My thoughts after reviewing a pet: Rather than simply rating a pet, the system should serve as a constructive tool, giving creators clear, specific feedback so they know exactly what's working and what could be improved on their pet's profile.

• sP Reward: The current reward feels slightly off. Reviewing pets shouldn't be a quick way to earn money. Maybe add an achievement? For reviewing 20 or 50 pets or so? Or a new border? Or another pet slot for reviewing X pets? Something pet related would be nice...

• Rating System: A rubric-style approach, where each criterion is rated individually on a 1–5 scale or even better on rubrics might work better, like short guiding prompts or example descriptors for each one. This would also make it easier for reviewers to give actionable feedback, and removes some of the pressure on non-native speakers who may find it difficult to express detailed thoughts in writing. And each criterion could have an additional option for free-written feedback.

• Also maybe add a "technical" category. For example, all parts are nice, but the code doesn't work properly, so popups are not coming or links don't work.

• Final Rating: Maybe give a short update on which rules a pet profile should follow to be approved? This is for the reviewers :D Like, is a minion always needed? Or a treasure chest? This should also be part of the criterion description/rubrics. So what does "Meets the bar" mean? And I understand star-level 5 is so exceptional, that it should be rare? That's very subjective.

• In the end there needs to be a decision: is this pet approved or does it need some more work, which is more of a yes/no question, rather than a 5-level rating. While it's nice to hear Esmeralda herself approved, it might not be the most useful feedback for the pet owner - it's more a nice to have when your pet is approved. So I would hope in the end she'll approve of all pets that passed?

So, I like the idea and pets definitely need more love on this pet site :) But the rating should be based on defined standards, not so much on subjective impressions or free-form feedback.

[ETA] It took me so long to write this that some of the points have already been addressed. Also, I looked at the profiles on legacy - so if there is a difference between legacy and Kumos, that needs to be fixed before moving on with this, or move the feature over to Kumos entirely.

I also concur with on those issues with pet layouts not looking right on the different sites.

I don't feel like the checklist is helpful, really? It doesn't even seem to match what the actual rules of the spotlight are. Per the spotlight page, the following things are required to win the spotlight:

• The "pet's exact name, owner, species, color and gender"
• "A Subeta pet representation on the pet page" even if the character is human, anthro, or something else that isn't a quad
• An original story (can be told through images "such as comics, or even using Subeta items creatively in a treasure chest or otherwise") that can "use things like song lyrics or poems" but those most be credited and cannot "make up the bulk of the 'story'"
• Must be visually appealing
• Must be complete (no "'to be continued' or 'work in progress' note or ... friends or treasure section is there but completely empty")
• Every aspect of the page must be properly credited (typically this includes crediting yourself if you made it all independently)

Meanwhile, things that the spotlight page says are not necessary but can help are:

• An appropriate treasure chest
• An appropriate minion
• Creatively-displayed pet friends
• A unique pet overlay

(For anyone who is curious & can't see a pet to review, the checklist on the review page is:

• Visual Appeal
• Story / Description
• Treasure Chest
• Minion
• Name
• Overall Completeness)

I agree with that it would feel more helpful to give a rating per element of the page instead of just checking if it's there or not - which can be addition to still having the overall rating. I guess, to me, it doesn't seem like simply having each of those elements should equal an automatic spotlight winner - because those elements should also all be kind of cohesive, yes? All working together to create, essentially, a work of art that is a sum of its total parts? Maybe I'm taking this way too seriously, but there is the subjective ruling of "visual appeal" so is the whole thing not kind of subjective in and of itself?

Also, the first pet I saw had a pretty long story and while I busy trying to read all of it, the pet got enough reviews to leave the review queue. It does not feel good to take the time to carefully look over something, and then not even actually be able to submit your review because a bunch of other people did it faster. I feel like once you are able to get a pet up for your review, you should be able to submit that review even if it takes you a little while - or at least within, like, 30 minutes or something reasonable like that.

But, overall, this is an exciting change and I hope it it means that we can get more frequent spotlight winners again so more users can get rewarded for all their hard work on their pets!

To 's point, I also agree. Reviewing pets does need some time investment so it makes very little sense to indirectly reward people who just check through everything or not include optional feedback (nothing wrong with that though). I was looking at one person's pet profile that had multimedia in it with links to videos and such; one of the links was linking to a video that wasn't available anymore so I wanted to point that out (everything else was rated well though), but it already left the queue.

Edit: Glad to hear that's not meant to happen

From the reviewer's POV:

The sP reward feels fair but I wouldn't be mad if it would end up less than 50k. I'm always hyped for achievements (yay!). I'd also take a new HA border or reactions inspired by Esmeralda some time in the future. And I love that it's connected to her, I'm always happy about NPCs taking up new roles.

For the review itself, the process is sweet and easy. I like the checklist and the point system, and the option to leave constructive criticism or a comment. I also think it's the right amount of text. If I had to write something for every category, I'd opt out.

