The Next Generation of Quality Control

Seven Deadly Sins

~hallelujah~
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
At the beginning of a generation, C&C always has issues dealing with the influx of new users, and often it means that we overcompensate for some of those issues. The past C&C term has seen the size and scope of QC balloon far past its original intention, and it's about time we bring QC back to its roots. This means a smaller, slimmer, more focused QC that puts more of the responsibility back in the writer's hands, and a renewal of the powerful moderating staff that kept C&C humming in earlier years. The result should be a more approachable C&C where the writer is more free to contribute their knowledge and experience to the Smogon Dex.

To help this change, we're implementing three key policies:

Trust the Writer

A lot of QC's issues recently have stemmed from an innate believe that those writing the analyses "don't get" what they're writing about, and that they need to be coddled. Most of the time, this isn't the case, and between huge rewrites and aggressive nitpicking, it can hurt enthusiasm about the process. Starting now, we're scaling back QC to a policy of implicit trust in the writer- unless it's obvious that a writer can't deliver us a solid analysis, or there's a significantly more qualified writer chafing at the bit to work on an analysis that was snapped up, QC will leave most of the work to the writer, and focus more on making their work shine. To that point, QC has three primary objectives:

  1. Assess the viability of a Pokemon or set. If the subject matter shouldn't go into the dex (no matter who writes it), it is REJECTED by the QC team and the analysis is shelved. Note that this is just an objective view of the Pokemon and of the sets posted. If none of the sets posted for a Pokemon are viable in the metagame, that Pokemon is eligible for rejection, but another user is free to bring up the Pokemon *as long as they have something novel to bring to the table*. Duplicates of already-rejected threads or sets are subject to immediate rejection by a member of the moderating staff, as well as a potential forum warning. Don't do it.
  2. Assess the ability of the writer to deliver a quality analysis. Some people are far more enthusiastic than they are skilled, and while we appreciate a level of enthusiasm, analyses are meant to be informative first, and sometimes people bite off a bit more than they can chew. it is QC's role to ensure that the right writer for the job is on the case. If there is any doubts as to the writer's ability, or if an enthusiastic and visibly more qualified writer appears, QC is tasked with bringing the matter to the moderation staff's notice so that they can make the final call. Note that the actual reassignment is the duty of the moderator, and the decision of whether or not to reassign falls squarely on their shoulders.
  3. Refine a set and help the writer deliver as quality an analysis as they can. Note that this doesn't mean that QC is tasked with rewriting entire sets and laying out every specific of an analysis. If a set is missing, it can be added later or in a separate thread. QC shouldn't be rewriting an entire analysis, and if it feels like it should, then the analysis should probably be reassigned. Note that this is, as always, up to moderator discretion- if you feel that something is on the borderline, feel free to contact me- i'll be around to resolve whatever needs input.

Reassign Early and Often

I want to stress that reassignment is not an apocalyptic situation, and it's not the worst thing that can happen to a Smogon C&C career. Reassignment is viewed as a worst-case scenario right now, when many of us think that it can be used more as a tool to ensure that the most qualified members are tasked with analyses that fit their skillset. The policy is always to trust the writer first, and this means that there is no bias against a new user that shows they are ready and capable. However, we know that it's easy for people to bite off more than they can chew and get a bit over-enthusiastic. The aim of this policy is to make reassignment less of a doomsday scenario, both by making it more common and also by directing users to mentoring when they get reassigned- it's not a rejection, it's an opportunity for improvement, and a recognition of the enthusiasm that a user has for contributing to C&C.

Reassignment is a moderator-only responsibility, and it is a QC member's job to let the moderators know when reassignment may be necessary (either through noticing issues with the analysis quality or by identifying a contributor that may be significantly more qualified than the current writer). It is the moderator's job to assess the situation and make the final call on whether or not to reassign the analysis. Moderators can also make regular C&C checks to identify problem analyses, and are not limited to exercising their powers only when prompted by QC.

Revise Early and Often

"Done" and "Uploaded" are not the end for a living document like the Smogon Pokedex, and with an ever-evolving metagame, nothing is ever truly finished. Badgeholders on Smogon have always had the ability to independently submit small revisions to the Pokedex when metagame shifts occur, or when they notice things that are just a bit out of place, like the order of slashes on an analysis, or an inefficient EV spread, or a new speed benchmark that a Pokemon should aim for in order to address specific threats. Larger changes can always be submitted via revamps, partial revamps, or new sets for an analysis, if a change needs more eyes on it. The third part of this reorganization is a call for anyone viewing the Pokedex or the written-but-not-uploaded analyses to put in their two cents if they feel they have something to add to the analysis. Site Staff are always on hand to filter the changes, but for the most part anything sane will be accepted by the staff. So no matter who you are, if you spot something you think you can improve, feel free to let us know, either through a SCMS update for Badgeholders or a post in the Small Subjective / Objective Changes threads in the base forum of any generation.

