builder their talents are better than what they are showing.
   
3. If you are not a fan of the techniques used you will tell them which building style you think would have been better.
   
4. You comment on what you like as well as your preferences if the MOC goes against those.
   
5. You only comment on what you like.
   
6. You say, "That looks cool!" of "Great MOC!" every time.
   

Examples:

1. "If I were to build that I would have done this, this, and that as well as adding this and that functionally. Basically it would be bigger, better, and more pleasing to the eye if I did it."
   
2. "Your build quality has been slipping lately, are you doing okay?"
   
3. "You should have used more round studs on the wall, I hate it when people only use flat bricks. Also, I don't like it when I see studs anywhere, it looks messy."
   
4. "That is a cool window! I usually prefer colors to be warmer, but it is nice other wise."
   
5. "Nice figure posing!"
   
6. "Sweet MOC brah."
   

If I were to comment on a MOC it would probably be a number 4 or 5 critique. I am not comfortable telling others what techniques to use as in number 3 because sometimes I think a MOC looks really cool and then a forum user posts, "This looks too blocky" or something. I'm sure we can all agree people who do number 1 critiques are jerks.

Edited June 8, 2014 by legoman19892

[-Carson Haupt-]

Mostly 4/5, and occasionally 2

[emilstorm]

Nice topic, a chance to look in the mirror :)

I think I am a mix if 4 and 5. When it comes to MOCs my only rule of posting is that what I write should be of use for the creator of the MOC. If there are certain details I like I will let them know, and if there are details that could look better, and I have an idea, I will also let them know. I don't think I have ever just written "nice moc" and I know I have never written "dude, your moc sucks", as I don't think either are very useful.

[Mutant Orc]

I mostly go for 4/5. I say something slightly different each time, but sometimes I come across a MOC so good in every way, that I have no idea what could improve it as I don't even understand some of the techniques already used in it!! Also, in some MOCs I like so much that it would be silly to list all the bits as that would basically be describing the MOC!!! Sometimes I'll ask a question.

Edited June 7, 2014 by Mutant Orc

[Dharkan]

If there's room for improvement I don't mind pointing it out in a kind way. I mean, if everyone likes what everyone else does, then what's the point.

[VK-318]

I'm generally a 4, rarely bordering on 3. I try to avoid doing 5, though, because that doesn't feel to me like truly constructive criticism.

[samurai-turtle]

The first two would be if you really know them. Three, four, and five are the ones that most people on this site are most likely to fall under. The sixth one would makes you sound like a five year old. (I am most likely going to use three, four, and five to answer them.)

[N-4K0]

I always end up on 5, but usually I am 3/4.

[TheLazyChicken]

It's always on 6 and most of the time on 5.

[Zerobricks]

1/3/5, usually I try to add positive tips because I know nobody is born smart and skilled.

[Bamos]

I am usually around 4 but only if they ask for comments.

[eurotrash]

Generally 3/4 and occasionally 6.

I think it's our responsibility to be supportive and encouraging to all who post here. But if something looks very poorly designed or built then I'll probably not comment.

If, on the other hand, an AFOL asks for feedback and suggestions then I try to be constructive.

[grum64]

I'd say 5 & 6 as I don't yet consider myself to have enough knowledge of the building techniques used in many of the models posted to be able to critique them otherwise.

Edited June 24, 2014 by grum64

[Lady K]

I usually will go with 4&5, however I use 6 if I really like it and anything I would have said has already been stated a couple of times.

[ShaydDeGrai]

I probably fall in the 4-5 range but generally follow the "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all" rule of thumb. I do believe in constructive criticism, though, and will offer such if the poster seems to be asking for genuine feedback.

Now since you asked for feedback and I'm generally incapable of posting a short response to anything (darn Ph.D. Training, I feel compelled to write a 1000 word essay to order a pizza on line these days…) I'll also offer my opinion on the different types of posters as you described above.

Type 1: (The Egoist)

It doesn't really matter how _I_ might have done it, or how it might have compared. I try never to make such comments as I see them as petty and self aggrandizing. If I really think I could do that much better, I should actually sit down, build my own version, post it somewhere and let others decide. Hi-jacking someone else's MOC thread to stroke your own ego is just really bad form.

Type 2: (The Art Critic)

There's certainly a place for a well worded "I've come to expect more from you" comment on occasion, but a public thread isn't the right forum. That's the sort of feedback that belongs in a private message between people who actually know one another. A trusted friend or colleague saying "this is good, but I know you can do better" can be a great motivator to believe in yourself as much as others do and to push your creations to the next level. A complete stranger publicly claiming "I remember when your stuff used to be good" is just demoralizing.

Type 3: (The Lego Police)

It's one thing to suggest a technique if the poster has solicited suggestions or expressed frustration over how something turned out; it's quite another to criticize a piece because the artists made different choices than you would have in realizing his/her vision. I like SNOT and I'm a fan of only leaving exposed studs when they contribute to the aesthetic texture of a piece; but that doesn't mean someone else's piece can't be great if it doesn't use SNOT or "fails" to tile over excess studs. I'd never take an X-Acto knife to a brick to achieve a certain effect in one of my MOCs, but I've seen some cool works that relied on such "cheats", who am I to judge?

Type 4: (Biased Praise)

This is where I think well-phrased, constructive criticism lies. The trick to offering such criticism, though, is learning how to share your expertise with a willing audience while checking your ego at the door. The hardest part about being an editor is realizing that it's your job to help an author tell her story in her words and not to derail the effort by drowning out her voice with your own - it's no different in Lego, we all develop styles, preferences, practices, etc. and we (should) critic to help others refine their styles and bring their visions to fruition, not to bias new voices into mimicking our own.

