peterabnny wrote:Still licking my wounds after having my comic shit on, flushed down the toilet, and sent to the waste treatment plant in a review. I'm still wanting to do it, tho. If that ain't dedication, I don't know what is.
Think I'll work on the house for a while...
You shouldn't be getting this upset about what a random person writes on the Internet, though. And while this kind of reaction doesn't bother me personally, I think a lot of people would be more reluctant to give you criticism after reading something like this, which hurts your comic in the long run.
robotthepirate wrote:Mate, you deserve a clip round the head just for asking that guy to review Critters. I wouldn't take too much to heart from someone who sees having an irregular or infrequent update schedule as a capital offense. ETC.
Actually, I think peter should be praised for having the courage to submit his webcomic for review.
McDuffies wrote:Well may not be a capital offense but it is an issue that every review in the world would touch. Not having enough time to make it more regularly is perfectly understandable as noone sane would ask you to, say, cut down the time you spend with your kids to draw a comic. But the price to pay is that it's very unlikely for an irregularly updated comic to amass a regular audience, and it's also very difficult to keep an audience, even when a huge webcomic starts skipping updates, audience starts crumbling. It's not something that should make you neglect your day job or duties, it's simply something that Peter should have in mind in regards to his expectations from his comic.
Yes. Perhaps I should've expressed this more clearly in my review.
RobboAKAscooby wrote:I concur.
My readership on SHR dropped terribly over the last 6 months of sparce updates.
Right, you know what I'm talking about. It's also not a coincidence that the most popular webcomics update often and consistently.
robotthepirate wrote:Very true. But there's ways of saying that nicely.
In the same way that while its understandable to get annoyed with you neighbours' dog messing on your lawn, there's a difference between a polite note and setting bear traps. One way leads to a better behaved dog and the other potentially leads to one less dog.
I know, and I do try to be as nice as I can in my reviews without compromising the integrity of my criticism. I'd like to be able to write longer reviews and explain things more clearly, but I'm comfortable at the moment with sacrificing some clarity if it allows me to continue to post reviews daily.
IVstudios wrote:Oh… that's it? Yeah it's a little harsh but I wouldn't call it over the line. Hell it doesn't even tell you to kill yourself. An internet review can hardly even be considered negative unless it tells you to kill yourself, or at least insinuates that your mother has sex for money.
Some of my reviews have definitely been negative, but I think calling my review "an orgasm of hatred" and etc. is a little ridiculous.
IVstudios wrote:Plus it's from LibertyCabbage, who's comics are usually about sentient fruit that violently murders people in the name of anarchy. Not the sort of guy who's concerned about stepping on any toes. Hell, if he didn't insult your comic I would have assumed someone had stolen his screen name.
Hey, my comics weren't just about sentient fruit killing people! I totally
had a sentient hot dog kill a guy one time! And I've actually posted some pretty positive reviews in that thread, including the last one I posted.