[supersnail11]

Should I allow images in comments? What about descriptions?

[Satyria]

Nah, let everyone focus on the piece intended instead of being able to memerape everything into exaggeration.

[legolover122]

supersnail11 posted:

Should I allow images in comments? What about descriptions?

No images in comments or descriptions.

Allow links though.

[supersnail11]

I could've disabled the image parsing in the Markdown class.

.comment-content img
{
    display:none;
}

but this is so much easier.

[Eltro102]

what would be cool to see is that standardArt would feature good art from other places aside from standardart

Edited:

if your banned then every image should turn into goatse instead of just a ban image

[latin_geek]

Suggesting one line of text, no HTML or formatting of any kind signatures

Edited:

And design wise, here's a bunch of Attribution Creative Commons licensed icons
http://p.yusukekamiyamane.com/

The only way I can see the whole "community defines what's art and what's not" is getting a large group of moderators (nudge nudge DevArt appreciation station regulars/fp creationism corner regulars), let them decide what's art and what's not AFTER posts are reported by the userbase.

[Cow Muffins]

Here's a couple of thoughts:

Perhaps you can separate the "comments" into two categories, comments and critiques.

If someone rates an image poorly, in order to do so they must write a critique that is x characters long. That way the community can feed off of each other.

Also, you should only allow images in the critiques, not comments, that way people can upload "paint over" images to help the artist improve. By not allowing images in the comments, then the site won't turn into an image board.

[supersnail11]

Cow Muffins posted:

Here's a couple of thoughts:

Perhaps you can separate the "comments" into two categories, comments and critiques.

If someone rates an image poorly, in order to do so they must write a critique that is x characters long. That way the community can feed off of each other.

Also, you should only allow images in the critiques, not comments, that way people can upload "paint over" images to help the artist improve. By not allowing images in the comments, then the site won't turn into an image board.

I'm going with "you have to comment if you rate an image"

[Eltro102]

supersnail11 posted:

I'm going with "you have to comment if you rate an image"

wouldnt this lead to a fuckton of comments that are just there because a person rated?
another thing you could have is standard art critque type rating, eg a bad anatomy rating, which people would comment with on which part is bad and how it should be improved

[dgg]

Eltro102 posted:

wouldnt this lead to a fuckton of comments that are just there because a person rated?
another thing you could have is standard art critque type rating, eg a bad anatomy rating, which people would comment with on which part is bad and how it should be improved

Yeah but it's better than a fuckton of ratings removing peoples art because there is nothing stopping them from rating.

If they have to post to rate 90% of rating-trolls will vanish.

[supersnail11]

Hmm. What if there was two seperate comment sections, one for critiques, one for mindless blabber. You can't rate it without posting a critique, but you can still mindlessly blather. That would stop all the people giving shit critiques just to comment on something, but would still allow for meaningful discussion about the artwork.

[Maloof?]

Something I really want in dA (and that you could implement) is a way to do an in-site edit of somebody's work. A sort of grease-pencil, limited colour overlay so that you can make visual notes to support a critique without having to take the image being critiqued into photoshop

[Cow Muffins]

supersnail11 posted:

Hmm. What if there was two seperate comment sections, one for critiques, one for mindless blabber. You can't rate it without posting a critique, but you can still mindlessly blather. That would stop all the people giving shit critiques just to comment on something, but would still allow for meaningful discussion about the artwork.

I posted this suggestion yesterday. You even replied to my post with the suggestion.

Cow Muffins posted:

Here's a couple of thoughts:

Perhaps you can separate the "comments" into two categories, comments and critiques.

If someone rates an image poorly, in order to do so they must write a critique that is x characters long. That way the community can feed off of each other.

[supersnail11]

Cow Muffins posted:

I posted this suggestion yesterday. You even replied to my post with the suggestion.

My bad. Creds to you.

[TH89]

Cow Muffins posted:

If someone rates an image poorly, in order to do so they must write a critique that is x characters long. That way the community can feed off of each other.

Then people will just be too lazy and never downvote anything and it will be a hugbox circlejerk

Edited:

I don't know though, regardless of how you advertise it it seems like the whole selling point is "not deviantart" and I don't know if that's really a good place to start. DeviantArt doesn't really suck because of the moderation or lack of "quality control." It's the whole egocentric way it's put together--people create personal profiles and upload art to a gallery with a little bio for themselves and an artist's description and a comments section for each picture they upload.

None of that is a good idea. It places artist and artwork on a pedestal and gets everyone too invested in it. It's too ritualistic, too permanent. It's about the end product rather than the process.

Conceptart is good because people post stuff in threads. It's impermanent and fleeting, you don't get a spot to put a title and an artist's statement for everything you post, you can't effectively amass pageviews and subscribers. You post stuff that'll be impossible to find or gone in a couple months, and that'll be fine, because you're trying to get crits and improve it. It's about the process rather than the end product.

