Major Upgrade to the Forum Engine - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

toroddfuglesteg View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Retired

Joined: March 04 2008
Location: Retirement Home
Status: Offline
Points: 3658

Posted: February 09 2012 at 20:54

Edit:

I am sorry that I raised this matter in the first place and I am sorry that the concerns I raised months ago has not reached the Admins when raised in CZ. Raising this matter some hours ago has just proven that my personality has a number of fatal flaws which makes my life extreme difficult, if not impossible to continue.

Edited by toroddfuglesteg - February 10 2012 at 02:31

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: February 09 2012 at 20:51

Windhawk wrote:

Some possible solutions then, to try to be constructive.

The least important bit - the list itself - could be reinstated in the bottom right column of the "About Progarchives" tab. That should cater nicely for those who enjoy tracking events on it.

As far as highlighting subjectively good reviews go, seaparating the front page into two parts, where the upper one shows prog reviewers/collabs reviews and the lower other reviews might be a possibility. Not without negative side effects and certainly with some fallout effects, but it should be doable in code and automatic. If all prog reviewers/collabs fall within such a subjective definition that is. Not a perfect solution by any means but one viable and doable if this is a high priority issue.

An easily visible list of reviewers of some sort should be available on the frontpage, as a replacement for the quick lookup the quantity list provided to artists (and, in some cases, labels). Or at least an easily visible link to such a list, understandable as such by someone looking at the webpage for the very first time.

At last, unless plans are afoot for the freed up space in the right column on the frontpage, expand the album addition column to cover 10 rather than the current 5 latest new album additions. Until a better use is found for that space.

Thanks for being constructive Olav. I'm sorry I'm going to have to be brief now as it's very late.

Personally I'm not in favour of segregating Collab and non-Collab reviews - we do this on the album pages and I (for one) don't like it. However, I do like the idea of splitting the page in two,perhaps with some "reviews of the week" by sub genre or some such in the lower half.

Artists and A&R people looking for reviewers can access the collab page from the front page. Listing them on the front page itself gives no indication of which subgenre those reviewers are best suited too - sending me a JR/F album would not be a good move for example. An alternative suggestion perhaps would be to categorise Reviewers by subgenre like the pie chart on each member page - quite how that could be represented is another problem (but a high-class one perhaps).

I like the idea of boosting the 5 latest to 10 latest releases.

What?

Triceratopsoil View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: April 03 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 18016

Posted: February 09 2012 at 20:51

Oh dear.

Windhawk

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 28 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 11401

Posted: February 09 2012 at 20:49

Finnforest wrote:

Dean wrote:

Dealing with flood-reviews, poor reviews and reviews that don't "talk in some detail about each album" on a one-to-one basis is reactive and time consuming and does not stop the problem. It is better to be proactive and not encourage them.

No one can guess or predict whether there is any likelihood that this will not have any positive affect on the problem. Maybe it won't, but we think it will and only time will tell for sure.

We'll have to agree to disagree....on both of your assertions there. So be it. But did I mention this sucks? Wink

It's a bit like trying to prevent freeloaders on the train by removing the time tables from all the stations I think. But an action has been taken and as all such actions it won't be reversed. No matter what we say or do. That's the way this site works, and one either has to live with it and try to make the best out of it, or move on to pastures somewhat less autocratic.

Websites I work with:

http://www.progressor.net
http://www.houseofprog.com

My profile on Mixcloud:
https://www.mixcloud.com/haukevind/

Finnforest View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 16913

Posted: February 09 2012 at 20:46

I have.

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: February 09 2012 at 20:43

Finnforest wrote:

Dean wrote:

No one can guess or predict whether there is any likelihood that this will not have any positive affect on the problem. Maybe it won't, but we think it will and only time will tell for sure.

We'll have to agree to disagree....on both of your assertions there. So be it. But did I mention this sucks? Wink

Yes you have, but you haven't said why.

What?

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: February 09 2012 at 20:42

toroddfuglesteg wrote:

No, what you are creating here is a massive problem for yourself. One you cannot solve without full time monitoring. And that is making PA into a laughing stock if you continue down that road.

