98
99

Skincare Addiction and Ms. Beautyphile present our first educational video on PiH: Post Inflammatory Hyperpigmentation (youtu.be)

ieatbugsScA Founder が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]TarantusaurusRex 37 ポイント38 ポイント x2 (28子コメント)

It has been brought to my attention that my previous comment has been deleted:

I couldn't get past the point where she put her hand on her hip at 0:30. Gosh golly gee darn, those silly dark marks! They're just like this chicken egg, WE PUT A CHICKEN IN THE VIDEO, that's so WHACKY! HEE HEE HEE!

Sorry ladies, I think you have a great idea, but I felt like I was watching an episode of Blue's Clues. You can simplify things and use layman's terms, but this isn't ELI3.

Edit: I tried to watch it a little longer, but the Scooby Doo "scramble" sound effect at 0:42 was unbearable and I had to stop again. I have learned nothing about PIH today.

It is my impression that the moderators are very uncomfortable with direct criticism. I do not feel that I directly insulted the narrator of this video in any way and that my criticism was specifically related to the tone of the material. I find the narrator to be an intelligent, beautiful, and likely a very interesting individual, but I felt that her tone was condescending and child-like. It does not appeal to me. I felt compelled to share this sentiment, as I am a member of the target audience.

Today I unsubscribed from SCA.

[–]snappisnapsnap 25 ポイント26 ポイント  (13子コメント)

What rubbed me the wrong way when I read OP's original response (which was just the first sentence) was like she was saying "let's see if you can do better".

Rule #5 is so subjective. I'm glad the mods unremoved the comments.

As for the video, I'm not a fan of the artistic direction. I felt like she/production was trying too hard to be quirky. I like the animations and they were helpful in understanding the information.

[–]throwthis1two 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yep. I had a similar situation where a post was deleted because I brought up the fact that some of the blog posts (particularly the routine ones) could fit in just fine with pre-existing threads in the subreddit rather than linking to an external website. The post was written by one mod and posted by another. I asked if it broke rule 4, about blog spam and marketing, and my post was promptly deleted.

I mean, I had to post this under a throwaway just because I was afraid of being shadow banned from the sub. That alone should say a lot. I also don't think your post would have been reinstated if you hadn't posted it again and been gilded for it (twice). It's damage control at this point.

The mods are getting into dangerous territory. ieatbugs refers to herself and 6 other people as the "content creators" for this subreddit, when really the content they create is the sidebar and the EXTERNAL blog that is affiliated with but ultimately NOT this sub. We are the content creators. This subreddit wouldn't exist without the community and it feels as though the mods are losing sight of that.

[–]elkerabi 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (8子コメント)

They've been like this for a while. I posted to this sub asking if the moderators monetized their blog, and if they're able to post links to their blog all the time then why are others deleted for posting?

.... that post was deleted.

[–]ieatbugsScA Founder[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

There are no rules against others blog posts. We only delete links posted that are accounts with no history except spamming their blog. This isn't a secret, it's been responded to by almost every moderator.

[–]jgphoenix 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That sounds like a good policy!

[–]jgphoenix 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Wait, for real? That's a little distressing. I might not be opposed to the mods doing that to make up for a lot of their hard work but there should that be made very clear to the subreddit subscribers. Transparency.

[–]ieatbugsScA Founder[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (3子コメント)

No, there are no bans on other people posting their blogs and we do not profit. This must be the 80th account this person has made to claim this. I hAve even offered to post my 2014 taxes filed to prove this but they just seem to be interested in slinging mud.

[–]throwthis1two -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

If the blog were monetized, I don't think it would be a big deal to many people as long as it was transparent. You put hard work in to create a website and should see something come back from that.

I do have a question though, what exactly constitutes blog spam and marketing? What is the difference between someone linking to their own blog post about skincare, and blog spam?

[–]ieatbugsScA Founder[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Blog spam is an account that has never posted anything except links to it's own blog. According to reddit, self promotion is ok when members are still contributing content that is not self promotion. 99% of blogspam accounts are 24 hours or a few days old and have cross posted the same link across a bunch of subs with no comments.

[–]throwthis1two 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ok! That makes perfect sense actually. Thanks.

[–]throwthis1two 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The exact same thing happened to me, though I wasn't asking about the blog being monetized, I was asking whether posting routines from the blog that could be easily be posted in the routine thread constituted blog spam and marketing.

[–]definitelynotaspy 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Your criticism wasn't constructive, though. You were openly mocking the video and didn't really specify what they needed to do to improve it, aside from saying you didn't like it. That's not helpful. That's not constructive.

I agree with what you said, but they're not reacting to your honesty. They're reacting to you making fun of something they put a lot of work into. Yes, it fell short. Yes, there's room for improvement. But that doesn't mean they have to be okay with people shitting on it.

This is constructive criticism. This is constructive criticism. Your comment is not constructive criticism. Saying "WHACKY! HEE HEE HEE!" is not constructive criticism. Saying "Gosh golly gee darn" is not constructive criticism. Saying it was like an episode of Blue's Clues is not constructive criticism. Saying elements of the video are "unbearable" is not constructive criticism. All of those things are examples of you mocking the video.

The only somewhat constructive thing you said was "You can simplify things and use layman's terms" but then you immediately followed it up with another jab about how this video was made for three year olds.

You weren't being honest or constructive. You were being rude and making fun. The mods didn't respond to that rudeness well (and I'm not defending them), but don't act like you're totally innocent in this.