Quick Comments What now?

Fall_Child42 · Post by **Fall_Child42** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 4:07 pm

JaddziaDax wrote: I'm not asking for the ability to edit QCs, I am not asking for the "reply button" all I am asking for is to know who is saying what, and as I said I really appreciate the people who sig there QCs

/sarcasm

JaddziaDax · Post by **JaddziaDax** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 4:14 pm

and to think people dont like posting on these forums o.0

/sarcasm

Ileia · Post by **Ileia** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 5:02 pm

JaddziaDax wrote:o.0 well feed back is feed back, either way its feed back... and sometimes saying "thankyou" is all i want to do o.0

It is never kept that simple is it? Personally, I think we have a great system going (and I think that the admins did a good job devising it) and I'm quite happy with it.

However, I find it increasingly annoying that less and less people seem to be appreciating it (and that includes severely abusing it), and I haven't heard one single gracious comment on our feedback system in a long, long time. I follow many journals, and when the QCs first came out, everyone loved them. But that soon turned into nothing but complaints, and very few people seem to notice their "good" quick comments. (I dunno about anyone else, but my good ones outweigh any bad ones. I'm willing to take the good with the bad.)

I think that people are seriously getting too heated about these. I recently got a 'Couldn't see the video' QC. What did I do about it? Nothing. If someone really wanted to see if, they'd make an effort to PM me. They know MY name, it's not my job to make sure that everyone can play WMVs on their computer, and I think sometimes people feel that they are obligated to make sure that everyone can see their video. This is understandable (we all love our videos and want people to see them), but you'd soon find yourself exhausted because the internet if full of a LOT of people who don't know things like this. If you had asked me a year and a half ago what a 'codec' was, I would've had no idea. (and I considered myself decently computer-literate.

)

It seems to me that quick comments may be on their way out, what with all these threads popping up all over the place all the time, half the journals are filled with them, and constant requests for improvements upon them. They had a good run, but I think everything's just gone downhill.

And Jaddzia, do not take this to be directed at you. As for my comment above, I was merely clarifying what I said in that other thread (mostly because I'm not altogether sure I was clear in the first place), not attacking you. ^-^

dj_ultima_the_great · Post by **dj_ultima_the_great** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 5:13 pm

You know what? I'm really sick of this argument.

Usernames attached to quick comments = BAD.
"I can't see the video" = N00B. Let them be. They will figure out the issue eventually. I'm SURE you can all move on with your lives after receiving such a comment. It's not so terribly important that you need to respond to the person.
Usernames attached to quick comments = less truthful comments. Excuse me. Allow me to emphasize that since you folks arguing for usernames seem to be missing the point.

USERNAMES ATTACHED TO QUICK COMMENTS = LESS TRUTHFUL COMMENTS.

Do you really want that? Do you want some Jane or Joe saying "great video!" when she or he really means "subtitles and no sync!"?

I mean, I have a pretty distinctive writing style when it comes to my quick comments and opinions, so I've already had two people ask if I was the one who gave them comments on their videos. Of course, the instant I said I was that person, they started arguing down half of my points! Don't get me wrong; I LIKE both of these people and they both make pretty good videos. Still, if I didn't see your "artistic vision" the first time around (and by that, I mean reading your description and watching the video a few times through), then you obviously didn't get your message across to me. I shouldn't have to deal with people coming after me and trying to justify their actions and tell me I'm wrong. The comments I left are what I believe to be true of the video, and I'm NOT going to change my mind just because the creator tries to explain things after the fact.

It's irritating. VERY irritating.

This is my personal reason for not wanting the comments to be ID'd. Just because I put your ego down a few notches doesn't mean I'm completely wrong. If I flame you, then just use it to roast a marshmallow or something. It's not the end of the world if you get a non-constructive review. Some folks are just asses. Others are trying to be funny. Whatever the case, if the comments don't apply to your video, just laugh at them and forget them. Making your bad comments public will only tempt more folks to flame you. Yes, this site would be better without flames, but it is NOT without flames - no place is.