The problem is that you (= Admins) don't know the difference between a good and a bad opinion. Nobody in PA does, unless I have misread the Bible. You are basing your opinion and your decission on a value you don't know.

It is like x (-y)=ab. How do you solve that problem is beyond me.

Your only two solutions is to....

a. Outline the difference between a good and a bad opinion

b. Close PA to reviews done by others than approved reviewers based on a subjective selection criteria

It is not a matter of the top 100 list. It is a matter of subjective opinions being turned into facts. And that is really bad for any society.

Erm... first off - this is not about good and bad opinion. Opinons are subjective that is a fact. This is not about opinions or opinions of opinions.

Have you not read some of the reviews that we get here - the ones that fill up the reviews reporting and discussion thread? This is not subjective and it's not about judging peoples opinions - opinions can only be judged if the reviews contain opinions - and some of these reveiws don't have any opinions in them at all - some of them don't even mention any of the music on the albums they claim to be a review of. That's not subjective, that's objective.

Please do not tell me you think those reviews are "good" and do not reflect badly on the PA by their presence.

However, that's not the issue here - removing the Top 100 reviewers list from the front page does not make any subjective judgement about the content of the reviews by those collaborators.

Edited by Dean - February 10 2012 at 08:08

What?

Finnforest View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 16913

Posted: February 09 2012 at 20:41

Dean wrote:

No one can guess or predict whether there is any likelihood that this will not have any positive affect on the problem. Maybe it won't, but we think it will and only time will tell for sure.

We'll have to agree to disagree....on both of your assertions there. So be it. But did I mention this sucks? Wink

Windhawk

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 28 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 11401

Posted: February 09 2012 at 20:40

Some possible solutions then, to try to be constructive.

The least important bit - the list itself - could be reinstated in the bottom right column of the "About Progarchives" tab. That should cater nicely for those who enjoy tracking events on it.

As far as highlighting subjectively good reviews go, seaparating the front page into two parts, where the upper one shows prog reviewers/collabs reviews and the lower other reviews might be a possibility. Not without negative side effects and certainly with some fallout effects, but it should be doable in code and automatic. If all prog reviewers/collabs fall within such a subjective definition that is. Not a perfect solution by any means but one viable and doable if this is a high priority issue.

An easily visible list of reviewers of some sort should be available on the frontpage, as a replacement for the quick lookup the quantity list provided to artists (and, in some cases, labels). Or at least an easily visible link to such a list, understandable as such by someone looking at the webpage for the very first time.

At last, unless plans are afoot for the freed up space in the right column on the frontpage, expand the album addition column to cover 10 rather than the current 5 latest new album additions. Until a better use is found for that space.

Websites I work with:

http://www.progressor.net
http://www.houseofprog.com

My profile on Mixcloud:
https://www.mixcloud.com/haukevind/

toroddfuglesteg View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Retired

Joined: March 04 2008
Location: Retirement Home
Status: Offline
Points: 3658

Posted: February 09 2012 at 20:32

No, what you are creating here is a massive problem for yourself. One you cannot solve without full time monitoring. And that is making PA into a laughing stock if you continue down that road.

It is like x (-y)=ab. How do you solve that problem is beyond me.

Your only two solutions is to....

a. Outline the difference between a good and a bad opinion* about an object you don't know

b. Close PA to reviews done by others than approved reviewers based on a subjective selection criteria

It is not a matter of the top 100 list. It is a matter of subjective opinions being turned into facts.

*= review

Edited by toroddfuglesteg - February 09 2012 at 20:36

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: February 09 2012 at 20:18

toroddfuglesteg wrote:

This was not sarcasm, Dean. I was more, much more crying in despair than anything else.

What I am angry about in this day and age, 2012, is that you and the Admins does not understand the full consequence of what you are writing and what you are proposing. Think, think, think.

And when you are getting a technical solution, you don't want a solution. Badger, my office is getting flooded. Jump in the dingy boat, cat.

Then I apologise for reading it as sarcasm, because that's how it appeared to me in the rhetoric of early posts, and with the prefix of "highly" I made an erroneous assumption.

