PDA

View Full Version : Queue System (MUST READ)



MikeDecIsHere
04-05-2011, 04:21 PM
This forum will now be implementing a Queue system to make sure that all fifth generation analyses are of a high quality so they can be implemented on the main site. All analyses posted in this section must undergo the Quality Control system, from the Quality Control phase to being ready to be uploaded on the site.

There are four phases of the Queue System:


Work in Progress


When in this stage, the abbreviation "WIP" must be placed at the end of the title.
This phase is when the autor is working on the skeleton.
The author may use this phase as a way of reserving the thread, making sure that members of the Queue team are aware that it is being worked on
This phase is not necessary to doing the analysis.


Quality Control


When in stage, the abbreviation "QC (0/3)" must be placed at the end of the title
Members of the Quality Control team will look at the analysis and either give their approval or tell you to make changes.
If a member gives a suggestion, do not get snappy with them. Either make the edit or explain with reason why their suggestion is invalid.
Make a few comments on the sets so that the QC team can see what the sets do. It also shows us that you know how the sets are played and are not simply regurgitating information back at us.
The analysis needs three QC approvals to move on to the next stage. For every approval, the title needs to be edited to reflect how many approvals the analysis has gotten. For example, two QC approvals would be shown as "QC (2/3)" in the title
The writer may begin to write the analysis at this point, but it is not recommended, since some sets or EV spreads may change while you are writing.

Grammar Editing

When the analysis has recieved three QC approvals, the analysis goes into the Grammar Editing phase. This is indicated by having the suffix "GE (0/1)" at the end of the title.
At this point, the user must write out the analysis. Every detail about the set must be included. However, this does not mean to make it redundant or extremely wordy.
Once the analysis is completely written, a member of the Grammar Editing team will review what you have wrote and make some edits. When you have made the edits, the analysis will move on to the next phase.

Done

When the Grammar Edits have been made, the analysis is completed. At this point, any suffix should be removed. The title should simply state "Pokemon Analysis"
Members of the QC team will make some final comments, and the analysis will be ready to go on the final site.



The following are members of the Quality Control Team:

Ciele
DC
DDWhiscash
Eevee
Eternal
Kuja20
Lovat
MikeDecIsHere
Steel Dragons
Tony32
Wilson46


The following are members of the Grammar Editing team:

Lovat
MikeDecIsHere
SilentDreams


A few notes for the Quality Control team:

Please don't be rude to writers. I know it can be frustrating sometimes, but the writers are working really hard for the good of the site. Being rude isn't necessary.
You cannot QC your own analysis
If you're making edits, please don't simply list the changes you want. Give reasons as to why the changes should be made. This hasn't been a problem, but it should be stated.


If you are interested in being a member of the Grammar editing team, please feel free to PM me along with a copy of your writing. If it passes the standard, then you can become a member.
Also, if there is a user that you feel should be a member of the QC team or have a problem with one of the members of the QC team, please PM myself, Steel Dragons, or Tony32 and we will discuss it.

For the QC and GE approval stamps:

QC approval stamp:
http://i54.tinypic.com/wbax50.png

GE approval stamp:
http://i53.tinypic.com/m7tcnr.png

MikeDecIsHere
04-11-2011, 12:50 AM
unlocking so people realize that this exists.

lapras6666
04-11-2011, 06:06 AM
I can't understand why this has so little views. You should put something like (PLEASE READ) so that people know the "steps" of an analysis.

Ciele
04-11-2011, 11:56 AM
Wait - I'm a member of the QC team? When did this happen?

MikeDecIsHere
04-11-2011, 12:31 PM
Wait - I'm a member of the QC team? When did this happen?

Whenever I first posted this

Tony32
04-12-2011, 02:09 AM
Wait - I'm a member of the QC team? When did this happen?

If you don't want to be part of the team, just say so.

MikeDecIsHere
04-12-2011, 02:12 AM
If you don't want to be part of the team, just say so.

I don't think that he meant it like that -_-

SilentDreams
04-12-2011, 03:09 AM
Wait - I'm a member of the QC team? When did this happen?

No worries, I didn't get the memo for a while after this was posted either xD

Tony32
04-12-2011, 03:32 AM
I don't think that he meant it like that -_-

I realize that Mike. I'm just putting it out there.

Kuja20
04-12-2011, 10:42 AM
Quite pleased to see something like this in action. Now we can ensure that only quality analyses get passed through.

Ciele
04-12-2011, 11:47 AM
I realize that Mike. I'm just putting it out there.
I think that I realise what you mean by that...

Anyway, I'll continue for a little while.

steel dragons
04-15-2011, 01:01 PM
Ok, I'm becoming a member of the grammar editing team.

MikeDecIsHere
04-18-2011, 03:42 PM
Ok, I'm becoming a member of the grammar editing team.

Right now I don't think that you should be a member of the Grammar Editing team.

The first reason is that you don't follow the format, and you are being incredibly stubborn when we are telling you to change it, something that a grammar editor should not do.

