Major Upgrade to the Forum Engine

Thread closed. Collabs can discuss further in the CZ.

Angelo wrote: Snow Dog wrote: The problem is that this decision was made and implemented without any consultation isn't it? Aren't we all working together to keep this site going? And yet those people mainly affected (the top reviewers) have to find out by suddenly noticing the omission from the home page. Once it used to be "that's how Max wants it" trumping all arguments. Now we don't even need that. Yep. We're all working together to keep this site going, and we all have our own responsibilities in that. Be glad that this is the way things work - if everything had to be implemented through consultation and democratic voting, the number of errors, omissions, reviews, interviews and band (re)movals would go subzero within a week. Unless you are suggesting that we all get a say  in and vote on how you fix errors and omissions, Torodd publishes interviews, Bonnek redefines the PMT genre definitions, the Eclectic team adds bands etc.? The fact that only an handful of the 265 reviewers and collaborators feel the need to comment on this might mean that some people have too much time on their hands while others carry on and do their part of keeping the site alive, doesn't it?

Edited by Snow Dog - February 10 2012 at 06:28

Windhawk wrote: Dean wrote: Artists and A&R people looking for reviewers can access the collab page from the front page. They can, in theory, but for many of them that page is a wilderness they don't know how to even start navigating in. Even web-savvy artists have problems using that one as a tool.

Edited by Dean - February 10 2012 at 05:58

Windhawk wrote: Yeah, this site's gone ever so slightly apartheid as far as decisions go.

Emotive turn of phrase certainly. Given that this is a genre(s) defined music appreciation site, do you fear the lines of discrimination that you abhor stretch to a demarcation between what our members consider Proto, Prog related or fully fledged Prog? and (gulp) the rest?

Yeah, this site's gone ever so slightly apartheid as far as decisions go.

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* 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

I believe that a surfeit of poorly researched reviews that tell the reader little about what the music contained therein actually sounds like or resembles or is maybe influenced by is more likely to turn PA into a laughing stock. None of the foregoing criteria are necessarily 'subjective' by any stretch of the imagination. We want to maintain and hopefully increase our credibility within the broader progressive music community and the vast majority of those reviews that are close to  the 100 word minimum guidelines from both collabs and non collabs just don't cut it with that objective in mind. We certainly don't want to discourage reviews but we do want to encourage collabs to 'set the bar' for those who follow in their wake. (aspiring collabs) We have also discussed the possibility of incentives for quality reviews similar to those explored previously like 'review of the Month' etc (Which I believe raised the prevailing standard considerably) The Admins that you castigate so shrilly for what you perceive as being high-handed and dictatorial have to be disinterested in the opinions expressed in a review (notwithstanding the site rules for profanity and personal attacks, vulgarity etc) So why do you continue to reveal for our edification only your own confusion as to what constitutes opinion c/f information?

BTW I've never read the Bible all the way through so I'm not allowed to review it

Man, what I've started here with my search for that list. I my self don't understand what is so harmful to have that top 100 list on the front page, it was there for years and  sudden someone thinks is not ok, really strange for me.

Finnforest wrote: Pretty true Olav....I'm just frustrated by some things like everyone else, but this isn't the place or time.....usually I'm the guy sticking up for the site and rah rah rah when other people take shots at it.....guess I finally had enough.  It doesn't much matter.  I expressed my opinion here, and to Max earlier before I understood what had happened.  It's their site.  If they think this action is helping, more power to em.  I think it hurts, morale, at how it was handled, and hurts the site by losing a neat front page feature.  I'll leave it at that.

Guess I've been missing out on a few things after taking a back seat role on this site...and that what I have missed has been to my advantage. Incidentally, I think there's room for a hard working reviewer at a certain site I'm writing for *chuckles*

Dean wrote: Artists and A&R people looking for reviewers can access the collab page from the front page.

They can, in theory, but for many of them that page is a wilderness they don't know how to even start navigating in. Even web-savvy artists have problems using that one as a tool.

Take it to the CZ please Torodd.