Type 5: (Honest Praise)

If you come across a MOC that speaks to you, by all means speak back. Let the author know that, in your opinion, the work was successful; thank the author for sharing their work with you. Remember that a MOC isn't just a collection of plastic bits, but an artifact representing an investment of hours (weeks, months???) of someone's life, if that expenditure on their part has brought something positive to your day (awe, wonder, humor, joy, whatever), let them know their time was well spent.

If the piece doesn't work for you, why take the time to post feedback at all? If the artist hasn't asked for suggestions or expressed their own dissatisfaction with some aspect of the work, what is to be gained by dwelling on the negative?

Type 6: (Empty praise - universal "encouragement")

While I think it's important to offer encouragement to those bold enough to share their creations on-line, my (former) years as a teacher and mentor has taught me to detest the "political correctness"-motivated saccharin praise offered across the board regardless of the actual quality of the work at hand. I used to deal with a lot of undergrads who are probably in therapy now that they've left the shelter of academia, entered the real world, and suddenly discovered that they aren't as smart and talented as they'd always been lead to believe. While I firmly believe that everyone has the potential to be a winner, in practice, there are plenty of "non-winners" out there and learning that you're not always #1 is the first step in striving to be better.

This experience in academia as clearly biased me to matters of critical feedback in general. I won't tell Johnny he's done a great job if I secretly think it looks like crap; it's dishonest and misguiding. I might praise aspects of build that I respect even if I don't care for the MOC in general, but I won't go out of my way to lie to someone about how great their work is if I don't actually feel that way. I think honest silence is better than empty praise.

[iamwhoiam]

Typically 4 or 5 sometimes 3

[grum64]

I probably fall in the 4-5 range but generally follow the "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all" rule of thumb. I do believe in constructive criticism, though, and will offer such if the poster seems to be asking for genuine feedback.

Now since you asked for feedback and I'm generally incapable of posting a short response to anything (darn Ph.D. Training, I feel compelled to write a 1000 word essay to order a pizza on line these days…) I'll also offer my opinion on the different types of posters as you described above.

Type 1: (The Egoist)

It doesn't really matter how _I_ might have done it, or how it might have compared. I try never to make such comments as I see them as petty and self aggrandizing. If I really think I could do that much better, I should actually sit down, build my own version, post it somewhere and let others decide. Hi-jacking someone else's MOC thread to stroke your own ego is just really bad form.

Type 2: (The Art Critic)

There's certainly a place for a well worded "I've come to expect more from you" comment on occasion, but a public thread isn't the right forum. That's the sort of feedback that belongs in a private message between people who actually know one another. A trusted friend or colleague saying "this is good, but I know you can do better" can be a great motivator to believe in yourself as much as others do and to push your creations to the next level. A complete stranger publicly claiming "I remember when your stuff used to be good" is just demoralizing.

Type 3: (The Lego Police)

It's one thing to suggest a technique if the poster has solicited suggestions or expressed frustration over how something turned out; it's quite another to criticize a piece because the artists made different choices than you would have in realizing his/her vision. I like SNOT and I'm a fan of only leaving exposed studs when they contribute to the aesthetic texture of a piece; but that doesn't mean someone else's piece can't be great if it doesn't use SNOT or "fails" to tile over excess studs. I'd never take an X-Acto knife to a brick to achieve a certain effect in one of my MOCs, but I've seen some cool works that relied on such "cheats", who am I to judge?

Type 4: (Biased Praise)

This is where I think well-phrased, constructive criticism lies. The trick to offering such criticism, though, is learning how to share your expertise with a willing audience while checking your ego at the door. The hardest part about being an editor is realizing that it's your job to help an author tell her story in her words and not to derail the effort by drowning out her voice with your own - it's no different in Lego, we all develop styles, preferences, practices, etc. and we (should) critic to help others refine their styles and bring their visions to fruition, not to bias new voices into mimicking our own.

Type 5: (Honest Praise)

If you come across a MOC that speaks to you, by all means speak back. Let the author know that, in your opinion, the work was successful; thank the author for sharing their work with you. Remember that a MOC isn't just a collection of plastic bits, but an artifact representing an investment of hours (weeks, months???) of someone's life, if that expenditure on their part has brought something positive to your day (awe, wonder, humor, joy, whatever), let them know their time was well spent.

If the piece doesn't work for you, why take the time to post feedback at all? If the artist hasn't asked for suggestions or expressed their own dissatisfaction with some aspect of the work, what is to be gained by dwelling on the negative?

Type 6: (Empty praise - universal "encouragement")

While I think it's important to offer encouragement to those bold enough to share their creations on-line, my (former) years as a teacher and mentor has taught me to detest the "political correctness"-motivated saccharin praise offered across the board regardless of the actual quality of the work at hand. I used to deal with a lot of undergrads who are probably in therapy now that they've left the shelter of academia, entered the real world, and suddenly discovered that they aren't as smart and talented as they'd always been lead to believe. While I firmly believe that everyone has the potential to be a winner, in practice, there are plenty of "non-winners" out there and learning that you're not always #1 is the first step in striving to be better.

This experience in academia as clearly biased me to matters of critical feedback in general. I won't tell Johnny he's done a great job if I secretly think it looks like crap; it's dishonest and misguiding. I might praise aspects of build that I respect even if I don't care for the MOC in general, but I won't go out of my way to lie to someone about how great their work is if I don't actually feel that way. I think honest silence is better than empty praise.

Lengthy yes but also well written and very interesting.