Edit: The second reason is that you added yourself without consulting any of the other members of the Grammar Editing team to see if you were approved (adding this to avoid confusion)

For now I am removing you from the team. If you have an issue with this, then PM me, or simply stop being so stubborn and listen to our suggestions.

Lovat
04-18-2011, 05:01 PM
mod fights!

lapras6666
04-18-2011, 05:08 PM
mod fights!

lol

Dimes
04-18-2011, 11:17 PM
ohhhh snap

but no really we do need to follow the format, but mike, no need to put everything into your hands.

SilentDreams
04-18-2011, 11:30 PM
ohhhh snap

but no really we do need to follow the format, but mike, no need to put everything into your hands.

Actually, I'm pretty sure Mike did this because Steel added himself without asking, it didn't really have anything to do with the format issue. Just because someone is a mod doesn't mean they have a good grasp of grammar, and Steel just added himself without giving anyone a chance to check to see if he has the grammar skills required of a grammar editor.

MikeDecIsHere
04-18-2011, 11:32 PM
Actually, I'm pretty sure Mike did this because Steel added himself without asking, it didn't really have anything to do with the format issue. Just because someone is a mod doesn't mean they have a good grasp of grammar, and Steel just added himself without giving anyone a chance to check to see if he has the grammar skills required of a grammar editor.

This

Dimes
04-18-2011, 11:34 PM
Actually, I'm pretty sure Mike did this because Steel added himself without asking, it didn't really have anything to do with the format issue. Just because someone is a mod doesn't mean they have a good grasp of grammar, and Steel just added himself without giving anyone a chance to check to see if he has the grammar skills required of a grammar editor.

He's also one of the only people that gives a **** about it.

but that said, he still shouldn't have added himself.

SilentDreams
04-18-2011, 11:39 PM
He's also one of the only people that gives a **** about it.

but that said, he still shouldn't have added himself.

One of the few people who gives a **** about grammar? Not sure that's really a fair assessment...

PSN_Eevee
04-19-2011, 01:00 AM
Ok, I'm becoming a member of the grammar editing team.

10/10 post easily

edit; also try that on smogon, steel

steel dragons
05-10-2011, 11:57 AM
Mike (and everyone else), do you want to change the QC voting requirements to 2 QC votes instead of three? This would make the analysis approving process faster. Also, on smogon, those analyses only require 2 QC votes also.

Also, keep in mind that not all of the QCers are active on many parts of the day either.

SilentDreams
05-10-2011, 03:06 PM
Mike (and everyone else), do you want to change the QC voting requirements to 2 QC votes instead of three? This would make the analysis approving process faster. Also, on smogon, those analyses only require 2 QC votes also.

Also, keep in mind that not all of the QCers are active on many parts of the day either.

Even though it's slower, I think keeping it at 3 would actually be a good idea. Some of the analyses that are currently in the QC stage have had changes made to them with each QC, so eliminating one of the QCs might also eliminate important changes and ultimately lower the quality of the analysis.

The analyses are there for people to view whether they've been approved or not, so I don't think it's hurting anything or anyone to have to wait a while for the final QC rating.

lapras6666
05-10-2011, 03:31 PM
Even though it's slower, I think keeping it at 3 would actually be a good idea. Some of the analyses that are currently in the QC stage have had changes made to them with each QC, so eliminating one of the QCs might also eliminate important changes and ultimately lower the quality of the analysis.

The analyses are there for people to view whether they've been approved or not, so I don't think it's hurting anything or anyone to have to wait a while for the final QC rating.

Agree.

Eos
05-10-2011, 07:32 PM
Pertaining on whether 2 or 3 checks should be the best: It should depend on how good of an analysis it is, and how much work the analysis needs after two. If the second reader thinks it would be beneficial for a third check, then that would be the best option; but in my opinion, some people write very good analyses and don't need the third check.
Due to most people not being perfect grammatical nazi's, in most cases it would be beneficial to have a third check though (or so I think). Although, I'm not on the GE team, so what does my opinion matter as much? :p

Agreed Eevee, lol.

steel dragons
05-10-2011, 07:50 PM
Pertaining on whether 2 or 3 checks should be the best: It should depend on how good of an analysis it is, and how much work the analysis needs after two. If the second reader thinks it would be beneficial for a third check, then that would be the best option; but in my opinion, some people write very good analyses and don't need the third check.
Due to most people not being perfect grammatical nazi's, in most cases it would be beneficial to have a third check though (or so I think). Although, I'm not on the GE team, so what does my opinion matter as much? :p

Agreed Eevee, lol.

Thats true. I feel that some analyses don't need the third check now, but thats me. Also, there is a grammar editing phaze also, and the QC votes are only supposed to be based on the analysis content itself, not the grammatical aspect.

lapras6666
05-10-2011, 08:10 PM
I think that we should make a "Analyses which want QC checks thread".

There is about 10 analyses which are in QC phase and get nearly no attencion whatsoever. Basically, you post that analysis and the QCers would see it.
I think that if this idea gets done, we should force QCers to be subscribed to that thread.

