recently quality control has been getting alot of attention with new sets being suggested. because of this sets that arent often bumped are left forgotten. i think QC should be seperated into OU, UU, UBERS, and LC in order to solve this and promote more organization. Contributions and corrections is split i dont see why qc cant. also im not a qc member so i cant speak on their behalf, but i think the seperation would make it easier for them too.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Splitting QC into tiers
- Thread starter Megan_Fox
- Start date
- Status
To be honest, this is something I suggested when we were still working out how QC would work. However, we weren't sure how much activity there would be, and didn't want three empty subforums. With the way things are going activity wise now, though, I actually think this would be very beneficial. I would like to hear what the other C&C mods think on this matter though, so please post in this thread peeps.
the problem with sets getting lost in the woodwork is not that there are too many threads. the first reason is that some authors are lazy and aren't proactive with their sets. when my qc threads went dead i kept modifying them, adding more comments and coming up with optimized ev spreads. i also bugged qc members to look at them. many other members whose threads you don't commonly see in the qc forum - because they get moved out quickly - do the same. splitting forums does nothing to solve author indifference. maybe if we were more strict with the inactivity rule, in terms of enforcing it (although maybe it can go down to 10 or even 7 days) and broadcasting it, there wouldn't be as many dead threads.
the second reason is that a large portion of the "dead threads" are those with bad sets but not so bad that they are an outright rejection... and let's be honest who wants to test a set they think is shit? of course you do a few of them cause it's your non-paying and for-fun job and cause heysup is nagging you but when you have tons of other c&c "work", digging through every set in qc is not on the top of your agenda.
(also the number of qc approvers is kind of low but this isn't the best venue for discussing that)
a plus for individual forums that isn't addressed by those two points is aesthetics. this is actually pretty big imo. the forum is all jumbled up, and while subconsciously i sort threads into "relevant" and "interesting but irrelevant for my approval job", i can tell that it would be a lot easier on the eyes if there were subforums.
essentially, i think this is a good idea, but doing it as some kind of magical shot-in-the-arm for all the semi-dead threads is not going to work. i believe it is a good idea because it makes the forum more organized, which improves efficiency and also slows the rate at which my eyes become more nearsighted.
the second reason is that a large portion of the "dead threads" are those with bad sets but not so bad that they are an outright rejection... and let's be honest who wants to test a set they think is shit? of course you do a few of them cause it's your non-paying and for-fun job and cause heysup is nagging you but when you have tons of other c&c "work", digging through every set in qc is not on the top of your agenda.
(also the number of qc approvers is kind of low but this isn't the best venue for discussing that)
a plus for individual forums that isn't addressed by those two points is aesthetics. this is actually pretty big imo. the forum is all jumbled up, and while subconsciously i sort threads into "relevant" and "interesting but irrelevant for my approval job", i can tell that it would be a lot easier on the eyes if there were subforums.
essentially, i think this is a good idea, but doing it as some kind of magical shot-in-the-arm for all the semi-dead threads is not going to work. i believe it is a good idea because it makes the forum more organized, which improves efficiency and also slows the rate at which my eyes become more nearsighted.
Great Sage
Banned deucer.
The most that I can agree with is a split into "OU" and "other tiers", because otherwise it literally would split up everything too much. Personally, I think the problem can be attributed to a plethora of sources. One is that the QC bureaucracy is a bit clunky. I've never been particularly involved in QC, so correct me if I'm wrong, but requiring 3 separate approvals seems quite taxing on the limited QC staff.
The problem is that UU is so much bigger than any of the other tiers that "OU" and "Other Tiers" would result in an easier time of it for OU only, while everyone else is stuck in a ridiculously oversized forum.
Also, 3 approvals is a majority decision, and while it may seem "clunky", it's the best way to make sure that at least half of the team has seen and approved of a set.
Also, 3 approvals is a majority decision, and while it may seem "clunky", it's the best way to make sure that at least half of the team has seen and approved of a set.
I agree with this as the 'extent' of what should theoretically happen. RMT works the same way, and it's arguably better than giving each tier its own forum for something like QC. Yeah, there's more UU than Ubers, but that won't mean that Ubers will get completely drowned out by the presence of UU. It's a good starting place, regardless, and if further splitting really is needed in the future, it can be done then.Great Sage said:
maybe it is just because I'm a "uu c&c person" but I see no reason for splitting the forum into OU and other.
I presume the reason that ou is the main forum in stark mountain is a combination of (a) OU is played the most on shoddy battle and is the standard tier for tournaments and whatnot (b) the main forum would not have much discussion without OU and that looks horrible for a metagame flagship forum (c) tradition.
none of those reasons apply in the QC forum. (a) UU is the most active tier in QC. out of all threads started on or after may 17th (the day phil made the "rules of qc" thread)... in the QC forum, there are 16 OU threads, 35 UU threads, 4 uber threads, and 10 LC threads. in their respective tier forums, there are 10 OU threads, 13 UU threads, 6 uber threads, and 19 LC threads. there have been 8 OU analyses, 9 UU analyses, 0 uber analyses (DEAD TIER LOL [jk]), and 7 LC analyses uploaded. (b) the second point is not very relevant since QC is not "supposed" to have the "prestige" that stark mountain has; plus, OU is not the most popular tier in QC (no tier dominates QC to the extent that OU dominates shoddy battle). (c) there is none.
