Revolutionise the site

I've found this thread only now. It's been 2 years. Has any decision been taken? 

Gerinski wrote: What about having a "site tag" for the band (assigned by the Collabs as-is) and a "reviewers tag" for each album. Each time a review is posted the reviewer is asked to assign the sub-genre he thinks best fits the album. The system would display for each album the tag which has most votes (optional to have different weight for Collabs and non-Collabs, same as with the stars). This would provide a dynamic album tagging, gradually and without adding work to the Collabs. I would suggest that only people who have reviewed the album can vote its tag though, no "tagging without review".

^ Great points -

lazland wrote: 2. There is more of a consensus, although nowhere near unanimous, in some form of rationalisation of the sub-genres. Therefore, I propose these. Neo and symphonic to be merged into a single "symphonic influenced" sub-genre. Art Rock to encompass eclectic, crossover, Canterbury, psych, prog folk. Progressive Electronic, which is self explanatory. RPI. Prog Metal, to encompass all heavy and metal related acts. Finally, Fusion, which would encompass all avant, jazz rock, rio, zeuhl. Yes, we would still have piles of rows about these categories, but wouldn't it be a damned sight better than now?

I'd elect not to repeat myself, you guys might want to follow my lead on that part. 

lazland wrote: Dayvenkirq wrote: NOW it sounds to me as if it was taken personally. I agree with Tony: making it personal will get you nowhere. My opening post was a genuine expression of my opinion, opened up for debate. The personal bit came out of that debate.

Nope.  It was personal for a good many of us, right from your opening salvo.  I'm amazed that you still don't see that. 

You go so far in it as to lecture people not to be "lecturing" while you accuse them of pedantry/dsyfunction and try to abolish the team system and the genres they've worked on for years.  You took your feelings for certain individuals, your personal disputes, and tried to use that to sell the changes you want.  You publicly gave all of us on the teams a broad brush smear by trying to make "the system" seem dysfunctional and unworkable, when it isn't, to serve your argument. 

Not personal, eh?  

Dean wrote: Windhawk wrote: Gerinski wrote: Can anyone make some assessment of the technical and economical feasibility of implementing album tagging or band multi-tagging? Because we often talk about these but it they are not realistic it's just a waste of time. It's more a matter of workhours than economy as such I suspect. If you say that it'll take on average 10 minutes to agree on an album tagging, and we have 40.000 or so albums in the database, that is 400.000 minutes of manhours needed to overhaul the database. Or 6667 hours if you like. Unnecessary - just tag all the albums with the parent subgenre of the band then allow people to add/change tags whenever they like. I'll guarantee that genesis's I van't dance won't stay tagged symphonic for long.

Gerinski wrote: Can anyone make some assessment of the technical and economical feasibility of implementing album tagging or band multi-tagging? Because we often talk about these but it they are not realistic it's just a waste of time.

It's more a matter of workhours than economy as such I suspect. If you say that it'll take on average 10 minutes to agree on an album tagging, and we have 40.000 or so albums in the database, that is 400.000 minutes of manhours needed to overhaul the database. Or 6667 hours if you like.

Dayvenkirq wrote: NOW it sounds to me as if it was taken personally. I agree with Tony: making it personal will get you nowhere.

Tony R wrote: lazland wrote: Okay. I have had my say, and I initiated this debate. It is clear that this debate has, effectively, ended with the senior collabs and admins in favour of keeping the status quo. Fine, I accept that. Unless anyone makes a post which I regard as necessitating a response, I am signing off from here now, because this is a pretty lonely furrow to plough. And no, Jim, I am not a bad fellow, really, and my comments and opinions were genuinely meant to help, although I accept that the comments might not have been read that way. Oh well, Arsenal have lost, this debate has run its course, and I am now off to walk the dog and have a couple of pints. Whilst I've an idea who you are alluding to, I think it is a terrible idea to make this argument personal, as it moreorless nullifies your point. Plus most of the people here have no way to peruse the Collab Zone.