Most of you know what the report queue is - lots of small updates, often needing a bit of research/verfication because people don't know why a source is required, and occasionally cleaning up band pages.
http://www.metal-archives.com/report/list

Veteran status or higher is required to handle most reports, but you can still help! Tons of reports lack sources, and information can often be found with a bit of searching through the pages that are linked in a band's profile - lots of bands don't even have Facebook pages linked, and you earn a point for adding those. Anyway, it really helps if you can add a link to a verifiable source of the information given in a report, often lineup changes or track lists.

You'll come across a lot of minor corrections to lineups, tracklists, and discographies, as well as corrections to nearly every field on MA. Some bands and reports are interesting, some bands may catch your eye and merit a listen, and some reports are genuinely interesting. There are often bands that have been defunct for 10, 20, even 30 years whose members find the site and are amazed by it and that people still know about their band. On very rare occasions, bands even offer to send you their music, or even stranger:

http://www.metal-archives.com/report/vi ... 8/show/all
"and i would like to give you my recent pic to put here in my page, pleae give me your postal address and 'ill send you my pic."



The report queue had over 1200 unassigned reports earlier today, and it gets to be difficult and discouraging to work through them when there's so many of them. A feature to give reports a status of "needs source" has been requested (and has since been replaced on the IT whiteboard with drawings of kittens) and Azmodes said he would work to offer some methodologies and procedures to process dead reports (no source, no response). Any help is appreciated!

I'm working on what I can.

It's under 1000 now. It was 1200 ~24 hours ago, 1100 ~12 hours ago, and just dropped under 1000. It's looking more manageable now.

I did some reports today for the first time in weeks and will try to contribute further to the serpent's demise later this week. I also plan on posting some general thoughts/guidelines about handling reports reflecting my own and other mods' views here, like Zodi mentioned.

Nice work so far, you know who you are!

I try to help with what I can when I see something I'm capable of doing. 1200 reports takes a small army to handle, this thread is a great idea just to get the word out there.

You'd be surprised how easy it is to raise a small army!

960 reports open now
A few minutes ago I passed the milestone of having 1500 closed reports listed under "my reports". That'll give me an idea how much of this I'm doing

By all means, feel free to ask any questions you might have, also, guys.

Should I bother with minor image changes requested by artists? Band photos can be updated, but there have been a bunch of artist reports where they prefer one picture, they want it to be b/w, or they suggest an even blurrier picture like here: http://www.metal-archives.com/report/vi ... 9/show/all

Should I change those or go with whatever appears to be a clearer/better image?

Apparently I just changed it (didn't see this post until afterwards) ... HellBlazer said that if artists don't want their picture displayed then remove them, so I'm assuming that they also have the right to have whatever picture they'd like displayed ...

I strongly recommend using whatever picture is clearer/better rather than some crappy/blurry/indecipherable image that's of no use to anybody...

If they directly ask us to take down a picture and make it clear that they don't want any pics listed here then we'll removed it. But that doesn't mean that they get to pick between publicly available photos if one is a useless kvlt blur and the other is clearly showing the artist. I have responded to many such requests with a polite but direct "the current pic is better" (sometimes followed by "do you have a better/clearer one?") in the past.

If both photos are roughly equal in terms of clarity it's okay to go along with the artist's wishes. Also keep in mind that we usually want the most recent picture.

A few caveats on that: Keep in mind that with pictures we tend to seek clarity and composition above all; you should be able to see the band members, and as many band members as possible (ideally all of the present ones) should be included. That said, "professional" photos (ones which are what you'd expect out of a band photo) tend to be preferable to "live" ones or to "artsy" ones (where the subject matter is not clear). As far as removing pictures, if the picture is publicly available by the band, and/or is available across the spectrum of the Internet (eg. a very popular musician), do not remove it. You remove pictures if requested and the circumstances of their release are private (they're not published by the band or are publicly available).

Another thing to keep in mind; in general, while we tend to trust information from band members, we don't do their bidding or should trust them without cross-checking their sources and intentions. If an artist asks you to do something, always make sure that they're in the right. Sometimes it's hard to discern, but it's important. Occasionally artists do lie; artists who've been recently kicked out will try to get back at the band; or even in some cases, artists will try to remove their history or try to take over the band page as though it's their own tool of promotion. Be vigilant. We're not here to represent the band; we're here to document their existence.

