The Progarchives site

Dean wrote: There is no limit on the number of Prog Reviewers.

you can say that again    ..I'm joking, of course

as to teams expansion, in addition to what Dean said there are also other important things; knowledge, experience, chemistry with other teammates, time, drive, interest in a particular genre...

I'll respond in lilac within the quotes...

zafreth wrote: Dean wrote: you appear to have miss-quoted the quotes Alberto I've fixed it to avoid confusion... zafreth wrote: Dean wrote: Ricochet wrote: 1. Collaborators have the priority of adding bands   Ok but sometimes they do not have the time to adding bands quickly examples, i ask to be added Humus and is more than a month and no signs of they, other example Macromassa. i think that the Admin team have to do more work of supervision of how is working a team. Some teams are quite lazy Where and how did you recommend Humus and Macrommasa.  I recall the names, but didn't find your recommendations in a search.   Other suggestions of yours have gone swimmingly with the evaluation process (sometimes though the evaluation does go on behind the scenes and updates of progress are not always done in Suggest New Bands. I know that your suggestion of Neuronium was recently added. Some team members are very busy with other things, and absent. Please bear in mind that this is a collaborative site and all the team members are volunteers, they work at the speed their free-time allows them.   I understand that of course, but a couple of interal rules or lineages of work can improve the speed. I think that ALL of us and i mean admins mods, collaborators, reviewers, etc. work in this site for love but also for compromise, in my case i try to collaborate as far my work let me do. We're all busy with other things (collaborate as much, and sometimes moreso, as our work/ other responsibilities allow).   Just suggesting a band is no guarantee that they will be added -   I know that, but   suggesting a band is an act of someone that found prog elements on a certain band, what i see is that suggestions that made collaborators and reviewers are more fast to add that all the mayorty of the regular members, but is a kind of discriminating act, don't you think??, for example i have more than 7,000 cd's of music that contains prog, jazz, rock, etc., but recently i star to involve more in the forum, that's my collection of almost 22 years, (and i have 34 years old ), i know many bands of all the countries that many of the prog reviewers do not know, and don't get me wrong with that, but is an example that you should evaluate periodically your team, and a little of more control don't damage the site and you can see many good results with that.  Often faster to add for several reasons: A collaborator/ review is more likely to prepare the addition him/herself (I do find it to be very time consuming).  I've seen quite a few cases where a proposer was asked if they could prepare the suggestion for addition and didn't respond.  I also find often that suggesters don't follow-up, or even respond to comments about the suggestion, or even say a simple thank you quite often for a response.  Too often there is an expectation that collabs should do all the work, and more likely that there will gripes if additions don't go quickly or smoothely, than thanks for all the effort.  Plus, collabs/reviewers are often more helpful when it comes to providing the material for evaluation.  For instance, we need music to listen to, but often not even a myspace (if available) page is provided, so a collab has to track that down (the more thorough the suggestion, the more likely it will be evaluated quickly) -- providing links to music samples is a fairly minimal requirement. And of course one should try to suggest a category.  Additionally, collabs/ reviewers are more likely to notify team members about a suggestion, and follow-up on the addition process.  They have an advantage becuase they have access to team threads where the real work of evaluation goes on, but it would be simple for a suggester to PM team members if the suggestion is missed (even if the topic topic is celarly labelled with potential categories, team members my miss it.  I try to notify teams of threads no matter what category is proposed (and listen for myself).   