Final Approve or Rejection of a Band suggestion. - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Alberto Muñoz View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: July 26 2006
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 3577

Topic: Final Approve or Rejection of a Band suggestion.
Posted: October 28 2008 at 16:34

As a regular user of the PA site i often see opinions about that X band are aprove and that other band are rejected from X team, but as the general mayority of members, we do not see a document that X team rejecead a band for x or y reasons or approve a band for x o r y reasons.

I suggest that the admins should document the arguments in favor of aprove or arguments rejecting a band to be in PA, and publish that decision in some thread, that the mayority of the members we can read the arguments in favor of addition or rejection.

It can be like this:

XXXX team of PA of the veredict of add or reject x band we:

C O N S I D E R

In x month of the year 2008 zafreth, a senior member of PA suggest x band, he provide this with samples of music and a rudimentary biography to be added to PA, after he post this in the right thread, after that, a member of the team that evaluate the x band, answer in x month of 2008, that they take the x group and will evaluate in a time that no exceed four months.

Then the x team of PA evaluate the band and : Here the team can put the developemnt of the discussion in a general manner.

Then comes the arguments of pros and cons (specific) well written, well sustained and if a member want to do a particular vote.

R E S O L U T I O N

X o Y team, after we read and listen to samples of music of X band we decided the (adition) (rejection) of the aforemetion band in the following:

1.- We the x team after reading an evaluate x band we decided to addd or reject the x band because their fullfill or fail the requeriments of the general guidelines of PA.

2.- Make public this decision in the right thread of the forum.

3.- The member that suggest x band, can complaint to the admin team that evaluate this particular case in a time no longer than 15 days.

4.- The admin decision will stand and have no other action.

well hope that read it and suggest to admin team

Opinions, etc.

Edited by zafreth - October 28 2008 at 16:47

Easy Livin View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: February 21 2004
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 15585

Posted: October 28 2008 at 16:51

Nice idea Zafreth. I don' think it needs Admin involvement though. I'm sure the SCs and team members could come up with a means of doing this. It's best if the current forum facilites can be used.

Logan

Forum & Site Admin Group

Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 35804

Posted: October 28 2008 at 16:58

As long as it doesn't necessitate much more work. I have suggested that teams post their progress, decision, and make comments in the "Suggest New Bands" threads. It's not hard to do, but one has to be in the habit of doing it.

Duos for fave acts

Alberto Muñoz View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: July 26 2006
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 3577

Posted: October 28 2008 at 17:01

if you want i can do the veredict transcription and publish in a special thread

rushfan4

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66262

Posted: October 28 2008 at 17:03

At the very least, I think that it is important that something is posted in the suggest new bands thread that tells the general forum the final status for a band. This happens many times, but not all of the time. I think that there are many suggest new bands threads where it is uncertain to the general forum what happened to a band. Unfortunately, when a band is added, not only does the band have to be added, but something would also have to be posted in 4 or 5 different threads in the various collaborator zones, and general forum. So the person, might have posted in the special collab zone that they added the band, and in the genre team threads that they added the band, and maybe even in the general forum under "Recently added bands", but nothing might have been posted in the original thread that suggested the band. I don't know that it is really necessary for the genre teams to have to post their reasons for rejecting the bands, but certainly they could (and generally usually do) respond to further inquiry by those who might question why they were rejected.

Alberto Muñoz View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: July 26 2006
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 3577

Posted: October 28 2008 at 17:04

Easy Livin wrote:

Nice idea Zafreth. I don' think it needs Admin involvement though. I'm sure the SCs and team members could come up with a means of doing this. It's best if the current forum facilites can be used.

I put the admins as the final instance for a Member or a Collab, Prog Reviewer or SC, that can say a word about the rejection or addition of a band.

Like the justice system of law

Alberto Muñoz View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: July 26 2006
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 3577

Posted: October 28 2008 at 17:10

rushfan4 wrote:

I don't know that it is really necessary for the genre teams to have to post their reasons for rejecting the bands, but certainly they could (and generally usually do) respond to further inquiry by those who might question why they were rejected.

