The Progarchives site
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements
Forum Name: Help us improve the site
Forum Description: Help us improve the forums, and the site as a whole
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=51408
Printed Date: April 05 2025 at 01:49
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The Progarchives site
Posted By: Windhawk
Subject: The Progarchives site
Date Posted: August 30 2008 at 09:31
How interesting or not this poll is I really don't know - but as there have been discussions regarding the development of the site past, present and future a poll like this might give some clues as to what the average users think in this debate and not just the ones thriving in the discussion forums.
It'll be interesting to see whether or not this poll even will be found of interest though ;-)
-------------
Websites I work with:
http://www.progressor.net
http://www.houseofprog.com
My profile on Mixcloud:
https://www.mixcloud.com/haukevind/
|
Replies:
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 30 2008 at 09:38
as a collab.. and member of two teams officially.. and a lot more unofficially hahha
the emphasis has always been on adding artists.. expanding the database.
should write more reviews.. but there are those who are better than I at that... so they do their part.. and I do mine I guess. Get them the artists that they can reivew.
-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
Posted By: Jared
Date Posted: August 30 2008 at 09:53
adding more artists, without a doubt, imho...
-------------
Music has always been a matter of energy to me. On some nights I believe that a car with the needle on empty can run 50 more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. Hunter S Thompson
|
Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: August 30 2008 at 09:54
Well, the whole idea of PA is to recommend prog to people. I think the best way about that is with reviews, so option 3.
-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."
Arnold Schoenberg
|
Posted By: Figglesnout
Date Posted: August 30 2008 at 09:56
Well, I don''t think the review issue is a huge one, as reviews are so subjective.
for example: I love Toby Driver's solo album, but Easy Livin reviewed it and gave it one star, with some pretty harsh words backing it up (I"m not refuting the review at all--his opinion is his opinion, this is just the quickest example that popped into my mind).
If that had been the only review, I may have gone off of that alone and never heard the album--which I consider great.
Thus, I think that, while certainly reviews of albums on this site can be very helpful, only albums with maybe three or more reviews are really going to say anything about the consistency/quality of a certain album. otherwise, a user can use teh intarw3bz to help him investigate an album's quality.
However, I think it is important have more streamable mp3s on the site, as one of the quickest ways to discover music on the site is to pick a genre, and just let the mp3sa roll by, finding ones you like, writing down the artists' names, and then investigating further.
As for adding more artists, I do think it's a priority, but one that the site has been handling well for a long time, so I'm not too worried about it.
And really I could care less what they decide to call a certain genre, as long as it makes some amount of sense; I don't think this really will affect a user's opinion of the site or the music, despite if they disagree with a term here or there.
So, I voted mp3s.
-------------
I'm a reasonable man, get off my case
|
Posted By: Yorkie X
Date Posted: August 30 2008 at 10:18
adding more "worthy" artists sounds good though I will say the archives has the main ones already so its not really an area screaming out for attention.
Expanding the various sub genres? If you want world war three to break out here at prog archives this a great idea 
Focus on writing reviews for all the albums without one? Now this a a great idea probably the best idea out of them all.
Adding more mp3 samples to the site? sure why not but once again focus on adding Mp3's of not so well known artists is the ticket I think.
Simplifying the genre and sub genre system? leave it how it is but make it clearer for new people to the site to comprehend by making them sit a exam on it before they can join the forum ... jejejeje jk 
|
Posted By: Mellotron Storm
Date Posted: August 30 2008 at 10:20
For me it's making ProgArchives more complete when it comes to missed albums for certain artists,or adding bands that should be on here. AFTER for example is a band from Poland that every other prog site seems to talk about.I'm not complaining because i know it's a big job,it's just i see what i would consider obscure bands being added all the time.The more the better though.
-------------
"The wind is slowly tearing her apart"
"Sad Rain" ANEKDOTEN
|
Posted By: Chicapah
Date Posted: August 30 2008 at 10:40
I think the "powers that be" have done an exemplary job of adding prog artists to the site and maintaining the technical efficiency so well. Adding more audio samples would be my suggestion because there's just not that many places the younger generation can go to experience the magic and wonder of prog. This site is a beacon in the night.