the bands have to be evaluated by the respective teams before they are added, and to do that they have to track down representative samples of the bands music, also most teams will not add a band without a biography and discography... all these things take time.   Of Course but (my eternal but...) if you search well, you can found results very quickly and if you want try me It's good if you're willing to do the leg-work, but one problem is that suggester's often do not do the leg-work themselves.  It's helpful when the suggester offers to prepare the addition (bear in mind that collabs are already very busy as is with work that goes on here, as well as lives outside the site).  The thing is to make it easier.  Not always are results easy, and can be very time consuming.  I am behind on writing bios/ preparing additions for my suggestions that have been approved, but each addition I have prepared has taken me considerable hours which I can only do late at night because of distractions (writing a biography in my own words with my own personality -- not just paraphrasing others, and getting and inputting the relevant info).   zafreth wrote: Dean wrote: Ricochet wrote: 2. Prog reviewers don't have the strict obligation of posting reviews more than they were awarded the distinction thanks to the merit of having written good reviews - but still it would be also abberant to picture a Prog Reviewer not reviewing at all.   Please check this: http://www.progarchives.com/Collaborators.asp?id=9206 that picture already exists!!!! 3. Sub-genres business, when discussed, involves Admins, the Webmaster and Collaborators altogether (and I'd add the forum was sometimes consulted too) - but, as a priority, except perhaps the multi-tagging issue (still, not even this one perhaps), it was never one   And members who were the mayority of these site 5. Focus on reviewing - was almost never a priority. Everyone reviews when they want (and the ideal would also be when they're ready to review - but let's not diverge into that...).   Agree with that point!!!!     I should also add that the number of people reviewing albums is far greater than the number of people adding bands,   Of course  that's because the admins are quite reluctant to add more people to the prog reviewer status or collaborator status.  See the site have more than 20,000 members, and do you think that you can hadle with the current Admin team and collaborator team??      which in turn is far greater than the number of people expanding or simplifying the sub genres - so the priorities are effectively set by the number of people involved in each activity. But as Vic pointed out - you can't review an album you haven't heard and many of the albums without a review are rare and hard to find.   We are not reluctant to add more people,  we promote people on a regular basis to increase the number of Collaborators and Prog Reviewers.   You should write or the admin team write a politics of collaborators and prog reviewers more complete that the current one, the site are growing up daily, you must re-evaluate and extend some politics or change some, if you want i can do some projects.   We are currently looking to increase the size of several teams, but that means more people have to hear the band before a majority vote can be reached, which adds further delays.   that's the point, i image a team that all of his members are experts. I would't use the word experts necessarily, I'm not (good thing I don't have that under my name), but are familiar with the expectations/ parmaters of the category they work for, and know a considerable amount of the music in there.  That said, we often don't agree in teams since people are liable to focus on different elements.  I don't think adding more team members need create further delays.  I don't think one should need a majority if the majority don't vote.  If a team has two people, then one yes vote, and one unsure, could be sufficient.  Or indeed if the other person doesn't vote in reasonable time, then one vote should be enough.  If a team boosts it's numbers from three to seven and two was enough before, perhaps two or three yes votes (if the others don't vote in reasonable time) could still be enough. There are no-brainers, and very difficult ones (a great many in between ), and team members tend to know the difference.  It's the difficult ones that require more input and thought, but the more thoughts the better (and not just from team members even though they ultimately decide).   There is no limit on the number of Prog Reviewers.

