Webcomic Pet Peeves

[Eve Z.]

http://cats.comicgenesis.com

It burns and it stings! I couldn't look at it longer than a few seconds.

too bad. i actually read half of it. or, at least I tried.

[Agouti-rex]

Strips where characters are on "sugar highs," because, gosh, we couldn't have them drinking alcohol, oh no no no, that would never do!

[Guildmaster Van]

My pet peeve: not having read this thread sooner

There's a lot of sound advice coming from the peeve's of people here. Anyone ever think of assembling it together sort of like the How Not To Do A Webcomic bit? I like what I read here. I see a bunch of things I've done with my comic that are people's peeves, and it gives me ideas about how to improve my work both on and off the page.

[Redtech]

My pet peeve: not having read this thread sooner

There's a lot of sound advice coming from the peeve's of people here. Anyone ever think of assembling it together sort of like the How Not To Do A Webcomic bit? I like what I read here. I see a bunch of things I've done with my comic that are people's peeves, and it gives me ideas about how to improve my work both on and off the page.

http://hownottorunacomic.comicgenesis.com/
vs
http://hownottodrawawebcomic.comicgenesis.com/

Quite some interesting stuff there!

[Jpac]

http://cats.comicgenesis.com

It burns and it stings! I couldn't look at it longer than a few seconds.

too bad. i actually read half of it. or, at least I tried.

You have a much stronger will than I

In my case, I've frequently thought about rebooting my comic if only because when I started i was completely inexperienced and my artwork sucked like nobody's business.

I understand if you do want to redraw the work. I mean I would even understand if you wanted to change the whole story. But imagine that loyal niche audience that drudged through the beginning despite it being whatever it was you disliked
I would ask you or any author to keep the story the same and if you redid the drawings to archive the old ones. Maybe I'm a pack rat that way but it irks me to see story/art just disappear.

[Guildmaster Van]

http://hownottorunacomic.comicgenesis.com/
vs
http://hownottodrawawebcomic.comicgenesis.com/

I've seen the former, but my issues with it is after seeing ten different people make a strip clichéing the same thing the effect is lost.
I want to see this stuff John Solomon format.

[McDuffies]

I've seen the former, but my issues with it is after seeing ten different people make a strip clichéing the same thing the effect is lost.

It really lost it's punch when it became somewhat popular, so we were getting many submissions from people who didn't have a clue about making comics in the first place, or from people who just saw it as a promotional tool for their own comics. And we decided early on that we wouldn't filter submissions.

[KWill]

It really lost it's punch when it became somewhat popular, so we were getting many submissions from people who didn't have a clue about making comics in the first place, or from people who just saw it as a promotional tool for their own comics. And we decided early on that we wouldn't filter submissions.

Well, now you know how not to run a webcomic on how not to run webcomics. =D

[Jekkal]

http://hownottorunacomic.comicgenesis.com/
vs
http://hownottodrawawebcomic.comicgenesis.com/

I've seen the former, but my issues with it is after seeing ten different people make a strip clichéing the same thing the effect is lost.
I want to see this stuff John Solomon format.

*ponder* little more specific please?

[AspComics]

Hoo boy, where to start! What hasn't already been said?

- Having to click a link to go from the home page to the comic is fine... but needing to click your way through a forest of overcomplicated navigation links just to reach the reason you went to the site in the first place, bah! >_< "Click the comic link," "Now click on a storyline," "Pick a chapter from said storyline," "Now just give up and go elsewhere."

- Comics whose creators think they're way more famous than they actually are. Mostly, people that use their sites to blog, instead of, I dunno, blogs. Personally, if it doesn't have to do with the comic, the readers, the site, or anything the readers would actually be interested in... I'd say don't share it.

- Shoutbox trolls

- It kind of goes hand-in-hand with the blogging thing, I suppose, but comic creators who constantly come up with excuses for why the newest comic wont be up. It's okay, fans are fans for a reason; they will wait for an update, there shall be no revolts against your site. I don't miss updates, but I sometimes can't update until later in a day, so I know how tempting it can be to justify ones self. Something as simple as "Sorry, the comic's running late and will be up tonight/tomorrow" is infinitely better than a griping, paragraph-long excuse.

