Inactivity with analyses

[firecape]

There is a lot of inconsistency with locking/reassigning Pokemon threads that have been inactive for large periods of time. I'm creating this thread to try and resolve this problem. Analyses can sometimes sit for months with no activity; what should the standard be? Should extra time be given out for exceptional writers / known contributors? If so, how much? This also brings up the issue of: how long should reservations last. Obviously, if it's a Pokemon no one cares about, it really doesn't matter. What about important Pokemon though? I would like to hear others' thoughts on the matter, and hopefully we can come to a conclusion. One thing is certain: quality analyses take time. How much time though? I also understand that pretty much everyone has life outside of Smogon. In my opinion, however, there needs to be a standard for this.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

I've always felt that a case-by-case basis for this was the best way we could go. Everyone can have extenuating circumstances, and what they are (if they exist) changes everything. We should not attempt to standardize this in any way.

 

[Heysup]

Just posting to agree with Rising Dusk. You would be surprised how often people start something, disappear, and then come back to finish it.

 

[firecape]

Yes, but I'm talking about extremes; things like 2-3 months. There is really no reason, in my opinion, something should take that long unless you have "extenuating circumstances," in which case I see no reason why it can't be reassigned if someone wants to do them.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

My point, however, is that there is no distinct cutoff that we should adhere to for when we can start reassigning analyses. Suffice to say that when something hits the 'months' mark, I try to contact the author, then reassign it if they don't mind / don't have a good reason / don't respond at all.

 

[Siegrin]

Yeah, I agree with Firecape, I mean, take a look at Theorymon, he has reserved a lot of pokemon for analysis's, however, he hasn't even posted one of them... And by doing so, he seriously limits my options for analysis's and sets.

 

[bugmaniacbob]

Quite a lot of the time, the analyses are finished, but never uploaded and simply forgotten about. Most of my old UU analyses ended up that way. Anorith is still waiting for upload having been in C&C for about 14 months now. I wasn't inactive over the entirety of that period, I was updating it, I just didn't see a reason to bump it when nobody cared.

Of course, the GP team queue and an orderly process have helped this specific case quite a bit. Just send the OP a PM, wait a bit, if there is no response or they decide to give the analysis up, then go about reassigning it. I don't see any reason for there to be an arbitrary time limit - that is really quite unsettling for the writer especially.

 

[alex 67]

I know I have no say on the matter but I think after QC approval the writer should have 2 weeks max with no exception, this is ample time. Should someone reserve an analysis they should post within a week, if not it should be reassigned. If someone cannot do this then this is a good example of too many reserved analysis.

 

[ENZ0]

I agree with RD and Heysup. If you think about it the long term effect of imposing a time limit would be to make potential writers want to avoid contributing. I understand some threads become inactive, but simply noticing them would be the best method. In short, a drastic change could have negative results in the long run. Also, remember that writing an analysis is nothing like participating in a tournament. As firecape said each analysis is time consuming and life takes priority.

 

[Oglemi]

I personally feel threads lose their activity simply because the QC stage takes so much time, which adds a significant amount of time to which someone works on an analysis. If it takes, say 2-3 weeks to get an analysis through QC, that person has already been working on something for 2-3 weeks, and then they have to write the analysis, and then get it GP checked. The whole process is just too time consuming.

I'm not saying that I don't feel the members of QC aren't doing their job, I just feel there could be a more efficient way of approving/rejecting sets quickly without there having to be a very long pondering time of whether or not to approve it. I understand that some sets require testing to determine whether they are analysis worthy or not, but this should not take +2 weeks to determine if it is or not.

As for how long a person should have to write an analysis, I feel that 3 months should be ample time to get an analysis written, excluding those who have major life events affecting their on-site activity. It should be more based on a case-by-case process though, as bmb pointed out about his Anorith analysis.

 

[Colonel M]

Well, it's not 100% set in stone, but we have a rough idea on how it will work. Remember, this isn't finalized as of yet, so this isn't set in stone.

Inactivity is a serious thing that often comes up within the site. While we could arbitrarily pick what to cut and what not, we should have a definitive reason to giving an analysis to someone else. It doesn't help that an analysis can sometimes sit for over months without an owner because it hasn't been attended to. It's not a crime: we understand that people have real life to go around and it's a volunteer site.

How we settled a system is as follows.

- We allow one month after a semi-significant update before it is left open. We want to give the person some breathing space to finish it, but at the same time we don't want him / her to take a significant amount of time to finish it at the same time. If inactivity is seen within the month...
- It will be "open" to members. A member is allowed to post in the thread and claim to write the analysis. The Moderator of the specific tier will close the topic and tell the person to write a new one. Once the new topic is made with everything from the old topic placed in the thread, the old topic can be disposed of in the Locked / Outdated Part of the site.
- This will be posted as an announcement.
- We are to allow the OP a legitimate excuse before we close the topic and recommend the new person to create a new topic. Like I've stated, real life can mess with things, so we're not trying to put a person under gun point. If the OP doesn't respond in 24 hours, feel free to allow the new person to open up the topic.

Unless the OP has a legitimate excuse, I do not see how a person should have an analysis longer than a month.