I would like to see a skip option. I just reviewed several pets from the same owner back to back and all had the same profile issues. I felt bad commeting about the same problem, so didn't give feedback on one even though I propably should have. Also there's been one or two where I just wasn't feeling the design choices / character and rather they get judged by someone who could review them better. It's not like they were bad or anything, they just weren't vibing with me. I still judged them fairly but I want it to be fun for me to review too if that makes sense.

[edit]

Also a skip option would help with this too ;)

Another issue:

I know we're not supposed to hold layout issues against the creator, but if they are messed up on both legacy and kumos, what should we do?

Have been playing a bit with an unfinished pet today and realized that a lot of the profiles I've seen in here that are minimally messed up in Legacy (text sizing making the spacing off) but generally still nice to look at, but completely wonky on Kumos are the pets that have coding from some of the free templates in the forums, all of which are older than Kumos and so have been built to the legacy site's peculiarities. At least one or two of Lea's free templates have this issue and piers' simple one column template both have issues which aren't even the same as one another. The issue with this is that with pets in the queue for nominations for years, possibly longer than kumos has been pushed as the site we should all be using, it is very likely that the owners aren't actively checking the site to be adjusting their profiles, and I know for sure several of the players who have offered free profiles many years ago (most were posted during or before the first year of the pandemic) aren't online to offer coding changes to fix the issues.

In an unrelated note, the level of appropriateness has been discussed in the pet forums over and over for years and multiple times it has been clarified that the PG-13 level of the site is the guidelines, so when horror or gore cross the line to being R-rated is where the line is and should be drawn here. Judging poorly because it isn't a theme that speaks to you, or you prefer not to read scary stories isn't really fair because the idea of this is "is this pet appropriate for spotlight" not "did you happen to like this pet." I've nominated pets that I thought were finished and ready that didn't speak to me on a personal level, and I've pointed out stories where the gore-line is uncomfortable close or past the line and needs to be reeled back to be appropriate for this particular theme. --- On another note, as someone who has a somewhat cutesy pet in the queue somewhere that has an unpleasant and not cute ending, sometimes that is part of the point of the pet, subverting expectations.

Keith, it probably would be helpful for people to have the link to the spotlight rules on the review page. https://subeta.net/spotlight.php

Definitely joining in the calls for a "skip" option please!

Some of the layouts are ones that I personally cannot comfortably read (my eyes cannot cope with white text on a black background). I obviously don't want to skew the ratings by marking it down for that (I know some people have a preference for night mode style), but then I can't judge any pets today until I get a new option listed :(

Plus some of the stories are maybe a little more intense than I feel comfortable with (again, personal preference, so nothing that it should be marked down for), and it'd be helpful if I could skip those to get something a little more 'suited'!

(edited for clarity, now I've seen others also asking for a skip option)

-Was the review process clear and easy to follow? Yes, easy peasy.

• Did the criteria make sense? Yes

• Did the feedback feel useful (for owners)? Yes

• Was the sP reward fair? Yes

• What would you change? I am strictly a mobile user, and I'm unsure if this problem I'm having is due to that, or something else. On some of the layouts, I cannot see the entire page, so therefore cannot interact. It happens on both Legacy and Kumos, even using desktop view. I do add that into the discussion/feedback box, but it doesn't seem right for me to judge someone's spotlight on that, since I'm unaware how to improve it.

EDIT: Since posting this, I went back to my settings, and reduced the font size to small (instead of default), and this worked. DERP. So, kindly disregard the issue listed above.

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.

Oh it would be fantastic if Imgur images could be mirrored or otherwise made accessible for us Brits! Honestly SO many profiles and forum sigs etc have been a broken mess ever since Imgur pulled out of the UK :(

yep, i was going to say the exact same thing. i think it's fine that each criterion is binary. the spotlight has NEVER been about whether or not the profile is beautiful enough, the story engaging enough, etc. it has ALWAYS been "graded for completeness." did you meet all the requirements? is your profile not blatantly horrific or incomplete or rule-breaking? then you are eligible to be spotlighted. if people want more specific feedback on each particular element, they'll ask for it in the forums.

