Comic Fury Webcomic Hosting - "Bad Webcomics Wiki" - A site for bullying, or legitimate criticism?

You are not logged in. Log in, Register, More info
Forum > General discussion > "Bad Webcomics Wiki" - A site for bullying, or legitimate criticism?
Pages: [1] [2] [3] [4]

""Bad Webcomics Wiki" - A site for bullying, or legitimate criticism?", 4th Apr 2013, 7:49 AM #1
CynicaIdealist

User avatar
Posts: 2404
Registration date: 2nd Feb 2012
Yeah, okay, I've been perusing the Internet, looking for interesting stuff to read, and I came across this website when looking through some Webcomic sites. I clicked on it, somewhat interested, and found the site to be... intriguing.

I'll be the first to say that some of the stuff on the site is utter garbage; some of the critiques on Art make no sense, as scale isn't quite taken into account: some people are blasted for simply using an anime style of art that is at least tolerable, while others who, having art styles that genuinely make me want to tear my eyes out, have higher scores; storyline info is equally all over the place, with some stuff making no sense in the reviews, and other stuff being taken entirely out of context and thus being purposefully made to look bad.

Frankly, some of that site is a cess-pool of boring, unneccesary rage. Some people just want to score everything with 1/5 for everything, just to blast something.

However, and this is the part that got to me; occasionally, like diamonds found in the midst of a pigsty, there would be genuinely decent critique. Some of those webcomics featured had points against them that I whole-heartedly agreed with. Once in a blue moon, beyond the comics that were obviously not entertaining (like comics about screwing corpses; no, that's not a joke. There are comics that are focused on people who have murdered and screwed the corpses AND NOTHING ELSE, and they suck on multple levels), there would be a critique on a comic that has such a fanbase that simply follows like sheep, that could actually do with improvement as the wiki recommends.

Do I think the majority of the website is that way? No. I seriously believe most of the material on that site is absurd; 1/5 are handed out far too frequently, frankly. But do I think that, with a bit of cleaning up, that the site could be the equivalent of Cracked, with irreverent humor and a degree of mental acuity not frequently seen on the internet. I don't know how that would work, mind; wikis are nigh-impossible to keep from falling into idiocy. But it would be nice.
_______________________
Guess what? That idea? Didn't fail. Suck it.
4th Apr 2013, 8:04 AM #2
killersteak
Botanist
User avatar
Posts: 4966
Registration date: 25th Apr 2011
Location: who gives a fuck
The whole thing stemmed from the blog of one guy blasting things like CTRL ALT DEL. When he stopped all his fans decided to set that thing up, but I think it's been dead for a while now, no new additions.

I'm torn on the whole idea. On one hand it's pointing out big flaws of comics that are popular regardless. They don't improve these flaws, have no interest in improving, just continue on with praise from their fans.
On the other hand it has less popular comics, comics with less than 50 fans, if even. They wouldnt have asked for this critique, some guy from the BWCW just happened across them and decided it would be fun to blast them.

So I suppose it's both. Bullying, definitely. Criticism? Sure, even if you're not the artist you can walk away with a list of things to not do in a comic.

If someone harsh like these guys set up a similar thing, but did the reviews on request of the author, I think that would be the better way to go with a site like this. (but then where would all the dramas go? internet ppls luv dramas)
4th Apr 2013, 8:11 AM #3
Kyo
no longer a family man
User avatar
Posts: 18241
Registration date: 6th Jul 2008
Location: Germany
the problem with these kinds of sites is that they attract exactly the kind of people you would think they would attract. I remember reading the xkcd article [which seems to now have been deleted] and it kept calling him autistic/saying he had aspergers in a derogatory way

which... yeah, is pretty fucked up
_______________________
hello
4th Apr 2013, 8:20 AM #4
CynicaIdealist

User avatar
Posts: 2404
Registration date: 2nd Feb 2012
What's interesting, though, was that in some cases there was a degree of self-policing; BCB, for example, had a highly negative review on the website that was almost slanderous in it's stupidity, but was replaced by another review that was no less harsh but never-the-less hit the issue with the comic on the head.

