Search

News

Certified Contributor Level 2

camembert electrique

Editor
Posts: 6507

camembert electrique @ 2020-01-25 05:12:41 UTC

If we are to have two CC levels, I just think the 'higher' one should be reserved to people wishing to become editors. This as a pre-trainee step and including some more abilities than the 'lower' CC level.

I would agree with you if (emphasis on if) the CC1 was what I originally envisioned. Since CC1 is now essentially a nominal title granted rather liberally with very little material powers, the CC2 was needed to fill the gap to allow more material powers for those not interested in becoming an editor but can be trusted with those limited powers.

I suppose that our disagreement here is that your position is "all or nothing" (i.e. editor or not) while my position is something else.

To start at the end: My position surely isn't 'all or nothing'. It's 'a lot' ('regular' CC level) and 'even more than that lot' ('higher' CC level for aspiring editors).

We surely agree that the CC(1) level is being "granted rather liberally" and not turning out the way you imagined. On "with very little material powers", we don't seem to.

This as authorizations are actually quite advanced. Therefore, the question might rather be: Should they better have been balanced differently (= granting some not granted and not granting some granted)?

Tar Heel

Member
Posts: 5771

Tar Heel @ 2020-01-25 08:06:26 UTC

If we are to have two CC levels, I just think the 'higher' one should be reserved to people wishing to become editors. This as a pre-trainee step and including some more abilities than the 'lower' CC level.

I would agree with you if (emphasis on if) the CC1 was what I originally envisioned. Since CC1 is now essentially a nominal title granted rather liberally with very little material powers, the CC2 was needed to fill the gap to allow more material powers for those not interested in becoming an editor but can be trusted with those limited powers.

I suppose that our disagreement here is that your position is "all or nothing" (i.e. editor or not) while my position is something else.

To start at the end: My position surely isn't 'all or nothing'. It's 'a lot' ('regular' CC level) and 'even more than that lot' ('higher' CC level for aspiring editors).

We surely agree that the CC(1) level is being "granted rather liberally" and not turning out the way you imagined. On "with very little material powers", we don't seem to.

This as authorizations are actually quite advanced. Therefore, the question might rather be: Should they better have been balanced differently (= granting some not granted and not granting some granted)?


I think we agree on principle, but not on how to fix. The CC1 is now a done deal, and will likely not be redefined. This means that to get to what I originally envisioned, I'm looking at CC2.


To reiterate, I envisioned a title for a group of heavy and long-time contributers who have evidenced a strong understanding of the basic site guidelines and expectations. This group would be given limited authorities to make "low impact" edits and additions to lower the volume of error reports and free the editors to handle more important matters. This would also allow for edits that should be made but aren't report-worthy (e.g. spelling errors in comments).


Where I believe we have strayed is granting the title to those who haven't been contributing long enough, originally resulting in watered down powers and the necessity of editor reviews. We now seem to be expanding the powers too much, resulting in reasonable editor concerns.


This is how I saw this concept best serving SHS, but Management clearly had other ideas. On the other hand, I've been concentrating on other projects so I don't have a clear understanding on exactly where things are at present.

Bastien

Manager
Posts: 35815

Bastien @ 2020-02-11 16:22:44 UTC

A quand la possibilité d'ajouter une version dans une autre langue pour le même artiste ?

C'est possible lorsque l'on crée l'original plus la reprise , mais quand l'original existe déjà

Ceci devrait déjà être possible. A quelle étape es-tu bloqué?

Bastien

Manager
Posts: 35815

Bastien @ 2020-02-11 16:23:57 UTC

I beg your pardon for my poor and short English.

Never justify. You're doing a tremendous job Smile

Bastien

Manager
Posts: 35815

Bastien @ 2020-02-11 16:26:39 UTC

I think as part of the "training" we need to teach folks how to add the GEMAs/BMIs/ASCAPs to the submissions...The basic submission forms don't ask for that as I recall.

That's a possible way forward for the submission form: For new works/adaptations, ask our users if they want and can supply a work code.

By consequence trainees would already be familiar with the PRO database right at the start of the training.

Bastien

Manager
Posts: 35815

Bastien @ 2020-02-11 16:29:34 UTC

Whether I am a cc or a manager (my next level) Wink , I will continue to contribute to this wonderful website with the same effort.

Your next level is Trainee, and we would accept you right away! But I guess you already knew that Wink

Bastien

Manager
Posts: 35815

Bastien @ 2020-02-11 16:44:35 UTC

As I envisioned the CC, that doesn't include potential editors. My concept was that contributors who are willing and able to become an editor follow those established paths, A CC is someone who, for whatever reason, is not interested in taking on the duties and expectations of an editor. I have been approached a number of times regarding taking on that role, but I don't want those duties, etc. On the other hand, I am willing to do more to help the editors than a regular contributor.

+ the long discussion between Erik and VV.

It's pretty simple actually:

  • On the one hand, users progressing to CC or CC2 level are not expected to ultimately ambition editor level. They can progress onto the level that corresponds to their commitment.
  • On the other hand, users who want to become editors, will have to successfully grow through the different levels (CC, CC2, trainee, etc...). These levels will also allow them to gradually learn to work with the database.

