Previous Entry | Next Entry

a question of feedback

  • Jun. 13th, 2006 at 12:07 AM
cali: (books)
So I pretty much missed the whole hate meme phenomena, or at least the SGA one. A lot of people have been posting their outrage, and yeah. I just don't get it (hate memes that is, not outrage) because it seems like, at least in the supernatural threads, it was all about "blah blah blah I hate this person because they write stuff I don't like and they're obviously a huge bitch because other people do like it."

Um. Way to be self-sabotaging fandom! Hating people who are actively participating in fandom just because they're participating is not going to help anything. And what's up with the personal vendettas against BNFs? There's this really nifty feature called the scroll button when you don't want to read something.

Anyway, some people defend hate memes because they're like, the only opportunity for non-BNFs to be heard and anonymous commenting levels the playing field or something. Yes, it totally sucks that lj is more of a popularity contest than a cohesive community, but seriously, if you're yourself are actually involved in fandom, can you not see the good in encouraging everyone to participate? Because it seems to me that a lot of times creative people play off of each other and encouraging that should never, ever be a bad thing. One thing I do wish though, is that some of the stuff brought up in the hate threads could actually be discussed outside of the context of petty, spiteful commentary.

[livejournal.com profile] eleveninches posted the other day, I think in response to something that came up in [livejournal.com profile] sga_hate, about authors responding to feedback. She asked if people are affected by whether or not an author responds to their feedback. While I didn't see the original threads, I imagine some of the hate was directed at several prolific authors in the sga fandom who somewhat notoriously don't respond to feedback. In response to her questions I said this about my feedback habits:

I really try to leave feedback for everything I enjoyed reading, but if it's a writer who I know doesn't respond to feedback, I usually won't bother. Above and beyond any considerations of fandom etiquette and politeness, not responding to feedback (at least to me) seems to indicate a certain level of indifference towards even getting feedback at all.

And personally, I like writing feedback, I like picking out what I loved, and telling writers exactly what worked for me. So I usually spend a good amount of time trying to construct something more than a quick "thanks!" (not that there's anything wrong with doing that, sometimes it's all I have time for too.) Fandom is a reciprocal culture, if I don't feel like the time I put into feedback is appreciated, I won't leave it. And more than that, feedback is pretty much the best opportunity for readers to interact with writers, it's how a lot of meta gets discussed, and how a lot of people meet new friends. I don't think every writer has to automatically make friends with all of their reviewers, but I think it's nice when the channels of communication are at least open to that, even if all it is is a standard thank you reply, at least that's something.

Some of the best meta discussions I've had have come out of feedback threads, [livejournal.com profile] synecdochic is especially good at fostering those sorts of conversations when she posts fanfic. I know I've gotten to be better friends with at least half of the writers on my friendslist through conversations that started with feedback. And I know not all authors are interested in that or have time for that, but at least a thank you is, I think, called for when people give you a compliment. It just feels, at worst, rude and at least, like they don't care that people have left them feedback.

(stealing [livejournal.com profile] eleveninches' questions:) What do you guys think? Does anyone think a blanketed thank you is a poor response to feedback? Do you not leave feedback if the author doesn't say thanks? Do you get annoyed seeing an author saying a standard thank you to every comment left for them? Do you not care and leave feedback regardless of the author's actions? And, because I know there are several authors on my friendslist, do you guys all respond to your feedback? Do you feel like you have to? Or that it's a waste of time when all you can really say is "thanks" 40 times?

Tags:

Comments

[identity profile] delurker.livejournal.com wrote:
Jun. 14th, 2006 12:35 pm (UTC)
Could you put a blanket thanks and explanation re. lack of internet time in the header? I don't know, maybe other people would be upset about that, but I'd be far happier knowing that going in than being met with silence.
[identity profile] cupidsbow.livejournal.com wrote:
Jun. 15th, 2006 07:10 am (UTC)
You know, I've tried several different things over the years. I've made a blanket thank you in the next post in my LJ; I've added an author's note to the story; I've made posts about not having enough time online. Then there's my replies to the comments themselves: I've replied to random comments, or left a top-level comment myself that says thank you, or left a reply on the first comment and the last comment, I've answered all comments, I've answered no comments, I've answered the same comment twice (quickly and then in more detail). I've never been able to find a balance.

I've tried to signal that I'm easy going in other ways, too. My User Info says: "All friends are welcome. I don't stand on ceremony, just friend away! I'll automatically friend back so you'll have access to my flocked fic. Go ahead and unfriend whenever you want." so that people don't feel they need to leave comments to get my attention.