-------------
"Literature is well enough, as a time-passer, and for the improvement and general elevation and purification of mankind, but it has no practical value" - Mark Twain
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 30 2008 at 10:46
 The Antique wrote:
However, I think it is important have more streamable mp3s on the site, as one of the quickest ways to discover music on the site is to pick a genre, and just let the mp3sa roll by, finding ones you like, writing down the artists' names, and then investigating further.
As for adding more artists, I do think it's a priority, but one that the site has been handling well for a long time, so I'm not too worried about it.
And really I could care less what they decide to call a certain genre, as long as it makes some amount of sense; I don't think this really will affect a user's opinion of the site or the music, despite if they disagree with a term here or there.
So, I voted mp3s. |
yeah... I remember when I first discovered the site... I ripped tons of mp3 onto CD-R and played them at work. They can be a great resource for discovery.. much more than a review. Of course there are issues involved with mp3s so we take what we can give the forum
adding artists IS the primary focus on this forum.. make no mistake about that.. no addtions.. no reviews.. no samples. .no categories.. no discussion.
as far as genre's.... they are guides.. not hard and fast and set in concrete. Take the recent addtion of Miles Davis... we never intended to say he was a prog artist.. or was a jazz-fusion artists. He was placed there... becuase his albums that are pertinent to this site.. .fall within that area.
-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
Posted By: LeInsomniac
Date Posted: August 30 2008 at 10:52
More reviews (to the albums that don't have one) was my vote; however, more mp3, at least to the groups that don't have an example of their sound is a great option as well, but its not only the collaborators responsability, after all they urge that everyone who has mp3 of certain groups who haven't mp3 here, should send to the "powers that be" so they can put in each group's page.
Adding more groups IF and only IF they're progressive groups (not adding for the sake of adding) and searching for new prog groups, and real obscure ones, so we can learn of their existence is more important than adding groups everyone already knows about, in my opinion.
-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/LeInsomniac/?chartstyle=volta"> 
Happy Family One Hand Clap, Four Went On But None Came Back
|
Posted By: Figglesnout
Date Posted: August 30 2008 at 11:01
micky wrote:
The Antique wrote:
However, I think it is important have more streamable mp3s on the site, as one of the quickest ways to discover music on the site is to pick a genre, and just let the mp3sa roll by, finding ones you like, writing down the artists' names, and then investigating further.
As for adding more artists, I do think it's a priority, but one that the site has been handling well for a long time, so I'm not too worried about it.
And really I could care less what they decide to call a certain genre, as long as it makes some amount of sense; I don't think this really will affect a user's opinion of the site or the music, despite if they disagree with a term here or there.
So, I voted mp3s. |
yeah... I remember when I first discovered the site... I ripped tons of mp3 onto CD-R and played them at work. They can be a great resource for discovery.. much more than a review. Of course there are issues involved with mp3s so we take what we can give the forumadding artists IS the primary focus on this forum.. make no mistake about that.. no addtions.. no reviews.. no samples. .no categories.. no discussion.as far as genre's.... they are guides.. not hard and fast and set in concrete. Take the recent addtion of Miles Davis... we never intended to say he was a prog artist.. or was a jazz-fusion artists. He was placed there... becuase his albums that are pertinent to this site.. .fall within that area. |
what I think would be awesome is implementing a system sort of like last.fm uses, where one can stream full albums for some artists/albums, and otherwise at least usually stream a full song, or hear clips, on the artist page...
Though I realize that, for a site like this, that would probably be a nearly impossible feat. Still, it'd be neat.
-------------
I'm a reasonable man, get off my case
|
Posted By: Figglesnout
Date Posted: August 30 2008 at 11:02
Also, it'd be neat if every artist had a small board or something on their page for discussion, instead of having all of these "[insert band here] appreciation threads" floating around. every band could have a discussion board attached to their page. It could even be implemented into genres. Instead of having huge '[insert genre] appreciation/recommendation" threads, it could also be attached to the main page.
although that'd probably clutter up the idea of the forum, which is more organized than that, i suppose.
but anyway I know this isn't like an ideas thread, so i'll stop.
like i said, i voted mp3s, and the site is great as it is. 
-------------
I'm a reasonable man, get off my case
|
Posted By: explodingjosh
Date Posted: August 30 2008 at 11:02
Making my opinion more powerful!!!!