I agree that the more people who can be utilised/ are willing to work for the site, the better.

zafreth wrote: Logan wrote: Where and how did you recommend Humus and Macrommasa.  See Here: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31506&OB=DESC Okay, I usually find that dedicated threads work better (especially if the suggested category is labeled in the title.  Still, it's a good idea to PM a team member in case it goes without response.  Checks thread: Oh that's the thread for mentioning bands recently added to the database (I haven't been using it), not for suggestions. You said you'd added Humus, but it's not in the database. Please bear in mind that this is a collaborative site and all the team members are volunteers, they work at the speed their free-time allows them.   I understand that of course, but a couple of interal rules or lineages of work can improve the speed. I think that ALL of us and i mean admins mods, collaborators, reviewers, etc. work in this site for love but also for compromise, in my case i try to collaborate as far my work let me do. We're all busy with other things (collaborate as much, and sometimes moreso, as our work/ other responsibilities allow).     So am I. Of course.  We all are -- I didn't mean to exclude you.   Often faster to add for several reasons: A collaborator/ review is more likely to prepare the addition him/herself (I do find it to be very time consuming).  I've seen quite a few cases where a proposer was asked if they could prepare the suggestion for addition and didn't respond.  I also find often that suggesters don't follow-up, or even respond to comments about the suggestion, or even say a simple thank you quite often for a response.  Too often there is an expectation that collabs should do all the work, and more likely that there will gripes if additions don't go quickly or smoothely, than thanks for all the effort.  Plus, collabs/reviewers are often more helpful when it comes to providing the material for evaluation.  For instance, we need music to listen to, but often not even a myspace (if available) page is provided, so a collab has to track that down (the more thorough the suggestion, the more likely it will be evaluated quickly) -- providing links to music samples is a fairly minimal requirement. And of course one should try to suggest a category.  Additionally, collabs/ reviewers are more likely to notify team members about a suggestion, and follow-up on the addition process.  They have an advantage becuase they have access to team threads where the real work of evaluation goes on, but it would be simple for a suggester to PM team members if the suggestion is missed (even if the topic topic is celarly labelled with potential categories, team members my miss it.  I try to notify teams of threads no matter what category is proposed (and listen for myself).   again... you should expand the team Yes, I would like to see teams expand, and more teams.  I was addressing something different in that paragraph.  It should be a multi-tiered approach,   the bands have to be evaluated by the respective teams before they are added, and to do that they have to track down representative samples of the bands music, also most teams will not add a band without a biography and discography... all these things take time.   Of Course but (my eternal but...) if you search well, you can found results very quickly and if you want try me It's good if you're willing to do the leg-work, but one problem is that suggester's often do not do the leg-work themselves.  It's helpful when the suggester offers to prepare the addition (bear in mind that collabs are already very busy as is with work that goes on here, as well as lives outside the site).  The thing is to make it easier.  Not always are results easy, and can be very time consuming.  I am behind on writing bios/ preparing additions for my suggestions that have been approved, but each addition I have prepared has taken me considerable hours which I can only do late at night because of distractions (writing a biography in my own words with my own personality -- not just paraphrasing others, and getting and inputting the relevant info).   As i said earlier, try me I was speaking more generally,  As I said, it's good if you, meaning you, are willing to the leg-work, but not everyone is or does.  If you can find the time to help with researching bands that people suggest/ providing materials/ preparing original bios etc./ whatever,  that's great.  Or even just responding to people's suggestions helps.  That's terrific -- the more people who help out, the easier.   zafreth wrote: Dean wrote: Ricochet wrote: 2. Prog reviewers don't have the strict obligation of posting reviews more than they were awarded the distinction thanks to the merit of having written good reviews - but still it would be also abberant to picture a Prog Reviewer not reviewing at all.   Please check this: http://www.progarchives.com/Collaborators.asp?id=9206 that picture already exists!!!! 3. Sub-genres business, when discussed, involves Admins, the Webmaster and Collaborators altogether (and I'd add the forum was sometimes consulted too) - but, as a priority, except perhaps the multi-tagging issue (still, not even this one perhaps), it was never one   And members who were the mayority of these site 5. Focus on reviewing - was almost never a priority. Everyone reviews when they want (and the ideal would also be when they're ready to review - but let's not diverge into that...).   Agree with that point!!!!     I should also add that the number of people reviewing albums is far greater than the number of people adding bands,   Of course  that's because the admins are quite reluctant to add more people to the prog reviewer status or collaborator status.  See the site have more than 20,000 members, and do you think that you can hadle with the current Admin team and collaborator team??      which in turn is far greater than the number of people expanding or simplifying the sub genres - so the priorities are effectively set by the number of people involved in each activity. But as Vic pointed out - you can't review an album you haven't heard and many of the albums without a review are rare and hard to find.   We are not reluctant to add more people,  we promote people on a regular basis to increase the number of Collaborators and Prog Reviewers.   You should write or the admin team write a politics of collaborators and prog reviewers more complete that the current one, the site are growing up daily, you must re-evaluate and extend some politics or change some, if you want i can do some projects.   We are currently looking to increase the size of several teams, but that means more people have to hear the band before a majority vote can be reached, which adds further delays.   that's the point, i image a team that all of his members are experts. I would't use the word experts necessarily, I'm not (good thing I don't have that under my name), but are familiar with the expectations/ parmaters of the category they work for, and know a considerable amount of the music in there.  That said, we often don't agree in teams since people are liable to focus on different elements.  I don't think adding more team members need create further delays.  I don't think one should need a majority if the majority don't vote.  If a team has two people, then one yes vote, and one unsure, could be sufficient.  Or indeed if the other person doesn't vote in reasonable time, then one vote should be enough.  If a team boosts it's numbers from three to seven and two was enough before, perhaps two or three yes votes (if the others don't vote in reasonable time) could still be enough. There are no-brainers, and very difficult ones (a great many in between ), and team members tend to know the difference.  It's the difficult ones that require more input and thought, but the more thoughts the better (and not just from team members even though they ultimately decide).   There is no limit on the number of Prog Reviewers.

