Thanks everyone who gave feedback! The turnout was lower this time, but that's OK.
Averages to 4.26 out of 5, which is considerably better than the result from the previous survey. We will try to keep this up.
In general, a similar result to the previous survey (though I did simplify this question a bit). Given the positive feedback to the rules update, we may need to incorporate other techniques to continue improving post quality. I think we should focus on editing posts to make them more presentable, and start "auditing" more old questions to bring them up to our more recent standards.
This gives me comfort that most people are happy with the tighter rules list and content standards.
None of the options captured more than half of all survey responders, which suggests we're not doing anything really badly. However, these results do give us a couple of areas to focus on. We'll talk about how we make genuine improvements those areas.
Positive result overall. We'll continue asking for feedback on the rules list as we keep trying to improve content standards.
Generally, our current practice is to close the questions if there is no reply to our request for clarity. It seems the majority of people agree with this. If we enforce this a touch more harshly, it may suit the 25%+ of people who would like the questions to be closed immediately.
Interesting result! Our current practice is to close the posts immediately. I think we will continue to do this, in light of the feedback below about low-quality teams.
This was one of the few areas not covered by the previous survey. It seems people agree with the current rule, so we'll leave it as is. I've warmed toward the idea of modding/hacking tools on the site, but it seems other people haven't.
Positive result overall, so we'll keep the rule as it is.
I included this mostly to contextualise the next question. Perhaps people find it interesting.
Most people think there has been some improvement, which is good to know. However, a lot of written feedback across the survey focuses on poor moderation on the chat room. This suggests that although there is movement in the right direction, the chat room is still not in a great place with moderation. We will need to bear this in mind with the next wave of content incoming via Scarlet/Violet.
A touch under 50% of people think there is a need for improvement, which is very useful information. This is a tricky issue to navigate, as our current rules are already harsh enough that we're closing above 70% of submitted teams.
Useful results to help us understand the response to the previous question. Would it help if we hid rule-breaking submissions faster? Currently, we leave them up for two days, but I feel this may be motivating responses like "low quality teams" and "clutter".
(To answer the question submitted in a response: Extremely unviable teams will be closed even if they have descriptions. However, good descriptions will make us much less likely to close the question, as there would be a logical explanation for the person's choices.)
It seems a second audit of the moveset questions is in order. We'll chat about how we want to approach this. Moving descriptions to the "required" category is a simple enough change, but to properly enact these rules (and the improved content standards that come with them), we'd need to do another full-scale review of all 500+ threads. I will aim to "communicate regularly" on how that is progressing. :)
Thanks also to everyone who gave written feedback. I will share all the contents of that with other staff, and we'll talk about how to address the issues and suggestions.