I cannot "reuse" it after I initially created it.We hadn't thought of that scenario just yet. We may find a solution in the future, thanks a lot for bringing this to our attention!
Mathieu this feedback will surely interest you
On a lighter note, good job!
Results are not what I would expect. The top reads "Cruel Summer by Alex Seda" while right under that it reads "By Alex Seda (Krista Kleiner, Mart, Alex Seda)". Looking under Cruel Summer I see just "Alex Seda".
Posted your example on test database to compare.
Your submission
My submission on the test database
Looks like you filled in the name of a solo artist in the field of the joint artist.
Attachments:
A spectacular improvement.
Thanks!
Results are not what I would expect. The top reads "Cruel Summer by Alex Seda" while right under that it reads "By Alex Seda (Krista Kleiner, Mart, Alex Seda)". Looking under Cruel Summer I see just "Alex Seda".Posted your example on test database to compare.
Okay, absent some issues identified later, the original explanation is accurate but the terminology used makes the process unintuitive. The root of my confusion is "+ Artist". The + symbol (of course) means "plus", "in addition to". So "Styx featuring Foreigner" + Styx + Foreigner is confusing at best.
What we want is something like "Sub-Artist", the prefix "sub" meaning "a part of" in this context.
This helps explain some experiences. Continuing with my made up example, when I put an artist already on site in the performer field, sometimes the "+ Artist" button would be there, sometimes not. I would type in "Styx", click "+ Artist", Type in "Foreigner" and move on. Other times I start with "Styx" and there would be no + button.
It seems to me that if an artist groping and styling is already on site, "X featuring Y", then the "+ Artist" should never appear. If the system indicates a different X or different Y than intended, then [brackets] should be added and the "+ Artist" reappears.
The root of my confusion is "+ Artist". The + symbol (of course) means "plus", "in addition to". So "Styx featuring Foreigner" + Styx + Foreigner is confusing at best.
I actually don't find this confusing: You give the full moniker of the new joint performer and then the members of the joint performer. Pretty straight forward and easy to get used to. Where in your example would you enter the joiner "featuring", "&" or whatever it would be? You'd need to have a separate field for that and then in the background some logic needs to process the combined name. Sounds way more difficult.
Much more annoying (as I just experienced in an example with 4 different artists to be joint together) is the hassle to perform this task over and over again if you add a joint performer that's new with a lot of performances. I just did not do this but gave a link to the first correctly added joint performer in the info field. To be able to reuse a joint performer immediately after it was created would be much better for everyone, I guess.
I actually don't find this confusing: You give the full moniker of the new joint performer and then the members of the joint performer. Pretty straight forward and easy to get used to. Where in your example would you enter the joiner "featuring", "&" or whatever it would be? You'd need to have a separate field for that and then in the background some logic needs to process the combined name. Sounds way more difficult.
I intentionally didn't suggest "members" as that term suggests group members (e.g. David Lee Roth is/was a member of Van Halen). We have dedicated fields for the Members of an Artist [Band].
My example was "Styx featuring Foreigner", so that's what would/should appear is the performing artist.
"+" does not mean "a part of" or a sub-part of", rather it means "in addition to". That is why I originally put Artist #1 in the Performer field and hit "+ Artist" for Artist #2.
Much more annoying (as I just experienced in an example with 4 different artists to be joint together) is the hassle to perform this task over and over again if you add a joint performer that's new with a lot of performances. I just did not do this but gave a link to the first correctly added joint performer in the info field. To be able to reuse a joint performer immediately after it was created would be much better for everyone, I guess.
Not sure if such effort is worth it. Is this one of the submissions to which you refer?
https://secondhandsongs.com/submission/110628
If so, the obvious answer is to just submit one cover from the release and just reference the others. Many editors prefer that anyway....
I intentionally didn't suggest "members" as that term suggests group members (e.g. David Lee Roth is/was a member of Van Halen). We have dedicated fields for the Members of an Artist [Band].
My example was "Styx featuring Foreigner", so that's what would/should appear is the performing artist.
