Thoughts on Feedback and Criticism

[neandermagnon]

Agreed. But when the model for critique is the "sandwich" that's what can happen. Because every "negative" is supposed to be balanced by at least one positive and... well, sometimes there aren't that many.

That's not what I understand by the "shit sandwich" technique though, and I've never approached it mathematically with any kind of ratio, never mind 1:1.

I would consider the following to be a "shit sandwich":
----
I really like/love (thing that I like) - I want to know more about (something else that I like). There are some things that you need to work on though.

[A few paragraphs dealing with stuff that's not going right - phrased constructively, with suggestions for how to develop/improve the writing etc.]

Overall though, I think this has loads of potential and (something else about it that I like).
----

I usually won't end up only saying something positive at the start and the end - I will comment on bits that are working or come across well as I go along. I don't apply any mathematical formula to it, just make comments/suggestions that I hope will be helpful.

The rational behind "shit sandwich" is that if you start and end with something positive it's easier for the person receiving the criticism to see that you appreciate the value in what they're trying to do and your intention is to help. People tend to be more likely to take criticism on board when presented like this - probably because they trust that you're trying to help them, not bash them. Granted they should probably already know that but there's no harm in reinforcing it and like Brigid Barry says above, you don't know the person's current situation, previous experience etc. So I will err on the side of being encouraging rather than discouraging.

I know it sounds like I'm anti-positive feedback, but that's not the case. I just think that critique is hard. And, specifically when we are recommending that folks learn what does or doesn't work in writing by reading and critiquing other works in progress, boiling everything into these "positive/supportive" and "negative/critical" categories doesn't help anyone much. Constructive is going to be more fruitful in the long term.

I think this has become a matter of semantics. A lot of people will consider "constructive" and "positive" to mean the same thing in this context, but you're treating them as separate categories. Also, clearly we don't all have the same definition of "shit sandwich" (or "sandwich technique" or whatever you want to call it).

I agree that forcing yourself to make up (add number here) of "positive" comments, or trying to go for an artificial ratio of "positive" to "negative" is unhelpful. As is trying to individually shit-sandwich every bit of feedback that might be construed as negative. Simply trying to be constructive and helpful - as you say - is better.

I also don't think there's a danger that people will stop trying to improve their writing in response to positive feedback - even insincere positive feedback (the danger with that is they'll decide your opinion's not worth much). However there are a lot of potential dangers in critiques that comes across as wholly negative and discouraging, especially for beginner writers. So I'm going to err on the side of encouraging and make sure all the positive things I say are things that I really mean.

 

[Woollybear]

Oh! Neandermagnon just reminded me of my experience with Rate my Professor.

When I started out in college teaching, I told students where they were falling short in their comprehension.

They. Hated. Me. (At least, the vocal students on RMP did. And I have little reason to think the silent ones didn't.)

Later, to bump that rating up, (because search committees can see it!) ... I started telling students true things, like how obvious it was that they were working hard, that I could see they were trying, studying, helping one another, and how I was really jazzed that everyone understood x, y, or z. It was the true things, which I hadn't bothered to share, previously, with the first batch or two of students.

Mind you, the later students were still falling short in all the same places (like how penicillin works, for example, or the stages of the life cycle of Plasmodium or whatever) ... and these concepts are important to master, in a course like Microbiology. So I told them that, too. Review the mode of action of penicillin. You haven't got that down yet. Here are the resources, and double check the syllabus.

And, I started bringing cookies.

All of this change in approach worked wonders for my RMP rating. Attendance improved, morale improved, effort improved. And yes, to me it was depressing as hell to think that cookies and praise should matter to an adult seeking to learn Microbiology, but psychology is weird like that. Delivery matters.

But what about learning outcomes, someone might ask? Well, in my experience, I'd say those were more or less a wash. People will learn what they set out to learn, in my opinion. That's also depressing, but there you go. The best I could do was help make people feel better or worse about it along the way.

I think it's like that. Some people want to learn and some people don't (and maybe they don't realize they don't). If the measure of success is how much a person will learn, maybe using a sandwich or not doesn't matter (and I agree 100% about the importance of feedback being constructive.) The other half of it is making the experience bearable, even pleasant.

I don't think we disagree, as a group. But it's an interesting topic to work through. Thank you everyone.

 

[st_brighid]

That's not what I understand by the "shit sandwich" technique though, and I've never approached it mathematically with any kind of ratio, never mind 1:1.