What about handling dead reports with no response and insufficient information? I have been handling them here and there but there are tons of them that need to be handled. From what I can tell, a report of reasonable significance should be left open for around a month, significant issues shouldn't be closed unless they are resolved. Is it OK to close relatively minor reports much sooner at my discretion? Specifically, unsourced things that would merit an announcement like member changes in bands notable enough that the band themselves generally don't report stuff on MA or respond to inquiries for information. In those cases, I think it's reasonable to close the report, after checking the band's pages, with a message telling them to re-report when it is announced/made public.

You are absolutely entitled to close such reports. If the change is really true and required, the next reporter just has to provide a source next time.

Excellent, that helps with a lot of the old/dead reports, going through the queue is getting to be more effective, I think I handled 100+ reports in a few hours this evening.

I'm not sure of the status/priority of the "needs source" status for reports, would it be possible to add this to the "RECOMMENDED" warning for reports? "Most reports require a verifiable source, such as the band's official web page or a scan/picture of an album/booklet."

Today's standout report was that a one-man folk/black metal band had since moved onto being a National Socialist rapper by the name Léon Fasc.

Alright, much has been said already, I'll just try to share my thoughts about proper procedure.

Very general stuff. There are basically three important pillars to working the report queue:

• Common sense: Having common sense should be... common sense. I can't stress this enough, as reports come in myriads of forms, it's impossible to account for every single permutation in one post. Basically, don't be mechanical about crunching the report queue, stay flexible and aware of our policies/rules and the current state of the reported page applied to what the report is saying, and also vice versa. We don't want mindless report Langoliers, we want users identifying and weighing the relevant facts, then judging the report and editing the reported page accordingly.
• Context is king: This follows from the first point, to be more exact from the fact that one should be aware of the reported page and environs. If necessary, try to check external link, previous modifications of the page and also previous reports (closed our not) in the report history. Sometimes there's some piece of perspective-changing or otherwise illuminating info in there. Also be mindful of the popularity/notoriety of the reported band/artist/label.
• Sources/proof: Well, duh. Sources and proof are most important and should be the norm for all but the most self-evident reports, although points one and two shouldn't automatically be abandoned in the face of some shiny piece of evidence.

More specific points:

• External links: Some moderators disagree with me about this, but for wrong genre reports, for instance, if there's external links to Myspace/etc... with samples on the band page it seems rather obtuse to me to ask for music in the report when the user hasn't directly provided them. Exceptions are things like the report wanting us to judge a particular album and the Myspace containing two songs or something like that. Common sense, as I said. I guess there's a difference between this and having to hunt down more obscure info online, so of course no obligations, but additional work is always welcome.
  