Last edit: 2020-02-11 17:09:50 UTC by Bastien

Bastien

Manager
Posts: 35815

Bastien @ 2020-02-11 17:03:34 UTC

So I can delete/edit Youtube clips but not Spotify entries?

It wasn't in the scope of the project because nobody asked for it.

But it would make sense to include it, what do others think?

Bastien

Manager
Posts: 35815

Bastien @ 2020-02-11 17:09:19 UTC

And if I delete/edit a Youtube clip on which I'd previously submitted an error report, I can't clear that error report without "rejecting" it?

Not exactly. You can't process that error report, because it's not assigned to you, so you can only retract it.

For now I would simply post a comment in the error report in question to state you've deleted and/or replaced the erronuous video.

It's not something that's going to happen very often, only to users who get promoted AND have open error topics regarding videos. Developing a feature might be a lot of word for little use.

Bastien

Manager
Posts: 35815

Bastien @ 2020-02-11 17:11:45 UTC

Welcome to SHS

No need for sarcasm Mark, I don't find it very respectful considering us trying to develop and improve the database day in day out.

Bastien

Manager
Posts: 35815

Bastien @ 2020-02-11 17:14:32 UTC

So I can delete/edit Youtube clips but not Spotify entries?

Not being allowed to omit Spotify links (nobody is supposed to do so) is actually quite a pain and not comprehensible.

In various previous threads, I have been posting cermons about why unduly prioritizing Spotify over other sources is unfounded.

Time to move on Erik and let go your one-man crusade against Spotify links.

I do note that this is a second vote to allow CC2 users to delete erronuous Spotify links.

sebcat

Managing Editor
Posts: 7967

sebcat @ 2020-02-11 20:38:02 UTC

So I can delete/edit Youtube clips but not Spotify entries?

It wasn't in the scope of the project because nobody asked for it.

But it would make sense to include it, what do others think?

A vote from me.

JeffC

New Editor
Posts: 1792

JeffC @ 2020-02-11 20:50:49 UTC

And if I delete/edit a Youtube clip on which I'd previously submitted an error report, I can't clear that error report without "rejecting" it?

Not exactly. You can't process that error report, because it's not assigned to you, so you can only retract it.

For now I would simply post a comment in the error report in question to state you've deleted and/or replaced the erronuous video.

It's not something that's going to happen very often, only to users who get promoted AND have open error topics regarding videos. Developing a feature might be a lot of work for little use.


I don't know how to "retract"an error report. So far as I know, In the situation I've described I'm required to "reject" it -- implying that it was wrong when in fact it was correct (that being the whole point of changing the video).

Last edit: 2020-02-27 18:11:18 UTC by Bastien

______
JC

camembert electrique

Editor
Posts: 6507

camembert electrique @ 2020-02-11 23:33:53 UTC

I think as part of the "training" we need to teach folks how to add the GEMAs/BMIs/ASCAPs to the submissions...The basic submission forms don't ask for that as I recall.

That's a possible way forward for the submission form: For new works/adaptations, ask our users if they want and can supply a work code.

By consequence trainees would already be familiar with the PRO database right at the start of the training.

I said something quite similar not long ago and also advocated promoting https://secondhandsongs.com/page/Bookmarks#composers in advance of and within the submission precedure Smile

camembert electrique

Editor
Posts: 6507

camembert electrique @ 2020-02-12 00:16:40 UTC

  • On the other hand, users who want to become editors, will have to successfully grow through the different levels (CC, CC2, trainee, etc...). These levels will also allow them to gradually learn to work with the database.

My idea was that the more advanced CC level could/should be limited to CCs aspiring to become editors. This also as an additional motivation by being given more authority. In comparison to the quite extended possibilities offered to CC1s, the three extra ones for CC2s appear somewhat mere for that purpose, though.


PS: For CC1s it a. o. reads "Can tag or untag any database object", but for Junior Editors "Can tag any database object and (only) delete tags added by themselves". This looks a bit reversed...

Btw., in the CC1 section, it may look clearer if the "View attachments for all database objects..." paragraph was put above the "Add attachments to releases..." one Smile

camembert electrique

Editor
Posts: 6507

camembert electrique @ 2020-02-12 00:28:04 UTC

Time to move on Erik and let go your one-man crusade against Spotify links.

I do note that this is a second vote to allow CC2 users to delete erronuous Spotify links.

There is no crusade at all against the great music provider Spotify, just lots of reasons why we should not treat Spotify as a prioritized data source (and so on).

Reckoning that allowing CC2s to delete not applying etc. Spotify links includes letting editors do so, too (which I've been heavily blamed for doing in the past), my vote for that is in.

camembert electrique

Editor
Posts: 6507

camembert electrique @ 2020-02-12 00:44:44 UTC

Whether I am a cc or a manager (my next level) Wink , I will continue to contribute to this wonderful website with the same effort.

Your next level is Trainee, and we would accept you right away! But I guess you already knew that Wink

JoJo, you would be a great addition to the editors! But I guess you've heard that before... Smile