After a recent post on tumblr concerning pet nomination wait times, replied about the neglect but also touched on something of concern.

Many of the comments on this thread spoken up in concern about voting, and this comment makes me think that perhaps our input isn't being taken into consideration. Some individuals are already bothered by the current emphasis put on graphics for Spotlight pets. We have had multiple events in which user voting has been front and center, and the sentiment after these events is very negative and unhappy. I don't want to see this happen with the Spotlight.

Also, I am very disappointed to hear that the current Spotlight queue has been neglected. If the new system was ready to go and be implemented, I could understand the slow down, but at the moment its still in a drawing board phase. No where near ready, and it is just plain disrespectful to the users who have been waiting, and waiting, and waiting.

I haven't read all the posts, but the first couple and last couple pages... but I'm sure it's all basically the same things being brought up and major points have been discussed.

I like 's input about requirements- this is something rather lacking right now that would be nice. Guidelines are good, not just a "do whatever and if we like it, you win!". I do understand that the spotlight is a sort of creative outlet for many different people- coders, graphic designers, artists of all kinds- as well as writers. So it would be so sad to see it go away. I would no longer have any reason to work on any of my numerous pets if there was no spotlight- so I agree that it should stay. I don't like the idea of 'downvotes' either. I agree with what has been said about it. Turns it into a targeting and popularity contest that no one wants.

I think some sort of critique idea would work. However, what we need first is full info on what would be expected/needed in an acceptable profile. The userbase can't give feedback if they themselves don't even know why it hasn't been acceptable before. We have a feedback forum, but many times people don't help much or don't know the answers because we haven't had help from staff in the past. I was told once by staff that telling me what was wrong with my profile would be nigh unto cheating- so they couldn't give any feedback. I think it's complete BS and it seems they've finally realized it.

With the upswing of coding availabilty, more people are opting for fancier profiles- but I really dislike the idea that it has to have a lot of coding in order to be considered for a spotlight. (Not saying staff would do that, but it seems the user base is like that now). So in that respect, because the ub seems to only like coded profiles that look like they took forever to do and have a million effects- guidelines and basic requirements will remove this sort of bias from the ub. If say, 4 out of 5 things are met, then it doesn't matter if it has hover fades, drop downs, a animated gif and a 50,000 word story- can be simple and straight forward.

Most of the pets that I have had win in the past, a few years back- were basic as far as coding is concerned. I think that can be just fine and acceptable and people can shut their pie-holes about it being "simple".

Also- having the option of removing a trophy and changing a pet is a good idea if there's someone that wants to do that. I see no reason anyone would pay to remove a trophy, then reenter the same pet if they've already won in the past. You can just put "my pet won the spotlight" on your sig or status so people can see it. I would take it one step further even, to say if someone is abandoning a pet, that part of the popup that comes up when asking if they really want to, they also get one that says "This pet won the spotlight (date here). In order to abandon this pet, you must remove the trophy. This will cost x sp. Do you wish to proceed?" That way at least it won't still have the trophy when it's changed hands. There could always be a 'legacy trophy' coded in even after removal- rather like how if you get rid of a pet- that pet would still have info about what food has been eaten before (I assume it does?)- so it could simply be coded in like someone else suggested 'pet won spotlight w/ username' sorta thing. The only thing that I think might be hard about that- is the frequency in which many users change UNs. So, dunno if that would work.... hm. Just a thought!

All in all- I agree that the spotlight deserves more attention. I just barely finished and reentered a couple pets myself- we'll see how they do. I would like there to be more emphasis on the pets and the spotlight- simply because it's a PET site.

Might be nice if when we have plots, we could actually involve our active pets... that might be cool.

i agree that first and foremost, the guidelines need to be clearer, and users need to be notified of why their pet has been kicked from the queue - it doesn't need to be as detailed as, say, CW rejections, but just a simple list of reasons like: messed up code, inappropriate subject matter, design flaws (hard on the eyes, too big/small, etc.), missing required information… that kind of thing, with additional notes if the person doing the rejecting thinks it's necessary - e.g. "the description gets cut off by the TC when viewed in chrome" or "too much graphic violence in the story" or whatever.

as far as guidelines go, i agree that there should be a list of clear requirements and you must hit a certain number of requirements, but not necessarily all of them. so if you didn't want to do a written story, you could make up for it with interesting graphics or a cool TC. obviously some would be hard requirements: no falsified info or excessively mature content, owner's name must be visible, etc.

once these guidelines are clearer, it will be easier for users to review each other's pets, but i also agree that there is potential for misuse - users who simply don't like a particular person might judge their pet more harshly than another's, or let their friends' pets slide by even if they don't meet all the requirements. this will have to be accounted for, probably with reviewers being required to submit only valid reasons for rejection or acceptance, and penalized if they are found to be falsifying reviews. of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and what one user considers a poor design choice, another might consider awesome. but if there is enough contention among users as to whether or not a pet qualifies, i'm sure staff can figure it out.

I had another idea, and I'm sure it's been touched on before, but I'd support some kind of "theme" weeks where (like around certain Subeta Holidays) pets that are related to the theme could be the ones to win. Such as, a pet that's Morostide themed winning during Morostide. Or only placing those in the voting lines at that time. I'm not sure how it would work, but I think that would be really fun.

"Checkbox reasons if staff have to kick you from the win queue" Definitely implement this! If I don't make the cut I want to know what I did wrong.

"Users see the queue of pets that have been nominated." I wouldn't mind seeing this either. It might give others ideas for future pet profiles.