Suggestion: option to "lock" reports for a band's genre, and getting the band removed.

What I mean is, only allow trusted users to file reports for a band's genre and "Should be removed", if a mod presses a certain checkbox.

Otherwise you get tons of stupid visitors (probably deathcore fans) filing tons of useless reports based on nothing but their own musical idiocy:
http://www.metal-archives.com/report/by ... /mode/page

And you also get the equally-stupid elitist visitors who file a report for removal every time they see a band with the genre of "metalcore" or "deathcore":
http://www.metal-archives.com/report/by ... /mode/page
http://www.metal-archives.com/report/by ... /mode/page
http://www.metal-archives.com/report/by ... /mode/page

Overall I think it'd just be wise to be able to disable access to these sorts of reports to the majority of site users, since most of them are wrong anyways. Thoughts?

Better yet, just disable the option for "Wrong Music Genre" reports for visitors altogether.

That would also work, I guess. If we were doing that I'd also suggest to disable the option for "Should be removed" reports as well - at least then if they're going to pointlessly bitch about something they'll have to waste an extra two minutes of their lives making accounts.

EDIT: I left out a word.

I like those suggestions a lot.
Working on the report queue feels sometimes like dealing with the same reports over and over again. There are users that seem to report the same crap until an unsuspecting moderator buys it.
We gotta be able to tell when a particular issue has already been evaluated.

There should be a restriction that visitors can't file a report. I often find those reports useless (with some exceptions).

No, often members of a band itself file reports as visitors. However, it's sort of annoying that they don't leave ways to contact them...

That's why I suggested the checkbox - mods could remove visitors' privilege to dispute that The Faceless is Progressive/Technical Aliencore with Symphonic Cybergrind influences, and at the same time visitors who actually have something useful to say could report things for much lesser-known bands with no problems.

they'll just abuse the "General update / mistakes" field

Then perhaps lock them off completely from checkmarked bands?

I don't like the idea of limiting the rights of unregistered users.


There is an easy solution for this. Just start using the "Moderator notes" field.

Actually, how about an option to sort reports by character length?

I've noticed that the least useful reports are generally short and meaningless ("not metal", etc), not to mention that shorter reports are generally easier to fix and take care of (giving users with short attention spans the leeway of taking care of the easier reports).

Might also help if moderators had the ability to delete indisputably useless reports so that the "View Report History" only appears for bands that've had meaningful corrections applied. Not to mention it'd probably help lighten the load on the database.

We do have the option of deleting useless reports.

Yeah, hadn't think of that. It should do for most cases.

Well, don't expect me to have known that.

I just didn't see a "Report Report" button.

Haha.
"Report this report"
"Is this report useless, rude, unsourced or content-free? Let us know by filing a report!"

I wonder what happens to the reported reports that require a report...

New list - Artists without a country or gender:
http://www.metal-archives.com/todo/no-country-gender

AHAHAH.


YES, kickarse. Thanks guys.

Hahahaha well played.

Why the hell is a guy from Parkway Drive at the top of that list? They're not even on the site...

Rejected submission, apparently. Even with the blacklist in place, some people are still stupid enough to try anyway.

@kingnurr: Aaahaha XD.

Also: *click*

Sorry, had to be brought up.

Ah, it was probably a draft band. I fixed it so that artists linked only to non-approved bands shouldn't show up.

Awwh, damn. Was actually enjoying looking for some obscure, unsubmitted bands from remote parts of the world to find their country. xD

Also, something I've really been meaning to ask you and HellBlazer:

http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Menace_Ruine/117990

Is that you two under sneaky pseudonyms? <_<; Montreal, Quebec, male and female, C'MON.

(Had too much sugar. )

=================================================================================
</bullshit>

EDIT: Do you reckon we should have an artist list for Unknown roles, too? That'd help to disambiguate one-sided band links from v1 line-ups, as well as line-ups that didn't mention any instruments..

Probably not, since IIRC Morri hates drone, and that band was submitted rather late past the first demo's release date for something managed by the owners of the site.

Yeah because there is only 1 metal-loving couple in a city of millions... Malignant is right, I hate drone.
But aww man, if you were gonna mistake us for a Montreal band with a couple in it, at least take a good one like Cauchemar (not that I'm ever gonna be as awesome as Annick <3).


Ugh. So many lists. Heh, add a genie issue if you want.

This is not important but one of those should be fixed:

There are 204095 active members, 75311 inactive members for a total of 279406 registered members. (on the more stats page)

and

204102 registered users (on the main page)

Uhm... somebody remind me again what the rationale is behind deleting upcoming albums that have their album art and tracklist confirmed, but NOT their exact day of release?

It seems pretty counter-intuitive to have to delete albums that've been added as released "January 2012", but the precise day of release wasn't known... Isn't this going to increase the incentive of some users to just insert a bullshit day of release instead?

http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Sea ... 3540337768

why not SIaSDMotV instead of this strange spelling that is currently used? We use it for too long release name entries already.

I've been thinking. How about making the rules and F.A.Q. available in Spanish?
It would be a good thing, since many users and band submitters are from Spanish speaking countries.

That's... actually a really good idea. Should have one for Portuguese too.

"Não entendo" this, bitch.

What about taking notes from bandcamp sites?
[url=http://www.metal-archives.com/albums/I%2C_Lord_Aveu/Lucus/314103]This /url] has quite a complex backstory:

Source
Add it with italics and a link to the source? Paraphrase it?

Just a suggestion, could you limit the submitted bands to 10 instead of 5?

Possibly.

The reason that exists as a guideline is largely because it's meant to deter users from submitting albums whose release dates are not fully valid and evident, and might continue to be delayed and delayed. Personally, I am OK with the release day not being included so long as it can be proven that the album will be released, and the release date is not too far ahead in time. It's a guideline, after all, and part of those guidelines is recognizing the role of common sense.

Yeah, I agree.

Shining's "VII: Född Förlorare" was added an entire year before the actual release date - it kept getting pushed back and pushed back until the date was finally confirmed. Nobody seemed to care, because nobody knew when the album *was* being released. This was back when the month wasn't even specified; I think adding an album that's scheduled for a January 2012 release without a date (by the band/label) *isn't* going to hurt the archives.

I was adding upcoming releases that had their artwork, tracklists and month of release confirmed, and there was nothing inaccurate about it at all - the day of release just wasn't decided on yet... <_<

I was wondering if the moderators can see the reports posted for bands in the queue without having to click on the band's page. In fact this way it will be easier to them to deal with reported bands especially the ones that needs to get deleted (no physical release, not released yet...). This way the queue wont be always full.

That's because the system does not accept the same artist twice in a lineup. There is no way to fix that at the moment.

Question time!

Okay, I've been seeing links like "See also: band x" in the additional notes of some bands (the only one I can think of right now is Portal)... Aren't these a little obsolete now, considering that the V2 lineup quite clearly displays every band each past and present member has been a part of? The only way I can see these parts of notes being handy at this point is if the bands share members, but the relationship is only conjectural and can't be directly proven somehow. In other cases they should be deleted, right?

Ah, I didn't notice that those two were the same person.