Thanks for the advice - I think long and hard before every post I make here, which is why this ran for several pages before I responded.

I repeat - your technical solution would cause more problems than it fixes, it is also one that would require full-time monitoring, which we do not have the resources to manage.

What?

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: February 09 2012 at 20:10

Epignosis wrote:

Dean wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

I don't see this as a villainous move at all, but can we be sure that these "review mavericks" just want their names on the chart (even if they can't get theirs on there without quality reviews per the review guidelines), or is their motive something else? Perhaps they are legitimately opinionated but do a poor job expressing their views.

Having watched this process as an Admin for the past 4 years I'm pretty confident that it is contributary. People, especially newer members, do not read Guidelines and FAQs - they follow the examples on the front page. I think there is a difference between a poor review and a poorly expressed one.

Thanks for the explanation Dean.

Is it possible to put this little list in the CZ then? I know the forum and database are different beasts, but it's just one fellow's suggestion.

I think the list could be located elsewhere, even in the database, just not onthe Front Page.

I also think (this is me personally, not me as an Admin) that we should give recognition to good reviews on the Front Page, perhaps a re-instatement of review of the month or some such

What?

toroddfuglesteg View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Retired

Joined: March 04 2008
Location: Retirement Home
Status: Offline
Points: 3658

Posted: February 09 2012 at 20:07

This was not sarcasm, Dean. I was more crying out in despair than anything else.

What I am angry about in this day and age, 2012, is that you and the Admins does not understand the full consequence of what you are writing and what you are proposing.

Edited by toroddfuglesteg - February 09 2012 at 20:11

Epignosis

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524

Posted: February 09 2012 at 20:05

Dean wrote:

Thanks for the explanation Dean.

Is it possible to put this little list in the CZ then? I know the forum and database are different beasts, but it's just one fellow's suggestion.

https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: February 09 2012 at 19:58

Finnforest wrote:

If you're concerned about "machine gunners" of poor reviews, a legit issue, why not deal with them...rather than doing something which will likely not have any positive affect on the problem? Identify those reviewers who most abuse the standards you desire, warn them once or twice, then if they continue, delete the account.

But beyond that......the main thing is that this "fix" isn't going to change those people. Do you really think the non-collabs who post the throwaway reviews will stop because that section is gone? I don't think so. All this does is remove a nice feature from the site.

No one can guess or predict whether there is any likelihood that this will not have any positive affect on the problem. Maybe it won't, but we think it will and only time will tell for sure.

As has already been pointed out, this feature hasn't entirely dissapeared, though I admit that only PRs are sorted on review-count on the Collaborator Page (...also note that 7 Admins and 5 ex-Admins appeared on the Top 100 list so it's not just the Collabs and SCs who have been affected).

toroddfuglesteg wrote:

There is an easy fix to this.

Whatever your highly subjective views determine is good reviews is given the value 0 and is getting kept on the frontpage for 12, 24, 36, 72 hours or how long it takes.

Whatever your highly subjective views determine is bad reviews is given the value 2 and falls of the frontpage after 15 minutes or shorter.

Why kicking up a conflict when you could have done this ?

Another thing: You believe those of who reviews does it for being high on the list. That is not true. Some of us review for the fun of it or any other reasons. The list does not mean anything to me and surely; for a lot of others too. Don't assume anything and don't think you know the reasons why people are reviewing.

Sorry Torodd, but that is not a solution and would create more problems than it hopes to fix. [okay, I got the sarcasm in the "highly subjective views" comment but], we're not being subjective or judgemental here, which is why no one has responded to your previous call-out.

So, I say again: " It is not the Collabs and Prog Reviewers who we are concerned about as much as the non-collabs who are trying to emulate them" ... which is why I honestly do not believe that anyone here is writing reviews solely to climb up the league table, which is also why no Admin has actually said people are writing reviews to climb up the table in this thread, which is also why I don't understand how anyone would get quite so pissed off when it was removed from the Front Page (given that "The list does not mean anything to me").