It's interesting, and strange, to say the least.
_______________________
Guess what? That idea? Didn't fail. Suck it.
4th Apr 2013, 10:37 AM #5
Magravan
Ma-Ma-Magravan!
User avatar
Posts: 5255
Registration date: 13th Oct 2009
Location: Canada
It's bullying... Half the junk that they write is pointless bashing. There are some legitimate critiques in there, I'm sure, but it's so wrapped up in derogatory comments that it's going to be lost on a creator anyway. I also have an issue with the fact that their articles tend to be very subjective to the article author's personal tastes.
_______________________
image
The last human risks life and limb brains to save the intelligent zombies responsible for destroying humanity. Completed 300 page story with 15 page epilogue. PG13
<- Avatar: By Kristy of Wake the Sleepers
4th Apr 2013, 10:51 AM #6
CynicaIdealist

User avatar
Posts: 2404
Registration date: 2nd Feb 2012
Well, Magravan, I also have an issue with people bashing other people (that part I don't disagree with).

However, the part I do disagree with is thus

Magravan: I also have an issue with the fact that their articles tend to be very subjective to the article author's personal tastes.


While I don't mind agreeing with you when it comes to some of their statments on art style, (their strange hatred for Anime/manga style, for example, I can't wrap my head around) the sad fact is that all critique, to some extent, is subjective; the day people create an objective system for 'grading' art is the day I'll know I need to jump off a pier somewhere, swim to a desert island, and live off of raw fish in isolation. XD

And you noted it yourself; there are some legitimate critiques there. While it most certainly doesn't make up for the stupidity of the language, it does feel vaugely like Bathos to some extent. Very poorly done, inflammatory Bathos, yes, but nevertheless there are serious points to be made.

Of course, considering that I enjoy the occasional Cracked article, perhaps my standards for inanity are somewhat suspect...

And, of course, one could make the point that excessively brutal language get's the point across that a lot of the stuff they critique is absolute filth while also serving as a sort of roadmap of reviews; if the reviewer doesn't bust out the f-bomb every thirty seconds, then the review has some potential to be enlightening.

(And yes, I'm being Devil's Advocate here, but this is actually part of my view as well)
_______________________
Guess what? That idea? Didn't fail. Suck it.
4th Apr 2013, 11:03 AM #7
devilyoudont

User avatar
Posts: 96
Registration date: 14th Jan 2013
Location: PA
My thoughts are always evolving, but right now I think that ending the culture of harassment and bullying online is more important. I think a lot of terrible things happen online under the pretense that it's part of a critique. But the Tim Buckleys and Andrew Dobsons of the world don't deserve to be stalked across the internet just because they are mediocre artists. I've seen all kinds of bad behavior that gets justified by someone else saying, "Well maybe this was too harsh but Buckley does always draw the same face..." How about this: bullying is completely a disproportionate response to art which is often done by amateurs as a hobby, regardless of whether some aspect of the bullying has the seed of a legitimate critique in it?
_______________________
image
4th Apr 2013, 11:27 AM #8
TheOneBlueGecko
Team Gecko
User avatar
Posts: 4457
Registration date: 14th Feb 2012
Location: Orange County, California
I am torn about it, I actually don't mind the idea, but I have a problem with the execution because I agree with a number of you with what they have there just being bullying for the most part. And I agree with Magravan that a lot of the criticism on there is subjective to the point of being not very useful.

I used to have an issue with unrequested critiques, but I've come to think they are ok when done in a respectable way. There's no point in critiquing a comic that you find, in terms of story, horribly offensive because they're not going to change, but taking a comic that has weak art or a weak story and discussing where the issue is can help others learn.

I would love to have more well done, thought out art and story critiques. They could take someone's page of art and pull apart what doesn't work, maybe even sketch out an alternative version of the page to show how it should be done. And people do do that for some critiques sites (like PencilJack) and just visually seeing where the issues are with a piece of art can be hugely informative.

