Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 



Reply to topic
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
oneyoudontknow
Cum insantientibus furere necesse est.

Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 6:25 pm
Posts: 5344
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:25 pm 
 

I have to admit that I am far from being as active as I have been in the past, but I do some stuff in the report queue now and then. An apparent issue is the lack of evidence and this on a broad scale. Be it the amount of copies, some underground label that has done a re-release or the line-up that need to be changed in one way or another, all of these are touched in one way or another. Sometimes it is possible to get in touch with the band or the artist [...] and ask them whether this or that would be correct, but this feels rather like an unnecessary reaction and the burden is being placed on the moderators and the admins -- not to mention those who are allowed to work on the queue as well.

Why not make it mandatory to add some kind of evidence?

Currently it is merely some type of "sheet" (html form) in which all is placed, while some kind of drop-down menu helps to sort it a bit. Yet some kind of three(four) step process in which each of the requirements needs to be met could help to ease the current state.

1. Type of chance (drop-down menu)
2. What needs to be changed (the field that had been there before)
3. Evidence (an image or some background on a re-release or the sort, but no mere words)
4. e-mail Contact address (hidden and only visible to moderators, could be used by ordinary visitors of the site)

So no one would get away with not presenting enough information. Furthermore, this way a lot of pointless discussion in the report queue could be avoided and the facts would outweigh the hot air that is spread there on too large a scale.

edit:
Just look at his reports:
http://www.metal-archives.com/report/vi ... /show/mine
pretty pointless and impossible to deal with. Written down in a matter of seconds and without consideration of the quality of the information in the report or in the database. The sad thing is, he has written numerous of equal ingenuity.
_________________

I write for these magazines:
http://swirlsofnoise.com/
http://againstmagazine.com/

Analysis of band names:
http://www.metal-archives.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=103987

Top
 Profile  
theunrelentingattack
Not yet ready for a custom title

Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:18 pm
Posts: 739
Location: United States
PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 4:27 pm 
 

A more immediate way of dealing with this, is as soon as you see something without proof, ask for it. Previous strings from a long while back indicated that after asking, once three weeks go by without an answer, close it. If proof can be had, then another report can be opened up. I think one of the mistakes we make as a group is looking at a report, realizing it doesn't have enough info and just moving to the next one without asking any questions.

I'm not sure how we could make proof mandatory and it would work (though I'm not a tech guy) - I mean, the amount of times that "proof" is a link to the MA page the user is talking about is simply staggering.

I do think trying to regulate something like "Wrong Genre Reports" would be great since I see a lot of "just listen" as proof as if we're a hosting site as well.
_________________
In a recent review: "I didn't expect any "new" record by any "new" band to blow me like this."

Top
 Profile  
Zodijackyl
Lazy Wizard

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 5:39 pm
Posts: 4973
Location: United States
PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 4:53 pm 
 

I discussed some changes to how reports were handled with other staffers and we agreed that something similar to what you are asking would be helpful. More importantly, there would need to be simple, concise explanations of what we need. I will be revisiting some textbooks on design of human communications systems and analyzing a selection of reports to try to come up with a logical and effective proposal to recommend and review with staffers. The report queue has been unmanageable and could be better managed based on our experience - I'll continue to discuss potential improvements with the staff as well as knights and others who work on the queue and try to figure out manageable solutions, and of course our webmasters are going to need to be the ones to approve and implement it.

Top
 Profile  
oneyoudontknow
Cum insantientibus furere necesse est.

Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 6:25 pm
Posts: 5344
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:57 pm 
 

yes, you need to find the balance of making the user/s aware of the importance of accurate, well researched information and annoying them, because the process of completing the report takes too many steps and can therefore not be made without some effort, time and energy.

Yes, the queue is flooded with tons of reports and it is tiring to dig through them. Most of the time you are unable to get something done, simply because you do not have enough information at hand.

Leaving this aspect aside, it would also be nice to see the status of the report. Whether there have been any replies since it has been opened and when it had been dealt with last; how many replies, date of the last reply etc.
_________________

I write for these magazines:
http://swirlsofnoise.com/
http://againstmagazine.com/

Analysis of band names:
http://www.metal-archives.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=103987

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

 
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group