-------------
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 30 2008 at 11:06
The Antique wrote:
micky wrote:
The Antique wrote:
However, I think it is important have more streamable mp3s on the site, as one of the quickest ways to discover music on the site is to pick a genre, and just let the mp3sa roll by, finding ones you like, writing down the artists' names, and then investigating further.
As for adding more artists, I do think it's a priority, but one that the site has been handling well for a long time, so I'm not too worried about it.
And really I could care less what they decide to call a certain genre, as long as it makes some amount of sense; I don't think this really will affect a user's opinion of the site or the music, despite if they disagree with a term here or there.
So, I voted mp3s. |
yeah... I remember when I first discovered the site... I ripped tons of mp3 onto CD-R and played them at work. They can be a great resource for discovery.. much more than a review. Of course there are issues involved with mp3s so we take what we can give the forumadding artists IS the primary focus on this forum.. make no mistake about that.. no addtions.. no reviews.. no samples. .no categories.. no discussion.as far as genre's.... they are guides.. not hard and fast and set in concrete. Take the recent addtion of Miles Davis... we never intended to say he was a prog artist.. or was a jazz-fusion artists. He was placed there... becuase his albums that are pertinent to this site.. .fall within that area. |
what I think would be awesome is implementing a system sort of like last.fm uses, where one can stream full albums for some artists/albums, and otherwise at least usually stream a full song, or hear clips, on the artist page...
Though I realize that, for a site like this, that would probably be a nearly impossible feat. Still, it'd be neat. |
oh that it would...
-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: August 30 2008 at 11:14
"You can not vote in this poll"
huh?
|
Posted By: jamesfibs1
Date Posted: August 30 2008 at 11:17
|
I think that adding more MP3 samples should be the priority. Its all very well and good adding new artists to the site, but whats the point if one can't hear them?
My prog rock horizons were broadened vastly due to being able to hear what bands sounded like, for example i'd have never have dreamt of buying Gryphon's 'Red Queen to Gryphon Three' because i assumed it would be too folky, but after hearing lament on this site i decided to go for it. Without the MP3 i would never have considered it! Similarly, i am reluctant to investigate bands that do not have very many MP3 samples, as it is a bit of a stab in the dark as to what they are going to be like. King Crimson is an example of this worry because all of their MP3 samples have been removed - therefore i am alot more cautious when it comes to buying an album of theirs.
Reviews are great, but nothing can really describe how music sounds - bar actually listening to it. Plus some of the bands that are being added in my opinion are simply not prog (Iron Maiden?!?!), but thats besides the point i guess...
To clarify - more MP3 samples please!!!
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 30 2008 at 11:25
I think that what makes this website so successful are first and foremost the reviews ... so if I was allowed to vote I'd choose that option.
-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls
Listened to:
|
Posted By: Figglesnout
Date Posted: August 30 2008 at 11:27
^^I guess some error occurred when it was moved, since polls are probably not supposed to be in "help us improve this site"....are they?
-------------
I'm a reasonable man, get off my case
|
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: August 30 2008 at 11:38
Adding more artists to the site - definitely! I can't imagine when it would all end concerning this. The hope is, moreover, for things to be improved when the addition process shows signs of slowness or endless pending. More artists, yay!
Expanding the various subgenres - I can't tell if there is or not room for one of the current genres to redefine its state or not, but, mostly (and generally) speaking, I don't think the way of splitting current subgenres in even tinier cultures is necessary.
Focus on writing reviews for all the albums without one - Here's something that would get my vote, except the thing is:
1. reviewing an album requires to have that album; in case one doesn't have it, it further requires purchasing the album
2. reviewing a rare album is even harder to do, since you've got to be a collectionist or a deep-collection searcher for that
3. reviewing, generally, is a thing of preferences, since all members can freely review what they want; that's why I consider the top polls a simple thing of popularity; but anyway, if person X wants to review Close To The Edge or wants to review a rare Krautrock, it's his pleasure; the rules can't exceed past the encouraging state; reviewing unreviewed albums is encouraged - and there's even a guide list - but it can't be implemented or, worse, forced
4. Collaborators often exceed expectations in reviewing more unknown prog - though that isn't a general rule or statistic
Adding more mp3 samples to the site - I watch the process and think it is a continuous one, so it's not a major thing to improve or accelerate
Simplifying the genre and subgenre system - well, since the discussions of tagging albums instead of bands is still pending, I'd say "simplifying" is just a figure of speech  ; if regarding a "meld" of some sub-genres, I think we shouldn't go back, mainly because the split of genres was a sign of individualized directions in prog music; of course, they're only guiding grounds of the same acknowledged universe called prog (rock? heh), but, the way it seems now, neither a step back, neither too many steps forward would be my option.
