This is less of a technical question and more of a "what's the status quo" question.

Often I will encounter an submission like "test animation" and it will be some kid who made a five second loop of a FNF character dragged across the screen or some looped OC dancing to a tik tok song for twenty seconds.

I feel bad giving a zero to such animations so I mostly ignore them. If it's just a 12 year old, I don't want to discourage them. At the same time, part of the appeal of the NG portal is that there is some minimum of quality and utter garbage can't make it through (most of the time) so viewers don't need to endlessly sift through spam and 2-second loops of hazbin hotel characters tweening.

When I was a kid myself I submitted some low-quality animations that were blammed (if that term is even used anymore) and it gave me something to aim for. It was probably demotivating to learn that what I made wasn't good enough, but it taught me to put in a little effort if I want to make something worth being on the site.

So I'm conflicted... Not that a single vote matters that much.

What do you guys think? How do you rate portal submissions? To blam or not to blam, that is the question...

I think everyone should have their own code for what their scoring methodology looks like. Do you want to vote in absolutes (0 to blam, 2 to pass, 5 if you like it more than a 2)? Do you try and take the more realistic/artistic proper scoring? Something else?

I think the lack of status quo is what makes NG the place it has been for so long.

Consider leaving a review, you can hide your score and it shows even if the submission is blammed.

Funny, earlier this month the site changed the voting threshold: "reducing the max vote threshold to 60 and raising the blam threshold from < 1.75 to < 2.00." So your vote can kill a flash quickly (score <1.0 after 40 votes) and matters much more than you may have thought.

Factor in voting power as well and one vote can be a world of difference. If I'm mathing right, my vote on something has over 15x the "weight" of a brand new user and even yours already is more than double what it was a few days ago.

I'm actively trying to reach 10,000 blams, so all of those 10 second Madness test animations will feel my judgement. But seriously, I try to v0te fairly. Don't be afraid of blamming submissions that don't deserve to be on here, even if it feels too harsh. People have to learn somehow, and there are plenty of ways people can improve

I basically give it 5 stars if I enjoyed it a least a little bit! I zero stuff that I think just needs to not be on newgrounds

5 stars = cartoon was executed perfectly and you can't think of anything to improve

0 stars = cartoon completely sucked and had zero redeeming qualities

then every other rating is just somewhere inbetween

The movie portal isn't meant to be a place where you dump your low-effort shit, so blam away.

It's 6am here and I'm gonna try to make some sense. Seeing the replies here give me a sense on how the rating system is presented nowadays.

I try to rate fairly, if I blam it, I blam it, if I like it, I rate 3. 5/5 should be given on rare occasions since it's like a "OMFG I LOVE THIS" ordeal. The OG system had Pico saying something that refers to the star and with the avid of the Like/Dislike on major platforms. The idea of rating a animation as less then 5 is deemed bad. I hate this so much because it's not a mindless like system.

Blaming a test animation isn't going to make the user drop animation all together, especially if you comment on it for what they can improve on. The reason why tests/Tiktok re-upload gets blam easily is because of two things: Lazy uploading and copyrighted music.

Basically what I'm getting at is that to properly rate something best way to go at it is to stop thinking of a 0 for dislike and 5 for like. Use the other rates, if you enjoyed something but you don't think its ready for Newgrounds yet, you can rate it a .5/1.5 and comment on it to help the user improve. This site is meant for helping others improve not to just like and move on.

I don't like to blam things, but when someone post like a very high pitch noisy game that hurts the ears drums

or something like real feces and etc.. I blam it on the get go.

I won't say it happens alot, but there is always one who tries per year.

At unremarkable, I do 2.5. Competent but unimpressive is 3. Interesting but with detracting faults I do 3.5. Great not reaching maximum potential 4. Exceptional but noticeable flaws 4.5. Outstanding work in inspiration and execution with any negatives negligible, 5.

Mediocre, 2. Bad execution with interesting idea, 1.5. 1, it exists and is functional but utterly fails in what it attempts to do. 0.5 it's not even functional. 0 is something I have to had regretted watching, because the idea so inherently sucks to the point that my life is measurably worse for having seen it.

Art and opinions are subjective. If you want to do a fair review on a 5-star scale then power to you. But if you're like me and want to farm exp but also encourage artists big and small then I just spam 5 stars if it's something I remotely like. If there's something that I think needs improvement and 5 stars would be misleading then I don't vote. I feel as if not getting the needed amount of 5 votes or leaving them to the mercy of other users is a softer method to push them in the right direction.

That said, no one would know how to improve their work if everyone gave 0 or 5 stars on Newgrounds. Therefore, having honest reviewers is necessary to maintain balance.

When figuring the bar several perspectives should be used. The academic, if this was a class than what is the lesson that needs to be given to their project. The mirror, it may be conceited but if you were told your own words told at you would it help? I can go more but let someone else shine on that part.

First state the obvious, problems are hard to see what they did wrong with simply points. Give them decency to comment the expectations of the form of media that is created. If it is a game what it needs to be playable. If it is food what is edible for human health. 

If incomplete task than part of a star or whatever fraction is use.

I don't think there should be a “right” way, everybody can have their own method.

I vote on under judgement games most of the time – I like how you can experience all projects from everybody based only on what you see, in isolation, without the influence of other users or only content from some prefiltered group.

And it's better for creators who wish to improve, because the UJ phase hopefully gives them a few unbiased reviews and they can act on the initial feedback before the project vanishes from recent submissions and out of sight.

Which is why when I give something a low score, but it's a new creator, or there's something salvageable and the project shows some effort, I try to write a review because I usually have a lot to say about what I believe went well and what didn't. Hopefully it's helpful for people even if their submission ultimately gets blammed.

