1GyAp2x

278 Patricia G. Lange and Mizuko ItoIn other communities, critical feedback is provided by “beta readers,”who read fics before they are published and give suggestions on style, plot,and grammar. The relationships between writers and beta readers varygreatly depending on the situation and the people involved, and theexpectations for beta readers differ between different sites. Describing her(quite different) relationships with her beta reader and the writer for whomshe reads, orangefizzy said: “. . . yeah. i have a beta, and beta for anotherperson. my beta is my best online friend, but i haven’t heard from the girli beta for in MONTHS. i need to poke her soon, see that she hasn’t died.”Not all creative groups have a tight-knit community with establishedstandards. YouTube, for example, functions more as an open aggregator ofa wide range of video-production genres and communities, and the standardsfor participation and commentary differ according to the goals ofparticular video makers and social groups. Although some creative worksare targeted for small niche groups, other youth creators we have spokento wish to take advantage of opportunities to connect with a wide set ofdispersed, similarly interested people in order to maximize the potentialfor receiving feedback, recognition, and critique for their work. Critiqueand feedback can take many forms, including posted comments on asite that displays works, private message exchanges, offers to collaborate,invitations to join other creators’ social groups, and promotion fromother members of an interest-oriented group. On YouTube a famous videomaker might give a “shout-out” or mention another creator’s work he orshe admires. Even in the most competitive environments, the collaborationof other participants as promoters is often crucial to determining thecritical and popular success of certain works. Viewers and fans who areoften producers themselves rate, comment, and promote certain worksover others.In both the more tight-knit niche communities and more open sites suchas YouTube, creators distinguished between productive and unproductivefeedback. Simple five-star rating schemes, while useful in boosting rankingand visibility, were not valued as mechanisms for actually improving one’scraft. Fansubbers generally thought that their audience had little understandingof what constituted a quality fansub and would take seriouslyonly the evaluation of fellow producers. Similarly, AMV creators play downrankings and competition results based on “viewers choice.” The perceptionamong creators is that many videos win if they use popular anime as