Regardless of what anime tells you, this world is not "Love and Peace~!". Get over it and move on.

- Jen

Arigatomina · Post by **Arigatomina** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 5:15 pm

I'd rather be harrassed and flamed in private, rather than in a place where anyone who reviewed the video can see it. I like that about the QCs - I haven't gotten a single flaming review since quick comments were implimented. I dislike airing dirty laundry, so prefer to have the flamers vent as much as they want where they are no one (annonymous), and no one can see it but me (private). They vent, I glance over it, and that's it. Unless I get a new quick comment on that video and happen to reread the old ones, that flame is 'come and gone' in a few seconds. No need to report it because no one can see it but me. No need to respond, because they took the annonymous route (though to be fair, flaming opinionators almost never respond even if the creator does type a review and pm and email/etc - that's the idea of flaming, hit and run). I like giving them an outlet that makes them insignificant and has no lasting record (blemish) on the video itself. Great.

My only problem is the 'can't see the video' issue, and the solution to that has nothing to do with changing the Quick comments. It has to do with putting a "video playback error" button somewhere so these people who've never found the 'guides' page can see it. I've replied to reviews where the person gave low scores because 'the song was good but there was no video.' That doesn't help if the person doesn't respond. I doubt they'd respond to quick comments either. Why would they? They download and move on. At best, they might pause to reply to the video through a low star score, a low review, or a complaining quick comment. The only way to fix/aviod the problem is put a "couldn't see the video" pop-up before allowing a person to respond to a video (on the vid description page before leaving a review, or on the download page before leaving a star/qc). Making quick comments non-annonymous or reply-able will have no effect on this issue. It's never made a difference with reviews, so why would it make any difference with quick comments?

The only reason I can see to make qcs non-annonymous is to cry and yell at people who say mean things. Anyone that easily hurt should not be sharing his work where strangers have the ability to respond. Don't confuse them with reviews (that have an effect on the video due to the scores attached). If you want to report (delete) qcs so you don't feel so bad about yourself, or so you won't have to see the mean things people are writing to you, just stop clicking the links. If you don't look, no one will ever know the mean people said anything about you, and you can believe whatever you want - that no one hated the video, that everyone loves you, that mean people only pick on mean people, whatever. If you don't read the qcs, they don't exist. There's no need to monitor them because the creator can nullify them all simply by not looking. It's a choice.

Besides...if the people writing the qcs wanted you to reply, they'd have written a review or left their name. If they wanted to chat, they'd have sent a pm or an email. If I want to talk to the person who made the video, I'll leave my name in the QC. Most of the time I prefer to just leave annonymous feedback and move on. It's more than a star, without the obligation of a signed review for which I'll be held accountable.

I like the quick comments. I like giving them, and I like getting them. My good/bad ratio for QCs is 6/1 - about the same as I got with reviews before. But now my reviews are better since the flamers, who are generally cowards at heart, prefer annonymity. Maybe I'm just luckier than most to be satisfied with the quick comments as they are now. o.O

Solaria735 · Post by **Solaria735** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:52 pm

Arigatomina wrote:My only problem is the 'can't see the video' issue, and the solution to that has nothing to do with changing the Quick comments. It has to do with putting a "video playback error" button somewhere so these people who've never found the 'guides' page can see it.

This is a great idea! It could just show up as a button you click right next to the space to leave a QC, and would take care of the issue. It would preserve the anonymity of the system while at the same time removing (in theory) the "I can't see the video!" comments.

godix · Post by **godix** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:08 pm

Yeah, fuck those people who are ruining the QC system! They're like going down on her and noticing some pieces of crap clung to her ass no matter how how hard she wiped. A couple little shits can just ruin all the fun. I vote we hunt down the vile bastard who leave comments like this and perform the most vile thing I can imagine. Wait, make that the second most vile thing I can imagine, I doubt my wife would want to marry again. We should drag him over a mountain of razor blades, douse him in rubbing alcohol, make him wash his hair in gasoline, then hand him a lit match. I would suggest that he also have to actually watch all the worthless pieces of crap that he has commented on but not even I'm that cruel.