Conclusion

These changes should help streamline C&C and make it a bit more approachable in the time before the new Dex officially goes online. In the meantime, we hope that these changes make it simpler and easier for everyone to jump into C&C and make magic happen. This update also comes with a revised QC team: you can check the stickied Quality Control Team thread in the OU forum for more details.

To those who are no longer on the QC team: this is not a reflection on your quality or dedication, and when the time comes to add new QC members to the team, special consideration will be given to anyone who had QC status before the

TL;DR:

Quality Control Duties:
  • Gauge the viability of a Pokemon or set in the OU metagame, and reject sets that are not viable
  • Gauge the ability of the writer to deliver a quality analysis / set for the Pokemon
  • Refine the analysis / set, helping the writer polish their submission and making it the best that it can be

Moderator Duties:
  • Reassign analyses in cases where the writer is unqualified or there is a more qualified individual willing to write the analysis
  • Resolve disputes between users and QC members
  • Perform final content / writing check before an analysis is uploaded (but after it receives all QC and GP checks)

Overall Announcements:
  • QC Stamps are returning to 2 Skeleton, 1 Written
  • QC Team has been shuffled, check the QC Team thread for a new list of members
  • Reassignment will come with an express recommendation for mentoring
  • Once the Dex is up and running, badgeholders are encouraged to make revisions to analyses directly if they see any issues. Non-badgeholders can, as always, suggest changes via the Small Subjective / Objective Changes threads in Sixth Generation Contributions.
 

Colonel M

I COULD BE BORED!
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnus
This topic is open to discuss things and ask questions civilly. One more "is this a joke post" and I will see to it you get something more than just a simple "lurk more". You know who you are and I am not afraid to dole out punishment as of late. You have been warned.

(I will likely delete this post in a few days - I'm just laying the ground straight).
 
I know this is kind of an awkward question but... why were so many people cut from the QC team? I would guess due to inactivity or something, but you kept Dice/CrashingBoomBang so... I mean the people who were cut obviously had serious knowledge of the metagame, too. I guess I'm just wondering because you give no explanation in your post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nog

Seven Deadly Sins

~hallelujah~
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
With significantly scaled back responsibilities for QC, we wanted to scale things back to a much smaller QC group. A number of criteria were used, including both public (C&C posts) and private (internal QC messaging) communication. Obviously with a smaller team there will be significantly increased scrutiny on all members to be active, and inactive members will be replaced whenever it becomes clear that it is necessary.
 

Srn

Water (Spirytus - 96%)
is an official Team Rateris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Top Tiering Contributor
OUPL Champion
If an analysis has 3/4 checks, since we're scaling back to 3 now, would that mean that the analysis is all set? Or should those specific analyses just remain at 3/4 and require one more check?
Would there be any difference if the analysis is at 3/4 and not written up or at 3/4 and written up?
 

AccidentalGreed

Sweet and bitter as chocolate.
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnus
If an analysis has 3/4 checks, since we're scaling back to 3 now, would that mean that the analysis is all set? Or should those specific analyses just remain at 3/4 and require one more check?
Would there be any difference if the analysis is at 3/4 and not written up or at 3/4 and written up?
Not necessarily. If a thread like, say, Gardevoir has 3/4 checks but isn't completely written yet, it still needs to be written up and require one more check. Technically, it isn't "all set."

And yeah, there's still a difference, as QC still needs to overlook what has been written THEN finally approve it. It's great of you for asking, though!
 
I don't know if this is the right place to post it, but why are the Analyses so different this Gen than from the past?

Ignoring the new layout and things like that (because I know those may not be final), but I feel like the analyses are more "dumbed down" than they were in general. Saying things like "Choice Scarf helps to outspeed many other Pokemon in the same speed tier"-- Well duh. Never saw statements like that in previous generations.

I notice that having distinct sections of analysis for a moveset is making it sound kind of forced. Like the writers feel like they have to explain every small detail. Taking Whimsicott, for example, because that's where I just was. We read about Encore under "moves." But if someone didn't know what Encore did, they could click it and read that. But fine, it's there. Then we read about it again under usage tips. I see this a lot on different Pokemon and I think this structure just lends itself to massive reptition.

