Whereas all my stuff probably is a load of crap, there are people whose stuff isn't, and some of those will be commented upon askance on review and IMDB websites, or as YouTube comments or whatever. The value of the critique on such places is at best floccipaucinihilipilificated by comments which are merely snarky and destructively critical, possibly because the commenter holds themselves to such a high standard that they simply don't bother to put anything of their own out there.

This can be prevented by insisting that anyone who submits a comment or review on a creative work first submits a link to a creative work of their own before the comment can be approved. Granted, this work could just be the word "blue" repeated 100 000 times, but everyone would know, mark and inwardly digest that this was so.

Oh, and it is a CAPTCHA. The people submitting the dragging down comments in such places are clearly behaving robotically and have somehow been pulled into not being real online, so they aren't real people.

This will improve the quality of their critique and make the interaction more authentic.
-- nineteenthly, Jun 21 2015

A summary of Stack-Overflow's privilege System http://stackoverflow.com/help/privileges
It's a reputation based system - where reputation points are earned by participating appropriately - it's quite complex, and new users have to start off with a fairly limited set of functionality, but it seems to foster a creative and supportive atmosphere. [zen_tom, Jun 25 2015]

With respect, I don't think one can floccinaucinihilipilificate transitively. Although a bot might be able to.
-- pertinax, Jun 23 2015


Oddly the entrance bar for this place remains low. One wonders about the conditions that keep it out of the realm of Breitbart troll territory.
-- RayfordSteele, Jun 23 2015


// I don't think one can floccinaucinihilipilificate transitively.//

One most certainly can. I can floccinaucinihilipilificate, and you can be floccinaucinihilipilificated. Intransitive floccinaucinihilipilification would be pointless.
-- MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 24 2015


The entry bar is indeed low. The idea is to put oneself out there and expose oneself to criticism rather than carping from the sidelines without risk.
-- nineteenthly, Jun 25 2015


This does rather seem fair - I've been enjoying the benefits of the stackoverflow universe over the last year or so, which operates a privilege system which encourages sensible discourse by barring snark (and nearly anything else) from non-participators. Anyone who wishes to participate earns the right to do so by participating nicely/precisely/well. It takes some effort to engage, more than say, YouTube, but everyone's invested - like in your idea.

I quite like YouTube, but contributing is a bit like going into the high-street and doing a turn. If people don't like it, they'll quite happily say so. Part of me thinks the honesty available there is kind of helpful - it cuts through what we might think of as being our parochial world-views sometimes - but part of me thinks that parochiality is almost universal and it's just random whether anyone lives in a parochial "live and let live, be nice and kind" sort of universe, or a harder, "I wouldn't get away with this, so nor should you" kind of mode - Indeed, I think we all vacillate between the two, to some extent. Being exposed to both extremes is probably good in that it probably helps us understand how differently people (and indeed ourselves) can see the world at different times. I'd never come across the idea of "Hater's Gonna Hate" before the internet, but you know what, it's probably true, and the sooner I can accept that, I think the bigger and better a person I will become. Both in receiving floccinaucinihilipilification, and in those dark times when I forget myself and engage in it myself - and we all do that sometimes - either privately, or publically - which is to say, I think some of those crappy comments (and I've been hurt by a few myself) are likely to come from real people - just people who are inhabiting a more negative head-space right now - to dehumanise them while in some ways accurate at a behavioural level (they are more likely to respond to something automatically, without engaging any kind of rational thought if they're living in a more pressured negative head-world) is essentially to floccinaucinihilipilificate them in return, which itself is either an automatic (i.e. robot-like) response, or a rationalised way of justifying one after the event.

However, if you want a system to encourage creative content - it seems sensible to foster a more positive comment system - and a method such as this would be a decent initial step. It's all about creating a culture of acceptance, support and all those other nice things - easy to do in theory, but harder in practice, considering all it takes is for one person to have a bad week to have it all come tumbling down.
-- zen_tom, Jun 25 2015


"To complete the sign-up process for this website please study the random group of objects pictured below and complete either (a) an oil painting of them in a free, impressionist style or (b) a mixed-media textile/applique/needlework artwork representing the objects. Send your completed work to the address below for assessment by our team of art critics."
-- hippo, Jun 25 2015


^
"So, where's your stuff ?"
"Minimalist."
"Ah, right then... carry on."

[ ] wouldn't that tend to support only the artists' artist (that's possibly a conundrum) ?
-- FlyingToaster, Jun 25 2015



random, halfbakery