I would consider the following to be a "shit sandwich":
----
I really like/love (thing that I like) - I want to know more about (something else that I like). There are some things that you need to work on though.

[A few paragraphs dealing with stuff that's not going right - phrased constructively, with suggestions for how to develop/improve the writing etc.]

Overall though, I think this has loads of potential and (something else about it that I like).
----

I usually won't end up only saying something positive at the start and the end - I will comment on bits that are working or come across well as I go along. I don't apply any mathematical formula to it, just make comments/suggestions that I hope will be helpful.

The rational behind "shit sandwich" is that if you start and end with something positive it's easier for the person receiving the criticism to see that you appreciate the value in what they're trying to do and your intention is to help. People tend to be more likely to take criticism on board when presented like this - probably because they trust that you're trying to help them, not bash them. Granted they should probably already know that but there's no harm in reinforcing it and like Brigid Barry says above, you don't know the person's current situation, previous experience etc. So I will err on the side of being encouraging rather than discouraging.



I think this has become a matter of semantics. A lot of people will consider "constructive" and "positive" to mean the same thing in this context, but you're treating them as separate categories. Also, clearly we don't all have the same definition of "shit sandwich" (or "sandwich technique" or whatever you want to call it).

I agree that forcing yourself to make up (add number here) of "positive" comments, or trying to go for an artificial ratio of "positive" to "negative" is unhelpful. As is trying to individually shit-sandwich every bit of feedback that might be construed as negative. Simply trying to be constructive and helpful - as you say - is better.

I also don't think there's a danger that people will stop trying to improve their writing in response to positive feedback - even insincere positive feedback (the danger with that is they'll decide your opinion's not worth much). However there are a lot of potential dangers in critiques that comes across as wholly negative and discouraging, especially for beginner writers. So I'm going to err on the side of encouraging and make sure all the positive things I say are things that I really mean.

With an aside that I am a bit on the neurodivergent side, plus everyone is different anyway...

If I feel like the positive feedback is shallow or insincere or fluffy or however you might want to label it, I will feel the same way about the critical part. I don't particularly enjoy feedback that is all "This isn't working," but I, personally, would rather wrestle through some difficult feedback than get something that feels like someone was just spouting off either opinion disguised as feedback with a little bit of "This thing is super-great though" to make it seem like it's constructive or just generalities that they have picked up from reading the forums.

And, you are correct in the assessment that much of this discussion is semantic. The thing is... those words matter in how we look at and act on providing critique. Constructive and positive are not the same thing in this discussion - although in practice everything that is constructive *should* be considered positive. But constructive is both "This works really well," and "This is not working for me. Have you tried X? Here's a resource you might check out." Constructive is also a sliding scale based on who the recipient is, whereas it's clear from all the discussion, that "positive" and "negative" are being pretty universally classed as "supportive/encouraging" and "critical". (And by sliding scale I just mean that if lizmonster posted something for crit I know they are skilled enough that I could really dig into the details on anything that either worked or didn't for me. While [the fictional] "starprincess123" who is clearly in high school is going to need a different level and kind of feedback.) In short, neurolinguistics have an impact and how we think about how we are providing critique/writing feedback does influence our practice. Assigning moral values ("positive" and "negative") is going to effect how we approach the things we put into those categories.

As always, brains are unique though, so YMMV.

 

[mccardey]

I rarely critique anything on a first readthrough. It's usually read the thing, wait a few hours, read it again and critique. That helps me think about what really was or wasn't working and how to formulate that into something helpful.

That's how I beta. First read-though, I hit the comment box for anything that jabs me a little. Second reading (a few days later) I fill the box in if the issue is still an issue for me.

 

[Pyrephox]

I don't consciously do the 'critique sandwich' in a rigid way - I try to keep the principle of it in mind, because I do think it is absolutely important to point out the things that work for me as a reader, as well as what doesn't.

And that part of 'for me' is really the foundation of critiques I offer. I share how I, as an individual critical reader, am reacting to what's on the page. If something makes me smile, or chuckle, or gives me insight into a character's motivation, I make sure to point that out. If something doesn't work for me - either because grammatical errors are getting in the way, or because there's some sort of inconsistency - then I point that out. If I have a strong positive or negative reaction to a character, I note that, along with the fact that it is MY reaction, and other readers might feel differently. If a plot hole or a setting error bothers me, I point it out.

