C'mon, people! The report queue keeps increasing, when it should be the opposite!

This shit again
http://www.metal-archives.com/report/vi ... 0/show/all

http://www.metal-archives.com/report/view/id/413010

Ehhh, I'd actually kind of agree with him, it's not vandalism but "mallcore" is hardly the sort of neutral term one would expect from an encyclopaedia. I can understand the reinforcement of its use on band genres such as DevilDriver's and Soulfly's, where noobs might see the term "nu-metal" and start arguing for the inclusion of other well-known nu-metal bands, but in rather obscure places such as artist pages, there isn't any need for that sort of careful, sensitive tiptoeing. (And really, if that's the name of the genre, shouldn't it be used regardless of the misnomers associated with it? Cybergrind has little to no "grind" influence whatsoever, but whether I like it or not - and I don't - that's simply the most universal term for what it is, and that's how it will be remembered throughout history. I'm starting to digress, though.) Calling Mudvayne "progressive nu metal", though... Jesus fucking Christ.

I would personally just change it to say "Lead singer of the nu-metal band Mudvayne.", if only as an excuse to get rid of that horrendous "progressive nu metal" tag.

I didn't even notice the "progressive" part ... Edited to be more straight-to-the-point as well: no need to credit him as vocalist in the notes when it's readily apparent, and they're not exactly entirely nu metal, either.

That actually looks worse to me, honestly. It's a biography section; it should contain a full, textual description of the artist's life, not just an "only contains information not listed anywhere else" section. In its current state it's rather pointless, since Mudvayne are such a famous band that simply listing their genre - and nothing else - in Chad Gray's biography looks like it's missing the point.

I don't have the authority to actually tell you to do this, but I would strongly suggest that when you write band/artist biographies, your goal should be to present a comprehensive pile of information... not to eliminate all redundancy possible at the expense of the flow of the text.

That may be, but I listed it under the trivia/additional notes section, not the bio, which should be as bare-minimum as need-be to elaborate further than what's already given.

Alright, I'll give you that. It'd probably be better if someone just created a mini-biography which went over his early life, bands he's performed in and the genres of those bands, etc. It'd look nicer than any of the edits made to it thus far, anyways.

Well, since you volunteered yourself ...

Why waste time stuff like that which can be found elsewhere and nobody cares about? There's a link to that band's Facebook page anyway, and there's only one band by that name.

Well, it's probably a better use of time than updating any of the bands on Depressive Illusions.

Let's get everything from 2012 done before the weekend. Shouldn't be too hard, but there are a lot of reports that have just been sitting there. That's just under 500 reports as I just handled a dozen now. I've found a bunch of little stuff that was easy to do, and the usual stuff like a few users who make completely unsourced reports on LLN bands and expect us to take their word

Demo limited to 50 copies, but there's also a die-hard version

http://www.metal-archives.com/report/vi ... 8/show/all

Hey, this moderator warning works!
http://www.metal-archives.com/label/edit/id/21

Is this one false or too true?
http://www.metal-archives.com/report/vi ... 7/show/all

One more thing, if someone could tell this guy to not report differences of 1-2 seconds in track lengths I'd appreciate it.
http://www.metal-archives.com/users/longas

300 reports from 2012 left.

That's an odd source
http://www.metal-archives.com/report/vi ... 3/show/all

Pretty fucking valid, in my opinion. I trust such a statement. It seems to come from a fellow nerd, so why the hell not!?

This has been building up a lot, it seems like it's just too much for us to handle, even with all the metal knights. What could be done to streamline the process? Rather than simply saying that a source is recommended, perhaps a brief message to explain why? Perhaps "Most reports requir a verifiable source, such as the band's official web page or a scan/picture of a release."

Pretty similar to what I suggested here, but a change that could be made without any coding.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=93021

Glad I read this string as I was going to ask about closing old reports as I have a ton that I have asked for proof on that weeks/months later have no answer. So I'm going to start closing some of them now that I see the 2 week guideline for minor things.

Anyone thought of some kind of enhancement though? Maybe a box to check that says "requires proof" and if nothing is added in that 2 week period or any other determined point it gets automatically closed? It would surely make the queue way more manageable. And sooner or later those lost reports on Page 4 of the queue would need some attention! (and hell, someone's been cranking them out today - under 1000 for the first time in a while)

The proposal of such a box/option or similar has been brought to the owners' attention a couple of times now. All we can do is wait.

Also, reports down to 900+ again. Go go go!

Love the idea. I'd simply be happy if there was some kind of block in place that wouldn't allow a user to create a circular link as proof. Linking to the page you are reporting on is not proof.

