A House of Lesser Lose, by SaraMK. [Updated]

[Emma]

I think rohina's aesthetics judgment is completely above reproach. 

  I was fairly pleased with my score too, given that I seemed to be judged by the standard of my previous lots and my AwesomeHouse V.2-All Pescados Suck! is not a favourite house of mine either... *Emma shrugs
Who cares? It's only a bit of fun.

[eevilcat]

I was happy with my score too, the praise reflected what I was trying to do design-wise and the criticism was very fair. A sort of empathy open-sandwich, rather than the full monty. 

[rohina]

This experience reflects very similarly on my experience of getting students to grade their own essays. The ones who are competent and do a decent job can see that my comments are fair and generally give themselves a similar mark to what I would give, while the ones who fail miserably give themselves an A+ and can't see how they didn't manage to meet the criteria.

[Ambular]

I can understand why houses you liked might not have got good scores if they didn't address the criteria. For instance, many many houses had little or no landscaping, but that was actually quite heavily weighted in my criteria.

It's unfortunate that landscaping items (trees in particular) are notorious for causing lag.  I'd have liked to use more, but I didn't want to bog my lot down too much with stuff that's primarily decorative.  :/

[dizzy]

I'm dishing out advice on aesthetics because I'm currently studying architecture (specifically, the Natural Style of architecture). Of course I know whereof I speak, because this advice comes straight from text books. I'm still trying to find some nice compromise between Awesome Spec and good design, though.

[rohina]

What a pity you made no effort to show your expertise, then.

[dizzy]

I'm still learning, so I'm not really in a good position for showing off "my expertise." That's something you get after having a lifetime of experience.

I think I did pretty darn good, all things considered. You may not find much aesthetic about such crude simplicity, but to me that monolith is more beautiful than 99% of the crap that other people show off (on other sites, that is).

[Zazazu]

I did not see you volunteering. Besides, it could be worse. I mean, last time we had the Bobblehead deciding that. And people bitched about the Bobblehead's taste, too. Besides, no one said the contest was fair. In fact, all contests are blatantly corrupt. We're just flat out transparent about it: See "Bribery" section.

Didn't think I was special enough to volunteer. Shall take that under advisement. And I know it wasn't supposed to be fair, that's why I said "fairness is for sissies" and posted the extra note. The problem with joking around like that and pointing out the joke is that often people think it means you weren't joking in the first place.

Totally agreed on Dizzy's score, though. Uh. Yeah. What the heck was that? You are right, though...it's still better than half the crap that's out there.

[J. M. Pescado]

All I'm saying is that the damn thing had BETTER be full of stars when I look at it.

[rohina]

I think I did pretty darn good, all things considered. You may not find much aesthetic about such crude simplicity, but to me that monolith is more beautiful than 99% of the crap that other people show off (on other sites, that is).

I'll say this one more time, since you seem to be a slow learner, but it is kind of important if you are intending to work for, you know, actual clients at any point: you totally ignored THE MOST IMPORTANT criterion - the one that not only I, but Pescado also articulated.

[J. M. Pescado]

Bribe: 0.25
Functionality: 0.9
Scenarios: 0.95
Cost Effectiveness: 1.4
Expand 1.4
Physics: 0.8
Aesthetics: 0.75

Technical: 0.97
Total: 0.682

Correct Behaviors
Level Edges - Will Not Damage Neighborhood
Kitchen Firebreak & Visitor Raid Defense Good
Expansion Room Adequate
Anti-Wolf Fencing

Correctable Issues
Use of "Stealth Stairs" unnecessary, but retrofit to use standard stairs trivial, which reduces score penalty
Uneven Bathroom Service Quality - Should Replace Tubs->Showertubs

Fundamental Flaws
Primary facilities not located upon single viewing deck
Nonstandard Lot Size may cause problems in the future due to data artifacts (misplaced portals, etc.)

[SaraMK]

Nonstandard Lot Size may cause problems in the future due to data artifacts (misplaced portals, etc.)

It's about as likely as portals committing suicide on their own. And if it does happen, it's easy to fix. I don't think it's a reason not to use non-standard lot sizes.

[Zazazu]

All I'm saying is that the damn thing had BETTER be full of stars when I look at it.

Here, now be happy.