But I always try to remember that every story is someone's work in progress. If I truly have nothing good to say about something, then I generally would say that I'm not the right audience for that story, and try encourage them to find someone who it does resonate with, despite whatever problems exist. I'm not the sole arbiter of taste, and - honestly - a lot of stuff I thought wasn't remotely publishable HAS been published, and been successful, so I try to remember that I don't know everything, and try to take the stance that I'm one reader, giving my opinion.

 

[Chris P]

Unfortunately, I tend to default to "what needs some work" since the stuff that the writer does well pretty much takes care of itself. This is a risky assumption, however, since when it's me writing I don't always know what's working so I can't build on my strengths. I made a remark in another thread about "unguided absorption" of stuff that works in good books, and that I don't always understand enough about why something works to incorporate it instead of just imitate it. Perhaps the same goes for receiving and giving positive input too.

I usually leave in all of my first-pass comments on a beta read. I put myself in the shoes of someone who has purchased the book and might only read through it once. If something is too far off or there are too many "oh, please" moments, it won't matter if later material clears it up. The reader is only going to give me one chance to hold them throughout, so I note to the writer where those moments they might lose me are. If later material does tie it together, I'll add to my comment and explain if it worked for me or not. Sometimes it does, other times it doesn't.

 

[zenithsky]

This is entire thread is really interesting to read... I've also been struggling to identify good criticism vs bad criticism. I know that no matter how many revisions I make there's always going to be someone who has a completely different opinion so that's where I'm stuck right now. After reading this thread, I'll critique a lot of work, see how other people are being critiqued, do some self-reflection while going through my first manuscript, and THEN present it when I am satisfied with my work.

I think I've developed a shield of armor since I'm naturally logical and I've had to go through a lot of music-related critiques. I don't think anything will hurt as much as my music teacher having a mental breakdown because I couldn't get the rhythm in one measure right. But I think experience with critiques in any environment can be valuable.

In this same class, I was helping my friend with a viola piece privately. Then we were supposed to perform in front of the class. I said to her face in front of everyone else: "I was going to tell you some things before you went up, but I decided not to because you probably won't do them." She told me this years later and thought it was funny (but mean) and I was horrified!! I couldn't believe I had said something like that but I had NO idea how it was coming off at the moment. I didn't even remember saying it!

So maybe this has already been said, but I think there is some value in telling the critiquer how their feedback is being interpreted. But I think this could easily bring more negatives than positives.

Also for the "negative critiques are the only ones that have value" debate... there is one without any value. Right up there. The only critique my friend got from that comment was that she should just give up trying to play the viola. Haha. Of course, maybe we weren't saying all negative critiques have value

 

[Unimportant]

That's a good point, Z. I have occasionally misread the room, and I am really grateful when an author pulls me up and tells me that my crit really came across all wrong. Critting is a two way street and both parties can learn from it.

 

[mccardey]

I usually leave in all of my first-pass comments on a beta read. I put myself in the shoes of someone who has purchased the book and might only read through it once.

That's true, but it's not quite what I mean. I mean that if someone is comma-splicing for instance, and does it all through the book, I'll mention the first few instances and take out the other mentions. But I will add an explanation of the problem in the cover-note, and I'll say that I stopped noting it.

I used to mention everything, but I've come to think it can be easy to over-burden a piece, and now I like to choose the bigger battles, and add a You might also want to look at this thing you do, for the smaller ones.

I suppose that's as close as I come to the 'sandwich method'. It's not that far away from it, really. I won't critique a piece that I have nothing good to say about.

 

[Silenia]

I am also not a fan of the sandwich method either as a writer or a critter. But I think I'm in a minority on this. (It comes up from time to time.)

I'm another, at least when used as a method instead of a guideline.

As far as I see it, it has uses as teaching tool--letting critters get a feel for how to write feedback without either ending up with pure fluff or destructive brutality, especially when unfamiliar with a writer and how well they respond to critique or what their crit preferences are. And yeah, it has its uses for that purpose.

But the core lesson underneath is "keep feedback constructive and balanced and try to avoid discouraging writers". If it's used with that spirit kept in mind, it's pretty good.

But when it's instead treated as a strict rule and formula to be methodically applied to all one's feedback, it has quite a few downsides: it can get in the way of people discovering their own "critting voice"; can produce overly formulaic and/or insincere feedback; can get in the way of a more logical flow/structure to the feedback; and if the recipient is familiar with the method, it can sometimes result in feedback coming across as insincere even when it isn't.

So it's a decent guideline to keep in the back of one's mind, and the lesson it's meant to teach is good, but it's not so great when treated as a hard and fast rule of critiquing.

Spirit versus letter, basically.