For the reasons mentioned, I ignored the programming part and "perfect" design for my reviews. I have to say tho that I'd always value a story together with a well planned treasure and minion combination more than a good-looking profile.

The thing I would change is the rating system. The 1-5 stars rating is fine, but the descriptions need some tweaking. "Meets the bar" is a bit lukewarm to me, and 1/2 and 4/5 stars are a bit close, vibe-based. I'd rather have Esmeralda comment on all of the stars, something like "This is not ready to review, darling" (1 star), "I guess I can work with that" (3 stars), "Impressive!" (5 stars). This would also help me as a reviewer to pick the best rating.

Other than that, I really love that you're thinking about giving the review process to the community, especially because Subeta is such a community-driven, and generally nice site! And it's so fun to review!

I also ignored coding that was off due to subeta changes. As a reviewer I have trouble not giving five stars when I see a good effort. One story had a couple typos, but so do published books so I still gave five stars, but added a note.

A little more clarity on criteria would be helpful because I think a lot of us don‘t know so are more… oh, this looks nice. Or it could be just me.

Edit: also bring back autocorrect or spell check on the forum here please. I do this on my phone and it is hard to type correctly all the time.

Answering your questions: Yes, the review process was clear and easy to follow; all in all, it makes sense. Was the SP reward fair? I don’t really mind about the reward! 😊

What would you change?

My suggestions:

More detailed ranking: I wouldn’t mind doing a more in-depth evaluation. For example, instead of just checking a box to confirm all criteria were reviewed, each point could be rated individually. After reviewing many pages, you develop a better eye for detail and can provide more nuanced feedback. Some criteria could be answered with "Agree," "Disagree," or "Neutral." I would apply this to:

• Treasure Chest: Does it fit the vibe?
• Minion: Does it fit the theme?

For more complex aspects, there could be a dedicated scoring system that maybe results in an overall profile rating rather than just a single score. I see two possibilities here:

1. Binary Scoring: You select "Agree" or "Disagree," and the final score is calculated based on the number of positive responses.
2. Star Rating: The reviewer can give 1–5 stars for every questioned criteria, which allows for a much more detailed ranking.

Below are some examples for ranking criteria I came up with so far, but there are probably more or maybe some need to phrased differently/or left out to keep it simpler:

Visual Design

• Theme Synergy: Do the colors, objects, and assets complement each other?
• Layout & Spacing: Is the spacing between boxes and objects correct?
• Readability: Is the text readable? (Contrast between background and text, font size proportions, and whether the font style/color fits the theme).
• Visibility: Is all content visible, or is something hidden/overlapping behind another object?
• Functionality: Do built-in effects (e.g., mouseover/hover tooltips) work correctly?

(Taking current layout problems into account, of course, so these shouldn't be counted against the creator in their overall rating in this case).

Story / Character:

• Clarity: Was the text easy to follow?
• Narrative Flow: Does the story have a clear flow or "lead somewhere"?
• Completeness: Does the Text feel complete?

Extra Points for Creativity

• Creatively-displayed pet friends
• A unique pet overlay
• Creative and fiting pet name
• Does the text fit the specific pet’s assigned personality or species?

Suggestion

• Profile seems not finished
• Profile needs some work and should be ranked after a rework
• Profiles ready fort he contest

Review Specifics

• Version: A checkbox to indicate on which side the profile was reviewed (Legacy vs. Kumos).
• Device: Checkbox to indicate if the profile was viewed on desktop or mobile. I think there should be a link to both profile sides at the start of the page for quick access.

Optional written feedback for the owner

Overall personal Score In addition to the detailed criteria, I would keep the overall personal score for the profile to give a quick, subjective summary of the reviewer's impression.

Additional functionalities for the reviewer History & Edits: • Recent Activity: Being able to see the last five rankings submitted. • Edit Function: The ability to edit rankings from the current day or probably for a specific time period after submitting in case of an accidental mistake (for example send to early or something like that)

The more detailed ranking requires a bit more effort from the reviewer, but the creators of these profiles often invest a huge amount of time and passion into their work. They deserve a detailed review and constructive feedback. Since the system would be based on simple clicks (apart from the optional written feedback), the extra effort for the reviewer is relatively low, since one has to consider most of it anyway.

But I guess you made the review simple intentionally and I totally undestand if you want to keep it that way. :)

Alas as a UK reviewer, all imgur-based pet profiles are displayed as purple blocks of 'not available in your region'....

Hi, thank you for this. I will be trying my best to give fair marks and feedback.

I do have one question. I came across one pet where the account was frozen. I am thinking that this would mean immediate disqualification? Should this be marked in the comments and 1 starred?

I signed up but realised I can't view the images because Imgur is banned in the UK 😭, so I can't judge any pets..

I also came here to say this. I haven't found a single pet that hasn't used imgur. That ban really did a number on pet profiles, sadly.