I agree that the more people who can be utilised/ are willing to work for the site, the better.
[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

adding more artists

Logan wrote: zafreth wrote: Logan wrote: Where and how did you recommend Humus and Macrommasa.  See Here: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31506&OB=DESC Okay, I usually find that dedicated threads work better (especially if the suggested category is labeled in the title.  Still, it's a good idea to PM a team member in case it goes without response.  Checks thread: Oh that's the thread for mentioning bands recently added to the database (I haven't been using it), not for suggestions. You said you'd added Humus, but it's not in the database. Please bear in mind that this is a collaborative site and all the team members are volunteers, they work at the speed their free-time allows them.   I understand that of course, but a couple of interal rules or lineages of work can improve the speed. I think that ALL of us and i mean admins mods, collaborators, reviewers, etc. work in this site for love but also for compromise, in my case i try to collaborate as far my work let me do. We're all busy with other things (collaborate as much, and sometimes moreso, as our work/ other responsibilities allow).     So am I. Of course.  We all are -- I didn't mean to exclude you.   Often faster to add for several reasons: A collaborator/ review is more likely to prepare the addition him/herself (I do find it to be very time consuming).  I've seen quite a few cases where a proposer was asked if they could prepare the suggestion for addition and didn't respond.  I also find often that suggesters don't follow-up, or even respond to comments about the suggestion, or even say a simple thank you quite often for a response.  Too often there is an expectation that collabs should do all the work, and more likely that there will gripes if additions don't go quickly or smoothely, than thanks for all the effort.  Plus, collabs/reviewers are often more helpful when it comes to providing the material for evaluation.  For instance, we need music to listen to, but often not even a myspace (if available) page is provided, so a collab has to track that down (the more thorough the suggestion, the more likely it will be evaluated quickly) -- providing links to music samples is a fairly minimal requirement. And of course one should try to suggest a category.  Additionally, collabs/ reviewers are more likely to notify team members about a suggestion, and follow-up on the addition process.  They have an advantage becuase they have access to team threads where the real work of evaluation goes on, but it would be simple for a suggester to PM team members if the suggestion is missed (even if the topic topic is celarly labelled with potential categories, team members my miss it.  I try to notify teams of threads no matter what category is proposed (and listen for myself).   again... you should expand the team Yes, I would like to see teams expand, and more teams.  I was addressing something different in that paragraph.  It should be a multi-tiered approach,   the bands have to be evaluated by the respective teams before they are added, and to do that they have to track down representative samples of the bands music, also most teams will not add a band without a biography and discography... all these things take time.   Of Course but (my eternal but...) if you search well, you can found results very quickly and if you want try me It's good if you're willing to do the leg-work, but one problem is that suggester's often do not do the leg-work themselves.  It's helpful when the suggester offers to prepare the addition (bear in mind that collabs are already very busy as is with work that goes on here, as well as lives outside the site).  The thing is to make it easier.  Not always are results easy, and can be very time consuming.  I am behind on writing bios/ preparing additions for my suggestions that have been approved, but each addition I have prepared has taken me considerable hours which I can only do late at night because of distractions (writing a biography in my own words with my own personality -- not just paraphrasing others, and getting and inputting the relevant info).   As i said earlier, try me I was speaking more generally,  As I said, it's good if you, meaning you, are willing to the leg-work, but not everyone is or does.  