Final Approve or Rejection of a Band suggestion.

As for this suggestion - I have enough paperwork and red tape at the place I earn my money. Getting another level of it here makes me think of documentation, journals, archives and having to spend time on routines that gets in the way of the stuff I want to do in here (for my sake pestering the various teams a lot lately...) - but still: It would reduce the joy and initiative to do something here.

Knowing that for every decision made one way or the other there's a need to provide documentation after the fact would primarily add incentive to postpone a decision for my sake, and I would think I'm not all alone in feeling that way.

A good idea though - if this had been a place where we worked, got an hourly salary and had to comply with ISO-standards.

Edited by Easy Livin - October 29 2008 at 16:42

zafreth wrote: Atavachron wrote:  ^ thank you  ..been wanting to say the same but just hadn't put it into words yet.  "Collaborators must add their reasons for rejection or for addition"  .. excuse me but you need to take a big step back for all the reasons stated above and a whole bunch of others.  Nice try but most of us bust our butts and take the work very seriously.  Moreover, Collabs often post in Suggest New Bands with comments and thank yous, and frequently follow-up on the decisions.  And BTW, rushfan is right, that's what Site Monitoring does, and they do it very well. Thank you.     Exactly David, if you said that take the work very seriously, that document stand like an evidence of that hours or weeks of hard work. As you see,  we all win with this suggestion!

not what I was saying but whatever...  no, we don't all win with your suggestion, believe me

King By-Tor wrote: Honestly, I don't know how much easier it is for you just to go to ProgFreak and look at the charts there. What you're suggesting would basically mean that the SCs on here would have to work on here a good amount of time per day, and no one would want this to turn into a second, unpaid job. Jobs aren't meant for fun, and PA isn't meant to be a job If it means pleasing one person, why don't you just go to ProgFreak where it basically already does everything you're suggesting. The teams all post their results there anyways, and like so many others have said, you can always PM a site Moniter if you're curious about the addition of a certain band. These guys bust their asses as it is, would you stop giving them such grief over this matter?

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

Raff wrote: OK, hope not to sound confrontational in any way, but what I saw so far really rubbed me the wrong way (and heaven knows if I need that now). While I understand people who suggest bands like to see some follow up to their suggestions, I would like to remind ALL of you that we have lives outside this board, and that all the work we do on behalf of the site is something we do for FREE.   Ok with the point, i also have live outside, but i actually organize and try to do my best in mantain my blog and participate in this forum.     As things are, I think the genre teams do much more than could be expected from them. Bands are added to the database almost every day, and that in itself is quite a lot of work, especially if the act in question has been around for some time (which means more albums to be added, and more detailed bios to be written). If the workload of the genre teams increases any further, they are very likely to find themselves short-handed sooner rather than later, and it is not always easy to find replacements for absentee members.   As to find replacements, i tell you that are many to want to collaborate with you. As i said before being a SC is a enormous responsability, so i think that the guy that want to be a SC, knows the name of the game. As for providing an explanation for the rejection, in principle I agree, being a supporter of transparency in all things.   Good!    However, seen as some members of this board seem unable to behave civilly to others, I am afraid things would get unmanageable very soon, with disappointed members attacking the SCs responsible for the rejection (I've already seen this, so I know what I'm talking about).   I see too but my suggestion would shut up their mouths for once and for all   The Admins' workload would also increase exponentially, and the atmosphere of the forums would be seriously damaged.   I really doubt that, in terms of transparency i think the addition/ rejection procedure would be more easy to cacht. As regards that mock-legal verdict, well.. I'd rather not say anything unpleasant, but I'd also rather NOT see anything that reminds me of work in a place which I visit in order to relax and socialise. I do take my job as a SC seriously, but there are limits.   Of course are limits, but as i tell to Rushfan4 you see the point of a SC, and as SC you are aware of everything in the site.

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

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

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

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

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


Edited by Raff - October 29 2008 at 03:08

rushfan4 wrote: These type threads exist in the collaborator and special collaborator zones, which aren't available to the general public.    That's why the main reason that the veredict  should be public, as a normal member, sometimes i feel that the addition  of rejection of a  X band, touch a "grey area", as you see as SC i understand your point of view (you have access to almost everything in the site) but put in the side of a normal amember like me and things change a lot.     I think that there is a reason for it.  Mike's website www.progfreak.com shows the status of bands, and the yes/no votes of the collaborators.    I recently visit Mike website, but i propose this to PA.   The collaborators are not required to say why they voted yes or no for a band.    I know that but they should do. For transparency of the decision.    As I said above, sometimes the collaborators do write an elaborate reason for why they voted against a bands inclusion, but much of the time they either don't, or their answer is "because they weren't prog enough".    I think if a SC say that, that's not an argument, my proposal is to improve the site, to make more SC with a wide angle of argumenting and avoid such flat opinions.   That really isn't going to tell anyone anything.  But as I also said previously, if a band is rejected and that rejection is questioned, more often than not the collaborators that made that decision will then explain their reason for that decision.   I think that a SC has an enormous responsability to add or  reject a band, so at least, they have to argue why yes and why no.     But also, unfortunately, that usually leads to a 35 page thread where people threaten to quit the site because they either made the decision and don't like being flamed for it, or they disagree with the decision and think that we are all a bunch of morons that only add our favorite bands and screw everybody else.   For that  (in)famous thread let's improve the site and the kind of working  of the team, my proposal is to make things clear and consistent. And by far for this matters, evidence must stay.

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

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