News
Certified Contributor Level 2
I think as part of the "training" we need to teach folks how to add the GEMAs/BMIs/ASCAPs to the submissions...
Not to forget about ISWC...
People should generalloy be made aware of https://secondhandsongs.com/page/Bookmarks#composers
Congrats all and thanks for your dedicated efforts to this collective enterprise!
C.E. -- "editor-in-spe?"
= future xx, xx to-be, expected to become etc.
Read. With everybody included in the list having proven to be competent, I'm surely not opposing those choices.
But, as (not only) said in https://secondhandsongs.com/message/196769 , I'd been hoping for an increased CC level to also include a potential editor-in-spe perspective.
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.
As things are now (at least as far as I understand them), the first step to editor or CC2 would be CC1. After that potential editors go the long established path to whatever the first level there is. Those not interested in becoming an editor go to CC2.
As I envisioned the CC (...) a CC is someone who, for whatever reason, is not interested in taking on the duties and expectations of an editor (...) 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.
As things are now (at least as far as I understand them), the first step to editor or CC2 would be CC1. After that potential editors go the long established path to whatever the first level there is. Those not interested in becoming an editor go to CC2.
VV, most of us know and/or remember that your suggestion for CCs was quite different from what it turned out to become. In the long run even more so...
I agree to the 1st of the above paragraphs. Becoming a CC also means being willing and able to contribute both more profoundly and actively than 'regular' contributors. Recently introduced authorities increased CCs' abilities, but failed to also increase their duties, causing an imbalance.
So, introducing two CC levels (I don't care what they are called) only really makes sense for the internal development of SHS if based on two consequent parts of one logic:
The higher level is the one below 'Trainee' and reserved to those not only showing the potential but also aspiring/desiring to become editors. It should include the max of abilities so far granted to CCs.
Those not wanting to take over more responsibilities, handle the increasing workload involved in adding thoroughly researched data, care for error reports and much(!) more would remain at the first CC level and not be given the same powers as higher levelled CCs.
As I envisioned the CC (...) a CC is someone who, for whatever reason, is not interested in taking on the duties and expectations of an editor (...) 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.
As things are now (at least as far as I understand them), the first step to editor or CC2 would be CC1. After that potential editors go the long established path to whatever the first level there is. Those not interested in becoming an editor go to CC2.
VV, most of us know and/or remember that your suggestion for CCs was quite different from what it turned out to become. In the long run even more so...
I agree to the 1st of the above paragraphs. Becoming a CC also means being willing and able to contribute both more profoundly and actively than 'regular' contributors. Recently introduced authorities increased CCs' abilities, but failed to also increase their duties, causing an imbalance.
So, introducing two CC levels (I don't care what they are called) only really makes sense for the internal development of SHS if based on two consequent parts of one logic:
The higher level is the one below 'Trainee' and reserved to those not only showing the potential but also aspiring/desiring to become editors. It should include the max of abilities so far granted to CCs.
Those not wanting to take over more responsibilities, handle the increasing workload involved in adding thoroughly researched data, care for error reports and much(!) more would remain at the first CC level and not be given the same powers as higher levelled CCs.
There has been a recent flurry of CC authorities flying about; however, as far I as understand how things have landed as of today (emphasis on understand), the CC2 is close enough to my original proposal.
I have always agreed that the CC should not be a cafeteria editor (a contributor with all, or close to all of the powers, but none of the responsibilities, of an editor). This is why I have objected to some proposed authorities. I would have objected more often and more recently, but my observations never really generated any effect if even a response. This is also why I continued to stress proven discretion before granting CC powers if they are to have more grey area, higher than low impact edit authority.
I suspect that you are more protective of your entries than most, but I also suspect that most editors with whom I have high levels of interaction would rather me just (in clear cases e.g.) add missing cover art or switch to instrumental. For close calls requiring discretion, I would file the error report and defer to the editor. A CC should have proven their discretion to know when to change and when to file before ever being granted the authorities in the first place.
As far as I know, SHS doesn't need more editor levels. What it needed was (or perhaps still needs) a contributor class that leverages experience to relieve the editors from the more mundane corrections and improvements.
The editors seem to have a higher than reasonable fear that CCs will be creating lots of errors. Maybe, but if the authorities are properly restricted in scope and the CC title properly restricted in grant, based on the number of error reports I alone file on editor work, I don't see much risk.
Certified Contributor II
Posts: 965
Certified Contributor II
Posts: 965
Ticket #3159 should address more being allowed to add missing visuals on the release w/o having to bug all the managing editors on the releases. I thought the instrumental yes/no enhancement had filtered down the to CCs has it not?
______
Mark
Congrats 
______
''I'll Never Get Out of This World Alive...''
(Hank Williams, 1952)
Certified Contributor II
Posts: 965
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.
VV, just to set this clear: I don't fear guys like you may create more errors than most editors (nobody is perfect...).
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.
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.
