No disrespect, Al, but I find this an extremely troubling point of view, especially coming from an editor. It is unfair - both to the audience and the authors - to ask that only those that have been moved by something, positively or negatively, comment about it. Knowing that a story failed to engage a certain percentage of the audience is valuable feedback. Moved is maybe the wrong word, more engaged then, either on an emotional or intellectual level. And yes, you're right, knowing that you failed to engage a percentage of the audience is very valuable but surely there's a dialogue required there too? Meh, as an example, is three letters and it's three letters which, at the very best, say 'I wasn't engaged by this story.' It doesn't say why or how.
As a listener - and a rather opinionated one at that - I damn well want the decision makers to know when they select a story I find unengaging. Now, you can't stop me - "meh" has been outlawed, so I have taken to express the same with more words.
And the decision makers want to hear it, they just want to hear something slightly more in depth than 'meh'. But again, and I'm aware I'm playing devil's advocate here, surely that's a good thing? If a story doesn't engage you, then surely the act of explaining why not only tells the author a lot more than 'meh' but also gives both the listener and editor a better look at their own critical faculties?
Now, you may argue, that is the desired result - the few people like myself that are not emotionally invested in a story, but are intellectually invested in the feedback process, will post anyway. But you are depriving me, and my fellow posters, and the authors, and yourself, of any sense of how many people have been unmoved. I am of a sincere belief that the prohibition on "meh" responses has adversly affected the dialogue here. From my point of view, that doesn't quite work that way. Every listener's reaction to every story is valid, but the fundamental dichotomy present in being unengaged in a story enough to just post 'meh' but at the same time being engaged enough TO post 'meh' damages discussion and, from the point of view of some authors I suspect, could come off as cheap point scoring. I'm not saying it is, but I am saying that it's sometimes difficult not to perceive it as that.
And I like the conversation
As do I. And thus I dislike the forum's policy against "meh", because it aims to silence part of it. Not a particularly eloquent part, but an important part nonetheless.
I wouldn't mind so much if the policy were consistent. But you (by which I mean the moderator/editors as a group, not you individually) allow positive posts that are equally empty of content - I have yet to see anyone reprimanded for saying "I love it!" and leaving it at that. But empty praise is just as empty as empty apathy - and, I would posit, flattery is a bigger insult than snarkiness, any day.
I think there are three points here:
-I feel that I understand a lot more why you feel 'meh' responses have value. I can't say I agree with you but you've certainly made me re-evaluate my own approach and that's actually petty great.
-This is going to sound confrontational and it's not meant to be, but, regarding the 'empty' positive comments I'm honestly curious where you'd draw the line? How would you try and steer the dialogue? Do you think it needs steering at all? I'm honestly curious.
-I have to say, I disagree with you completely that flattery is a bigger insult than snarkiness. Flattery isn't useful, certainly, but it's also not hostile which snarkiness categorically is and that's possibly the crux of my own personal problem with 'meh'. I've had responses like that to my work in other fields, a lot, and it's very difficult to not feel that it's point scoring rather than genuine critique or response. I'm very aware I'm basically alone in this, MK's response upthread and your own speak to that, but, speaking for me, not for the company, that's how I feel. Based on this discussion it would seem I need to rethink that a little.