Rating signatures: Good or bad?

[Minoeman]

As continuing off of an argue ment based off of rate the signature of the post above you,

I've decided to make this thread so that we don't get confused on who to rate in that thread

and similar problems. Post your opinions.

Referring to this as the last post.

The overlaying text in the example picture is depth, because it adds a medium of dimension to the picture.

I understand what you're saying, it would be nice if comments were a little more specific.

[TopHATslash]

After 583 pages of the "Rate the signature..." thread.. I'd assume its good.

Why not? Art critisism has been around as long as art has. There is no good art.. only appealing art.

Art criticism is the discussion or evaluation of visual art.

Art critics usually criticize art in the context of aesthetics or the theory of beauty. One of criticism's goals is the pursuit of a rational basis for art appreciation.

[Minoeman]

Yes, art criticism is very important for becoming a better artist.

But, looking for specific, repetitive things in a signature, is old.

It's starting to turn every signature into the same thing. And

what are signatures supposed to be different?

I mean, it helps show ways for the user to show who they are

and what they like.

If every sig looked the same, then that's just like if everyone

in the world looked the same.

I'm not tying to stop the ratings of signatures, I'm trying to

get people to rate on other things like originality, and difference.

[Pride]

"Your signature is original and different!" can get a bit old. The artists want their signatures to be commented based on flow, depth and etc. so we will give them that.

[TopHATslash]

Man, pride, how I love your sig so much.

[jake2k]

My vote is a YES, rating signatures is a good thing cause most people(including me) want some feedback on our work, good or bad, it helps us to learn and improve our art. Now if people didnt want their sig rated they wouldnt/shouldnt post in the thread.

Personally I think the only problem is there is no set rating system so it's hard to actually judge someones rating, for example when I rate someones sig (it's rare but I do it) I base it on a five point system:

1:not pleasant to look at, doesn't look like much time was spent on it

2:could use a little more work, has potential but fell short

3:not the best but def. not the worst, looks good but doesn't amaze me

4:pretty darn good, really nice look to it

5:Freakin amazing, perfect, I wish I'd made it

But I have seen some people who seem to just pull a number out of the air with no real thought behind it, so maybe there needs to be a more standardized rating system in place. Oh and don't feel bad to give someone a lower rating if you don't like their sig, like I said if they didnt want it rated they wouldnt have posted it.

[Sozo]

1:not pleasant to look at, doesn't look like much time was spent on it

2:could use a little more work, has potential but fell short

3:not the best but def. not the worst, looks good but doesn't amaze me

4:pretty darn good, really nice look to it

5:Freakin amazing, perfect, I wish I'd made it

I really like this. We should switch over to this in the rating threads. It really seems to cover all the bases. Toss constructive criticism or praise in there, and you have a worthwhile rating.

[david.atwell]

I really think there needs to be critique. I've stopped looking at the RTS/RTA threads because it's all just "Rate my sig!" "Oh, it's a 10, whatever. Who cares? Rate mine NAO!!!"

That's totally unhelpful.

I just created this: viewtopic.php?f=26&t=29592

Would that help?

[jake2k]

great thread idea, I'll def. try and stop by there once in a while.

[Rubrica]

The artists want their signatures to be commented based on flow, depth and etc. so we will give them that.

Not all people. Perhaps a simple extra sentence might sort this out; people could just say "Please rate my sig on _____,_____ and the _______."?

[LFC4EVER]

I really think there needs to be critique. I've stopped looking at the RTS/RTA threads because it's all just "Rate my sig!" "Oh, it's a 10, whatever. Who cares? Rate mine NAO!!!"

I agree. David, that is a great thread idea! Nice one.

_____________________

On rating sigs. Personally, i'd say if you want your sig rated on "originality and difference" then say you want it rated that way, and someone would kindly rate it for you. But someone who does something completely different and original, but it just looks bad isn't really worth a 10/10 or something in my eyes. I rate signatures on how they look to me. If they look nice, but are simple, so what? Crimson's "Thousand Crimson" sig is awesome. Someone could say that it sucks cos "all he did was make a gradient and added text". Fair enough thats their opinion but in my eyes its awesome. Something simple can be just as effective as something that is complicated to make.

People who rate sigs on flow, depth, lighting etc. can do so if they wish. They are simply giving their own view of the sig. IMO, generally art with good depth, flow and lighting looks better than art without, though are a few awesome exceptions.

Like tHs (Wes) said, art is opinion, and is generally criticized on how good it looks. A piece of art might look bloody potato to one person, but it might be gobsmackingly good to another. Art is all opinion people. Deal with it.

[half of this probably doesn't make sense, but meh. ]

[TopHATslash]

You always have to find somewhere to sneak me into every one of your posts, huh?

[LFC4EVER]

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

We'll what you say: "Art is opinion". Its true. Can't hide from the truth can we? And you said it, so its only fair you get credit for it.

[TopHATslash]

Haha ok.

[Pride]

:? Okay.. back on-topic! I like what you did David, It will be good for the PDN members.

[Minoeman]

I really think there needs to be critique. I've stopped looking at the RTS/RTA threads because it's all just "Rate my sig!" "Oh, it's a 10, whatever. Who cares? Rate mine NAO!!!"

That's totally unhelpful.

I just created this: viewtopic.php?f=26&t=29592

Would that help?

David, this is exactly what I wanted to be down in RTS/RTA. Thank you.

[PineappleQc]

mmh, i don't know if this has been suggested yet but I'd just add specific critters to make a total on 5.

example:

[Criteria]: [Rating] [optionnal comment]

• 
  [*:y9z59hyv]Colours [or their absence] are pleasant: */1 ("X glow matches the background perfectly!")
  [*:y9z59hyv]Smoothness / Pixelisation: */1 ("everything is greatly antianialised but still perfectly clear; ie not blurred")
  [*:y9z59hyv]Depth / Flow: */1 ("i like how everything looks totally flat, really giving the researched 2d egyptian painting effect")
  [*:y9z59hyv]Text: */1 ("doesn't eats up half the image, but is still visible!")
  [*:y9z59hyv]Blending: */1 ("very realisticly made, the cutout is practically invisible")
  [*:y9z59hyv]Personnal Modifiers: +2 "I like the originality, a great idea, and perfectly realised, plus this subject really speaks to me!"
  Total: */5

I thought of those criterias on-the-fly, would perhaps need more organizing..

I think this allows to have more specific criterias without having to write a whole book about the above user's signature.

[oma]

I very seldom rate sigs as I find lately they all look alike.

there is often not a lot to say about a little square identifyer that's been cut and pasted and blurred beyond nice cut, excellent paste, and what's your name again I'm having a hard time seeing the text for all the blood spatters. .

ciao OMA