Forum:Are some of the FX/SFX and Editor's Note descriptions too opinionated?
| Report post
|
After the banning of one user for writing with a biased point of view (adding "Stunning" and other positive connotations into one of the logos for the Warner Bros. and MGM pages), this is something I would like to bring up that made me feel iffy about. The thing is, I've seen a lot of pages where the FX/SFX and Editor's Note seem opinionated yet everyone is cool with that. I think this is against the true meaning and purpose of the Editor's Note section, which is supposed to serve as a replacement for both the Cheesy and Scare Factors while at the same time keeping the pages informative by describing its impact and reputation on the logo and other communities. But instead, it feels like some handlings of either section continue the infamous, opinionated "cheesy" and "scary" descriptions that made this community polarizing in the first place. For instance, in one page I've seen where the Editor's Note is nothing but an opinion: The atrocious & cheap animation, the cheap sounds, & the terrible graphics makes this undoubtedly one of the worst logos of Motion Graphics History. It can also creep some due to the heavy wind sound & 2 cent budget animation. Even one of the biggest pages on this site retains similar opinion-leaning terms that got that user banned in the first place such as "Beautifully crafted CGI" and "Incredibly breathtaking CGI". Remember this forum where one user tried proposing a Cheesy Factor-like section but got some red flags for it feeling like it "could be exploited to basically being another Cheesy Factor"? Yeah, many pages feel like the section has been exploited into feeling like that or the Scare Factor. So what makes those descriptions alright and not subject to penalty? |
| Report post
|
I have to admit that some are very opinionated, which can be the reason why it was switched with something. But if it's an opinion everyone can agree on, it ain't a problem at all. It's notable as it is (the reason why the Editor's Note exists in the first place), and if everyone just puts in "None" every time it pops up, it doesn't make any sense. This is especially with the best, worst, and scarier logos in this wiki. I spotted at least a few pages where one logo is in either on of those categories, and people put in "None". How can people know the notes and warnings? But for the ones that fit neither makes sense. |
| Report post
|
Yeah I've been thinking that's a problem on the wiki. I admittedly have been guilty of inserting opinions into the Editor's Note sections of some of the pages I've made (maybe also more that I can't remember) since I used to think that was where opinions on logos were to go since it was meant as the replacement to the Scare and Cheesy Factors, though I have since removed the offending opinions from some of them and am currently working on removing more. I think the only times opinions should be brought up on pages is if there is a notable consensus within the logo community as to whether a logo is liked, disliked, considered scary etc. by the majority of members, and that should definitely be relegated to the Editor's Note. Probably should also consider looking into eliminating unnecessary commentary in the Editor's Note too like with the Where's Lunch? page. |
| Report post
|
I agree (even if I'm guilty of contributing to this problem sometimes... sorry). I think it's because the Editor's Note is a partial replacement for the Cheesy Factor subsection, which was often similarly too opinionated. I remember the first Prism Entertainment logo had a Cheesy Factor that was basically a GIGANTIC paragraph bashing the logo to kingdom come because gasp! that videotape animation at the start isn't relevant to the rest of the logo... even though it signifies the company's purpose. |
| Report post
|
The editor's note was very hastily implemented on the old site. It should be more of a Misc. section for info that doesn't fit into the basic description. Not one person's review. Having "Editor's Note: None" in a description is also a bit much. That just encourages low-quality filler when there's higher priority tasks out there. |