Edited by Dean - February 09 2012 at 20:02

What?

toroddfuglesteg View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Retired

Joined: March 04 2008
Location: Retirement Home
Status: Offline
Points: 3658

Posted: February 09 2012 at 19:23

Dean wrote:

This is all missing the point just a little. It is not the Collabs and Prog Reviewers who we are concerned about as much as the non-collabs who are trying to emulate them. The "league table" presents a false picture of what being a collaborator is all about - it's not about producing 100s and 1000s of reviews, but of producing good quality reviews. All PRs were chosen because of the quality of what they wrote, not the quantity - which is why there are people out there who have written more than the recommended 30 reviews who were not promoted to PR status.

Newer members looking at the league table see a target to aim at (100s of reviews), not a goal to be achieved (accurate reviewing).

Anyone who has seen, or complained about, people flooding the front-page with multiple brief, poorly written reviews that rapidly push the longer, well considered and well written reviews off the page should see what we've done here as not quite the villainous "kick in the face" that some have mistaken it for.

There is an easy fix to this.

Whatever your highly subjective views determine is good reviews is given the value 0 and is getting kept on the frontpage for 12, 24, 36, 72 hours or how long it takes.

Whatever your highly subjective views determine is bad reviews is given the value 2 and falls of the frontpage after 15 minutes or shorter.

Why has this not been done years ago if this was such a problem for PA ?

Edited by toroddfuglesteg - February 09 2012 at 19:50

Finnforest View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 16913

Posted: February 09 2012 at 18:54

If you're concerned about "machine gunners" of poor reviews, a legit issue, why not deal with them...rather than doing something which will likely not have any positive affect on the problem? Identify those reviewers who most abuse the standards you desire, warn them once or twice, then if they continue, delete the account.

But beyond that......the main thing is that this "fix" isn't going to change those people. Do you really think the non-collabs who post the throwaway reviews will stop because that section is gone? I don't think so. All this does is remove a nice feature from the site.

Edited by Finnforest - February 09 2012 at 18:55

Epignosis

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524

Posted: February 09 2012 at 18:45

Newer members looking at the league table see a target to aim at (100s of reviews), not a goal to be achieved (accurate reviewing).

I don't see this as a villainous move at all, but can we be sure that these "review mavericks" just want their names on the chart (even if they can't get theirs on there without quality reviews per the review guidelines), or is their motive something else? Perhaps they are legitimately opinionated but do a poor job expressing their views.

I, like Jim, did enjoy seeing others move along (and I just hit #39! LOL

), and it was a handy way to go right to some of my favorite reviewers' pages to read what they've written. Embarrassed

https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

TheGazzardian View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: August 11 2009
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 8667

Posted: February 09 2012 at 18:43

Finnforest wrote:

I've been thinking about this all day, and the more I do, the more it pisses me off. LOL

It's really unfortunate, but not unlike many management decisions in the workplace.....which is....rather than directly confronting a problem, make a sweeping policy change that ends up punishing the good apples with the bad. I understand the proclaimed reasoning behind this change, but this was absolutely the wrong way to address it, by pulling this fun and unique little part of our site that the good apples also enjoy. Our list helped make PA a bit special and was a nice token for the reviewers. I don't think I'm the only one who enjoyed seeing my fellow collabs milestones. There are other more direct and appropriate ways to deal with lame reviews if that is what the problem is.

I will stop regular reviewing as a simple form of protest again this decision, I've got a million other things needing my attention anyway. I hope eventually the decision will be reversed.

Jim, I hope that you do stick around, as one who has enjoyed your reviews and who has bought several albums based on them...

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: February 09 2012 at 18:36

This is all missing the point just a little. It is not the Collabs and Prog Reviewers who we are concerned about as much as the non-collabs who are trying to emulate them. The "league table" presents a false picture of what being a collaborator is all about - it's not about producing 100s and 1000s of reviews, but of producing good quality reviews. All PRs were chosen because of the quality of what they wrote, not the quantity - which is why there are people out there who have written more than the recommended 30 reviews who were not promoted to PR status.

Newer members looking at the league table see a target to aim at (100s of reviews), not a goal to be achieved (accurate reviewing).

What?