Consider uniting subgenre teams

Only solution for your problem is to organize more teams for the sections as Crossover and Eclectic prog; for example Crossover Team 1, Crossover Team 2, Crossover Team 3 ( if needed).... Same with Eclectic.

Svetonio wrote: Only solution for your problem is to organize more teams for the sections as Crossover and Eclectic prog; for example Crossover Team 1, Crossover Team 2, Crossover Team 3 ( if needed).... Same with Eclectic.

There are other teams than those that could use more manpower. But this solution brings up a few additional problems.

1. Manpower. Finding people with the knowledge/understanding needed is a major obstacle.
2. Consensus. Multiple teams within a subgenre will lead to different teams having differences in opinion. With three Crossover teams, on a set number of submissions you will get different opinions. And while such teams obviously wouldn't handle the same cases, differences in opinions would lead to internal friction.

Still, a key issue in any such debate really should be what's most important for the site. That doesn't mean what is most important to the active people running it, but what is most important to the users who stop by and use this site as a resource. They generate traffic, they click the links and they bring the income to financially support this operation.

Whatever problems and solutions that are brought to the table, the focus should always be what's best for them, as without an audience this site will be as dead as a dodo.

Atavachron wrote: Sometimes it helps to remember how it was pre-2007.   Though I got here in late '06, I did get the impression of how different the addition process at PA was; Basically just a small group of knowledgeable prog fans who could add artists.   Made sense, and I can see how one might pine for those days.   I can't blame Hugues or Mike for wishing for more of that open trust and freedom, it was probably a happy and more relaxed time.

the old Art-Rock team man ... now that was the '27 Yankees of S.C.'s

I think the overall scope of work some of the genres needed... Ivan's symphonic death-march, the Art Rock split, the Prog Metal split required large numbers of members which naturally just became teams.

Really great times weren't they.




Edited by micky - June 22 2015 at 12:45

Windhawk wrote: Svetonio wrote: Only solution for your problem is to organize more teams for the sections as Crossover and Eclectic prog; for example Crossover Team 1, Crossover Team 2, Crossover Team 3 ( if needed).... Same with Eclectic. There are other teams than those that could use more manpower. But this solution brings up a few additional problems. 1. Manpower. Finding people with the knowledge/understanding needed is a major obstacle. 2. Consensus. Multiple teams within a subgenre will lead to different teams having differences in opinion. With three Crossover teams, on a set number of submissions you will get different opinions. And while such teams obviously wouldn't handle the same cases, differences in opinions would lead to internal friction. Still, a key issue in any such debate really should be what's most important for the site. That doesn't mean what is most important to the active people running it, but what is most important to the users who stop by and use this site as a resource. They generate traffic, they click the links and they bring the income to financially support this operation. Whatever problems and solutions that are brought to the table, the focus should always be what's best for them, as without an audience this site will be as dead as a dodo.

Though, I thought that each supposed multiplied Team has full autonomy in decisions, so that consensus would not be necessary. Re manpower... well, PA have a lot of members anyway, and nobody can to convince me that there's not a lot of competent members for that "job", and who wish to do it.

Edited by Svetonio - June 23 2015 at 06:43

sleeper wrote: One thing I'll point out from the OP, we've had the archive open to any and everyone able to add bands as they see fit. The result, Triumph and other laughably unsuitable bands got added. Not something that should ever be considered again due to the obvious fact that some wag would add Justin Bieber for a laugh and cause a headache for the rest of us.

I presume that it was a long time ago, and that nobody was checking added material, and nobody deleted those laughably bands. My above proposal includes the Teams as a control factor, although not to spend their time on long evals anymore, as with the growing number of new and good prog bands it's even impossible.
Anyway, it is impossible in current way to maintain the main idea of PA as the most powerful prog rock resource on the web, because it has to be a process; I mean, you can not ever stop accepting (almost) all those new prog bands & solo artists in the Archives if you're the most powerful prog rock resourse on the web. Imo.

Edited by Svetonio - June 23 2015 at 09:05

I think some of micky's thoughts merit serious consideration. Once you divide collabs on the basis of sub genre, we get possessive about our territory. Instead how about a two step process by an united team? First let there be voting on whether a band belongs here. Three yes votes by anybody voting will be enough for acceptance. Then, instead of tossing over the band to different teams for consideration and thereby consuming time, make the voter spell out a possible sub genre. Those unsure of genre may not vote. Stop at five and take stock. The genre getting max votes (at least 2) is the winner! In case of a tie have another vote restricting voters to the two tied options and resolve it. This is just a rough outline, would like to hear your thoughts. I too believe accepting every band that belongs here should be the motto of the website but that is not my remit in the current system. I can only evaluate what comes the way of crossover and then only whether the band is crossover or not. The above could help break the silos and utilize collabs' time more effectively.

It would lead to a lot of empty polls. Just like in music sales, the greater majority of artists and their releases will be ignored due to being unknown. A handful of people might keep up with it for a bit, but eventually also they would tire. I'd estimate that it would be 2-3 polls a day on average for the bands suggested as is, at least double that amount just to be able to include all artists marketed towards the prog scene with new albums. That's as far as new artists are concerned. In addition you have all the old artists not yet here that have been hidden by obscurity.

Svetonio wrote: As a said earlier, the only way to solve the problem is (imo) to multiply the Teams.

not to be overly dismissive... but I can say...

fantasy land man...  ignoring the reality of the situation.

people deemed suitable are still actively recruited...  there are not enough people to expand teams. They are consolidating them for lack of potential collabs of suitable knowledge, temperment, or most importantly.. the desire to work for the site. It is real work, no pay, no thanks, no nothing other than for pride of doing the best one can with a difficult job.  I didn't start enjoying the forum for what it was till I retired. 



Edited by micky - June 23 2015 at 16:13

micky wrote: rogerthat wrote: I think some of micky's thoughts merit serious consideration. Once you divide collabs on the basis of sub genre, we get possessive about our territory. Instead how about a two step process by an united team? First let there be voting on whether a band belongs here. Three yes votes by anybody voting will be enough for acceptance. Then, instead of tossing over the band to different teams for consideration and thereby consuming time, make the voter spell out a possible sub genre. Those unsure of genre may not vote. Stop at five and take stock. The genre getting max votes (at least 2) is the winner! In case of a tie have another vote restricting voters to the two tied options and resolve it. This is just a rough outline, would like to hear your thoughts. I too believe accepting every band that belongs here should be the motto of the website but that is not my remit in the current system. I can only evaluate what comes the way of crossover and then only whether the band is crossover or not. The above could help break the silos and utilize collabs' time more effectively. another proposal which has been floated, is to to keep the genres, keep the teams, but allow retired collabs.  Those who have done the work for the site, who have worked for, lead, or even created these subgenres add bands as they find them. I have to admit, I think that is a reasonable improvement to the addition issue.  Speeds up addition, takes out the 'politics' which have always been a dirty little secret of the addition process, and  it keeps the integrety of the teams and the work they do, perhaps even freeing them to really do the dirty work, database maintance and updating artist's information. It also might re-engage or re-energize some who have checked out of the site, be mentally or completely to get back involved with the site.

Sound idea, but something that won't ever be allowed to take place I'm afraid. Too many different opinions about what qualifies as what, and at least some of the existing genre teams would be...upset...if someone added something to "their" part of the database.

Something needs to be done though, when there are teams that have had bands for evaluation or even cleared for a couple of years without being able to conclude the cases, a recent example of just that was  bumped in the suggest new artists thread fairly recently.

  You raised good discussion points Olav but I'll leave that alone. Not here at least, not in the general forum.


Edited by micky - June 23 2015 at 19:07