So, concerning priority, it's also a subjective thing
1. Collaborators have the priority of adding bands
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.
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
4. MP3 additions are something a couple of Collaborators and Admins assigned to do, but it doesn't imply an obligation or a priority
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...).
-------------
|
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: August 30 2008 at 14:04
The Antique wrote:
^^I guess some error occurred when it was moved, since polls are probably not supposed to be in "help us improve this site"....are they? |
Correct observation. They're not allowed.
-------------
http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio
I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected]
|
Posted By: Avantgardehead
Date Posted: August 30 2008 at 17:29
A think a good old-fashioned purge would greatly benefit the database.
-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/Avantgardian
|
Posted By: Figglesnout
Date Posted: August 30 2008 at 20:30
I'm still in for expanding the mp3 archive, and perhaps the whole idea of the streamable mp3s.
What if, at least, the album of the week was fully streamable/ Or something like that?
Reviews are very important as well, second on my list, but as I said before, i think they are too subjective for only one or two reviews on a certain rare album to be enough to determine the type of album it is. I think the review system works the best when an album has like 15+ reviews, and a critical average in stars accumulates. So, if an album has overall higher scores, one knows it's good, and vice versa.
-------------
I'm a reasonable man, get off my case
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 30 2008 at 21:05
Ricochet wrote:
Adding more artists to the site - definitely! I can't imagine when it would all end concerning this. The hope is, moreover, for things to be improved when the addition process shows signs of slowness or endless pending. More artists, yay!
Expanding the various subgenres - I can't tell if there is or not room for one of the current genres to redefine its state or not, but, mostly (and generally) speaking, I don't think the way of splitting current subgenres in even tinier cultures is necessary.
Focus on writing reviews for all the albums without one - Here's something that would get my vote, except the thing is:
1. reviewing an album requires to have that album; in case one doesn't have it, it further requires purchasing the album
2. reviewing a rare album is even harder to do, since you've got to be a collectionist or a deep-collection searcher for that
3. reviewing, generally, is a thing of preferences, since all members can freely review what they want; that's why I consider the top polls a simple thing of popularity; but anyway, if person X wants to review Close To The Edge or wants to review a rare Krautrock, it's his pleasure; the rules can't exceed past the encouraging state; reviewing unreviewed albums is encouraged - and there's even a guide list - but it can't be implemented or, worse, forced
4. Collaborators often exceed expectations in reviewing more unknown prog - though that isn't a general rule or statistic
Adding more mp3 samples to the site - I watch the process and think it is a continuous one, so it's not a major thing to improve or accelerate
Simplifying the genre and subgenre system - well, since the discussions of tagging albums instead of bands is still pending, I'd say "simplifying" is just a figure of speech ; if regarding a "meld" of some sub-genres, I think we shouldn't go back, mainly because the split of genres was a sign of individualized directions in prog music; of course, they're only guiding grounds of the same acknowledged universe called prog (rock? heh), but, the way it seems now, neither a step back, neither too many steps forward would be my option.
So, concerning priority, it's also a subjective thing
1. Collaborators have the priority of adding bands
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.
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
4. MP3 additions are something a couple of Collaborators and Admins assigned to do, but it doesn't imply an obligation or a priority
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...).
|
I should also add that the number of people reviewing albums is far greater than the number of people adding bands, 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.
-------------
What?
|
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 16:09
If I could vote, and multi-tagging albums was an option, that would be my priority -- especially if a search albums by genres function was implemented. For instance, I wish it was easy to search mulkti-genre for an "avant/Zeuhl/Canterbury" album (the "subgenre" would be prioritised depending on the order of the choices).