So, yeah, I kind of like the theory of discussing why some comics are not good even if the person does not ask for it, but I do not like how that site does things.
_______________________
I support our new pirate overlords.
Comic Tumblr
4th Apr 2013, 3:58 PM #9
Kupocake

User avatar
Posts: 1288
Registration date: 14th Mar 2012
Location: S. California
Bad Webcomics Wiki, to me, is comparable to Encyclopedia Dramatica in terms of tone and criticizing style (although ED goes further). It's like a giant search for the next big awful webcomic, and they want said webcomic creator to react to it. I mean, they have a page dedicated to author responses. I think quite a number of the articles does have some legitimate criticism on certain webcomics, but the majority of each review is meant to shock the reader into thinking this webcomic is the worst thing ever written/drawn. It's not a site meant to help you find a webcomic to read, it's meant to entertain people who enjoy negativity by pulling a webcomics' worst traits out into the open.

ANYWAY. To spin this back into the positive, here's some better webcomic review sites where you can definitely find something excellent to read and less inflammatory criticism against webcomics and their creators.
Webcomic Overlook
The Webcomic Police
And of course our very own, homegrown The Web Comic Review
_______________________
I'm not your friendo, buddy.
[ Tumblr ] [ DeviantArt ]
image
Updates Tuesdays!
4th Apr 2013, 4:03 PM #10
Kyo
no longer a family man
User avatar
Posts: 18241
Registration date: 6th Jul 2008
Location: Germany
I do think as creators of webcomics we are a bit biased as well though. It's hard to draw the line sometimes, what are you allowed to make fun of? I mean schadenfreude is sort of inherent to people I think and we all do gossip about people and things.

I'm not quite sure what my opinion is on this myself, but I think everyone can agree that harassing someone directly or insulting the creator of a work you don't like are big no-nos. Making fun of the work? In private? Maybe, idk
_______________________
hello
4th Apr 2013, 4:43 PM #11
Nightsky

User avatar
Posts: 1378
Registration date: 1st Nov 2011
Location: The Demonic Realm
Actually, this site is really eating at one of our members. I won't say who it is, but we were talking and I spent quite a bit of time trying to comfort him/her. I admit, some of it did seem like it could be legitimate critique—for example, it said a pose from one of the latest pages is off anatomy-wise—but the way they say it IS bullying. It's all just so negative and said in a mocking manner, and it can pry at the author's insecurities. It criticized the comic's artwork by saying it hasn't improved (which is a big fat lie), that the storyline made no sense (it's a fan comic, you have to be part of the fandom to really get it), or that it was too rushed in the early pages (which is because originally the comic was going to be much shorter but ended up expanding).

The thing is, this comic's kind of old; it's been going on for about five years or so now. Of course there's a lot of changes in the artwork and story from the beginning. Not everyone has the ability to draw perfectly or write a masterpiece from the moment they're born. Developing skill takes time and practice. However, they pushed just the right buttons to hit his/her insecurities dead-on, and he/she might actually stop making the comic now. That's how bad their comments were. As I read it, I could almost hear the posters snickering while typing away at their computers. It wasn't critique, it was dead-on bullying.

The problem is that it's hard to ignore negative criticism. I'm pretty good at it, but honestly, I can see my own comics getting on there if only because I place more effort on the story than the art. Three Little Monkeys is admittedly pretty plain art-wise; I think these guys would even find a way to tear into Wake the Sleepers. I saw a small topic for The Other Grey Meat already, purely criticizing the art. One of them only got three pages in before stopping. NOT ALL ARTISTS ARE AS GOOD AS DA VINCI!! With all these people criticizing art, I'd like to see them try their hands at drawing. >_>
4th Apr 2013, 6:37 PM #12
Bungy32

User avatar
Posts: 183
Registration date: 17th Mar 2013
Location: Southern Illinois, USA
Yeah, I found this site a while ago. I'm not sure I would call it bullying, but it too often offers bad and unproductive criticism. It operates from a belief that the best criticism is harsh and humorous. The site, then, becomes about the criticism rather than the works criticized. The participants there actively look for "bad" comics, anticipating the scathing review they can write.