tons of spotlight winners throughout the years have had profiles, artwork, character concepts, and stories that i find boring, ugly, unappealing, rudimentary, juvenile, etc. THIS IS OKAY because the spotlight is meant to be accessible to just about anybody, from experienced writers/artists/designers, all the way to young teens making their first OCs (idk if we have that many of the latter on this site anymore but if we do HIIII 👋).

so it makes sense that we just need to check off whether the relevant elements are present and acceptable, not how much we do or don't like them. the overall star rating and written feedback are where you can reflect that. i feel like this is a helpful way to conceptualize the stars: 1 star - very incomplete, not eligible at all. 2 stars - things are mostly there but some stuff is off, not ready to be eligible. 3 stars - everything that needs to be there is there, no major mistakes or issues, even if i'm not personally the biggest fan. 4 stars - eligible AND quite pleasing from a creative perspective. 5 stars - eligible AND absolutely stunning from a creative perspective.

but again i don't think written feedback should be stuff like "the story was too meandering and directionless, i don't feel like i understood the character's motivations or the point of anything they were doing" because—again—if someone wants a critique they will ask for it in the appropriate venues. if they haven't, it's safe to assume they're just trying to have fun, which makes an uninvited critique come across as quite rude.

One of my very first spotlight win back in 2014-2015 (back when users were VERY vocal about everything and the spotlight had far stricter rules as a whole) had two comments on the spotlight win news post that I remember to this day: one of them was how the user didn't feel like the overlay and design looked like the species (my pet was a custom OC with a custom overlay, the pet/species combo I selected was meant to be just a representation of that, and of course the overlay was not a Mahar since it was my custom designed OC...). The second comment was about how 'full of grammar mistakes' my story was. This second comment still makes me second guess my writing to this day. I'm not a native speaker. I was 20 when I wrote that story and yeah, it had mistakes that I wouldn't make today with 13 extra years of experience writing and reading English. But to see comments like this on my spotlight win, on a pet I had spent a ton of time working on, stung.

I hadn't specifically requested feedback on the story, my writing or my design. My pet was complete and won the spotlight, I didn't need or want comments on those aspects back then. Like Frenchi said, if people want this sort of creative feedback, they'll post on the forum and ask for it. I don't think people expect or necessary want this kind of creative critique when they enter their pets in the spotlight, and I hope some guardrails or additional instructions can be put in place so that the 'Feedback' box doesn't become a 'general personal thoughts on the pet' section. It should be for specific comments about why the pet is not eligible for the spotlight.

Things like: image X is broken, scroll bar doesn't work, story is not PG-13, missing credits for the background, missing owner info etc. is the kind of feedback I expect for the spotlight. I'm also all for positive comments like 'very complete profile and a lovely design', but I personally know I don't enter my pets in the spotlight to have feedbacks on my story or my designs choices.

As someone who does not usually have someone beta-read her stories,instead just slaps them on the profiles and says they're ready for nomination....yeah, I don't want it to be a "who can write characters better" contest. This is a fun way to show your pets to the world, even if they're not perfect. The only thing I'm looking for are a layout that is functional and overall aesthetically nice, something going on in the description (whether that's character details, a story, a poem, a saga, I don't care, just give me something for substance), a TC and/or minion that means something to their pet (fitting is subjective, sometimes I just choose a minion because I like that minion). Bonus for art and a custom overlay, but otherwise, even if a story isn't my cup of tea, I know someone out there does appreciate it, and the person who wrote it should be proud.

Tells me there are no pets available to review. Aww.

I see what people are getting at when discussing how much focus goes into different parts of the profile and how they weigh them differently. Speaking for myself, depending on the pet I'll put less effort into the treasure chest, and the minion's an afterthought, but the story matters a lot to me.

That being said, I'd like to suggest some way to indicate what parts of a profile do really stand out, for some reason--more as a means to acknowledge the different work and care that goes into parts of a profile, especially if one eventual goal is to give a bit more kudos to 4- and 5-star profiles. Maybe there could be a checklist to indicate "awesome story!" or "amazing treasure chest!" or something? That sort of feedback could also be useful for pets whose profiles aren't quite complete; if they see that they got a 1 or 2 star, but the treasure chest was awesome, the user knows they can focus on other elements instead.

If anything, it could also provide pet spotlight hopefuls with examples that show that you don't HAVE to write a novel to have a fantastic pet, and can put your effort into something you find more enjoyable, like art, coding, or collecting.