Adding more artists to the site: that's constantly being done. It expands rapidly that way (though rather slower than it should). It's preparing the bios particularly that is time-consuming (I have several that I've been meaning to do but an addition that I've prepared takes me more hours than most), and categorisation can be very laborious.
Expanding the various subgenres?: yes, I definitely want that. I talk about this more later. I would like subsubgenres (this would also be very useful for Prog Related so to more easily find music that is related to a particular category, but would work best once we have implemented multi-tagging. For instance, please suggest me a band in the related category that is not deemed Prog enough for a Prog category that is particularly related to Krautrock, Zeuhl, Avant Prog, Canterbury Scene, or Acid Folk music). As it is, it's difficuly to easily search for such music at PA (and in fact, I would turn to other sources for such searches).
Focus on writing reviews without one: Yeah, that's important. I've only written one review, but have been meaning to do another for Jean-Paul Prat's Masal for many months (my favourite album that I discovered thanks to Eclectic team work, and one of my earlier evaluations). It is such a great album, yet no reviews in almost a year). Of course people like to review what they know. Many of the obscure reviews come from those who added (or had others add for them) obscure bands, but it's so much work already just to prepare the addition. Truth be told, I find a well-written bio more helpful than individual album reviews. I like it when the bios review the albums a bit.
Adding more mp3 samples to the site?: As I am wont to say, an mp3 is worth a thousand words. That's how I discovered a huge amount of music here early on (back then they were downloadable, but I like the convenience of streams). Love just going to a category page and treawling through all of the mp3s -- great way to expand knowledge. I'd rather one good mp3 off of an album over 50 reviews of that album. I don't use reviews to get people's thoughts on albums I know so much, and I prefer to let my own ears jusdge the music as much as possible. It's actually the ratings which get my attention, and a well, written bio, more than what's written in the reviews. If there is a good for me mp3, though, that's generally enough.
Simplifying the genre and subgenre system? I would like it simplified in a way, and expanded in others. I would like it set up more as a tree (preferably a dynamic one done in flash). What's important is the ease of discovering music of interest, and for that I like things well and distictly categorised with similar artists/ bands). As it is, I would rather have subcategories and subsubcategories that are not listed on the front page (those would be master categories). For instance, Prog Metal would be a master category, after clicking on that, one would be taken to the progressive metal divisions.
I want more subcategories (and/ or multitagging). I'd like a category for progressive rock that while progressive would not normally be considerd Prog (Prog Related works somewhat well for this), and category that highlights key "progressive music" artists that are not rock but have influenced it or share traits with music in categories here. Examples would be Coltrane, Glass, Stockhausen). I would have temporal limits.
I'd also alike a holding cell category for bands that have not been placed in their categories yet (and have that open to all to add, but have strict guidelines).
-------------
"Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself" (The Prisoner, 1967).
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 16:18
|
More MP3s > More reviews about albums with no or lesser reviews > More artists
|
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 16:27
Swan Song wrote:
More MP3s > More reviews about albums with no or lesser reviews > More artists
|
I'll be sure to keep an eye out for your reviews!  I'd definitely put more artists higher, though. Incidentally, we can't add mp3s for every artist as some, as well as the labels, don't permit them (big mistake I think). Of course the artist has to be added before the mp3s, but if it had not been for mp3s, I wouldn't have invested in many artists.
-------------
"Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself" (The Prisoner, 1967).
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 16:42
I think that having MP3s for Jean Paul Prat, Bijelo Dugme, Attila Kollar, La Pura Realidad, Estradasphere or Subterranean Masquerade is much more important than having MP3s for King Crimson or Pink Floyd. Reviews would also be nice, but MP3s are an easier start IMO for promoting lesser known bands.
Adding new artistis is going well, as always, I don't think that can ever be an issue of concern.
|
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 16:49
Swan Song wrote:
I think that having MP3s for Jean Paul Prat, Bijelo Dugme, Attila Kollar, La Pura Realidad, Estradasphere or Subterranean Masquerade is much more important than having MP3s for King Crimson or Pink Floyd. Reviews would also be nice, but MP3s are an easier start IMO for promoting lesser known bands.
Adding new artists are going well, as always, I don't think that can ever be an issue of concern.
|
Good points.
