Preferential Treatment

[FireArrow]

late but...

Without a rule that just straight up limits the number of arrangements people can have per update, updaters will almost always get more arrangements out than the average user. It's not because of any self serving agenda or favoritism, it's mostly about convenience. And that's not really a problem... updaters don't get paid, why should they be expected to constantly practice a selfless work ethic to avoid potential privilege from their position? We only have a problem if they're abusing their position, which they aren't.

This is a community site. Don't look at updaters as employees, they're just arrangers more dedicated to NSM. Help the issue by dropping a bunch of feedback on other people as well? Expecting to be able to get out multiple arrangements in every update while expecting a bunch of volunteers do all the heavylifting just sounds entitled.

although tbh a 2 arrangements per update limit might be a good thing and help streamline the process

[JDMEK5]

late but...

^same. Forgive me this, but I do have a thought to add, since the topic came up. I don't mean to invoke response to this; I simply offer it for your consideration.

I know I'm hardly one to talk here (being as inactive as I have been, which I will not deny was almost definitely a relevant factor to this problem- for which I apologize), but even during my most active times as an updater, I found that the number of arrangements of my own that I worked on plummeted nearly to zero. Whenever I had time to consider arranging, I always felt that I should be prioritizing the reviewing of the already-completed sheets of others, and therefore I have submitted very very few arrangements since I became an updater. From the updater's perspective, I can tell you that it is daunting to see the list of submitted sheets at any given moment: as soon as the list is significantly cleared with an update, new submissions flood in to replace them, and it is easy to feel overwhelmed in the never-ending job that it is.

A last afterthought concerns special "arranging projects". They are cool, but they do take a lot of effort on the part of the updaters, which inevitably then detracts from attention to the regular submissions. I mean not to suggest that the projects need stop, but I think the ratio should always be carefully kept in check between projects and standard submission. I have had moments in the past where I felt that regular submissions were being neglected over the hype of a new project, and I'll be honest, that kind of temptation is hard to resist. But my thought is simply that this relationship ought to always be kept in check. If loyalty need be chosen between projects and regular submissions, I think it should be a clear vote for the regular subs; thus let it never be that they are neglected for cause of a more impromptu and specialized initiative like these projects.

[Khunjund]

late but...

Without a rule that just straight up limits the number of arrangements people can have per update, updaters will almost always get more arrangements out than the average user. It's not because of any self serving agenda or favoritism, it's mostly about convenience. And that's not really a problem... updaters don't get paid, why should they be expected to constantly practice a selfless work ethic to avoid potential privilege from their position? We only have a problem if they're abusing their position, which they aren't.

This is a community site. Don't look at updaters as employees, they're just arrangers more dedicated to NSM. Help the issue by dropping a bunch of feedback on other people as well? Expecting to be able to get out multiple arrangements in every update while expecting a bunch of volunteers do all the heavylifting just sounds entitled.

I understand that, since updaters are generally more skilled arrangers than regular submitters, as well as more active on the site, they're inherently going to get sheets uploaded more efficiently than most. It's not that I expect there to be no disparity whatsoever, but, as I said, a difference of 72 sheets to 6 was a bit more than I was willing to tolerate, especially since I'm one of the more active members on the site. There is indeed no salary tied to being an updater, but it's still a position of authority that comes with a set of responsibilities towards the site itself and towards the regular submitters. Updaters voluntarily sign up for the position, which is why I believe they should be fully expected to act on those responsibilities.

Regarding my own contribution, however, have you looked at the submission thread? I've given feedback on over half the arrangements (and I'm planning to go over most of the rest, when I have the time)—which is more than I can say for a number of people currently listed as active updaters. (That being said, I don't expect every udpater to be active all the time; I know life can bring about any number of situations which might require updaters to stop dedicating time to the site. Also, I know we're currently in a period of reduced activity, with a number of submitters taking some time to reply, etc.) I'm aware that there's always more I can do, but sometimes I ask myself if I'd need to outperform the entire team of updaters for people to realize that I am not, in fact, leaving others to do all the "heavy lifting".

I know I'm hardly one to talk here (being as inactive as I have been, which I will not deny was almost definitely a relevant factor to this problem—for which I apologize), but even during my most active times as an updater, I found that the number of arrangements of my own that I worked on plummeted nearly to zero. Whenever I had time to consider arranging, I always felt that I should be prioritizing the reviewing of the already-completed sheets of others, and therefore I have submitted very very few arrangements since I became an updater. From the updater's perspective, I can tell you that it is daunting to see the list of submitted sheets at any given moment: as soon as the list is significantly cleared with an update, new submissions flood in to replace them, and it is easy to feel overwhelmed in the never-ending job that it is.

That's the impression I got considering the results of the various updates I've witnessed. Whether it was intentional or not, it definitely didn't seem to me like the updaters' submission output was inversely proportional to the amount of feedback they gave. Also, I'd like to point out that I definitely wasn't pushing for updaters to give up their own work completely—one extreme is a bad as the other.

[FireArrow]

Eh, sorry NSM historically and still does have an issue with the title of "updater." Viewing the sheets we put up as anything but a community effort will always lead to issues - namely normal users feel less important than people with special badges and put in less effort, then the people with badges get burned out quickly from all the extra work put on them. The only reason this site still exists is because of people like Latios and Olimar who put in way more work than they should for so much longer than most people last, so when I see people complain directly towards/about them I feel the need to jump to their defense. I wrongly assumed things because you fell into the "disgruntled arranger" basket.

I'm still going to stand by the point I made. It's not preferential treatment, it's the symptom of a greater problem and trying to get the updater team to come up with a solution to some people not getting their fair share of arrangements on site is only going to result in a band-aid.