As you point, i think that it is actually necessary to post their reasons, so with this, we can avoid endless threads concerning a band that are added or rejected, specially for newbies

Edited by zafreth - October 28 2008 at 17:11

rushfan4

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66262

Posted: October 28 2008 at 17:25

I think that the endless threads are pretty minor in comparison to the number of bands that are rejected or added. I could be wrong, but I think that that would add a lot more work for the collabs to have to add their reason for rejection to every band. Especially, since most of the time the answer is "in my opinion they weren't prog enough". This is an oversimplification, but I think you see my point.

Alberto Muñoz View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: July 26 2006
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 3577

Posted: October 28 2008 at 17:32

rushfan4 wrote:

I think that the endless threads are pretty minor in comparison to the number of bands that are rejected or added. I could be wrong, but I think that that would add a lot more work for the collabs to have to add their reason for rejection to every band. Especially, since most of the time the answer is "in my opinion they weren't prog enough". This is an oversimplification, but I think you see my point.

The collabs Must add their reason for rejection or for addition, that work is already done when they evaluate a band

I suggest that they do a document when they put their argumentations about add or reject a band.

So, any member can see why they added x band or why reject x band.

i think we can do an excercise to see if works

And BTW this will add transparency over the teams elections of add or reject a bands.

Angelo

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: May 07 2006
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 13244

Posted: October 28 2008 at 17:52

All for it, but I still have to see someone come up with an approach that works in practise. I've tried a few times, but so far haven't found the way. Forum threads are cumbersome because of limited search facilities, progfreak makes some collabs suffer from allergic reactions Wink

and M@X doesn't have time to build something into the site to track inclusion progress and rejections.

But, by all means - if you have an approach that works, let's see if we can get it to do exactly that, work.

ISKC Rock Radio
I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected]

Alberto Muñoz View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: July 26 2006
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 3577

Posted: October 28 2008 at 18:21

Angelo wrote:

All for it, but I still have to see someone come up with an approach that works in practise. I've tried a few times, but so far haven't found the way. Forum threads are cumbersome because of limited search facilities, progfreak makes some collabs suffer from allergic reactions Wink

I think that is not necesarry to build something that tracks the progress of a decision of adding or rejecting a band, a whole thread can do that.

For example: "The Heavy Prog Team General Evaluation of Adding Bands", and in that thread the HP team can show the developemt of the discusion of addition or rejection of a band, and obviously the mayority of the members (mortals) can read and suggest to those team about the addition.

I think that the suggestion that i have can do better for the forum and the site.

And obviously the teams have to work more fast

Alberto Muñoz View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: July 26 2006
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 3577

Posted: October 28 2008 at 18:22

specially for those bands that are "forgot" in the suggest thread, like Humus

Alberto Muñoz View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: July 26 2006
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 3577

Posted: October 28 2008 at 18:23

zafreth wrote:

if you want i can do the veredict transcription and publish in a special thread

rushfan4

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66262

Posted: October 28 2008 at 18:34

These type threads exist in the collaborator and special collaborator zones, which aren't available to the general public. I think that there is a reason for it. Mike's website www.progfreak.com shows the status of bands, and the yes/no votes of the collaborators. The collaborators are not required to say why they voted yes or no for a band. As I said above, sometimes the collaborators do write an elaborate reason for why they voted against a bands inclusion, but much of the time they either don't, or their answer is "because they weren't prog enough". That really isn't going to tell anyone anything. But as I also said previously, if a band is rejected and that rejection is questioned, more often than not the collaborators that made that decision will then explain their reason for that decision. But also, unfortunately, that usually leads to a 35 page thread where people threaten to quit the site because they either made the decision and don't like being flamed for it, or they disagree with the decision and think that we are all a bunch of morons that only add our favorite bands and screw everybody else.

rushfan4

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66262

Posted: October 28 2008 at 18:37

To add to that, as a Site Monitor, one of the things that we do is monitor the status of bands and communicate with the teams to see where bands are as additions and rejections. Generally, if someone wants to follow up on a bands status all that they have to do is post in the thread which suggested the band and either one of the site monitors or the genre team will usually respond with the band's status.

Alberto Muñoz View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: July 26 2006
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 3577

Posted: October 28 2008 at 20:27

rushfan4 wrote:

These type threads exist in the collaborator and special collaborator zones, which aren't available to the general public.

That's why the main reason that the veredict should be public, as a normal member, sometimes i feel that the addition of rejection of a X band, touch a "grey area", as you see as SC i understand your point of view (you have access to almost everything in the site) but put in the side of a normal amember like me and things change a lot.