-------------
"Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself" (The Prisoner, 1967).
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 18:25
I think that mp3s are much less important today than they were 4 years ago ... most bands have their myspace page with several full length samples.
-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls
Listened to:
|
Posted By: Jared
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 18:32
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
I think that mp3s are much less important today than they were 4 years ago ... most bands have their myspace page with several full length samples. |
while I absolutely agree with that Mike, I still think they are quite useful for bands which have been around for many years, where PA can introduce members to a more balanced set of MP3s from their body of work. Most Myspace pages I visit naturally weight tunes toward the last couple of albums.
-------------
Music has always been a matter of energy to me. On some nights I believe that a car with the needle on empty can run 50 more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. Hunter S Thompson
|
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: August 31 2008 at 18:42
fandango wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
I think that mp3s are much less important today than they were 4 years ago ... most bands have their myspace page with several full length samples. |
while I absolutely agree with that Mike, I still think they are quite useful for bands which have been around for many years, where PA can introduce members to a more balanced set of MP3s from their body of work. Most Myspace pages I visit naturally weight tunes toward the last couple of albums. |
True too. Where I found the mp3s most useful here was discovering the music of many bands from specific categories here by clicking on a category. It's such a convenient way to explore much music of a category. For instance, I would open the ../subgenre.asp?style=33 - Progressive Electronic page and could use the streaming flash application to listen to a huge number of bands at once (sometimes skipping ones that didn't automatically appeal/ intrigue me). I discovered many bands/ artists that way, and expanded my knowledge greatly about categories through that means. The later I would search myspace (shame how many bands don't have myspace pages -- even ones not from the classic era, and I do think we should have more mp3s here. i should add some becuase there are those which have neither myspace pages nor streaming music here. e.g. one of my favourites - Hellebore).
-------------
"Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself" (The Prisoner, 1967).
|
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: September 01 2008 at 07:26
Adding more artist, more artists, and some more artists.
But with a good biography. There's no point of piling random names in the database that mean nothing to almost nobody.
I know it's difficult to write a good bio, especially if the band is obscure - I am myself guilty of writing of some biographies that are not par excellence, but if there's no bio, there should be a review. Since reviews are getting written by a member's personal preference, not as a goal to be achieved (I'm talking about a whole body of forum members as a unit), then we should add more artists..with relevant info (bio and/or mp3's).
-------------
https://japanskipremijeri.bandcamp.com/album/perkusije-gospodine" rel="nofollow - Percussion, sir!
|
Posted By: debrewguy
Date Posted: September 01 2008 at 21:06
no more psots ?
-------------
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 01 2008 at 21:26
I'll chime in on the bio thing ..biography writing is challenging in itself, then sometimes there's lack of info, foreign languages, conflicting information, multiple bands with the same name and style ..but really a bio should be written even if it's just a few tidbits of info you were able to get; a year, band member names, instruments, influences, it can be done !!
|
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: September 01 2008 at 21:26
Why can't I vote?
-------------
I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth.
|
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: September 02 2008 at 00:24
tszirmay wrote:
Why can't I vote? |
It's not in a section of the forum which allows polls.
-------------
|
Posted By: Windhawk
Date Posted: September 02 2008 at 05:23
|
Yeah, for some reason this post was moved away from the polls - sadly. The thought behind this one was more to see what the users thought by casting a vote in a quick poll than to have a discussion going really.
Oh well, guess there's a reson for this though...
-------------
Websites I work with:
http://www.progressor.net
http://www.houseofprog.com
My profile on Mixcloud:
https://www.mixcloud.com/haukevind/
|
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: September 02 2008 at 09:24
|
I think here the discussion, which is about how to improve the site, is more useful than the poll.
We're looking at whether to open up this section to polls though.
|
Posted By: debrewguy
Date Posted: September 02 2008 at 13:16
I think the easiest things at the moment are the requests for PA denizens to review the unreviewed, and to also verify official band websites as many no longer exists, if they ever did at all.
The genre clean up/re-classification/re-distribution/new sub sub sub(to infinity) genres is really a never ending road that so far only causes more heated debate that ultimately goes nowhere.