- Me, for not keeping this post short n' sweet!

[Guildmaster Van]

It really lost it's punch when it became somewhat popular, so we were getting many submissions from people who didn't have a clue about making comics in the first place, or from people who just saw it as a promotional tool for their own comics. And we decided early on that we wouldn't filter submissions.

S'okay - popularity tends to ruin things that weren't supposed to be "popular" in the conventional sense anyway. Both are good for reads when one wants to poke fun at every cliché possible for webcomics.

*ponder* little more specific please?

John Solomon is the swift kick in the pants that webcomics needed.
He pointed out how inherently flawed the medium is, and pointed to those he thought were overrated shit - the kind of stuff that is better off
in the cesspool of DevianTART than off polluting the webcomic name. He swore, got nasty, and was generally an unpleasant person to those that aroused his ire (Ha ha, arouse)

In his exaggeration there is underlying truth. He's not going after the worst of the webcomics - he's going after those perceived "best" in the field. He's showing us the smoking gun on just why some comics don't have their reputation and following based on being good, but why they have what they have by jacking off select pockets of interest. John Solomon is not simply a hate-spewing troll as his detractors would have you believe, but a wise man making us pay attention to how webcomics attract, maintain, and even put off readers.

He has also has great shock value.

John Solomon, however, only covered content and touched somewhat on the personality of their creators. This thread contains epic truths about things as simple as work ethics. My gist is thus: simple truths from these peeves could be collected and delivered in such a way that it slaps the community upside the head much in the same way John and his kin's rantings have. No, I don't think it's necessary to be as cruel as he is, but I'm sure someone out there has their shit together enough to voice a coherent opinion on these things.

How Not to Run a Webcomic is pretty good at pointing these things out, but in its deliverance does not have the impact that a raging madman has. The Blogosphere is better suited for that anyway. An example of what I kind of mean is the blog Your Webcomic Can Still Be Saved, although it feels more like a page from Scott McCloud's book than Solomon's.

[Tystarr]

How Not to Run a Webcomic is pretty good at pointing these things out, but in its deliverance does not have the impact that a raging madman has. The Blogosphere is better suited for that anyway. An example of what I kind of mean is the blog Your Webcomic Can Still Be Saved, although it feels more like a page from Scott McCloud's book than Solomon's.

Who are these people who think they know what makes a great webcomic?? lol maybe I'm just a lil mad that she said the font "Anime Ace" is not to be used cause its ugly. Shoot, it works great for me. Right? Right??? Oh for the love of gawd pleez say im right!!

[Turnsky]

John Solomon is the swift kick in the pants that webcomics needed.

also proof in purchase for the phrase "there's no such thing as bad press on the internet" for some webcomics, all they care about is hits on their site, and folks like these, in all their rants, are actively linking to these sites they supposedly despise. I personally think it's amusing that somebody puts so much thought and energy into complaining about webcomics. It's their prerogative for sure, but in reality it's like a webcomic in its own right, blogs of this sort, periodically complaining about other people's webcomics, in essence becoming their own little webcomic.
Sure most folks objectively review the good and bad of webcomics, sometimes infusing a little shock treatment into them. But in reality webcomic reviewers are just another denizen of the internet, among myspacers, emo-journalists, and lolcats. Most people don't take them seriously.
Yes John Solomon makes perfectly valid points, but these are often too mixed up in his diatribe of ranting to be actually of any use, will it work?.. in a perfect world, perhaps, but on the internet, as i mentioned before, it'd prolly be ignored by the target, and forgotten by most.
The one true question would be, "Would it improve future webcomics?" the answer would prolly be no, you'll always have your talented professionals, and your well-meaning amateurs mixing it up with your sprite-monkeys, tracers, and just artistically challenged people.

(on another note, Red-tech, a 370 pixel high banner image is annoying.)

[Jekkal]

Yes John Solomon makes perfectly valid points, but these are often too mixed up in his diatribe of ranting to be actually of any use, will it work?.. in a perfect world, perhaps, but on the internet, as i mentioned before, it'd prolly be ignored by the target, and forgotten by most.
The one true question would be, "Would it improve future webcomics?" the answer would prolly be no, you'll always have your talented professionals, and your well-meaning amateurs mixing it up with your sprite-monkeys, tracers, and just artistically challenged people.