None of this is official, as that'd be up to Morri and HB to decide, but we have offered up some suggestions for the report queue, and at this point it's up to both of them to decide what gets implemented, if anything.

The two suggestions I put forward personally include a) splitting up the review queue into three queues (one for band pages, one for artist pages, one for labels) and b) make it so that the source field is required, even if it might be abused. Fixing up our guidelines might not be a bad idea (to explain very basically what we need), and also creating automatic responses might not be a bad idea either.

There's no way we're going to lower the number of reports we get in on average, but if we can stave off some redundancy and make it more organized, it might seem like there's less to work with, and wont feel so cramped and jumbled.

I wonder how many of them are simply wrong genre? It seems like every third or fourth one is that. I know that I'm not at the level to change that yet and I highly doubt I would do that anyway even if I had the permissions. Those have got to suck going through and I'm sure that's part of the reason why they stay open forever. I'd also bet most of them get rejected anyway. I know you can sort but having them on their own tab of the report queue would make it less overwhelming for sure.

I'm sure the queue could really be in the multiple thousands if people reported all the broken web links on here too but there really is no good solution to that one.

Tony suggested that I post this here:

Maybe the way to get the report queue more efficiently is a mass-viewing option for mods/admins where they can go down a list and check off things that need sources, to get an automated message, and dead reports where a response was needed and none was given. That could help handle the bulk of reports that can't be handled without a lot of research, since that rarely seems to get done and it's very time-consuming and not feasible for what's built up.

Have you seen this great proof from last night.

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

Sorry if I missed this in the rules - but just for consistency - I've seen guests that only played on a track or two listed so many different ways that I was wondering what the preferred look is - so Joe Smith plays guitar on just track 6.

Is it:
Guitars on track 6
Guitars (on track 6)
Guitars on "Track Name Here"
Guitars (on "Track Name Here")

I tend to use the parentheses, as they appear "cleaner" to me, and if only a single track, I usually go "Guitars (on "Song Title")", but if multiple, then the track numbers: "Guitars (on tracks 1-4)".

^

There's no official policy, but the practice is as Obscurum outlines.

If an artist's played on a single track, I use:

　　Guitars (on "Track Title").


If an artist's played on several tracks, or if there's a whole slew of artists who've played on the same tracks (common with symphonic metal bands), I use this syntax:

　　Guitars (track 1)
　　Vocals (tracks 1-6, 8-9, 12)

If an artist has played on only one track, and that track's title is absurdly long, I also refer to it by track index.

Awesome. Thanks for the clarification

Alright, in case some of you chivalrously ranked fellas haven't noticed, the new semi-automated notification system for reports is now live on the main site. Or since a few days already, it's been active on the .dev subdomain for around a week. All users who interacted with a report somehow are transformed into neat little checkboxes which staff members and Metal Knights can use to notify them with a pre-written message (namely "Please review <a href="report">this report</a>. Further input is requested."). If that happens, an automatic post will also be added to the report that the respective user has been notified by you, to avoid people sending an avalanche of the same message to one user. Happy crunching!

Yes, I noticed that yesterday and it is excellent to see that feature has finally come to life! But I have one question on how to use it that I just want to check. Should this new notification system be used only when a report lacks enough proof/information or can it sometimes be used for other things too (eg, something like when I suggested to Opsius that this report should probably be closed)?

Yeah, you can also use it in that way, HouseSpiders.

I'll try to resolve reports again when I can, working on a ton of other things right now. :l

Alright, this is a bit ... odd, to say the least:
http://www.metal-archives.com/report/view/id/421844

Yes, HouseSpiders already brought that to my attention. I have many fans and stalkers out there, no doubt.

595 reports. Blitzkrieg time.

Down to 525, from 600+ before. Let's keep this going! Anyone else joining in?

Reports from banned users. Should they be given the time of day? (http://www.metal-archives.com/report/view/id/426890 is the report that spurs the questioning).

If they have a valid source, then yes. Wikipedia isn't necessarily reliable and since it could be edited by anyone, I wouldn't trust anyone who managed to get banned from the site to not try some fuckery there.

No source, or Wikipedia/something crappy? Feel free to move on.

I went through a bunch of the "wrong music genre" reports today, those are quite time consuming. Been trying to keep the report queue down and the band queue is growing...

Well, you could always alternate. One day of closing out reports (a number of which I keep finding are small but sourceless changes) and a day clicking off bands.

Or you guys could send out a search party to relocate Witcher. No one ever needed to check the band queue, because he was so damn efficient and quick about rejecting/approving bands that there were rarely any bands to check.