Hmmm I wonder if there is a way we could proxy those images somehow 🤔

It all looks like it makes sense to me, but I'm concerned about what will happen to people who's ideas stand out from the norm here. I've found a lot of subeta users are not kind or accepting for things that are different.

I always found Subeta to be a very welcoming community and very accepting of ideas as long as they aren't straight up extremely problematic. It was said in the past that some concepts are fine to have on pets profiles, but wouldn't be appropriate for the spotlight. Things like very heavy topics, higher level of violence etc. were always a bit of a no go for the spotlight, but I know they've been tolerated on pets profiles.

I would be curious to know what exactly you have in mind when it comes to 'ideas that stand out from the norm' that users here would ne accept. Subeta is one of the most accepting community I've ever been a part of. Even when things were more drama-inclined in like... 2008-2015, Subeta was still a tame community for creatives of all kind.

I also feel like the fact that each profile needs to be reviewed by many people will avoid having too much personal biases.

I like the system so far. I think the sP is about on par with questing on legacy, which is fine. It's a bit more time than I'd spend on a quest, but that's ok. I spent longer because I was trying to figure out people's layout issues and give them specific feedback on that. My only issue has been that I feel bad giving people a lower ranking for having css issues when their design and storywork is great. I kind of want like a slider for functionality and a slider for design instead a 5 star system that combines both.

This does make me want to (finally) make layouts for my pets.

I wish there was an image upload site that was free and easy to use as Imgur. Photobucket bit the dust for me when they started charging money, the bastards. I don't know what else is out there. :c

In regard to some suggestions here: I personally believe we need to keep the criteria vague like they are now, and not go into too many details. I disagree that we need a 'scale' for each criteria or that the overall rating should be calculated based on the sum of the results of each criteria.

The spotlight in its current form is meant to be accessible to all skill levels, and the rules are written so that anyone who put efforts into completing a pet can win the spotlight. The spotlight is meant to feature the full range of creativity of all Subeta users, regardless of skills. It doesn't matter if an user can draw well, write like an author, or code fancy profile, or if they can afford to buy 'nice art' or a custom profile. The spotlight is meant for everyone who has completed a pet and wants to show it, as long as the pet meets the base critera and shows efforts.

If we start judging each criteria based on a subjective scale of 1-5 or on micro details, we introduce a lot of personal bias in the process. People who cannot draw, or non-native speakers without perfect grammar, or even people with different visions or aesthetics will find themselves at a disadvantage. The spotlight would turn into a popularity contest, which I believe is something Subeta always wanted to stay away from.

The way the spotlight works could be debated I guess. Before the revamp 10 ish years ago, the spotlight was a lot stricter and it used to be way harder to win. We could review the way the pets are selected and do a community consultation on the future of the spotlight, but with the way the spotlight is right now, I'm really against introducing any kind of bias and arbitrary 'scale' to each criteria.

'Does this pet's treasure fit the theme?' can be an objective question. A pet who collects flowers with a cute pastel profile and a story about how they love their friends shouldn't have a TC with weapons and bloodred items with no logical explanations. The TC objectively does not fit here.

If we introduce scales, someone could put 3 because they found the story average, someone else could put 1 because they found a few grammar mistakes or don't understand poetry.

I like the 5 start scale for the OVERALL profile because it's very clear: 3 means the pet is ready and meets all the requirements to win the spotlight, 4-5 are reserved for personal preferences and profiles you feel are going above and beyond (and yet getting these ratings doesn't seem to affect the eligibility of a pet to win the spotlight), 1-2 is for pets who do not meet the requirements.

The community review of the spotlight needs to stay as objective as possible in my opinion, and shouldn't turn into a community feedbacks feature. Not everyone wants feedbacks on their pets or their creative work. It's one thing to say 'the colors of this profile makes it impossible to read', 'the required gender field is missing' or 'the TC here seems to make no logical sense with the story and the owner might have forgotten to change it from the pet's previous iteration', it's another to say 'I found the story lead nowhere and the style to not be suitable' or 'I don't think this pet's story fit their personality'

In the same train of thoughts, I wouldn't show the previous reviewers score or comments to other reviewers, as this will immediately introduce bias into the process. Each reviewer needs to make their own assessment of a profile, free of external factors that might skew their opinion.

as someone who helps review very subjective things as part of my job, i agree that the review process should be kept on a rubric that is clear, detailed, and shows what should be met to merit a certain rating. you will always have subjectivity; for example, we solicit opinions from people who judge much harsher than others who freely give out the top score to the same application. this is why it's important to have several scores to create an average, as well as enough scores to help counter balance the "free 5" and the "no one ever gets a 5" people.

having a clear rubric that states what merits a 1, 3, and 5 rating can go a long way. of course, this will be difficult to balance while maintaining creative freedom, so i'm glad we're having this discussion.