Eh, I learned a LOT from John Solomon, myself. Don't know about the rest of y'all. The "Seven Deadly Sins" post is most elucidating while keeping the hellfire and brimstone to a minimum.

[Komiyan]

How Not to Run a Webcomic is pretty good at pointing these things out, but in its deliverance does not have the impact that a raging madman has. The Blogosphere is better suited for that anyway. An example of what I kind of mean is the blog Your Webcomic Can Still Be Saved, although it feels more like a page from Scott McCloud's book than Solomon's.

Who are these people who think they know what makes a great webcomic?? lol maybe I'm just a lil mad that she said the font "Anime Ace" is not to be used cause its ugly. Shoot, it works great for me. Right? Right??? Oh for the love of gawd pleez say im right!!

Please don't do the 'who has the right to criticise?' thing, it's the worst argument.

The reason Anime Ace catches flak is because it's a little overused and yeah, not the prettiest font. I use it for my current comic but frankly 'not that pretty' and 'a bit cliche' suit my comic just fine

Eh, I learned a LOT from John Solomon, myself. Don't know about the rest of y'all. The "Seven Deadly Sins" post is most elucidating while keeping the hellfire and brimstone to a minimum.

That was Lilith, not John! Tut tut!

[Doggirl]

Count me as one more who learned a great deal from this topic (I even changed my sig banner!)

I hadn't heard of John Solomon before this, either.

[McDuffies]

Yes John Solomon makes perfectly valid points, but these are often too mixed up in his diatribe of ranting to be actually of any use, will it work?..

I've only checked a few of his rants, but that's the first impression I got too. I always expect from a reviewer a cold precision, disection and objectivity, at the expense of writing style. But many reviewers are really closet writers.

There certainly should be a talk about bad webcomics, if nothing than for a reason that you can't stop it. As long as there are bad comics, there'll be people voicing their opinion about that. I'm always the first one to defend critic's right to write bad reviews as much as the good ones.
However, in future, value of webcomics as a whole, will be measured by it's best examples, and not by it's worst. The same way we only remember best of writers, musicians, filmmakers etc from the past, and rarely remember thousands of less talented, stereotypical and pedestrian artists, who are just a tiny part of history now, the same way webcomics will be judged by, oh I dunno, "1/0" or "Framed" or (insert your favourite comic here) and not by thousands of forgettable comics that pass bay and perhaps even gain some popularity in their course. They don't matter, no matter how overwhelming their number is.

[Turnsky]

There certainly should be a talk about bad webcomics, if nothing than for a reason that you can't stop it. As long as there are bad comics, there'll be people voicing their opinion about that. I'm always the first one to defend critic's right to write bad reviews as much as the good ones.

Indeed, it's really dependent on whether the comic creator(s) can accept 'helpful advice' from any number of sources. Constructive Criticism still remains the best way to improve overall, but if the artist/writer isn't willing to listen, well.. we've seen the results of that here on comicgen numerous times, both good and bad.

The reason Anime Ace catches flak is because it's a little overused and yeah, not the prettiest font. I use it for my current comic but frankly 'not that pretty' and 'a bit cliche' suit my comic just fine

Good ol' letteromatic works for me, it's not comic sans, anyways

[Redtech]

(on another note, Red-tech, a 370 pixel high banner image is annoying.)

I got the hint the first time. Clear the cache, hit F5, and you'll notice a complete site redesign with smaller buttons, banners, etc, etc...

Speaking of annoyances. Don't you hate people who just don't bother? While there's a wide range of artistic and writing capacity out there, there are so many that make me wonder "why do you want me to care, when you don't care either?"

Yes, it's another reference to cats.comicgenesis.com

[Yeahduff]

Someone tell me how to adblock Turnsky's avatar.

Then, someone ban Turnsky.

I'm always the first one to defend critic's right to write bad reviews as much as the good ones.

I'm only the second to defend critic's right to write negative reviews because I'm busy being the first to tell them how pointless it is.