Good artists gravitate toward the latter environment, not the former. If you recreate the mechanisms of deviantArt you're going to get the users of deviantArt, and if you antagonize them you're going to get no users at all. You gotta foster transience and de-emphasize the art for a good art website, as contradictory as that sounds

[supersnail11]

Ok, I can't figure this out. Restructuring the project to be like what TH89 recommends would be difficult and it would be a better idea just to use ConceptArt. Let's put it to a vote:

Continue with the project, it might be possible to make a deviantArt style website work.

Abandon project, TH89 is right, there's no way anything similar to deviantArt could ever work.

Edited:
Thanks daij but friendly is not a vote option

[daijitsu]

unfortunately, TH89 is right. It has been an interesting learning experience delving into what makes these communities tick, and I hope it's been a bit of a lesson for all of us as artists who want to find a place with such a happy medium.

Honestly, it's been right under our noses, the FP artist crowd is very helpful in its own right and most times provides the right advice without pouring a bag of sugar on top. Sure it isn't a gallery-centric site, let alone designed specifically with art in mind, but the people and the discussion is ultimately what makes it work.

[supersnail11]

At least I can now work on other projects without feeling like I should be working on this.

[Martut]

And, to be fair, deviantArt really appears that way on the outside, but it ends up being fine depending on what crowds you attract. The most popular things are going to be the most popular things on the internet, but there are still plenty of good groups and people in there, you just have to look for them, and you really can't group all of the site based on what reaches most popular. Some of my art professors use DA.

I've even been tossing out advice on really anime pictures on anatomy and people have been thanking me and saying they really appreciate it and they'll work on it. The DA Appreciation Station highlights the worst of the worst. The people who won't listen to advice. The average user on the site really isn't that bad. I have never had a person freak out on me for giving advice and criticism. I've seen it happen, but I've also seen it happen a lot IRL too, people who freak out if you point out something "off" with their work.

I can name... about 5 people in my General Drawing class out of 15 that got frustrated when given criticism. It isn't as easy to take in the beginning as most seasoned criticism-takers recall. I talked with my mom about how I used to take criticism and she said I used to be awful about it and that I'd take it as a personal insult until more recently. I didn't remember being bad about it, so I did some digging (both internet and mental), and she was right, I somewhat freaked out when people gave it about ages 12-16.

I don't think all of the most popular people on there were looking for praise or even do. People like sakimichan probably don't put those "critique" things on their work probably because people usually didn't end up giving great advice. (I've seen people give advice like "OMG~! XD ITS SO GREAT!! How could you want criticism?! It's perfect!" or on the other side "Your work makes me so jealous I think I'm just going to quit art and cry, everybody's better than I am. Oh, nice picture btw." Both of which are equally frustrating) That, and they probably have a personal group of people, who give good advice, to ask them how they can improve since some popular people like sakimichan have improved a lot.

We here in the CC just basically ended up being our own go-to people for improvement and all of us are improving pretty nicely and giving good advice. I think DA is a great place to host things, find amazing works, get exposure, and connect with other artists, but for critiques you either have to actively search out the people (on the forums, in groups, whatever) or rely on people you already know. So I don't think there's too much inherently wrong with DA. It does have its faults, but I don't think it's the wasteland some people make it out to be. Heck, most of the artists on here have DAs and upload to them regularly.

[Secrios]

supersnail11 posted:

Ratings, and dates. I can't believe I spent a ton of time putting in time zones, even though it doesn't matter when all your times are "x time ago"

I know this is really late, but why you add a rating system? Isn't that a ploy for "Lazy Critisism"! Anyone can press a button, it takes a boss to take time and type stuff.

[Sherd Red]

Secrios posted:

I know this is really late, but why you add a rating system? Isn't that a ploy for "Lazy Critisism"! Anyone can press a button, it takes a boss to take time and type stuff.

You do know Standard Art is dead, right?

[Chaplin]

Secrios posted:

I know this is really late, but why you add a rating system? Isn't that a ploy for "Lazy Critisism"! Anyone can press a button, it takes a boss to take time and type stuff.

Oh great necromancer! Why can't you let her die in peace?!

[the-dutch-guy]

-snip-

Wrong thread, ignore this.

[latin_geek]

Shiiiiiit.
It was fun while it lasted. You planning on releasing the source or whatever, in case anyone feels like loading an old box and test-running SA?

[supersnail11]

latin_geek posted:

Shiiiiiit.
It was fun while it lasted. You planning on releasing the source or whatever, in case anyone feels like loading an old box and test-running SA?

https://github.com/CommunistPancake/StandardArt

Knock your self out