Then, and only then, will the world once again be safe for egomaniacs who want to read nothing but 'That was great! LOL!' comments.

Ileia · Post by **Ileia** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:10 pm

godix wrote:Yeah, fuck those people who are ruining the QC system! They're like going down on her and noticing some pieces of crap clung to her ass no matter how how hard she wiped. A couple little shits can just ruin all the fun. I vote we hunt down the vile bastard who leave comments like this and perform the most vile thing I can imagine. Wait, make that the second most vile thing I can imagine, I doubt my wife would want to marry again. We should drag him over a mountain of razor blades, douse him in rubbing alcohol, make him wash his hair in gasoline, then hand him a lit match. I would suggest that he also have to actually watch all the worthless pieces of crap that he has commented on but not even I'm that cruel.

Then, and only then, will the world once again be safe for egomaniacs who want to read nothing but 'That was great! LOL!' comments.

Or we could make him watch this.

requiett · Post by **requiett** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:40 am

JaddziaDax wrote:I'm still advocating for it...

one of the girls in journals posts her comments all the time, and it would seem that they are really mean, horridly witty insults...

whiteash wrote:Another one for the collection.

"You know the saying that if you let 1000 monkeys bang on 1000 keyboards for 1000 years that they'll produce the entire works of shakespeare? This video would take 10 monkeys fling shit at a monitor for about 5 minutes to reproduce.""

This goes to the collection of reasons QCs shouldn't be annonymous. I tried extremely hard on the AMV this insulted
I cant say she is one of my favorite editorers but no one deserves to be harassed in such a manner..

Oh man. That is GOLDEN. Aside from the few grammatical goofs, I applaud the dink who wrote that.

See... quick comments aren't all bad.

sfitzok · Post by **sfitzok** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:45 am

maybe there should me a way for creators to opt out of getting QC's? or would that be more complicated? (i know nothing about computers, dont flame me if its an impossible suggestion) but yeah, ability to get rid of them seems like a good idea.

actually, though, i didnt even know they were anonymous, if i had, i might have filled more of them out.... i've been treating them like opinions that you dont have to fill out the form for. (which is to say, not using them unless i have something warm and fuzzy to say) and of course, if i dont like your vid, or if i was indifferent to it, you wont have seen an opinion from me. maybe the site should take a poll, how many creators actually want to hear "i didnt like it" or the equivalent. cause i know making a vid is a lot of hard work. heck, i'm a computer challenged person who cant even figure out the software. believe me i can appreciate the effort of those who can, and i feel terrible if i have to say something bad about a video. so most of the time i dont even leave QC's if i dont have anything nice to say. but some people in this post (and others on the same subject)have said they want comments, even if theyre bad. so, where is the happy medium? at which point is it not helpful to hear whether or not a person who watched it liked it or not? because even the comments i think are constructive could hurt someone's feelings. like "this couldve been a really great video if you hadnt had the subtitles" well, i think thats a pretty harmless way of saying it, but someone might interpret it as it isnt any good at all as it is and be hurt. of course, ive seen opinions that couldve been construed as hurtful, too. ....

i guess what i'd like to know is (in the opinion of those of you who do create videos) how should the average downloader of AMV's properly use this new function? i mean ... for example, if i were to say "it looks like a vhs tape that got put through a dishwasher" or "this video makes a good torture method" (please note that i DID NOT make up these witty but possibly hurtful rejoinders) in a QC, would that be inappropriate? i know it would be unoriginal, but thats not the question. the question, i suppose, is if youre willing to put up with idiots to hear the opinions of people who, in deference to the feelings of others, who may quite plausibly be .....of a more delicate appetency as regards the processing of unfavorable commentary than we could be expected to surmise, given our complete lack of any cognizance of that person's inner nature, will never, ever, ever comment on a video they dont like otherwise.

"A smart man speaks from experience. A wise man, from experience, does not speak"