I think that there is a reason for it. Mike's website www.progfreak.com shows the status of bands, and the yes/no votes of the collaborators.

I recently visit Mike website, but i propose this to PA.

The collaborators are not required to say why they voted yes or no for a band.

I know that but they should do. For transparency of the decision.

As I said above, sometimes the collaborators do write an elaborate reason for why they voted against a bands inclusion, but much of the time they either don't, or their answer is "because they weren't prog enough".

I think if a SC say that, that's not an argument, my proposal is to improve the site, to make more SC with a wide angle of argumenting and avoid such flat opinions.

That really isn't going to tell anyone anything. But as I also said previously, if a band is rejected and that rejection is questioned, more often than not the collaborators that made that decision will then explain their reason for that decision.

I think that a SC has an enormous responsability to add or reject a band, so at least, they have to argue why yes and why no.

But also, unfortunately, that usually leads to a 35 page thread where people threaten to quit the site because they either made the decision and don't like being flamed for it, or they disagree with the decision and think that we are all a bunch of morons that only add our favorite bands and screw everybody else.

For that (in)famous thread let's improve the site and the kind of working of the team, my proposal is to make things clear and consistent.

And by far for this matters, evidence must stay.

Alberto Muñoz View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: July 26 2006
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 3577

Posted: October 28 2008 at 20:31

rushfan4 wrote:

To add to that, as a Site Monitor, one of the things that we do is monitor the status of bands and communicate with the teams to see where bands are as additions and rejections.

And i think that you should communicate with the general members (in a thread or general announce or sticky), at least they are the final people that actually reads the reviews and put their opinions. Again looking through your view is like a SC, but i insist, put in the other side.

Generally, if someone wants to follow up on a bands status all that they have to do is post in the thread which suggested the band and either one of the site monitors or the genre team will usually respond with the band's status.

And that's why many, many bands, sleep the justice's dream...

Raff

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429

Posted: October 29 2008 at 03:07

OK, hope not to sound confrontational in any way, but what I saw so far really rubbed me the wrong way (and heaven knows if I need that now).

While I understand people who suggest bands like to see some follow up to their suggestions, I would like to remind ALL of you that we have lives outside this board, and that all the work we do on behalf of the site is something we do for FREE. As things are, I think the genre teams do much more than could be expected from them. Bands are added to the database almost every day, and that in itself is quite a lot of work, especially if the act in question has been around for some time (which means more albums to be added, and more detailed bios to be written). If the workload of the genre teams increases any further, they are very likely to find themselves short-handed sooner rather than later, and it is not always easy to find replacements for absentee members.

As for providing an explanation for the rejection, in principle I agree, being a supporter of transparency in all things. However, seen as some members of this board seem unable to behave civilly to others, I am afraid things would get unmanageable very soon, with disappointed members attacking the SCs responsible for the rejection (I've already seen this, so I know what I'm talking about). The Admins' workload would also increase exponentially, and the atmosphere of the forums would be seriously damaged.

As regards that mock-legal verdict, well.. I'd rather not say anything unpleasant, but I'd also rather NOT see anything that reminds me of work in a place which I visit in order to relax and socialise. I do take my job as a SC seriously, but there are limits.

Edited by Raff - October 29 2008 at 03:08

Atavachron View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Online
Points: 65253

Posted: October 29 2008 at 03:26

^ thank you ..been wanting to say the same but just hadn't put it into words yet. "Collaborators must add their reasons for rejection or for addition" .. excuse me but you need to take a big step back for all the reasons stated above and a whole bunch of others. Nice try but most of us bust our butts and take the work very seriously. Moreover, Collabs often post in Suggest New Bands with comments and thank yous, and frequently follow-up on the decisions. And BTW, rushfan is right, that's what Site Monitoring does, and they do it very well.

Thank you.

npjnpj

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 05 2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 2720

Posted: October 29 2008 at 04:54

To be honest, I'm not really all that interested in reasons for acceptance or rejection; concering borderline cases I can usually imagine what the decision was based on, so no big deal.

But one thing I would be interested in is a listing of artists whose status is a) being considered or b) have already been rejected.

In the first case it would be sort of like waiting for the lottery numbers to come up, especially if you'd like to see the artist included but can also see possible arguments against that.