The pet spotlight is an award, and to receive an award you need to have earned it. If someone designs a character and doesn't enter it into the spotlight then they've made that character for their own enjoyment without seeking external validation and that's great. However, if someone presents their pet to the spotlight they are opening it up to a system that inherently needs to judge its quality. We're all old enough now where we need to be developing the basic life skills to get out of our own heads and be able to accept feedback given in good faith. I know that people are protective of their creations but when you release a work into the world expecting an award you need to be able to step back and view your work with the same level of objectivity that viewers and readers will. Constructive criticism is there to help, not to hinder. That said, I hope that the feedback box remains and without guardrails. Feedback is often a bitter medicine. Even if delivered on a silver spoon it may not taste good at first as we are often highly defensive reguarding the things we love, but it's a medicine that's very necessary if we truly want to improve as creatives.

the spotlight already has minimum standards that are both listed on the info page and that can be inferred from looking at the precedent set by other spotlight winners. it's not a competition where anyone has to prove they're better than anyone else in order to win.

it's one thing to say "here's what you need to improve to be eligible" or even "this qualifies but if you want to take it to the next level you could consider XYZ."

it's an entirely different thing to act like just because someone puts their pet up for the spotlight, that automatically equates to them "wanting to improve as a creative" via detailed scrutiny & critique from others. sometimes people are happy where they're at, or want to improve on their own time, or seek out other venues of improvement such as taking classes or getting feedback from people they know irl.

if the spotlight should have "higher" standards, that's up to staff, or is maybe a conversation they could invite from users if/when they so desire. for now we're just being asked to identify what users need to do in order to bring their profiles in line with the standards that currently exist—not give them the 2008 deviantart "you'll never grow if you don't listen to hard truths even though you didn't ask for that :)" treatment.

While I don't disagree completely, the problem is that the spotlight is not supposed to be a popularity contest for the most liked pets or a creativity contest for the 'best and most creative' pets only. It's a spotlight of everyone's creativity.

The pet spotlight in its current form has extremely loose criteria. Some of the comments on this thread are going into a level of detail and feedback that is way out of scope when taking into account the criteria we are being asked to judge the profiles on.

The criteria are incredibly simple and are written in a way that allows anyone, no matter their skill level, to win. The 'award' in question is simply a trophy for having a complete pet that meets basic quality and content and having it selected randomly from a pool of winners.

The issue with the feedback box is that people have not entered their pets in the spotlight, thinking they would be getting a detailed analysis of their creative choices by the users on the site. There are a number of pets that are not my cup of tea and that I find too simple, basic, with themes I don't like, stories that I find generic, designs that I feel are too simple, etc. And I won't go around and comment that in the feedback box because I am asked to review the pets based on the criteria for the spotlight, and having a complex story that is written perfectly or a great design and art for exemple are not part of those criteria.

I'm not fragile for not wanting detailed creative feedback on my pets that are completely unrelated to the requirements to win the spotlight. I regularly ask for those on the forum or in the discord pets group I'm a part of, but that's not what I signed up for with the spotlight. If the spotlight was to change its criteria to have stricter creative requirements like it used to in 2015, it would be one thing, but it's not the case right now.

(Edited for clarity and to also add that I do not want the spotlight to have stricter creative criteria and want it to remain as accessible to ALL skills level and showcase creativity without gatekeeping)

I am very bad at being patient and I've been thinking about this nonstop for the past few days so I'm gonna bug you, sorry... When I was reviewing pets, I kept feeling bad about having to mark things down for wonky coding, and I felt extra-terrible because half the time it was my own (admittedly terrible) CSS from many years ago. Since it seems like we're going to continue testing this, I was hoping to get some clarification on the current state of pet profiles if possible!

Are legacy profiles and their visual issues still being worked on, or have you reached a point where it's more up to us to tweak the CSS as needed? I know a lot of pet profile coding can be pretty specific and clunky, so I'm totally cool with making my own edits and I'd be happy to help other people fix their pet profiles; I just don't want to go through and do that if you're still working on things!