If you can find the time to help with researching bands that people suggest/ providing materials/ preparing original bios etc./ whatever,  that's great.  Or even just responding to people's suggestions helps.  That's terrific -- the more people who help out, the easier.   zafreth wrote: Dean wrote: Ricochet wrote: 2. Prog reviewers don't have the strict obligation of posting reviews more than they were awarded the distinction thanks to the merit of having written good reviews - but still it would be also abberant to picture a Prog Reviewer not reviewing at all.   Please check this: http://www.progarchives.com/Collaborators.asp?id=9206 that picture already exists!!!! 3. Sub-genres business, when discussed, involves Admins, the Webmaster and Collaborators altogether (and I'd add the forum was sometimes consulted too) - but, as a priority, except perhaps the multi-tagging issue (still, not even this one perhaps), it was never one   And members who were the mayority of these site 5. Focus on reviewing - was almost never a priority. Everyone reviews when they want (and the ideal would also be when they're ready to review - but let's not diverge into that...).   Agree with that point!!!!     I should also add that the number of people reviewing albums is far greater than the number of people adding bands,   Of course  that's because the admins are quite reluctant to add more people to the prog reviewer status or collaborator status.  See the site have more than 20,000 members, and do you think that you can hadle with the current Admin team and collaborator team??      which in turn is far greater than the number of people expanding or simplifying the sub genres - so the priorities are effectively set by the number of people involved in each activity. But as Vic pointed out - you can't review an album you haven't heard and many of the albums without a review are rare and hard to find.   We are not reluctant to add more people,  we promote people on a regular basis to increase the number of Collaborators and Prog Reviewers.   You should write or the admin team write a politics of collaborators and prog reviewers more complete that the current one, the site are growing up daily, you must re-evaluate and extend some politics or change some, if you want i can do some projects.   We are currently looking to increase the size of several teams, but that means more people have to hear the band before a majority vote can be reached, which adds further delays.   that's the point, i image a team that all of his members are experts. I would't use the word experts necessarily, I'm not (good thing I don't have that under my name), but are familiar with the expectations/ parmaters of the category they work for, and know a considerable amount of the music in there.  That said, we often don't agree in teams since people are liable to focus on different elements.  I don't think adding more team members need create further delays.  I don't think one should need a majority if the majority don't vote.  If a team has two people, then one yes vote, and one unsure, could be sufficient.  Or indeed if the other person doesn't vote in reasonable time, then one vote should be enough.  If a team boosts it's numbers from three to seven and two was enough before, perhaps two or three yes votes (if the others don't vote in reasonable time) could still be enough. There are no-brainers, and very difficult ones (a great many in between ), and team members tend to know the difference.  It's the difficult ones that require more input and thought, but the more thoughts the better (and not just from team members even though they ultimately decide).   There is no limit on the number of Prog Reviewers.         I agree that the more people who can be utilised/ are willing to work for the site, the better.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Edited by Peter - September 28 2008 at 22:51

Not to mention the fact that more collabs should take the time to use Spell Check!

Edited by Peter - September 28 2008 at 22:55

Peter: colour-coding the post that way is a good idea.  Generally, I prefer not to use quotes and expand on the ideas in a more general way.  Great, coherent, readable threads, I think, commonly evolve from one post to the next as people expand on and explore other posters' notions.

