ERRORS THREAD Report Errors and Omissions Here

Gordy wrote: I must admit this situation is making me rub my temples a bit, but can we at least all agree that cross-artist non-collaborative splits should be left alone and not considered duplicates? For what it's worth, I (and probably others) rate sides of a split differently based on the individual artist's performance instead of the split as a whole.

Ex-admin Alex said the same thing about splits though, back in March 2012: "If it's a split with other bands on PA, then it goes under the band named first on the cover. That said, "splits" are usually with just two bands, a four bands disc could be a sampler. Food for thought if such a disc appear, but with all bands being PA bands."

I think the only acceptable way we could include splits on both artist's pages would be to give the album a different heading on the respective pages (ie "album title (split with Y)" on artist X's page, and "album title (split with X)" on artist Y's page...and to only include the relevant tracks that each artist contributed to the split on each of the two respective pages.

A note would then need to be added after the relevant tracks listed for each of the two instances of the release, saying: "see also here" (with "here" having a hyperlink to the album as it listed on the other artist's page embedded below it).

It would also need to be mentioned in the releases info section that the album was a split between the two artists, and that only the tracks that applied to the artist whose page the release was on were included in the track listing on that particular entry of it.

Although it's the same release that we would be including on both artists pages - with exactly the same cover image - by doing it like this we would effectively be treating the two entries as entirely different releases, and the release as a whole would indeed become 'split' between the two artists concerned.

A bit complicated lol, but at least each of the two instances of the split on PA could now be rated based only on the tracks contributed to it by the relevant artist, rather than the split as a whole, which I guess would result in a more accurate representation of how our members felt about the two artist's contributions to the album.

It would be whole lot simpler though, I think, to just stick to Alex's guidelines, and where releases are shared between two artists listed on PA - be they either collaborations or splits - a hyperlink to the release is simply added at the bottom of the biography of the artist whose name appears second on the cover.

Edit:

Nogbad_The_Bad wrote: I don't believe RYM have duplicate albums, they have a single album with the participants tagged so that it shows up when you check each artist. We don't have that ability on PA. We need to pick a lead artist.

The real problem here isn't that PA doesn't have the capability to include a single addition of an album on two different artist's pages - I'm absolutely certain that "album.asp?id=xxxxx" could easily be coded into two different artist's pages on PA via css/html if we had an active webmaster who replied to his or her messages - as I'm sure RYM and other similar sites do - but unfortunately we don't.

The real problem is that as far as I know, M@X is the only person who has access to the actual coding of the various pages on PA, and as we all know, he only comes here once in a blue moon, seemingly hardly ever responding to any messages that he might have received since his previous visit.

As others have commented elsewhere in this forum, this site can never be properly maintained and kept relevant and up to date solely by a bunch of volunteers working almost entirely in isolation, with no active webmaster available to support their efforts when some tweaking of webpages is required in circumstances such as the one we are dealing with now.

So, I guess we just have to carry on making the best of a bad job until the situation changes, and that's probably not going to happen in my lifetime lol!


Edited by yam yam - August 21 2025 at 11:00

^ Thanks, Mayer, done...though the total of those track times is 49:51 according to George's AFT ('Album Format Thing') utility.

^ Thanks very much for this reply.

@Eugene: If you could leave those changes to the headings that we have for the various Steve Roach collaboration albums that I listed in my post on the previous page here alone for a while, to give Gordy a chance to deal with them himself, I think that would be appreciated.

Any further thoughts that people might have had regarding what to do with the nine collaboration albums that Steve released with Vidna Obmana would also be appreciated.

I still believe that since there are so many of them, the best solution is to create a separate artist page for Steve Roach & Vidna Obmana (no prior evaluation would really be necessary, since both artists are already on the site, but there's no harm in doing this as a formality just to dot the 'i's and cross the 't's, and if a Steve Roach & Vidna Obmana page was created on AP in readiness for such an evaluation, I could ask Mike to move the collaboration albums to the new artist page, since none of them currently listed on the Steve Roach AP page mention Vidna Obmana, and the two that are currently listed on the Vidna Obmana AP page should really have been filed be under Steve Roach!

It would then be a simple matter of moving all the collaboration albums to the new Steve Roach & Vidna Obmana page on PA, and overwriting the remaining two duplicates on the Vidna Obmana page - something which Gordy could do himself, since the PSIKE team will probably be adding Loren Nerell to the site within the coming days.

Sorry to keep dragging this particular issue out, but with so many albums involved it does need a solution finding sooner rather than later - as does the issue of how to handle the isolated splits and collaborations that exist on the site in general - though that's something that's never really had a definite agreed procedure spelt out in stone ever since the site has existed, so isn't quite such a pressing matter, and in any case it would probably be nigh on impossible to find all the existing duplications that have been added to the site over the years, so it's something that can probably never be fixed completely.

^ Thanks for your support with this, Ian. If the PSIKE team agree, and either decide to go through the formality of an evaluation first, or they just go ahead create the page anyway, I'll get Mike at AP to move the collaboration albums to a corresponding joint artist page on his site too.

yam yam wrote: I think the only acceptable way we could include splits on both artist's pages would be to give the album a different heading on the respective pages (ie "album title (split with Y)" on artist X's page, and "album title (split with X)" on artist Y's page...and to only include the relevant tracks that each artist contributed to the split on each of the two respective pages.

In my opinion including only tracks belonging to one band is not a good idea. I prefer to see the entire track listing of the album in all cases.

Personally I can live with splits included on both artist pages, but I think:
1. it has to be blessed by admins;
2. then questions "why we handle splits this way and collaboration albums that way" sooner or later arise.
I would leave splits as they are.




Edited by NotAProghead - August 21 2025 at 19:34

My Steve Hackett/Djabe review of Freya Arctic Jam, is still there , was perfect yesterday and now shows a different tittle and artwork, credits etc.... Please verify.     Thanks    Thomas

^ That sounds good to me.

^ Wait! There are two identical reviews:
https://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=3163410
https://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=3211814

The first one seems correct, but the last one was created yesterday, and for the wrong album... ?!?

projeKct wrote: ^ Wait! There are two identical reviews: https://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=3163410 https://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=3211814 The first one seems correct, but the last one was created yesterday, and for the wrong album... ?!?

Well spotted! Thomas must have looked at the 'Tour Of Waterfalls' page yesterday and seen his review for 'Freya - Arctic Jam' there, which was originally posted on the 'Freya - Arctic Jam' page on March 16, 2025. I guess he must have uploaded the wrong review for the 'Tour Of Waterfalls' album.

^ The home page shows exactly what the 'Tour Of Waterfalls' album page itself shows, which is a word-for-word copy of your review of the 'Freya - Arctic Jam' album, a review which you originally posted on 16th March.

Somehow, whatever you were doing yesterday has caused a copy of that 'Freya - Arctic Jam' review to be posted on the 'Tour Of Waterfalls' album page, which of course has caused it to also appear on the home page. The original review, and the 'Freya - Arctic Jam' album page itself, are still fine though.

This strange occurrence may be connected to the problems with the site that were occurring yesterday, causing it firstly to behave like a snail with a Zimmer frame, and then to go off line for around 15 hours.

You need to ask admins to delete the erroneous copy of the review from the 'Tour Of Waterfalls' album page, and all will be well (in theory lol!).