So these are my pet peeves with the site and why I call it bad criticism:

1) Criticism in a vacuum. Which is to say, what are the critic's criteria for evaluation? All critics are offering opinions, but good critics have informed opinions and are up front about what informs their opinion. You don't evaluate a Dilbert cartoon based on the visual codes of Manga or portrait composition rules developed in the Rennaissance. If a critic is unwilling to meet the work where it lives, and merely makes blanket evaluations based on assumed universal values, it is not very productive or insightful.

2) Criticizing fan base. One thing that seems to really piss off the critics at BWW is if the comic appears to have readers. This often results in genre bashing (e.g. fan comics are always bad, etc.). And so, part of the criticism takes the force of intervening in the "bad taste" of the audience that likes what they are reading. Yeah, I can't stand the NFL, but I understand it has a large and powerful fan base. Why would any of them ever care what I have to say about football?

3) Critics can't smell their own farts. I've read several articles there tearing apart the politics of certain web comics. The critics sometimes announce their political bent but just as often don't. Their own political views become the impetus for the evaluation of every other aspect of the comic. If the critiic whines that a political cartoon strip is full of straw men, I suspect they have never read a professional editorial cartoon. And let's be clear, here: despite all the art evaluation, too few of the critics at BWW have their own comics. If they did, hey might be surprised at how much their criticism applies to their own work, as well.

4) Unclear on the purpose of the criticism. Despite their home page claim, I don't think they really want to make better webcomics in the world. If they did, they would be out of a (nonpaying) job. I also think they would spend more time highlighting what's good in (what they feel are) good web comics.

Even so, there is value to a site like this. All artists who put their work out for public consumption better get used to some less-than-generous feedback. Yes, at a certain level, that means developing a thick skin. But more importantly and productively, you have to sort among the chaff in order to recognize what is useful feedback. You find and value those critics who offer something more than effusive puffery and something more useful than dismissive snark. And you learn to see behind what they say or think is important to what is really productive to you and your development as an artist/storyteller. A site like BWW is certainly avoidable if you don't want to see what they are saying. But if you are (b)rash enough to see what they have to say about your work (or others'), do so with a keen eye looking for anything actually useful in all the self-congratulatory posturing.

And then this old canard: there is no such thing as bad press. I have found and followed several web comics based on their snarky slamfests. There are a couple of critics at BWW that I know, if they hate it, I'll love it. So, you know, there's that.



_______________________
image
image
4th Apr 2013, 6:38 PM #13
Magravan
Ma-Ma-Magravan!
User avatar
Posts: 5255
Registration date: 13th Oct 2009
Location: Canada
That's a fair point Cynic. What I meant was that, in specific to our case, someone said "The colour scheme doesn't fit a zombie story." It just showed a general lack of insight into the work that they were trying to rip apart... It should be abundantly clear that a dark, bleak colour scheme would have been completely wrong for our comic.

But honestly, their review of our comic didn't really bother me. It was their review of someone else's comic... I'm not sure if Nightsky is talking about the same person, but it really irritated me.

Their general position that one has to be at a certain level of competence in order to put a webcomic on the internet is one that I am completely opposed to.
_______________________
image
The last human risks life and limb brains to save the intelligent zombies responsible for destroying humanity. Completed 300 page story with 15 page epilogue. PG13
<- Avatar: By Kristy of Wake the Sleepers
4th Apr 2013, 6:54 PM #14
Guybrush20X6

User avatar
Posts: 1648
Registration date: 22nd Aug 2011
Location: Scotland
With a site name like that it's just asking for trouble. I'm against it in principle. I've got soft baby skin myslef and 1 ratings hurt. Ow.