Your suggestion is a very sensible and practical one, and I have considered making blanket "Thank yous" on all my posted fic. But when it comes right down to it, something deep inside me rebels at the idea. It feels like I'm apologising for being poor (which is why I don't have much internet time), it feels like I'm apologising for posting my fic. In short, it feels like I'm apologising for being *me*.

Thank you for making me think about this, because I hadn't articulated why I was having trouble with the idea before. But now I've considered it I find that maybe I am a snob, after all. It turns out? I'd rather be disliked than pitied. And if that means I miss out on a few comments, it's worth the price to me, even though it makes me a little sad.
[identity profile] delurker.livejournal.com wrote:
Jun. 15th, 2006 01:21 pm (UTC)
It feels like I'm apologising for being poor (which is why I don't have much internet time), it feels like I'm apologising for posting my fic. In short, it feels like I'm apologising for being *me*.
Really? I wouldn't read an apology that way at all - you're apologising for circumstances outside your control, not for yourself. (Which is not to try and tell you how you should feel, just how I see things.) And you don't have to go into specifics in your apology, you could just say something like "I don't have much time to spend on the internet", and not go into why. Probably less people would comment than if you gave a reason, but I think that by being upfront about reply policies readers will respond positively (although I cannot be sure until someone actually does it). But of course it is your choice.
[identity profile] cupidsbow.livejournal.com wrote:
Jun. 16th, 2006 09:59 am (UTC)
I've become hyper-aware of the feedback issue recently, so my feelings about it are stronger than usual; while I always feel a bit guilty about not keeping up, I'm not usually quite so strident in saying so. But, yes, the idea of making blanket apologies and thank yous on every fic post really does make me feel like I'd be saying that there was something wrong with my normal level of politeness, something essentially wrong with my nature. I understand that's not how you'd read it, but there it is.

Have you noticed the way that adages can suddenly come alive? Because I've always nodded my head at you can't please all the people all of the time, but lately I've been understanding what that means at a gut level. It means you can't always be liked, and if you try to be, you're doomed to failure (not that I'm advocating rudeness, as I believe politeness and kindness are laudable things). I still don't enjoy not being liked, but I'm trying to develop some zen about it, because no matter what I do or say, there will always be people out there rubbed the wrong way by it.

What I think is important is prioritising. The people who come through my LJ to read the fic are very welcome, but they are, when all is said and done, temporary visitors. Regular readers of my LJ know my situation, as far as I ever discuss it publicly. At present, I always try to respond to comments on my non-fic posts first, as they tend to be meatier, more thoughtful, more personal; it's where people who have really engaged with my writing tend to leave comments. Then, if I have time, I respond to the fiction comments (that tends to be the random through-traffic, which I also value, but it's often not as engaged). I don't just answer my "friends" when I reply to fic comments either. In fact, I often leave them until last, as I will have already responded to them in some other forum. The more I'm thinking about it, the more I think that system works for me.

How do you prioritise responses?
[identity profile] delurker.livejournal.com wrote:
Jun. 16th, 2006 10:32 am (UTC)
How do you prioritise responses?
Well, I really haven't written a lot of fanfic - after hanging around fandom for a few years, it's only over the last maybe half year that I've started writing, and then really most of that has been in the past few months.

As I have a lot of time, and not a lot of responses (being a new writer and all), I respond to every piece of my feedback. As to the order I respond to them... I tend to work in a vaguely chronological manner, starting at the first comment and working through. But I'll also tend to reply to the simplest ones first, a "Great story!" "Thanks!" kind of interaction. Then I'll reply to the ones that mentioned stuff that they liked, trying to go a bit beyond "thanks" for them. If I've interacted with the feedbacker before and it's been pleasant, I tend to feedback them after the "thanks" replies, because I'm more comfortable with them so I find it easier. Then I'll reply to the ones that require a bit more thought and are a bit harder.
So basically I reply to the easiest ones first, then the harder ones. This is all for comments on LJ, and I'll do them around the same time - usually one after the other, but sometimes with a break between them of some hours. I usually wait a day or two after posting before replying, too, because I like to feedback in blocks rather than in drips and drabs.
Emailed feedback, I'll think about it for a bit and then reply in a few days. (This is because the emailed feedback I've got has been in-depth, so I like to think about it before I reply.)

So basically, I do the easiest first and then the hardest, but I don't really prioritise feedback, because at the moment the volume I get can all be replied to in the time I have and with the energy I have. I'm lucky that way.
[identity profile] cupidsbow.livejournal.com wrote:
Jun. 16th, 2006 11:16 am (UTC)
That sounds like a pretty good system. How long would it say it takes you per week to manage it?

