/Interest Check/ - Art Rating/Critique Site

So basically it's a website to offer and give critique? Sounds nice, I guess I'd check it out.

This is gud anon

Interesting stuff anon

What you should avoid: spammers abusing the system

>>3091091
You should construct more in the lines of Yahoo Answers where the best critique is selected by the submitter and the critic gets some karma reward as a result.

Granted, some submitters will solely fish for compliments but I think it would even out if you foster a culture of critique and other users vote on the comments too, (like stackoverflow) to reinforce it.

>>3091120

True, this is an important concern. Assuming enough people joined, I was thinking I'd close off the site after a certain amount of sign ups to help prevent this.

Either that or submissions would need to be mod approved before going into the system, but IMO the speed of the process could potentially kill the site, since it's purpose is to get quick feedback, more or less.

>>3091125

Oh lord, that's a really good point. Karma would also be a good way of encouraging people to post with their account vs anonymously, thereby making it easier to track the credibility of their posts.

I see a couple downfalls in that approach though, where it might encourage people to judge the work based off consensus vs. what they themselves think of the work. It might also make people more tense to post since more people can see their comment than the artist them-self.

It is certainly an approach worth considering though.

Needs a section for the uploaded/artist to share some sort of obvious "goal" statement, that clearly states what they're trying to do, and what they're looking for in feedback. Maybe something like:

Goal: "I'm trying and show _____ doing _____, using a limited color scheme of ___ & ___"

Looking for feedback on: "Colors, anatomy, composition. Is the idea clear? Can you tell that ____ is doing ____?"

Additional comments: (anything else the artist wants to say

I think its really helpful for critiquers to have a frame of reference like this when approaching someones work, rather than just listing off random things to improve.

>>3091155
And another thing I forgot to add -

People have to have some sort of profile where they can optionally upload work. It will solve the problem of being unsure of whether or not you're getting critiques from someone who knows what they're talking about (solving the "Show your work" problem that people always have).

People can remain anonymous if they want, but I think have a simple profile with your work on it will do a lot of good.

I think you should remove the rating system because sketches and WIPs would generally get lower ratings and they need critique the most

>>3091155

This is good, I think I might implement some version of this, however I'd make it optional.

>>3091171

I'm not sure about uploading directly on the person's profile, but I was thinking about showing a person's submission history instead. My main concern about the former is that people might upload arbitrary images to make themselves look more credible and troll, forcing them to build a submission history (might) be a small way around that because it takes more effort to do. For example if I limit an account to 1 submission per hour, it would take them slightly longer to build some sort of portfolio. Or perhaps I'd hide a person's submission history or detailed profile until a certain number of posts and comments were made, or until a certain karma threshold is reached.

For intermediate artists I was thinking the site would be a somewhat decent way for them to get exposure and potentially even clients for commissions, etc. For this purpose and others and profile page would really be needed.

>>3091199

Good point. I personally like the idea of a rating because it's to the point, however the idea also has a lot of downsides, the one you outlined being one of them. I'll think about this, and potentially reserve ratings for finished works or something along those lines, maybe getting rid of them altogether.

>>3091091
The logistics of making sure all of the art is by the poster, and not work by others, and the legal liability from that gives me a headache. Good luck. You're going to have to review every post, and image search to make sure it's not copywritten material, or you'll drown in DCMA requests. Or hire someone to do it.

>>3091134
Mods? Definitely. You know the autists and neckbeards off this site will flood it with CP and furry porn.

The legal implications of this idea are just...painful.

>>3091239

Would it really be an issue if it's just content being critiqued and rated though? I'll look more into the legality of everything but unless there's a profit being made I'm not sure if it's an issue to simply post another person's content. Of course if users have their own profiles with their artwork this could complicate things, so I'll have to mull over that one for sure.

>>3091239
>You're going to have to review every post, and image search to make sure it's not copywritten material, or you'll drown in DCMA requests

This might be the biggest load of horseshit I've seen on this site.

>>3091253
It would not be an issue. This moron raving about the "legal implications" of your site is not worth listening to. Even if you're making a profit somehow (ads, for example), you'll be okay. Presumably you'll have a terms of service agreement where if people use the site they agree to you hosting their work on said site.

Sure - you would be responsible for making sure people aren't posting illegal content (ie. CP), but you wouldn't get in trouble even if people did (as you would presumably try your best to delete it and/or report offenders to authorities).

>>3091199
I agree with ditching the rating system, for reasons this poster said. It's another reason why I think my ideas here >>3091155 would be better, as you can quickly share with people what you're looking to get criticisms on in regard to where it's at in the process (initial sketch, WIP, near-finished, etc.) Ratings are just unhelpful and don't tell you anything.

>>3091317

True, the rating could mean almost anything. I figured it'd be a way of measuring a piece's appeal or general likability but perhaps getting rid of it would be best. Either that or its use needs to be a lot more specific.

Even if the poster was wrong, I'm still glad they posted. It was a good reminder that I'll need to heavily research the legal implications before making something like this go live. From what I've read so far fair use covers critique of other people's work, but I can't say for sure what is true or not for this site yet.

>>3091317
I have professional experience with copyrights. You're just a neet shitposting on 4chan, because neckbearding you know everything is more important than helping someone.

This reminds me of the GaiaOnline art arena or the rating system on Pixiv or Youtube before they switched to "Likes". What happens if most people just do 1 star or 5 stars but rarely anything in between?