• Reasonable amount of caution and thoroughness: Balance the quest for sources and proof with common sense. Again, this is the matter of some debate, but personally, I like to find a middle ground between asking for sources for every little thing and being too trustworthy. Let's say some guy reports updates for a band and gives a massive, rather detailed amount of new info, among it lineup changes, year ranges and general biographical stuff. Yet his only "source" is something like "Myself, I am this or that band member", maybe also an email address included. Now, the only info online about that band is an ancient, obviously no longer updated Myspace page which contradicts the lineup he gives. Context and commons sense: considering all these facts, I wouldn't just say "Myspace says something else, your word isn't good enough, please give a source" because some info on a Myspace page not updated since 2007 contradicts him. Chances are he'll just say "well, that's all I have" or nothing at all and the report is forgotten and closed. Of course, there is always the possibility of trolls and pranksters, and there is nothing wrong with being thorough, but I think sometimes this clogs up our efficiency in dealing with reports and needlessly frustrates reporters. Some things I just find hard to believe people would actually be this elaborate about in deceiving us, and that's coming from someone who has seen some really stupid stuff since starting to contribute to this site.
  ^This doesn't mean that you should be worried or overly hesitant about being too strict. In the long run it's always better to err on the side of caution.
• Don't become resolving machines: It's always good to be flexible and... human, for lack of a better word, rather than just mindlessly closing report after report because of a minor technicality. I wish I could give a good example or better put this into words now, but I think what I'm trying to say is clear enough. Just... don't get too literal-minded.
• Clean, smart and thorough editing: When dealing with the required changes dictated by a valid report, it should go without saying that sloppiness is not tolerated. Don't be lazy and make sure to take care of everything mentioned in a report. There's some complex issues out there, don't prematurely close them. Also be aware of data referencing or depending on the data you change, i.e. make sure coherence is maintained after your edit; sometimes multiple things are in need of updating lest the edit takes care of one problem but contradicts other info on the site. (artist links becoming invalid after a deletion/merge, additional notes referring to an album no longer listed after a bootleg deletion, etc...)
• Banned users: You can ignore and close reports made by banned users. If they provide reliable, direct sources/the report is obviously correct, feel free to apply the corrections, but either way is fine. Not many of those anyway and the fact that the user got banned is always a big red light, potentially unrelated to the matter of the report or not.
• Dead reports: Reports requiring a source or further clarification can be closed after a certain amount of time provided someone has asked for that information already. We agreed on roughly 2 weeks without an answer, but you can somewhat extend or shorten this at your own discretion depending on the relative importance of the report. Close/resolve them and tell the user to make another report with proper sourcing. This is especially true for visitor reports. Visitors re-checking their reports are comparably rare.
• Profile of reporting users: This can sometimes shed some light on a report, often band members wanting to change their pages. The description in their profile, their email, their real name, etc... Everything can add. Maybe they also already filed some other valid reports for the band. See the point about context.
• Emailing/messaging users: This is by no means obligatory, but if you want you can always contact a user directly if you're feeling particularly diligent about dealing with a report and think it's addressing an important matter, but would normally get closed/ignored because it's just poorly phrased/done.
• Discussion/contribution: Reports are not always just straightforward corrections. Even if you can't directly and finally contribute to resolving one, there is nothing wrong with posting and sharing your thoughts on the matter and/or -even better- posting additional proof. Quite the opposite.

More points may follow. In the meantime let me say that posts here about things you're unsure about (and addressing some of the points I made) are very welcome, since they help put together and refine a comprehensive guide for dealing with the queue in a much better way than any lengthy, rambling generalisations I could conceive of. The thing about artist/band pictures and Derigin's and my response are a good example.

Thanks, I have two questions though, since these are fairly common and I want to make sure I'm handling them properly

-If the band appears to have no official site (both in the links and via a google search), is it fair to trust someone on their word that they're a band member as long as the info is reasonable/believable? I tend to be extremely cautious there, but is it fair to take their word unless something seems unreasonable, or would you rather be stricter and leave reports sitting while asking for contact info that might not even be able to verify their identity very well? This is primarily about bands that were never significant, demo-only type bands.
-It's OK to close reports when someone else has resolved it, right? I see a lot of edits made by Calignosity, Tueur, Sink, and others with open reports, I assume they just forgot, I just recall hearing something about edits being made on reports without sources and wanted to double check on that.

That is the question, isn't it? Kinda what I was trying to get across in my previous post. Reasonable assumptions, context, common sense. It all depends, but our standard policy is still to ask for sources or contact info in most cases. To be honest, I tend to be a bit more easy-going, naive if you want, with very obscure bands. Lots of musicians discover their old band here and are pretty surprised, almost always positively, and just want to improve the page. That being said, it is alright to be cautious.


Some simply forget to close reports. Sometimes the error gets corrected independently from the report. It happens. If the issue was resolved you can close those, of course. If you think something was handled incorrectly post in the report about it and set a resolved report back to unassigned if necessary.

Remember, also, that it's better to have outdated info than incorrect info. At least in the case of outdated or no info, that information was once "fact" or as close to fact as possible. With incorrect info, you don't have that at all.

Thanks, I have been using Derigin's guideline of better outdated than incorrect since he first mentioned it.

One report I wanted to check: http://www.metal-archives.com/report/vi ... 6/show/all

No source, but it's completely believable and specific enough that I don't think there would be any reason to provide the information incorrectly or to get it wrong. Is that OK?

Yes.