And just statements like "Heatran and Whimsicott form a good defensive core." You're going to explain to the user how to use Encore and Stun Spore, but assume they know what constitutes a good defensive core? Specifics in places where they're needed.

The previous (unwritten) layout from Gen5 of overview/playstyle, EV/nature analysis, team options-- for each moveset seemed to be much more efficient and less choppy. This is just my immediate feedback and I hope I'm not being offensive or putting it in the wrong place..
 

CyclicCompound

is a bicycle person thing
is a Contributor Alumnus
Hi jbozz1217. I'll try my best to respond to your concerns.
Ignoring the new layout and things like that (because I know those may not be final), but I feel like the analyses are more "dumbed down" than they were in general. Saying things like "Choice Scarf helps to outspeed many other Pokemon in the same speed tier"-- Well duh. Never saw statements like that in previous generations.
I'll agree with you that a statement like that should be obvious, and I'm pretty sure it would be defined as "fluff," something we tell writers not to put in their analyses. On the other hand, statements such as "Choice Scarf allows Excadrill to outspeed and revenge kill faster attackers like Mega Charizard X and Greninja" is not fluff because it gives the user a relevant, specific scenario in which the item would work. If it's anything that's the former, though, I personally try to look out for such bad generalizations in the analyses I check but other QC members might not because I think that's mostly GP's job.
I notice that having distinct sections of analysis for a moveset is making it sound kind of forced. Like the writers feel like they have to explain every small detail. Taking Whimsicott, for example, because that's where I just was. We read about Encore under "moves." But if someone didn't know what Encore did, they could click it and read that. But fine, it's there. Then we read about it again under usage tips. I see this a lot on different Pokemon and I think this structure just lends itself to massive reptition.
It's true that some things will inevitably be repeated - on a Pokemon like Skarmory you'll probably find something about hazard removal in most of the paragraphs. However, while the information may be repetitive, I'd argue that it's not redundant because each section focuses on a different aspect. To use my Skarmory example again, Defog in Moves would focus primarily on why the move is chosen and how it stands in relation to other possible moves. Defog in Set Details would focus primarily on when the move should be used and how. Defog in Team Options would focus primarily on what teammates appreciate that move's effect. While you will end up reading some of the same information again, it is necessary because each section serves a different focus and to lump it all together can get messy sometimes.
And just statements like "Heatran and Whimsicott form a good defensive core." You're going to explain to the user how to use Encore and Stun Spore, but assume they know what constitutes a good defensive core? Specifics in places where they're needed.
To respond to one of your points, yes, we're going to explain to the user how to use Encore and Stun Spore. They may be obvious to seasoned players but newer players can always use a little more help with basic strategy. When it comes to defensive cores, however, you're either going to give them the simple explanation (their typing complements each other, etc.) or the long explanation (the definition of a defensive core and how it's utilized). We try to encourage the former in our analyses, and I try to make a point of telling authors to elaborate on ones that aren't blatantly obvious. The latter is impossible to define in the length of an analysis, not to mention it would probably require its own article. But for the former I usually like to see at least a simple justification, and usually tell people to elaborate in my QC checks if they're not being clear enough as to why something is a good teammate. However, note that in some cases just saying "defensive synergy" is enough if the topic of synergy has already been elaborated upon shortly before where it was mentioned, such as in Usage Tips. That helps prevent against outright redundancy, which you would probably support based on your second concern.
The previous (unwritten) layout from Gen5 of overview/playstyle, EV/nature analysis, team options-- for each moveset seemed to be much more efficient and less choppy. This is just my immediate feedback and I hope I'm not being offensive or putting it in the wrong place..
It may have been less choppy, yes, but this is a far more organized way of writing, and from my perspective, I think it's actually more efficient because it makes it very clear for both the writer and the reader what exactly is being discussed. This could be part personal preference - I myself like to read more structured things, yet I'm sure there are people who might prefer a more freestyle conveyance. However, I think the new format not only allows writers to include more information by giving them clear space to put said information, but also make it easier for people to absorb the information because it's laid out in a common format with clear categories. It also makes it easier to find specific information about some set, which I feel was also a problem in Gen V - sometimes you had to read through a full set description just to find support options or something else like that.

I hope I could resolve most of your concerns, my apologies for the very long response but I wanted to make sure you and everyone else can be as comfortable as possible with the new analysis format.

If there's any concerns you have with an analysis quality- or content-wise, feel free to bring it up on #xyqc or in the reservation thread. There is also this thread to bring up things that won't require a revamp but that must be addressed anyway.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top