WP feedback (Concept, Layout - and what is the whole idea with "Rating" ?)

This is my first and fast reaction, - I might return with more feedback later.

Concept : I like the idea of distinguishing between work and release(s), - and the way it's implemented feels natural after a short time of browsing and "getting acquainted with". Great work.

Layout : I'm a big fan of the current bullet-based lineup of "Cover hierarchy", and never liked the square boxes used for the artists and mediums displays. And now you are replacing the bullet based layout all-together with boxes. Hmmm, not my cup of tea - sorry.

Another topic - Rating : I don't get the idea of this. What am I supposed to rate ?

- The quality of the actual (cover) performance on its own isolated from the original or

- The quality of the cover versus the original

- if so : As a respectful and almost exact copy (which I don't approve of)

- or as a talented and dis-respectful interpretation (which I find fascinating)

Well I really don't know, - and worse : I don't know how to read other members ratings. Where are the guidelines for rating ?

Thanks for your attention ...

Quote from blach

Layout : I'm a big fan of the current bullet-based lineup of "Cover hierarchy", and never liked the square boxes used for the artists and mediums displays. And now you are replacing the bullet based layout all-together with boxes. Hmmm, not my cup of tea - sorry.

I feel a bit responsible for this, as I was one of the strongest advocates of the new layout...

Point is, there is no hierarchy anymore because there is no need for a hierarchy. Right now a song can be a cover... of a cover (which becomes a new original). With the W/P-based database, a song (performance) can only be based on a work. There might be a "work hierarchy", but a cover hierarchy would be redundant.

Quote from blach

Another topic - Rating : I don't get the idea of this. What am I supposed to rate ?

- The quality of the actual (cover) performance on its own isolated from the original or

- The quality of the cover versus the original

- if so : As a respectful and almost exact copy (which I don't approve of)

- or as a talented and dis-respectful interpretation (which I find fascinating)

Well I really don't know, - and worse : I don't know how to read other members ratings. Where are the guidelines for rating ?

Thanks for your attention ...

I'd say: the quality of the actual (cover) performance on its own isolated from the original. I think they are meant to be anonymous: since we are not critics, we don't have to "sign" our ratings

Quote from blach

Layout : I'm a big fan of the current bullet-based lineup of "Cover hierarchy"

As Quentin said, there is no more "cover hierarchy" but a "work hierachy" instead.

IMO the big advantage of using a table instead of a bulleted list is the ability to sort the versions by perfomer.

Quote from blach

Where are the guidelines for rating ?

This may not be the best place to discuss this since it has nothing to do with w/p, but I'll throw in a quick line anyhow.

I'm not conviced that a rating guideline will be useful, because rating is always very subjective, everyone has their own criteria. So just rate how you feel it should be, whether it's the song itself or the song in relation to the original, it doesn't really matter. If we would enforce "cover-vs-original" ratings, members would need to know/listen to the full original song to be able to compare, which is not always possible, and makes rating even less attractive.

BTW, you can only see your own rating details for now. I'm not sure if this should be changed. I may get hatemail from Britney fans who know I only gave one star to her version of "I Love Rock 'n' Roll"

Last edit: 2009-08-29 15:29:43 UTC by Denis

Now, I'll give you my piece of thought,

First of all I should say I'm a passionate advocate of "Cover hierarchy", so it's simple and clearky shows which song is an original, what is cover, which is a cover for the cover, etc.

Although I'm a loyal supporter of any innovations, i.e, We all know the proverb "The best is an enemy of the good", but still. if W/R concert really would work and be simple and useful tool for adding new info, for arranging by a performer (as written above), so why not?

I think this site (or database, whatever you call)should be not the most accurate cover website, but also the most easy-to-use one.

If we combine all these things together we may have the best cover website in the whole net! (in comparision with other similar ones)

Quote from nikitoz555

First of all I should say I'm a passionate advocate of "Cover hierarchy", so it's simple and clearky shows which song is an original, what is cover, which is a cover for the cover, etc.

As you may have seen, the cover hierarchy is now a work hierachy, which might make it a little less simple for a visitor. What do you think about this change, i.e. this page?

Quote from nikitoz555

I think this site (or database, whatever you call)should be not the most accurate cover website, but also the most easy-to-use one.

Totally agreed, usability is an important factor. But as our database has grown and became more complex over the years, it's not always easy to make everything usable. If you see anything that can be improved, let it be known!

Quote from nikitoz555

If we combine all these things together we may have the best cover website in the whole net! (in comparision with other similar ones)

Trust me, we ARE the best cover website on the web, unfortunately Google doesn't always agree.

I really don't know if I prefer things the way they are right now or if it will be just a matter of get used to.

Hi/Hello/Bonsoir/Guten Abend/Gooie avond/Buona sera/Buenas tardes...

As far as I am concerned, I will NEVER rate NOTHING seeing an original is an original and a coversong/cover version/reprise are what they are.

Sometime, a cover is really better than the o.v.

I think the "work hierarchy" is a very good idea.

For example: Salomé (Petula's Romeo) written by Richard Strauss in 1919 but NO BODY is about to speak of it and in this case does not add it in the "work hierarchy". What a pity. That's all folks :-)

Stephan

Last edit: 2009-09-04 13:15:17 UTC by Stephan Koenig

Quote from Nap

I really don't know if I prefer things the way they are right now or if it will be just a matter of get used to.

Can you be more precise about what you might not like? Or what's making you hesitate?

Denis,

I think of what is written up above is quite clear.

Stephan

PS: maybe (I know it's possible) could it be interesting to add a few seconds of music. Generally, no more than 30 seconds (for instance just like Rocking Country Style does it).

At first it seemed to me a bit complicated, but still it's a manner of habit and time.

One can get used to.

Quote from Denis

Quote from Nap

I really don't know if I prefer things the way they are right now or if it will be just a matter of get used to.

Can you be more precise about what you might not like? Or what's making you hesitate?

Actually what I don't really like is how the artist page is displayed, not the concept. I approve the concept of work.

When I go to an artist page, I'm more interested about how many times it was covered than who wrote the songs. Why? Because I'm more interested about modern bands (70s-present) and for most of them the writers are all the same for all the songs.

Maybe there could be an option for registered users to choose what they want see for artist/songs/labels...

Nap, I agree and I'll create a ticket. "Covered by" should be mentioned on an artists page.

As I tried, the usability is quite well, but what gets me irritated that I can not attribute any adaptation performer to the performer of the original.

Can it be fixed? Or it's just a new concept?

Thanks you've worked it out!

Nikita, sorry you didn't get an answer. Make use of the 'reply request' feature if we keep silent!