I've been working on closing resolved reports ever since I've been able to, but yesterday, this report came up. As you can see, the source is not a verifiable one at all. Normally, when a report lacks verifiable proof as much as the linked report does, I'm usuallly able to find some information on the internet and then close the report, but this time, I didn't find any info at all about the artist's location on Google. I'm really not sure whether to change the status back to unassigned and ask for better proof (which I very much doubt we’ll get), or close the report and revert the changes, asking for better proof next time... or to just close the report, assuming that the reporter is correct.

EDIT:

Sorry, but I don't agree with that. IMO, if anyone provides verifiable sources and the report is clearly accurate, we should never just ignore it and close a good report. That just doesn't seem right to me at all. As you said, there aren't many reports from banned users in the queue, but I have actually seen some pretty good ones from banned users (surprising I know) that should definitely not be ignored. I actually took the assignment for one just a few minutes ago.

Well, usually those kinds of reports I find valid. They are mostly about location or age. As Azmodes said, common sense is the key. If you find it to be credible and reeks of good will, then go ahead.

Pretty much my thoughts exactly!

I always close that type of reports on location/name/age because it is disrespectful to artists to publish their personal information when they do not. If someone doesn't make that readily available, they probably don't want to give it out. If you can't find it on something worthy of being labeled as an "official" link or in an interview, it probably should not be added. One of the official MA documents (rules/help/FAQ) has an explanation of when real names/last names should be removed, I use that for all personal info.

As I said, either way is fine if the issue/report is valid and properly sourced. But, honestly, if someone manages to get himself banned, I won't lose any sleep over a few possibly justified reports that get prematurely closed or not. I think what I was trying to say is that you shouldn't get too worked up over the fact that the report was made by a Fred Durst and whether or not to deal with it or to what extent or what part can be trusted etc..., just close it if you feel like it. Or don't. Be aware, though, that reports by banned users are sometimes connected to the very reason they were shown the door.


Quite so. There's been many a friend or former acquaintance who was reporting such things without the artist's consent. Some people don't give a shit, but some others don't publish that for a reason. Not quite such a hot topic as real names and birth dates, but still, seeing as this info isn't that important anyway to potentially piss off artists over it and is often poorly sourced to boot, just close it.

Something else I just remembered... for users linking to new logos/pics that are over the site's size limit: I've seen some users who said no can do and asked the reporting party for a smaller image... seriously, with programs like IrfanView it takes about five seconds to resize a picture. If I were to ignore every report with too large an image attached, the majority of album cover/photo/logo issues would never get fixed.

I actually remember you naggin' me a lot about that last year

Hi
I just saw you mentioned a report fixed by me. I grab the chance to ask you about names. I often find bands whose members are listed as "Max - Guitars" or "Mick - Drums" ex: http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/4Nothing/81130. In your opinion is it ok to try to find out their names in order to find double-profiles or is it a privacy violation? I mean if X played in a black metal band, and doesn't want the others to know it, is it wright to make it clear?
About the personal info and "Official members" report, I tend to believe when speaking about unfamous bands (when there are no prooves, obviously)

Before all this "I don't want my name/information revealed" wave began, I used to look for information every-fucking-where about the band members to avoid duplicated profiles. Duplicated profiles bother me a big lot. Nowadays that everybody suddenly became closet metal musicians ( ) I guess it should be safer to cross-reference everything to see how he's being credited in every band, and how his involvement in other bands is mentioned. I personally would add a musician to every band I was able to track down, though. I'm not too enthusiastic about an artist's historical revisionism.

Here's another priceless source! http://www.metal-archives.com/report/vi ... 2/show/all

You gotta be shittin' me ...

That's a huge mistake?

http://www.metal-archives.com/report/vi ... 9/show/all

Oh Jesus, these are priceless. I've never seen someone with poor grammar try to "fix" correct grammar before.

http://www.metal-archives.com/labels/Sc ... iten/30912

I corrected the name of the label from "Schizophrenic self-destructive Records Profilbild bearbeiten" to "Schizophrenic Self-Destructive Records". Profilbild bearbeiten means "edit profile picture".

Small mixup here, the genre wasn't actually changed!
http://www.metal-archives.com/report/view/id/404880

Done and done.

...That's weird. I must have replied to the wrong report.