I agree too. It may be useful but, for someone it might not. This is my opinion, so yours might be different
Other than that I think this system maaay? Work? Idk
1 Like
Hey I like that idea! Yes or no questions, or even statements that you could mark as true, somewhat true, or false.
2 Likes
Iāve seen concerns about abuse of the system, and while thatās valid, abuse happens in any system. Iāve worked in industriesāart includedāwhere reviews are the norm. Some people misuse them, but most give positive feedback or none at all. Refusing a helpful system just because some might exploit it is too limitingāby that logic, social media wouldnāt exist due to bots and scammers abusing various platforms.
Constructive criticism is essential for artistic growth. Living in an echo chamber of constant praise leads to stagnation. Honest feedback helps us identify areas for improvement and become better creators.
We all know someone whoās negative about everything. Most people learn to ignore themāand thatās likely what will happen here. Patterns of abuse will be obvious. If someone constantly leaves bad reviews, moderators will notice and can step in, possibly removing their privileges. That protects the community.
Most users will act in good faith. Consistent negative feedback with a designer or tester give mods important context to act upon.
A review modelānot star ratingsāis more effective. Ask āHow was your experience?ā followed by a required comment. Itās easy to click 1-star; harder to fake a detailed complaint that doesnāt match others. The main review should be private for mods, with an optional message for the designer/tester to review so that way they still get the kudos or valuable feedback. Reliable designers/testers could also earn badges or icons next to their names, similar to shops with trending patterns.
Private reviews also deter bad-faith criticism, which is often about public shaming. No audience, no motive.
Overall I still think that this promotes accountability, professionalism, and trust in the community. As well as the ability to offer valuable insight on where we as artists can improve ourselves.
2 Likes
Right now we do rely on information about testing being shard in journal, however as we previously shared we are actively reviewing feedback on improvement of our testing tools. These are tools that are quite disruptive in our space, as it has never been standardized. We started with moderation and permission tools for designers as for the vast majority of time the issue in testing is with testers, and not designers. However, the opposite does still occur and should (and will!) be addressed in a future feature drop.
You can track back to see recent featuredrop and how it was improved overtime, including the recent addition of blocking testers from testing again.
We currently ask users to share this information in journals. However, as weāve mentioned before, weāre actively reviewing feedback to improve our testing tools.
To offer more conext-
Our testing tools are pretty disruptive in our space since standardized testing hasnāt really existed until now.
We started by focusing on moderation and permission tools for designers, since most testing issues tend to be on the tester side. That said, there are cases where designers are the problemāand weāre planning to address that in a future feature drop.
You can look back at our recent featuredrop posts to see how things have evolved, including the latest update that allows blocking testers from joining future tests. And weāre continuing to aggregate feedback including from this topic so a big THANK YOU to all participating and sharing their experience and point of view! 
1 Like