Dear Me, Will this go well?

[Vzearr]

Introduction
The current state of the wiki’s calculations is in shambles. Every day, there’s a new downgrade thread with bunk calculations from a random verse.


Why is this happening? Because CGMs have been accepting bad calculations. Now, I’m not saying they did it out of ignorance regarding how to calculate things properly, I just believe most of ''us'' have gotten lazy and started accepting incorrect calcs, whether from only glancing at them briefly or missing key details in formula's and logic.

---

Proposition

All calculations should require the approval of two Calc Group Members before being considered valid.


Why? Because it adds more credibility to calculations and reduces the chances of them being debunked later in threads.


Not only would this save staff time dealing with debunk requests, but it would also benefit the wiki in other ways.


I’ve reviewed hundreds of calcs from different verses, and they almost always have at least one debunk, even my favorite verse (Tokyo Revengers) isn’t exempt from this.


This problem won’t go away until we take action.


I’m open to other propositions.

 

[Damage3245]

I don't know if this will truly solve the issue. I've seen some calcs that have been evaluated and accepted by multiple calc group members and still contained errors within them.

I think there are a few easily enforceable changes to calc blogs that we could implement to offer some slight improvements to the process:

1) A calc blog should not cover multiple separate calcs in the same blog. If calcs are linked, then it's fine to include them together. I.e. calculating the speed of an object and then calculating the K.E. of it. But don't include different calcs that are unrelated. Oftentimes this bloats calc blogs. Keep a blog focused, and it is easier to both evaluate and spot errors with a specific calc.

2) A calc blog requires an explanation section at the top that precedes calculation of the feat. Don't just link to a scan of the feat, explain what you think is happening and what you're calculating in a few sentences. It'll make it easier to grasp the context and evaluate.

 

[KLOL506]

Some of these rules are already in place. Others I am not sure will solve the issue.

Besides, there is already a thread like this aiming to enforce standards in our calculations.

@Agnaa @Mr. Bambu @DontTalkDT @DMUA @CloverDragon03 @Therefir @Migue79 @Dark-Carioca @Executor_N0 @Dalesean027 @Armorchompy @SeijiSetto @DemiiPowa @Flashlight237 @SunDaGamer @Psychomaster35

 

[Antvasima]

Although this seems to be a good idea in theory, it is unfortunately also likely not realistic with our quite limited available staff time resources, given that most calculation blogs do not seem to receive evaluations already.

 

[Vzearr]

Although this seems to be a good idea in theory, it is unfortunately also likely not realistic with our quite limited available staff time resources, given that most calculation blogs do not seem to receive evaluations already.

I believe that there is a way to fix this, although it'll be controversial.

 

[Antvasima]

I cannot force unpaid volunteer workers to work harder than they already do, although our community does need significant sum total collective help in order to function properly.

 

[Vzearr]

I cannot force unpaid volunteer workers to work harder than they already do, although our community does need significant sum total collective help in order to function properly.

I'd love to add to the help, and put more workload on myself as I don't have university till next year.

But that's not an option.

What is an option is potentially making staff recruitments happen more often?

 

[Antvasima]

We are already doing that. One staff recruitment drive has just finished, and two other ones will hopefully follow, but we also need quite a lot of sufficiently good suggestions to fill ourt and initiate our staff recruitment surveys.

 

[DMUA]

All calculations should require the approval of two Calc Group Members before being considered valid.

We toss out calc group membership to so many people that I don't think this would even solve the problem

At best it would make people get so belligerent they annoy people out of bothering, I feel

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah, I don't think this thread is striking at anything too useful.

 

[FinePoint]

Although this seems to be a good idea in theory, it is unfortunately also likely not realistic with our quite limited available staff time resources, given that most calculation blogs do not seem to receive evaluations already.

I could foresee a reasonable compromise where more evaluations are needed if the calculation itself is relevant to a lot of characters or otherwise controversial or complex.

Otherwise, I concur that this would just strain an already struggling system.

 

[KLOL506]

I could foresee a reasonable compromise where more evaluations are needed if the calculation itself is relevant to a lot of characters or otherwise controversial or complex.

Still doesn't really fix the issue at hand, or the other issues I have mentioned in the other thread I just linked. Also good luck with some calc members outright refusing to evaluate certain verses due to being annoyed to the point of belligerence, like DMUA said.

 

[Vzearr]

Still doesn't really fix the issue at hand, or the other issues I have mentioned in the other thread I just linked. Also good luck with some calc members outright refusing to evaluate certain verses due to being annoyed to the point of belligerence, like DMUA said.

Isn't it kind of your job to evaluate calculations?

In the kindest way, cgms shouldn't be refusing to evaluate certain verses because it's inherently their job.

Don't take this as disrespect. I mean it in the kindest way.

 

[KLOL506]

CGMs also reserve the right and obligation to reject calculations or outright refuse to evaluate them as they see fit. Not something you can really force them into doing all the time given how much workload we already deal with, especially the low-quality calculations roaming about, and that we demand a higher standard for them. Even our most esteemed CGMs who are high-ranking admins and bureaucrats will outright refuse to evaluate calcs and CRTs from certain verses solely due to their hatred for the verse itself.

 

[KLOL506]

In any case, this thread seems to have been largely rejected by most staff present, and there seems to be no point in prolonging it any further.

@FinePoint You can close it down if you wish.