Still if the Sonichu saga taught us anything, it's to accept that people will dislike your work and move on. Attempts to destroy them will just lead to a mess.
_______________________
image
Because not all problems can be solved by sleeping at an inn. Updates Saturdays.
4th Apr 2013, 6:58 PM #15
Centcomm
Powerhouse
User avatar
Posts: 8126
Registration date: 5th May 2012
Location: Mesa, AZ
I guess its a good thing I started out when everyone dispised Cg comics. and (so far) ive not gotten too much "hatemail" or reviews.. - I think it would be funny as hell if they reviewed mine. I would think , oh hey im popular enough to have people actually putting stuff on the web about yay free advertizing!!! rox!

^_^ You cant take these guys too seriously - they put right up front its a humor site and that it bashes ..
_______________________
Avatar By toherrys
image
image
4th Apr 2013, 7:01 PM #16
Bungy32

User avatar
Posts: 183
Registration date: 17th Mar 2013
Location: Southern Illinois, USA
CynicaIdealist:There are comics that are focused on people who have murdered and screwed the corpses AND NOTHING ELSE, and they suck on multiple levels.


This, by the way, is my favorite sentence on the Internet today. Probably my favorite for the week. It could be a year end contender.

It's creepy, it's funny, and it's about something so horrific I am not sure I can stop myself from doing a Google search.
_______________________
image
image
4th Apr 2013, 7:04 PM #17
TheSmilingPsycho

User avatar
Posts: 454
Registration date: 17th Apr 2012
Location: USA
Kupocake:

How does one get featured on one of these sites?
_______________________
image
Like sci-fi? Like comedy? Like action/adventure? Check out my webcomic: The Misadventures of Dexter the Alien
I update a lot :)
4th Apr 2013, 7:12 PM #18
Comic or Die

User avatar
Posts: 191
Registration date: 19th Aug 2011
Location: UK
Centcomm:I think it would be funny as hell if they reviewed mine. I would think , oh hey im popular enough to have people actually putting stuff on the web about yay free advertizing!!! rox!

^_^ You cant take these guys too seriously - they put right up front its a humor site and that it bashes ..


I'm in this camp too. My comic will never live up to the standards they set, and I REALLY want them to review/rip mine apart, because hey, it's free press and will get a load of visits. Seeing as half of the comics they attack are guilty mainly of being popular enough to get noticed, I'd consider it to be one hell of a compliment.

Besides, with a critique style that's obviously meant to be as rude and inflammatory as possible, I'd be hard pushed taking any of it really to heart.

_______________________
4th Apr 2013, 7:16 PM #19
jenffer
Some of us are born lucky
User avatar
Posts: 3444
Registration date: 10th Jan 2010
Location: candan

How does one get featured on one of these sites?

well in my case it was my art and now infamus bad spelling
and missj 's big boob over at 4chan and other places that thinks my stirp is bad or wost as cwc's stirp and life
4th Apr 2013, 7:36 PM #20
TheOneBlueGecko
Team Gecko
User avatar
Posts: 4457
Registration date: 14th Feb 2012
Location: Orange County, California
I flipped through the site and read some of the pages and I agree with bungy's NFL comment. The comics they review seem to be ones where they hate everything about them and I really think that to write a meaningful review you need to have something that you liked about it or at least thought they would liked about it.

Like for me, I would never review Twilight because I don't like vampire movies and I don't like romance stories. There is no point in me reviewing it because there is nothing about it that would appeal to me. But take the Eric Bana Hulk movie, I love super heroism, I love the Hulk, and I thought it looked cool from the trailers, but it is probably the only movie I have paid to see and hated. I could write a review about that movie because I should have liked it, but there was something about it that didn't work for me.

That site only writes about comics that they know they will hate every bit of. That makes that individual site pointless. Also, I don't like how they seem to target and criticize the people behind the work.
_______________________
I support our new pirate overlords.
Comic Tumblr
Forum > General discussion > "Bad Webcomics Wiki" - A site for bullying, or legitimate criticism?
Pages: [1] [2] [3] [4]