That certainly was very messy, but I had hoped that Alberto, at least, could follow it, because it was meant particularly for his eyes (though an obvious eye-sore for the thread, and discussions in a public forum are open to all). I used to not respond in such a manner.  If I needed to quote, I used proper quote tags.  I was being lazy. I get so very tired these days. Of course, it is particularly confusing because I was using red and lilac, and Dean was using red too.  As for spell-checks, it is considerate to do so to make it more readable for others, but I'm quite insouciant about that here, partially because I don't want to take my job onto the board.  I just spend so much time correcting and reworking people's papers -- here it's nice to not have to be precise.  I do have the Firefox spell-check, but it's not working properly (unless I edit -- of course there are other options).  I prefer to manually check posts anyway, but am so lazy that I commonly don't even read back on what I write.  Heck, if I'm not even interested in what I have to say, why would others be?

Such quoting gets confusing even for me when responding.  I'm wary about removing older quotes, sometimes, just as I am wary about only quoting posts in part, because sometimes the context is too easily lost.  I also think that breaking up posts into pieces can be problematic as context/ meaning/ point can be easily lost when being bitty, and ignoring parts of the post to focus on certain sentences, which are incomplete ideas (part of a larger analysis, say)..

Anyway, I do recognise how horrid such a quote-respond-quote... post looks, and how confusing it is -- to both the reader, and writer, I find.  It's sloppy, and does not work well for satisfying discussions, I find.  It gets so muddled; one often loses sight of the main points/ focus gets lost, and miscommunication abounds -- can help lead to writing at cross-purposes.

Such colour-coding is a neat idea for site improvement (and a useful idea); however, I'm not sure if it should be given priority for site improvement. ;)

Logan wrote: ... and Dean was using red too.

Was not

Dean wrote: Logan wrote: ... and Dean was using red too.  Was not   That's the problem with mixing two quoting styles on the same post - I was pyramid posting (I try and avoid colours wherever possible), quoting and commenting on Vic's post only (in black), Alberto commented in Red on both Vic's and my comments. Then I responded again, again pyramid-stylee in black, to which Alberto colour quoted again, this time in Blue, and then you in Lilac... by this time I had a headache and stopped, but Alberto replied in Green, followed by your response in Red... by which time I think everyone has run out of felt-tip pens.     ps: my spell-checker says recognise is correct

Logan wrote: Peter: colour-coding the post that way is a good idea.  Generally, I prefer not to use quotes and expand on the ideas in a more general way.  Great, coherent, readable threads, I think, commonly evolve from one post to the next as people expand on and explore other posters' notions. That certainly was very messy, but I had hoped that Alberto, at least, could follow it, because it was meant particularly for his eyes (though an obvious eye-sore for the thread, and discussions in a public forum are open to all). I used to not respond in such a manner.  If I needed to quote, I used proper quote tags.  I was being lazy. I get so very tired these days. Of course, it is particularly confusing because I was using red and lilac, and Dean was using red too.  As for spell-checks, it is considerate to do so to make it more readable for others, but I'm quite insouciant about that here, partially because I don't want to take my job onto the board.  I just spend so much time correcting and reworking people's papers -- here it's nice to not have to be precise.  I do have the Firefox spell-check, but it's not working properly (unless I edit -- of course there are other options).  I prefer to manually check posts anyway, but am so lazy that I commonly don't even read back on what I write.  Heck, if I'm not even interested in what I have to say, why would others be? Such quoting gets confusing even for me when responding.  I'm wary about removing older quotes, sometimes, just as I am wary about only quoting posts in part, because sometimes the context is too easily lost.  I also think that breaking up posts into pieces can be problematic as context/ meaning/ point can be easily lost when being bitty, and ignoring parts of the post to focus on certain sentences, which are incomplete ideas (part of a larger analysis, say).. Anyway, I do recognise how horrid such a quote-respond-quote... post looks, and how confusing it is -- to both the reader, and writer, I find.  It's sloppy, and does not work well for satisfying discussions, I find.  It gets so muddled; one often loses sight of the main points/ focus gets lost, and miscommunication abounds -- can help lead to writing at cross-purposes. Such colour-coding is a neat idea for site improvement (and a useful idea); however, I'm not sure if it should be given priority for site improvement. ;)