News
Certified Contributor
Sorry for my poor English!
No worries! I'm based in Brussels, I'm used to Babylon-like situations! 
Good luck, Bassman EJ with no real name but a promising username...
Member
Posts: 5
Thank you Bastien,
I will be happy to take on this task.
Also if I am able to approve my own contributions as I follow the guidelines very carefully and research well the covers I could and would be a great asset to this website.
Thank you again!
-EJ
Also if I am able to approve my own contributions as I follow the guidelines very carefully and research well the covers I could and would be a great asset to this website.
That is indeed the ultimate objective for you ánd for us!
To achieve this, the first step will be to start using your new editing acces (see here ). I'm sure you'll do a great job, we'll validate those edits, and then we can again give you more access 
Also if I am able to approve my own contributions as I follow the guidelines very carefully and research well the covers I could and would be a great asset to this website.That is indeed the ultimate objective for you ánd for us!
To achieve this, the first step will be to start using your new editing acces (see here ). I'm sure you'll do a great job, we'll validate those edits, and then we can again give you more access
Given how this concept has evolved and been implemented, "certified" is not/no longer the proper term. As a reminder, my original idea was to elevate a group of long-time contributors who have evidenced strong understanding of site terms and guidelines. These "Certified Contributors" would have the power to make low impact revisions that did not need to be reviewed/approved by the editors. The goal was to lessen the burden on the editors, namely their having to process some common, low impact error reports. These contributors were "certified" to not need the normally applicable review.
If the editors still need to validate edits, I or any other CC might as well just file an error report. In other words, validation would be part of the certification process, but those under review would not yet be certified.
Admittedly, I am struggling to find a replacement word that perfectly fits how the concept is currently implemented. Perhaps "Active" or "Quality"? "Trusted" would not be fit, as that term essentially equates with "Certified" in this context.
Certified Contributor
Posts: 1448
perhaps i missed somethng along the way of all hese comments - i thought as "certified contributors," what we did went through sans an editor review. if not, you are right, it is/would be the same as using the "report error" function. however, this issue, imo, does not negate or require a different term than "certified" as it sounds like the issue is with the process, i.e carrying out a function (of the ceritified contributror and not necessrily the selected term-- 'certified," which usually means a higher level than not, that has been earned in some way,with more authority and trust. for e.g. cpa--certified public accountant
Maryhelen,
As Certified Contributor you can, among other things, add missing information to artists: Identify as person or band, visual, birth date, death date, home country, and free biography details.
See: https://secondhandsongs.com/page/UserLevels
These edits are immediate and visible for all. As editors we have the possibility to review these edits, but it's optional.
Hope that clarifies it.
"Valued" Contributor may be the proper term. As implemented, it seems the title has been granted as a reward for new but highly active contributors: Hey, we're glad you found the site and noticed all the work you have recently done to help. Here's a little token of appreciation. Maybe we'll do more once you have more experience with the guidelines, etc.
"Certified" Contributor Level 1: Wow, you have really stuck with us and seem to know the basics really well. Can you help fill in some missing non-crucial information?
"Certified" Contributor Level 2: It would be helpful if you would consider becoming an editor, but we understand that some people are unable or unwilling to make that commitment. Nevertheless, we would like to leverage your experience to handle low impact corrections yourself so that the editors can concentrate on more material concerns.
Certified Contributor
Posts: 24
I like the term “valued contributor”.
The descriptions of “certified contributors” imho need some more appealing words. Now I would not want to be downgraded from valued to certified for contributing some “ non-crucial” stuff, or further down to level 2 for some “low impact” contributions.
I’ve been thinking a bit about this discussion when browsing the database lately and noticed there are many unverified contributions that miss basic content which valued/certified contributors could complete if they somehow had access to the submission forms, instead of the only option to use the comment box.
It would speed up processing by the valued editors significantly, would it not?
I like the term “valued contributor”.
The descriptions of “certified contributors” imho need some more appealing words. Now I would not want to be downgraded from valued to certified for contributing some “ non-crucial” stuff, or further down to level 2 for some “low impact” contributions.
~Laughs~ Well, actually VC is lower than CC1 which is lower than CC2. The terminology becomes a challenge when fitting these concepts in with all the editor levels. Somehow we must differentiate between filling in a missing birthdate (non-crucial), changing to instrumental (low impact), and adding a songwriter credit (high impact). These terms are used for discussion, they don't need to be part of an official definition.
I went with CC1 and CC2 to fit with a related thread started by B. Personally I would use:
Valued (essentially a participation trophy)
Trusted (add missing birth/death dates, etc.)
Certified (authority to revise comments, add/change cover art, flag instrumentals, etc.)
Certified Contributor
Posts: 1448
"certified" definitely connotes authority and extensive knowledge as in "certified public accountant, " and other professions-- they require specific education, credentials-- degree for e.g. often and exam must be passed. "values" is used for "valued customer" by any and every merchant, from mcdonalds and so on. so imo, "valued" no offense to who is pro that word is overused and hokey
"certified" definitely connotes authority and extensive knowledge as in "certified public accountant, " and other professions-- they require specific education, credentials-- degree for e.g. often and exam must be passed. "values" is used for "valued customer" by any and every merchant, from mcdonalds and so on. so imo, "valued" no offense to who is pro that word is overused and hokey
a) Remember that for many English is not their primary language, so distinctions between words are often missed. I trust that Management will heed those here with an English primary and revise terminology appropriately.
b) You are correct as to "certified", which is why I started this branch in the thread objecting to that word now that the CC concept has evolved to what it is today.
c) While I have no use for the "valued" contributor concept, Management obviously does, so I attempted to find a word that fit. I would be pleased as punch to accept a similar fit with a different word, but it is the epitome of laziness to object sans an alternative. Even now trying to come up with an alternative that fits the situation remains a struggle. "Promising"? I suppose the term is overused because there is no or few alternatives that work.
d) Remember, for this site, precision is far more important than poetry....
Certified Contributor
Posts: 1448
the there is NO alternative "certified" IS the proper appropriate and best term.
"certified
/ˈsərdifīd/
adjective
adjective: certified
officially recognized as possessing certain qualifications or meeting certain standards.
"a certified accountant"
a certified "contributor" (mine)
why does everything turn into a huge issue/discussion here-- even something so simple?
democracy gone awry?? I saw many "coop" organizations --so popular at a time--go this route-- eventually fell apart
Last edit: 2019-11-14 20:58:32 UTC by maryhelen
the there is NO alternative "certified" IS the proper appropriate and best term.
a) No, "certified" is not the appropriate term as the CC concept has been implemented, as evidenced by the very limited authorities granted, the continued need for editor approvals for many CC actions, and the granting of that title to relatively new contributors who are still learning the basic guidelines.
b) I thought it rather clear that I asked for alternative to "Valued", as that much softer term is appropriate for how the CC concept has been implemented and that is the term to which you objected.