Hi! I did a “homemade” evaluation research about the past action collaboration! This was madein hope to help collaboration hosts to improve future action collaboration. Overall, too few people answered the survey to be able to draw conclusion from the data. Also, I’m especially good in this kind of stuff and I noticed a lot of mistakes after hand. That’s why I’ve been hesitating to publish this. Even though it’s not very reliable, I think people can still use this as reference material so I’m publishing it anyway. Apologies to people who’ve been waiting for this, and apologies for all the misses! Hope this helps anyone. Long text af! Download and read! P.S. Use these as reference material, not facts. Edit: The following is the Conclusions of the articlie. Posting it here for tl;dr. Please read the whole article for graphs and discussions. Conclusion The amount of answered surveys is insufficient to make much solid conclusions, but we can still use the gathered data as reference. The conclusions and data in this study could be used by future collaboration host as reference material only and not as facts. There is some variation but most of the answered subjects find action collaborations in general entertaining to watch. The kind of action collaboration that participants would mostly want to see/participate in are collaborations with interesting and original base concept that are different from the past collaborations. Future action collaborations should put more weight on interesting and original base concept that are different from the past collaborations. This category resembles 50% of the total collected answers. What seen as most lacking in entries are style originality and the will to experiment. Entries should put more weight on being creative and put more effort in their parts. More teamwork and further planning of the transitions between entries should be laid out before starting the animation process. The top three reasons that participants that joined the studied collaborations are: (1) Participants joined the collaboration because of the high reputation the collaboration possess, mostly because the collaboration are a sequel of another collaboration. (2) Participants joined a collaboration due to they have friends who participates as well. (3) Some people were asked by the host or other participants to join. Out of the collected results, it could be seen that the number of applied participants are almost double of the number of recruited participants. From what could be seen in this study, majority of the subjects finds that the past collaborations did live up to what they expect it to be. It could also be concluded that the participant’s expectations lie in the qualities of the entries since this is what most subjects used to express their opinion of the question. The result regarding the working time that participants spent on their entries are extremely vague and varied. The data are put into Figure Q.9 where hosts can use to estimate the time that a participant may need to finish their part. In general, if the time is spent productively, collaborations do not need more than half a year to finish. It should be put into consideration that these data are based on entries from past collaboration and the working time resemble the effort and quality of the past collaborations. Aside from participant’s lack of individual ability to animate, which is a factor that goes back in time, not spending enough time to be productive is the major factor that participants couldn’t make their entries better.