This would make the process much quicker.

steel dragons
05-10-2011, 10:06 PM
The majority of the QCers don't seem to be very active right now, however. As far as I can tell, the only active QCers seem to be me and Mike. Obviously, since an analysis needs three QC votes in order to go to the next phaze, this could present a problem.

What are your thoughts on this idea though? I think that it could work. (I'm referring to Lapras' previous post)

MikeDecIsHere
05-10-2011, 10:54 PM
@ Steel, the name should be different, but I agree that we could have that thread. I might simply have Eternal change the tags around, so that they say WIP, Quality Control, Grammar Editing, and Done. This way, it would be easier to group the analyses by phase.


Although, I'm not on the GE team, so what does my opinion matter as much? :p

Your opinion always matters Eos. Don't be like that bro <3

PSN_Eevee
05-11-2011, 12:28 AM
I still don't get why steel's on the QC team.

Also nominating this to be the QC stamp:

http://i51.tinypic.com/281bl9g.png

steel dragons
05-11-2011, 12:08 PM
I still don't get why steel's on the QC team.



Why not Eevee? I'm just curious.

lapras6666
05-11-2011, 04:10 PM
I still don't get why steel's on the QC team.

Also nominating this to be the QC stamp:

http://i51.tinypic.com/281bl9g.png

lolz a the stamp. NO.

SilentDreams
05-12-2011, 04:40 PM
I still don't get why steel's on the QC team.

Also nominating this to be the QC stamp:

http://i51.tinypic.com/281bl9g.png

I just died a little on the inside.

MikeDecIsHere
05-17-2011, 05:26 PM
I have taken the liberty of creating a QC approval and GE approval stamp. They're not creative, but meh idc. I will edit them into the OP but for now they are here:

QC approval stamp:

http://i54.tinypic.com/wbax50.png

GE approval stamp:

http://i53.tinypic.com/m7tcnr.png

Tony32
05-17-2011, 05:27 PM
cool beans.

steel dragons
05-17-2011, 05:36 PM
Those stamps are fine Mike.

DC
06-03-2011, 05:41 AM
ok so i got time and i can do this easily so if you wanna go ahead and put me on that QC team dooo itttt. no GE checks im portuguese me no speak el ingles!

Edit: Eevee's stamp is obv better than mike's. j/s

MikeDecIsHere
06-03-2011, 05:47 AM
I was thinking of putting DC on the QC team anyway.

Welcome DC.

BTW, we're using my stamp ;)

Dimes
06-03-2011, 08:33 PM
You should probably fix up the QCer list. Wilson shouldn't really be on, and as much as I love DD, he just came back and said it himself that he hasn't played for a while.

steel dragons
10-11-2011, 02:30 PM
Ok, the QCer list should be updated soon, and the stamps (originally made for team uber) should be updated as well. I don't have the skills to update the stamp, so if someone else could do that, that would be appreciated.

If you want to be a QC checker or a GE checker, please let me know via PM. You could also PM mike, but he hasn't been on too much.

SilentDreams
10-11-2011, 09:00 PM
Steel, I think we need to figure out who is actually willing to continue doing the QC checks before we continue with this system. If we don't have enough people, then we're going to need to come up with another system. And by enough people, I mean people who are actually active, knowledgeable, and willing to dedicate the time to checking each analysis.

steel dragons
10-12-2011, 02:41 AM
Ok, so we basically want to find out who is actually willing to QC check analyses, both new and old, and if the system can still work. I know that me and you, SilentDreams, can still do that to a degree, but I'm not sure about the others. Obviously, some people like Wilson, Lovat, and Dimes probably won't do that now, so again, we need to figure this out.

I also posted another place to just post analyses for sets, and they could be used in later analyses.

SilentDreams
10-12-2011, 10:37 AM
Yeah I'm just going to go through the grammar on every analysis before deeming it finished, just to be safe. No sense in putting together a grammar team since I have the spare time to do it myself. That way we won't run into our previous problem of people just plain not doing the checks anymore. What we really need is people who are good with content. Preferably people who battle a lot, test sets out, know what works and what doesn't and why, etc.

That's a good idea on the post about the sets. Hopefully people will be willing to post them so we can get more of the analyses completed.

DDwhiscash
10-12-2011, 10:55 PM
Yeah I'm just going to go through the grammar on every analysis before deeming it finished, just to be safe. No sense in putting together a grammar team since I have the spare time to do it myself. That way we won't run into our previous problem of people just plain not doing the checks anymore. What we really need is people who are good with content. Preferably people who battle a lot, test sets out, know what works and what doesn't and why, etc.

That's a good idea on the post about the sets. Hopefully people will be willing to post them so we can get more of the analyses completed.

Suggestion. Have sign ups for new analyzers. Even the current ones have to register for this. So that way we can pick out the active and skilled and also rank out the people who need to test more.

Zaidon
11-30-2011, 10:26 PM
Made a mistake. Can someone check my Sableye analysis please? Didn't know that this thread exists.