With the recent news about Project Kumos being sunset, does that mean that we, when working on or reviewing pets, should be focusing on the appearance of legacy pet profiles instead of Kumos ones? And, are you still planning to introduce a "v2" pet profile? I remember that being brought up many years ago, long before Project Kumos, so I assume it's still potentially in the cards...?

I also totally understand if things are kind of uncertain now and you're not sure yet, and if v2 pet profiles may still happen but are on the backburner for a while! I'm feeling pretty excited about pet profiles because of this, so I was hoping for some clarification so I can get back to working on mine. I'm fine either wayl I've just been kinda hesitant to jump back in with profiles while so much still feels unsure, but I've been reeeeeally in the mood to work on pets again for the past few days. Thanks for your time and everything you do!

Regarding the criticism conversation... I don't think anyone is saying that absolutely no criticism is ever warranted if there are glaring issues, just that we would prefer for pet spotlight to not suddenly get higher standards now that the users are involved in the approval process. Pet spotlight gives an award, sure, but it has never been a competition or contest. Pets have won pet spotlight with minimally-customized freebie template profiles, art with pretty significant mistakes, stories that are not objectively the most perfectly-written, etc.

The way things have been for a long time is that if people want to make their pet the absolute best it can be and are looking for concrit, they'll post about that in the forums and say so. Constructive criticism can be great, but not everyone is looking for writing tips or art concrit when they're using their free time to make a little page for their pixel pet on a 20-year-old virtual petsite. Sometimes people just want to spend their time making something fun and show it off to people, not worry about how they could have done better or get comments on what they need to improve on.

I'm not against constructive criticism, but unsolicited criticism in a hobby space isn't something that everyone wants, and pet spotlight hasn't seemed like a place for that for a long time. Spotlight has showcased various levels of talent over the years and I really appreciate that about it, because I remember being a teenager making subpar pet profiles but being so proud of them. A few of my spotlight winners have art and profiles that I can't stand to look at anymore because they're nowhere near my current standards, but I was so proud of them at the time and so, so happy about my wins.

Just wanted to second this! I have a profile I've been really wanting to work on since the community review beta began (not to mention fixing my older profiles that were messed up by the layout changes), but I haven't touched it since I don't know whether I should be fixing it to look right on Legacy again, or work towards making it look right on Kumos if there's not going to be a Kumos anymore? I don't want to make changes that I'll have to go back and redo.

I suspect part of people's reaction to your post is that pets have to be nominated for the spotlight before they even enter the queue, and this level of feedback should be provided PRIOR to nomination, especially because it has to be nominated by someone other than the owner of the pet. Many will post their finished pets in the Pets forum for feedback and to see if someone thinks they are ready for nomination, and most of this feedback happens there. I'm not sure who would be nominating incomplete pets (although it does happen, and I had to review a pet that looked complete but broke the rules).

But yeah, no one is against feedback to make sure something meets the basic criteria for the spotlight, but your original post did come across as "this is a competition" despite not being those words used, largely because what people were talking about before was people giving feedback on not liking themes, or wanting things different, and giving novels of feedback. There is no reason feedback for meeting minimum requirements requires a novel. Also the idea that people would be in their heads about feedback like "hey this pet needs to have the image of the pet to qualify" or "you have some empty boxes that need to have something in them, the pet appears incomplete without these filled" which would be about meeting requirements, is laughable. What someone would get into their heads about is "hey here is a list of all the typos you made, also you need to work on your story pacing because your story is slow in the beginning and i couldn't get invested and found it really boring at the start, but then the end rushes quickly and you can't savor the conflict" which would be constructive criticism in good faith, but not part of meeting requirements. (Made up examples).

On a side note, , there were a few profiles in queue earlier that had empty boxes which, in the codes they are based on, would have the "pet has been nominated" message given the pets were in the queue. I'm not sure whether that is part of the glitch, or was intentional when making the review page links that that would be blocked? I think someone mentioned their pet who had been in the queue got unnominated at some point, so maybe that was what happened, but it's been at least 2 pets I saw with this issue back before the queue ran out.

I hadn't read all of the previous posts made by other users concerning what criteria they were using to judge nominations which is why i've been confused by the response I received. When reviewing criteria I never judged on theme, whether or not I personally liked chosen elements or anything else that would be highly subjective. Typos, however, do need to be fixed as that's a very basic matter of presentation.