Out of curiosity, I thought I do a quick compare and contrast to see what the response rates for various people actually were.

You:
Date created: 2004-05-17 05:33:41
Date updated: 2006-06-16 05:21:04, 5 hours ago
Journal entries: 193
Comments: Posted: 2,722 - Received: 361

You are a busy vegemite! I'm impressed.


[livejournal.com profile] theantimodel:
Date created: 2003-05-19 01:10:28
Date updated: 2006-06-16 03:43:51, 7 hours ago
Journal entries: 507
Comments: Posted: 5,365 - Received: 4,167

Okay, that's a lot. You are no slouch, either, [livejournal.com profile] antimodel.


Me:
Date created: 2003-09-28 00:42:52
Date updated: 2006-06-15 11:17:01, 23 hours ago
Journal entries: 775
Comments: Posted: 6,321 - Received: 7,720

My most popular rec comm (in which I reply as cupidsbow, which is why the comment count is 0):
Date created: 2004-09-03 00:59:53
Date updated: 2006-06-12 04:34:35, 4 days ago
Journal entries: 944
Comments: Posted: 0 - Received: 212

I post to quite a few other journals regularly too, so that takes up a fair bit of time. I really do *try* to answer comments, but I just can't keep up.


[livejournal.com profile] trinityofone:
Date created: 2005-03-18 12:26:28
Date updated: 2006-06-08 22:34:25, 1 week ago
Journal entries: 325
Comments: Posted: 6,664 - Received: 11,865

Whoa! She has written close to 7,000 comments in just over a year! How is that not impressive? Yet she still clearly has unanswered comments. I'm not surprised.


[livejournal.com profile] rageprufrock:
Date created: 2003-01-16 19:44:07
Date updated: 2006-06-10 23:57:01, 5 days ago
Journal entries: 989
Comments: Posted: 4,545 - Received: 19,193

Jesus. 19,193 comments! And at 4,545 replies she is *not* a lazy responder!

I'll get off my soapbox now.

*does double somersault and then sprains ankle on landing*
[identity profile] cupidsbow.livejournal.com wrote:
Jun. 16th, 2006 11:18 am (UTC)
Darn it. Sorry for the typo on your name, [livejournal.com profile] theantimodel.
[identity profile] theantimodel.livejournal.com wrote:
Jun. 16th, 2006 04:19 pm (UTC)
Yeah but none of those comments posted numbers mean much in the way of how many people you've actually responded to. In three years pru and I have posted just about the same number of comments, while her number of entries posted is nearly double mine. Comments posted counts come from all over livejournal too, not just from comments you've posted in your journal. And your comments recieved count counts the comments you post in your own journal. Pru's stats, I suspect, are highly skewed towards comments she has made in direct response to people she's actually friends with, and are not a good measure of general responsiveness at all. [livejournal.com profile] trinityofone's comment counts are slightly more interesting because her comments recieved count is so close to her posted count. Assuming that most of her fanish interactions are within her own lj, that means she's probably replying to a high percentage of her posters.
[identity profile] cupidsbow.livejournal.com wrote:
Jun. 19th, 2006 02:50 am (UTC)
I take your point about these figures being a rough guide that may or may not mean anything at all, and I certainly wasn't preferring them as Ultimate Evidence (hence the "soap box" comment). Nonetheless, I think it shows the general trend of how much people tend to post on LJ, and that a 'normal' amount of traffic seems to be in the range of 4,000 to 6,000 responses over a few years. We obviously interpret what that means differently (which is fine), because I don't see how someone with 19,000 comments can be magically expected to have time to post more than the normal amount in reply, and furthermore, that no matter how much they reply it will always *always* look like they're playing favourites just because of the sheer volume of unanswered comments on their journal. From personal experience I know that I sometimes answer in a kind of potluck fashion, going for the most interesting comments (as I don't have time to answer everyone), and anyone casually glancing at the pattern of my replies could assume I was just responding to 'friends', and ignoring everyone else, when that isn't the pattern at all.

That's the main thrust of everything I've said here, really. That it's easy to read things into silence that aren't anything close to the intention of the person not speaking. Silence is not evidence, it's anti-evidence. I've run up against this problem before in academic work, because there tends to be a big silence in response to sf by women--those texts tend to get elided and fade away, except in feminist circles. It's really, really *hard* to argue against silence; you can point it out, you can suggest that the shape means certain things, but you can never get to grips with it satisfactorily. And at least in a case like that, there are cultural trends, like endemic sexism, you can point the finger to. With just one person's silence, it's hard to read anything into it but an untheorised absence.