-------------
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: September 04 2008 at 20:52
Dean 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
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 - 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. [/QUOTE]
-------------
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 04 2008 at 21:36
you appear to have miss-quoted the quotes Alberto I've fixed it to avoid confusion...
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.
Just suggesting a band is no guarantee that they will be added - 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.
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 - 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.
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.
There is no limit on the number of Prog Reviewers.
------------- What?
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 04 2008 at 21:49
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...
|
Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: September 05 2008 at 11:23
Dean wrote:
you appear to have miss-quoted the quotes Alberto I've fixed it to avoid confusion...
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.
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.
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
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 - 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.
There is no limit on the number of Prog Reviewers.
|
-------------
|
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: September 05 2008 at 13:17
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...
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.
-------------
"Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself" (The Prisoner, 1967).
|
Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: September 05 2008 at 14:30
|
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 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31506&OB=DESC
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.
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
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
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 - 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.
|
[/QUOTE]
I agree that the more people who can be utilised/ are willing to work for the site, the better.
[/QUOTE]
-------------
|
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: September 05 2008 at 20:44
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 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31506&OB=DESC http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31506&OB=DESC -
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]
-------------
"Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself" (The Prisoner, 1967).
|
Posted By: debrewguy
Date Posted: September 05 2008 at 21:34
I say we have a study group set up to search for and find the next topic for us to go Nuclear over. We've gotten over the Gabrielites vs Philistines fight, are done with the anti-DT threads, and are now in the process, hopefully, of drying out the well of ill-will towards Prog Metal (Prog or Not, but it's derived from metal, how can it be prog rock. But prog folk is derived from Folk music which is not rock; but then neither is Jazz; my head is spinning, I'm going to re-visit my supper now ).
But first I ask that you give it some thought. Maybe it's the idea that PA's stated goal of being the most inclusive Prog Rock site on the web should not mean that it include everything that could be of interest to a prog rock fan
-------------
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
Posted By: TRIFIVE5000
Date Posted: September 28 2008 at 17:13
adding more artists
-------------
Living on a lighted stage
Approaches the unreal
For those who think and feel
In touch with some reality
Beyond the gilded cage!
|
Posted By: TRIFIVE5000
Date Posted: September 28 2008 at 17:14
|
And adding samples songs to
-------------
Living on a lighted stage
Approaches the unreal
For those who think and feel
In touch with some reality
Beyond the gilded cage!
|
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: September 28 2008 at 22:39
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 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31506&OB=DESC
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 - 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]
 GUYS!!! ^^^ Look at the above huge multi-coloured quote pyramid -- how confusing is that? Our readers should not have to do detective work to figure out who is saying what! 
Here is something I worked out long ago here (I'm surprised that more folks haven't followed suit) and if you heed it, it will immediately improve the site, and such posts, IMO:
When you use colours to separate one poster from another, simply take the time to also put the posters' names (inside the quote brackets, where it says, for example "QUOTE=Logan") in the corresponding colours.
Thus if Logan writes in pink, his name at the top appears in pink, if Dean writes in red, his name appears in red, etc.
It's very easy to do, and makes deciphering who said what in these unwieldy pyramids SO MUCH EASIER!
 See the next post for an example -- I'll quote an earlier post, and colour code my name, and those of the persons I'm quoting....
-------------
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
|
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: September 28 2008 at 22:47
|
^ Isn't that a lot easier to keep track of?
Now, if anyone were to quote this, he need only colour my name distinctively, perhaps in green, and so on.
Still, these pyramids should not get so darned big -- if you're only responding to the last person in such a beast, it only take a few seconds to delete the earlier, unneeded quotes. Don't be lazy -- be considerate! 
Assuming you actually want anyone to read your words....
-------------
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
|
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: September 28 2008 at 22:53
Not to mention the fact that more collabs should take the time to use Spell Check! 
