4 Answers

  1. The critic does not have to be able to do better, but he must explain his review not only from the point of view of his taste preferences, but also from the point of view of generally accepted quality standards. When a person simply expresses a personal opinion “like it or not” — this is not criticism. When a person pays attention to the advantages and disadvantages of things that are relevant to consumers, this is a real constructive criticism. The quality of criticism is determined by the benefits to potential consumers. If people who read the review gain benefits for themselves as a result, using or not using the item, then this means that they are a good critic.

  2. Situations are different, and you can also criticize in different ways. But I'd rather say no. And it's not just a matter of debt, because as the Americans say, no one owes anything to anyone. Rather, it is that criticism as such does not require anything. You don't have to have knowledge, status, or skills to criticize.It doesn't even need logic and rationality. All this is necessary in order for criticism to become weighty in the hands of the one who uses it.

  3. There is criticism from the performer, for example :” I would make it easier here, faster here, and more ergonomic here, reducing time and money costs”

    And there is criticism from the user. After all, to criticize the falling straps of a dress or under-salted borscht, you do not need to be able to sew or cook perfectly.

  4. Here there is a slippery line between “respect for other people's work” and “hack for profit”. Where is the line between hackery and work that needs to be respected? In fact, yes, if you criticize , then offer the best solution. After all, you have all the options not to use the result of work that you do not like. In developed countries, it may even be that a person may stop communicating with you altogether if you start driving them to work.

Leave a Reply