 

[Jazz Club]

writing is a contact sport, for grownups

So I can finally say I play a contact sport

 

[Brigid Barry]

So I can finally say I play a contact sport

Does falling off a horse count? There's definitely contact...with the ground.

 

[Jazz Club]

Does falling off a horse count? There's definitely contact...with the ground.

Oh yeah, I don't think anyone would try to deny that horse-riding is a tough sport!

 

[Brigid Barry]

Oh yeah, I don't think anyone would try to deny that horse-riding is a tough sport!

Every doctor in the VA!!! "You're just sitting. Unless you get off the horse and walk it, it's not exercise."

And you stay on with magic and unicorn kisses.

 

[quicklime]

So I can finally say I play a contact sport

depending how you handle critiquing, etc. absolutely....

this isn't for shrinking violets

 

[Jazz Club]

Every doctor in the VA!!! "You're just sitting. Unless you get off the horse and walk it, it's not exercise."

And you stay on with magic and unicorn kisses.

Oh come on...I thought everyone knew that riding is a great core exercise. Actually it exercises your whole body. Don't they think you're using your own strength and balance to hold yourself on, just a little bit? I think the doctors here would tell people riding is very good for your health.

No matter what you do, or how you try to stay healthy, you'll get advice to do it differently. I play a lot of tennis and I've been advised to go to the gym to get 'more power' and muscle mass. Yet I'm also old enough (35) to remember when women were told *not* to work out at the gym in case you 'bulked up' (as though that was a terrible fate all women were trying to avoid at all costs)

depending how you handle critiquing, etc. absolutely...

@quicklime I'm trying to take it in the right spirit. It helps that I can usually see where the critter is coming from, and think 'yeah, I can see what they mean by that'.

 

[Brigid Barry]

Oh come on...I thought everyone knew that riding is a great core exercise. Actually it exercises your whole body. Don't they think you're using your own strength and balance to hold yourself on, just a little bit? I think the doctors here would tell people riding is very good for your health.

Riding is great for your health as long as you stay on the horse. I'm pretty good at that as long as the horse cooperates.

My joke is that I have a horse allergy. I'm fine sitting on my couch, but when I'm on the horse I get winded and my heart rate goes up and I start sweating, and unexplained weight loss and muscle soreness and fatigue. Because it's not exercise, the VA said so.

Criticism is a funny thing. Some people do it in the spirit of being helpful, others do it as a power play to make themselves feel superior. Generally one can tell the spirit in which feedback is given based on tone and body language. In an online forum where those indicators are absent (and they make up the majority of our language apparently) it's harder to tell. Online one can only go by the words on the screen and how things are phrased, so if someone is careless or thoughtless it comes across as rude or unnecessarily harsh.

I walked in on Saturday and my trainer was following a different rider around with a 6' whip yelling at the rider. Without tone or context, OMG that's terrible! But being there and seeing it? It was mildly amusing and everyone was happy.

 

[Jazz Club]

Riding is great for your health as long as you stay on the horse. I'm pretty good at that as long as the horse cooperates.

My joke is that I have a horse allergy. I'm fine sitting on my couch, but when I'm on the horse I get winded and my heart rate goes up and I start sweating, and unexplained weight loss and muscle soreness and fatigue. Because it's not exercise, the VA said so.

Criticism is a funny thing. Some people do it in the spirit of being helpful, others do it as a power play to make themselves feel superior. Generally one can tell the spirit in which feedback is given based on tone and body language. In an online forum where those indicators are absent (and they make up the majority of our language apparently) it's harder to tell. Online one can only go by the words on the screen and how things are phrased, so if someone is careless or thoughtless it comes across as rude or unnecessarily harsh.

I walked in on Saturday and my trainer was following a different rider around with a 6' whip yelling at the rider. Without tone or context, OMG that's terrible! But being there and seeing it? It was mildly amusing and everyone was happy.

Haha all I know is, when I used to go riding when I was a kid, I was so hungry after it that I knew that it must be great exercise. I was burning calories so fast it was ridiculous. My mum commented on it at the time; it kind of scared her how I ate dinner after a lesson.

I know what you mean about the online criticism. It can be hard to tell what people mean without the body language. That's why I overuse smileys...to show I mean no harm. Especially with the Irish sarcasm thing, people can take it the wrong way. I'm also always afraid of forgetting to say what I like about someone's work, and just focusing on the negatives because I'm trying to help them improve it. But if you forget to say anything good, they can just shut down and get so discouraged that all the advice may go ignored anyway.