I generally try to stick to the following rating system:

0 stars

The game doesn't load, it's a buggy mess, or it's a test with virtually no gameplay.

Or one of those atrocious Construct platformer tutorial rips (you know them).

☆

It's something of substance, but either very barebones or too buggy to be playable.

☆☆

It's a game. Really, just that. Something meaningful that can be started, played and sensibly finished.

It's not a 1-level test that ends with falling off a screen, it's not a bugfest – it's something that might not be great but shows potential.

☆☆☆

What I said about #2 and it's fun. It's an enjoyable game and its author can be proud.

☆☆☆☆

There is also something unique and creative. It's not the thirtieth rehash of the same proven concept. The author is inventive and you can see the passion and heart in the project.

☆☆☆☆☆

It's great, about as good as I think this particular concept can get. The author nailed or almost nailed most aspects and deserves all the praise.

I rate submissions (on all Portals) as follows:

0: This is an insult to the respective Portal.

0.5: I want my time back.

1: A modicum of effort went into this at some stage. ...it just looks, sounds, or plays so horrible that I cannot be bothered.

1.5: This is not good enough to stay on NG in my opinion, but I wouldn't be surprised if a Movie or game strayed regardless. In all honesty, I rate Movie or Game Portal submissions that are "under judgement" and that I would have rated 1.5 stars with a 2 star-rating, set a bookmark and re-rate them later after I got the points. I know that most people have no standards and I can pretty accurately predict what rating-range something is going to turn out by now... ("2 stars higher than I wold have rated it", usually. ;p )

2: Good enough to stay, but I don't see that anybody would actively seek this particular content out. One of the millions of forgettable submissions that nobody would miss if the servers got purged of them.

2.5: "Average" for the standards of the time of publishing. If somebody felt the need to publish something that would have been more impressive to see then years ago: Too bad. They shouldn't have waited that long to share it with the world.

3: Above average. These stand out from the crowd in some minor ways.

3.5: Really good. These stand out in multiple ways.

A good example would be Art Portal submissions with really polished drawn characters with no visible flaws, proper hands, shading, shadow, anatomy in order within the confines of their respective universe... But nothing else. No background to speak of. No importance. No story. They just hold a pose and "are". A really polished sample, if you will.

4: As above, but accompanied by a detailed background, a story, an interesting action that you haven't seen a million times, a funny line, a character design that is so original you would want to ask if they do commissions - if you had the money... These stand out more than just technically well-executed works. This is entering "Art"-territory.

4.5: As above, but with a story or joke you would love, even if they were drawing stick figures. The only reason not to follow this artist right then and there would be if you already followed them or forgot because you were linking the piece to a friend.

5: "Perfection." There is nothing that the artist could feasibly improve about this piece, even if they had the time and emotional energy to put in the time to re-work it from the ground up.

·

I do know that most people do not put that much thought into what they do, though. And I think less of them for it!

·

As an aside, and this is just my personal view: You cannot discourage an artist from doing what they do just with one or two stray pieces of negative feedback - be it a review, a rating, a PM, or whatever. If somebody has an ego that is so fragile that they get discouraged by "people on the internet not liking their stuff", this whole "showing their creations to others"-business is not for them in the first place.

·

P.S.: Don't feel pressured to do as I do. I use ratings for personal purposes as well, so it makes sense for me to put the 2 seconds extra in, but I just wanted to share this with you (and potentially other readers) for demonstration-purposes. The "0, 2, 5"-rating schema is what most users seem to be using - and then they wonder why sorting a search by scoring isn't much use to them or why their "actual favorite" didn't get into the daily top 5 submissions after they rated everything with a 5...

Uhh, with your brain?

If it's just a 2 second "animation" with crudely drawn characters, barely any animation, and a lack of story or purpose, then I will give it the 0 laser with no apprehension. I feel like these people are extremely novice or just kids who will dump out random crap for the sake of seeing something blammed.

If it's rough around the edges visually but at least makes an effort to be funny and has a purpose/story....or if it's well drawn but is confusing, boring, or pointless, I'll give it a 2 or 3 meaning it deserves a little love on the Portal albeit with the reminder that many things could be improved. Good chance is that these submissions are made by the 12-14 year olds who are passionate about what they do.

If it's something that truly captivates me or resonates with my special interests whether it's a polished collab or some old amateur Flash from 2003...I'll give it a 5. These are the things I spend most my Newgrounds time on.

I just want to make another point since I can't edit my previous comment anymore. Here is how I would be specific for each rating....and this goes for both movies and game

• 0 stars - An utter waste of my time, it has no purpose nor functionality whatsoever. Visuals are just black scribbles on a white background or cheap cut and paste images. The game is glitchy or is plain old useless. I usually dish out 0 stars to these submissions in 2 seconds because that's usually how long they are.

• 1 star - There are one or two things I like but it is still pretty bad and has the same flaws like the submissions I hand out zero stars to but to a lesser degree. There are a few functional things and these submissions are the ones I actually take the time to check out

• 2 stars - Now this is where we see an attempt to make great gameplay, story, punchline....it has the potential but is poorly executed. It's a meh or mediocre but functional enough to play or watch before I move on from it.

• 3 stars - The submissions nails most concepts and fufills its potential unlike 2 star submissions but there are a few flaws that are quite noticeable. I'd say stuff like this is "decent" and this is where I might revisit the submission once in a while. I am quite happy with submissions with this rating, whether its mine or someone else's

• 4 stars - The flaws in 3 stars become less noticeable and the overall movie/game feels fluid with memorable gameplay, jokes, and a generally solid feel to it. There are only a couple minor flaws to it but they don't make a huge impact on the game

• 5 stars - Pure perfection no flaws to report. I am instantly captivated by these ones after just a couple seconds. These submissions usually reasonate with my special interests but there are a few that didn't align with them.