Windoze wrote: *

Wed Dec 03, 2025 9:27 pm

Do you try to be as charitable as possible with understanding their approach or do you just evaluate it from your own perspective and hope they can extract something useful from it? or is it something in between (and if so, what)?

Lofty Rhino wrote: *

Wed Dec 03, 2025 10:46 pm

I will say, most people approach files in an understandable way and they just have micro-inconsistencies, but I think these little inconsistences add up without many charters knowing and this is really an area that should be commented on when giving feedback on a file.

Dash- wrote: *

Thu Dec 04, 2025 12:23 am

complete beginners will receive a different type of advice compared to someone who's ankles-deep into charting, if someone comes from another rhythm game that might give a hint on why some decisions were made, etc

Zeta wrote: *

Thu Dec 04, 2025 3:15 am

i agree with most of the points that have been brought up. i think "good feedback" has to start with figuring out what kind of feedback the charter wants, even when they don't explicitly say it

most of the time when you're dealing with someone who drops a video with zero context, it's not always obvious if they want feedback or what kind of feedback they want

1. interpret first, judge second
before giving opinions, i try to "reverse-engineer" their approach: their layering, pattern choices, how they represent certain sounds. even a couple sentences saying "i'm assuming you were aiming for X" shows you're meeting them halfway. so even if your interpretation is wrong, they can correct you - which in its own is kind of useful feedback

2. respond within their framework
if their micro-logic is inconsistent, point out those inconsistencies. if the macro-approach fundamentally doesn't fit the song, also point that out. the trick is distinguishing "this approach doesn't work" from "this approach is fine but executed inconsistently"

3. add your own perspective as an optional layer
after giving feedback based on their apparent intentions, you can then say, "from my own perspective, i might have done Y instead". that way they're getting both kinds of value: coaching for what they tried to do, and insight from how you would approach it

4. match the depth of feedback to their experience
beginners often need clearer, more concrete corrections ("this is why these anchors feel accidental"). while more experienced charters benefit from nuance ("this pr shift breaks the tension you built earlier")

this is all to say there is no "right" format. for me, the goal is to try and understand the chart on its own terms, give feedback that respects those terms, then contribute your own stylistic perspective separately without dismissing their approach