Thanks for writing this. This post comes at an apt time as I’m considering commenting more on LW (a club I’ve crashed but I’m making myself at home).
I read this post and it feels all about positive feedback—phases like “say if you like something, ideas that stand out, worth writing more about …”
What about comments that aren’t so flattering? That might be considered critical, negative, in disagreement?
Pointing out biases and errors, things that should be re-worded and what’s just a load of waffle?!
It would be useful to know which authors want honest feedback - I’m not bothered about the negative karma as such, but it’s a waste of my time commenting if it’s down-voted out of view and/or the author isn’t interested in the thoughts of this internet-random.
If ideas are to be developed and thought improved, should they not be open to all feedback?
whether it feels warm and fluffy or whether it’s a more like a kick in the guts.
Rational thinking—information gathering, logical thinking, considering all the possibilities, keeping an open mind, letting the ego go …
Collaborative criticism definitely feels different from adversarial criticism. I try (and don’t always succeed) at doing the former unless the author wants the latter.
Collaborative v. adversarial are not categories I’d use for feedback—but do you not sometimes succeed because of what you’ve written, or is it the way the recipient receives it?
I aim to be factual and fair. But also honest and direct. Which can come over as harsh sometimes but it comes from a position of wanting to help.
How much time do I spend framing ‘less than congratulatory’ feedback?
How is the author going to take that feedback whatever I write?
A lot comes down to the author’s reaction rather than the feedback given.
I get the impression that there’s bloggers that want to write stuff and bask in their glory of great thinking, and then there’s other authors that are developing thoughts and ideas. Who wants feedback?
Thanks for writing this. This post comes at an apt time as I’m considering commenting more on LW (a club I’ve crashed but I’m making myself at home).
I read this post and it feels all about positive feedback—phases like “say if you like something, ideas that stand out, worth writing more about …”
What about comments that aren’t so flattering? That might be considered critical, negative, in disagreement?
Pointing out biases and errors, things that should be re-worded and what’s just a load of waffle?!
It would be useful to know which authors want honest feedback - I’m not bothered about the negative karma as such, but it’s a waste of my time commenting if it’s down-voted out of view and/or the author isn’t interested in the thoughts of this internet-random.
If ideas are to be developed and thought improved, should they not be open to all feedback?
whether it feels warm and fluffy or whether it’s a more like a kick in the guts.
Rational thinking—information gathering, logical thinking, considering all the possibilities, keeping an open mind, letting the ego go …
Collaborative criticism definitely feels different from adversarial criticism. I try (and don’t always succeed) at doing the former unless the author wants the latter.
Collaborative v. adversarial are not categories I’d use for feedback—but do you not sometimes succeed because of what you’ve written, or is it the way the recipient receives it?
I aim to be factual and fair. But also honest and direct. Which can come over as harsh sometimes but it comes from a position of wanting to help.
How much time do I spend framing ‘less than congratulatory’ feedback?
How is the author going to take that feedback whatever I write?
A lot comes down to the author’s reaction rather than the feedback given.
I get the impression that there’s bloggers that want to write stuff and bask in their glory of great thinking, and then there’s other authors that are developing thoughts and ideas. Who wants feedback?