-------------
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
|
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: September 28 2008 at 22:54
Peter wrote:
Not to mention the fact that more collabs should take the time to use Spell Check!
|
-------------
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
|
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: September 29 2008 at 01:29
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. ;)
-------------
"Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself" (The Prisoner, 1967).
|
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: September 29 2008 at 08:35
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 recognize 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. ;) |
Thanks for the thoughtful response, Logan. I too have huge reservations about taking my work here (thus my longstanding decision not to be a moderator or such), but still, the habits that were ingrained during my education are a fundamental part of how I communicate in text now. I can't bear to let even the smallest spelling or punctuation error stand uncorrected in one of my posts -- assuming I spot it! (You'll find "edited by Peter" at the bottom of most of my posts -- my typing is crap.  )
Re your last point (and the original poll topic), thanks for the smile. I really have no one priority for improving the site -- unless it were to dispense with the confusing, divisive notion of "prog" altogether....
PS: I corrected your spelling of RECOGNIZE with my spell check.
Take it easy, my friend.
-------------
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 29 2008 at 08:51
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
-------------
What?
|
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: September 29 2008 at 08:54
OMG, Flower-Power quoting pyramide.
-------------
|
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: September 29 2008 at 10:10
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 |
These people across the water keep changing all our spellings - color, flavor, recognize/recognize. And they wear their pants on the outside, I mean what's that all about? |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: September 29 2008 at 10:19
chopper wrote:
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 |
These people across the water keep changing all our spellings - color, flavor, recognize/recognize. And they wear their pants on the outside, I mean what's that all about? |
Not much of a difference there, is it?
Oh...quote pyramide alert, better color in something my post.
-------------
|
Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: September 29 2008 at 10:32
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. ;) |
Friends i have no problem to read the quotes
-------------
|
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: September 29 2008 at 13:46
Peter wrote:
Thanks for the thoughtful response, Logan. I
too have huge reservations about taking my work here (thus my
longstanding decision not to be a moderator or such), but still, the
habits that were ingrained during my education are a fundamental part
of how I communicate in text now. I can't bear to let even the smallest
spelling or punctuation error stand uncorrected in one of my posts --
assuming I spot it! (You'll find "edited by Peter" at the bottom of
most of my posts -- my typing is crap. )
Re your last point (and the original poll topic),
thanks for the smile. I really have no one priority for improving the
site -- unless it were to dispense with the confusing, divisive notion
of "prog" altogether....
 PS: I corrected your spelling of RECOGNIZE with my spell check.
Take it easy, my friend. |
I prefer to use the alternate "se" spelling; it's less commoner. That said, consistency is important, and you will notice that my signature has "Magmatize & Progelytize the masses!" where I deliberately opted for the more common "ze" spelling. A problem with spell-check can be that it doesn't offer alternate spellings, and it's one reason why I don't rely on it. I'm a very good speller, but I am prone to typos when posting. When I'm working, I'm meticulous, and it comes automatically. Here, it's different, partially because I'm in a different mind-set, and also because I write better when using Word rather than these little post boxes -- even the full-reply editor is less than satisfying. I should set it so I can see things properly (use super-big font), my ulcerated eyes are in very bad shape.
I used to be the same when it comes to having it ingrained in my education. I used to be very precise, formal, well-structured, but then I moved to a soggy-bloggy writing style -- stream of diarrhoeic thought. I tend to find such writing more of a pleasurable distraction; however, I would love to get back to writing for myself in the manner I once did. Maybe it's time I tried my hand at writing plays or screenplays again -- I like the structure, but lack the time, brain-cells, and patience these days. It's stressful juggling children and work, and I love writing, but really miss having sufficient periods without distraction for the kind of writing that I enjoy most.
Grammar and spelling are important, but I'm more interested in the content of people's posts -- the ideas presented..., as well as the presentation of ideas.
Sorry for the digressions. This touches on something I said in my last post. It is more stream-of-thought-stuff. In regards to quoting, my big concern is when quoting is done in such a manner that context is lost. I think it's important to read a whole post carefully, and see how it fits together, before picking it apart, else the message is lost. Of course, one only need quote the salient bits, but one has to be very careful. I do notice sometimes that when posts are dissected, and sometimes only parts of posts are quoted, the message/ intent/ thrust is lost. On a related note; I think some people forget a basic when it comes to polite formal arguing - the principle of charity. Put, or consider your "opponent's" argument in the strongest form possible. That requires understanding what the person is trying to say. One needs to focus on the ideas, and consider alternate approaches.... Consider; don't just dismiss -- explore the grey areas.
-------------
"Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself" (The Prisoner, 1967).
|
|