For all I know, Pru's 'silence' could mean that she's a terrible, cliquey bitch. I just hesitate to make that interpretation, because it could be so many other things. Especially as she's posting within the normal range of comments, and no matter how hard she tries, she could never, ever reply to all the comments she's received. In fact, with that many comments, I could see how easy it would be to lose heart, be overwhelmed, and not even know where to begin.
[identity profile] theantimodel.livejournal.com wrote:
Jun. 16th, 2006 02:26 am (UTC)
I said this to [livejournal.com profile] justami as well, but dude, if responding to feedback stresses you out, or you honestly don't have the time don't do it. Above and beyong everything else, fandom is supposed to be fun. As a reader, I would really hate to cause my favorite writers distress over soemthing like this. But if the sga_hate meme is anything to go by, it really seems like silence breeds contempt when it comes to an author's response (or lack of) to feedback. I don't think there's very many people out there who would begrudge you the fact that you literally cannot respond to your feedback. And it seems like at least some people are way nicer than I in not automatically assuming that an author who never acknowledges their readers is an author who doesn't deserve the time I take to give good feedback. It seems like the default for people who are considered to be "bnfs" is to assume that they're snobby and elitist. While I've certainly seen more than a few of them singlehandedly perpetuate that sterotype, I'd like to think that all of this discussion will make me second guess that assumption about non-responsive authors in the future.
[identity profile] cupidsbow.livejournal.com wrote:
Jun. 16th, 2006 10:44 am (UTC)
I said this to justami as well, but dude, if responding to feedback stresses you out, or you honestly don't have the time don't do it.

Yes, you're absolutely right. My problem is not so much with not replying (although I always feel a little guilty and regretful), but with this seemingly wide-spread assumption that no reply is a deliberate insult. I take issue with that!

It seems like the default for people who are considered to be "bnfs" is to assume that they're snobby and elitist.

Yes, I've noticed that too. I'm going out on a limb here, but to me this assumption seems to be underpinned by a deep lack of awareness or empathy for how much more work it is to answer 40 comments than 10, or 80 comments than 40. That said, I can understand why people don't get it. It seems reasonable to think: "if getting 10 comments is exciting, then 40 must be 4 times as exciting," right? But it just doesn't seem to work like that. 10 comments are all unique, but 40 start to merge together. Replying becomes more labour intensive (which is not to say it's bad, just harder). I didn't understand this aspect either, until SGA, because that's the first time I got crazy numbers of comments, but it's one of those wierd things that's cumulative.

While that aspect is kind of understandable, it's not just that. bnfs tend to write many stories, and get that kind of response to all of them--so it's not a one-off effect. And it doesn't end there, because there's the other stuff bnfs do: moderating and creating challenges and running archives and so on.

I'm not a bnf (I don't think), and I usually have about 3-5 hours internet time a week (it's more at the moment, as I've been working full time while someone is on leave. Even so, it's broken up by work). Given that, here are the stats for my LJ:

Journal entries: 775
Comments: Posted: 6,320 - Received: 7,720

So I'm getting, on average, about 10 comments per entry; I write about 1,500 replies a year. I also maintain 2 other comms, rec regularly on crack_van, run challenges for a couple of small fandoms, and so on. People ask questions about those things, and it's my job to answer them. It means I usually get around 20 comments a day in my inbox (assuming I haven't posted fic, then all bets are off), and I get non-LJ email queries and feedback on top of that. That's just my fannish stuff. I get work stuff and so on too. And again, I'm not a bnf. They do *more*. Sometimes lots more!

Do you see what I mean? Even without the 5 hours/week limit, it would be hard to keep up. Imagine what it must be like for someone who gets an order of magnitude more response than I do. And my poverty is not particularly debilitating most of the time. Some of my friends are terminally or chronically ill, but that's not something they discuss in public posts. Some have children with problems. And on and on. I'm not close chums with any bnfs, but they are human too, and probably have their own problems. I just don't really understand why people's first assumption about silence is snobbery when there are so very many things it could be.

But as I said to [livejournal.com profile] delurker above, my problem with that attitude is clearly *my* problem. It's not something I can change in other people. So I'm trying to embrace a kind of zen calm about it and let it go.

Judging from this reply to you, I need to work on that a bit more :)

Thank you for an interesting discussion. It's been fascinating to see the cross-section of views about this issue, and I've learned a lot more about my own opinions too.