C&C has a precedent for splitting forums up by tiers - because the tiers are relatively close to each other in activity and because it makes sense from a workflow perspective. I don't see a problem with a, say, uber QC subforum that has a low number of threads (just picking uber cause it has the least # of threads in QC currently)... it's not supposed to be a discussion heaven or what we point to when we tell people "look this is the heart of smogon pokemon discussion". it gets all the people who want to look at uber analyses to the right place and they don't have to subconsciously skim through tiers they don't care about.
to be clear I am advocating a full split into all the respective tiers. I guess these could all go under QC or we could make a QC subforum for every tier (the latter would require a bit of mod permissions fixing for QC people but nothing serious at all). I don't really have a preference for which way that goes.
re: more members. take... flareblitz for example. he wasn't on QC at the beginning of the program and he also wasn't a hotshot C&C contributor. but he is good at playing pokemon and also good at expressing his beliefs for why certain things should be the way they are. he posted in QC threads as a regular member then (I didn't decide this) I assume heysup/phil decided "hey this guy is smart and is contributing and we could use him - okay he's on the team!" no real application needed; just proof that he can do the job well. the rules for QC say that non-self-nominations are accepted too, so if a QC member doesn't "scout" you someone else can. I don't really know what such an application would entail anyways... I'd even argue that the most important part of QC is not phenomenal "traditional" pokemon skills but rather an amalgamation of open mindedness, pokemon skills, theorymon ability, activity, communication / logic / argumentation skills, etc... [also if we really wanna discuss the # of QC members a C&C thread is probably a better place for it since it has greater visibility for the target audience]
I presume the reason that ou is the main forum in stark mountain is a combination of (a) OU is played the most on shoddy battle and is the standard tier for tournaments and whatnot (b) the main forum would not have much discussion without OU and that looks horrible for a metagame flagship forum (c) tradition.
none of those reasons apply in the QC forum. (a) UU is the most active tier in QC. out of all threads started on or after may 17th (the day phil made the "rules of qc" thread)... in the QC forum, there are 16 OU threads, 35 UU threads, 4 uber threads, and 10 LC threads. in their respective tier forums, there are 10 OU threads, 13 UU threads, 6 uber threads, and 19 LC threads. there have been 8 OU analyses, 9 UU analyses, 0 uber analyses (DEAD TIER LOL [jk]), and 7 LC analyses uploaded. (b) the second point is not very relevant since QC is not "supposed" to have the "prestige" that stark mountain has; plus, OU is not the most popular tier in QC (no tier dominates QC to the extent that OU dominates shoddy battle). (c) there is none.
C&C has a precedent for splitting forums up by tiers - because the tiers are relatively close to each other in activity and because it makes sense from a workflow perspective. I don't see a problem with a, say, uber QC subforum that has a low number of threads (just picking uber cause it has the least # of threads in QC currently)... it's not supposed to be a discussion heaven or what we point to when we tell people "look this is the heart of smogon pokemon discussion". it gets all the people who want to look at uber analyses to the right place and they don't have to subconsciously skim through tiers they don't care about.
to be clear I am advocating a full split into all the respective tiers. I guess these could all go under QC or we could make a QC subforum for every tier (the latter would require a bit of mod permissions fixing for QC people but nothing serious at all). I don't really have a preference for which way that goes.
re: more members. take... flareblitz for example. he wasn't on QC at the beginning of the program and he also wasn't a hotshot C&C contributor. but he is good at playing pokemon and also good at expressing his beliefs for why certain things should be the way they are. he posted in QC threads as a regular member then (I didn't decide this) I assume heysup/phil decided "hey this guy is smart and is contributing and we could use him - okay he's on the team!" no real application needed; just proof that he can do the job well. the rules for QC say that non-self-nominations are accepted too, so if a QC member doesn't "scout" you someone else can. I don't really know what such an application would entail anyways... I'd even argue that the most important part of QC is not phenomenal "traditional" pokemon skills but rather an amalgamation of open mindedness, pokemon skills, theorymon ability, activity, communication / logic / argumentation skills, etc... [also if we really wanna discuss the # of QC members a C&C thread is probably a better place for it since it has greater visibility for the target audience]
It is pretty much as whistle said for the division of tiers (in terms of why it wouldn't make sense to do OU and Other only). I think the suggested division would be a good idea, specifically because each tier has a designated team, and that would make things easier for them, and really pull into light how much work they really have to do. I will support this and request it unless any other C&C mod objects. Again, please post here if you have any reservations, C&C mods!!!
After reading whistle's post and thinking it over a bit, I agree with you guys. It is probably better off to go with a complete split into respective categories, given that each tier has their own team and so forth. I also agree that there is definitely precedent for C&C being split into all respective tiers, given that that's how the analyses themselves are done. I support this full split, for what it's worth.
Fairly neutral, leaning towards in favor. We have a lot of subforums already in C&C and it would be good to try and avoid adding too many more, but I can see it would certainly help organization and make it easier to find analyses for specific tiers.
Edit: to clarify, splitting to OU+other tiers would not make sense. It's a full split or nothing.
Edit: to clarify, splitting to OU+other tiers would not make sense. It's a full split or nothing.
Supporting full split. Easier for bored people to test and slightly better for people to differentiate which sets actually belong in which tiers.
Alright, I have spoken with most of the C&C mods, and thy don't have any objections to this. I will speak to an admin to get this done when I see one (or if you're an admin and you're reading this, feel free to add the subforums ;P)
Great suggestion Megan Fox, thanks!
Great suggestion Megan Fox, thanks!
- Status