"+" does not mean "a part of" or a sub-part of", rather it means "in addition to". That is why I originally put Artist #1 in the Performer field and hit "+ Artist" for Artist #2.
"Styx featuring Foreigner" is exactly what will appear as you create the joint artist and then with using the plus sign you add (hence the plus) the individual performers for this joint performer (sorry if you take objection in 'members', we do not need to stick to that wording, it's a pointless discussion about a nomenclature, nothing else).
Not sure if such effort is worth it. Is this one of the submissions to which you refer?
https://secondhandsongs.com/submission/110628
If so, the obvious answer is to just submit one cover from the release and just reference the others. Many editors prefer that anyway....
Well, for me it would be beneficial as doing what you suggest (and what I actually do as explained above) is taking away functionality on the page of the work as the performing artists are not linked, whereas they are linked if you actually add them using the correct process.
"Styx featuring Foreigner" is exactly what will appear as you create the joint artist
Right, I didn't claim otherwise
and then with using the plus sign you add (hence the plus) the individual performers for this joint performer (sorry if you take objection in 'members', we do not need to stick to that wording, it's a pointless discussion about a nomenclature, nothing else).
I obviously know what the "+ Artist" does now. The button could read "Hot Pizza" and I would now know what it does. The point I made was that "+" was the root cause of my initial confusion and will likely result in future confusion for others. Since I prefer not to complain about a word or phrase without suggesting an alternative, I so suggested with "Sub-Artist". I don't claim that this is the best alternative, just better.
Terms of art are important for clarification and precision for SHS. These include "work", "performance" and "release". I simply pointed out that a "member" of a band is different than a constituent "artist" of a joint "performance". This all makes terms of art not pointless nomenclature.
Not sure if such effort is worth it. Is this one of the submissions to which you refer?
https://secondhandsongs.com/submission/110628
If so, the obvious answer is to just submit one cover from the release and just reference the others. Many editors prefer that anyway....
Well, for me it would be beneficial as doing what you suggest (and what I actually do as explained above) is taking away functionality on the page of the work as the performing artists are not linked, whereas they are linked if you actually add them using the correct process.
It's a cost vs. benefit. What are the costs of implementing possibly complex coding to handle the relative few repeated joint performers? There have been "backlog" concerns over the increasing number of unprocessed submissions, a concern somewhat mitigated by one cover submitted per release policy. Lastly, submitting under one of the joint performers and noting the other performing artists and the additional covered works does result in search returns.
Additional observations:
a) Auto-filling the first common name field from the performing artist field is an unnecessary error/typo trap. It should pop-up blank like the second et. seq. fields do.
b) Due to all the variations, getting the internal hyperlinks automatically correct seems like an infeasible if not impossible goal:
A featuring B & C
A + B featuring C
A vs B & C
Manager
Posts: 7331
Much more annoying (as I just experienced in an example with 4 different artists to be joint together) is the hassle to perform this task over and over again if you add a joint performer that's new with a lot of performances. I just did not do this but gave a link to the first correctly added joint performer in the info field. To be able to reuse a joint performer immediately after it was created would be much better for everyone, I guess.
The system will now suggest the artists that were previously entered with the performer (if not added to the database yet).
With more experience, some observations:
a) I still maintain the "+ Artist" should be changed to something more intuitive;
b) The first Common name field should not auto-fill from the Performer field. For instance "VV, DB & Seb Trio" auto-appears, forcing one to edit that field every time. On occasion, even after editing to "VV" as the first artist, "VV, DB & Seb Trio" reappears as I complete the form. (I was unable to replicate this behavior for this test.)
c) This new process effectively allows contributors to create new aliases (in a way):
https://secondhandsongs.com/submission/111686
d) This new process is not an effective way to submit (e.g.) a vocal performance when an instrumental is on site:
https://secondhandsongs.com/submission/111923
I had to use my current work around.
The system will now suggest the artists that were previously entered with the performer (if not added to the database yet).
Sounds excellent, thank you!
The system will now suggest the artists that were previously entered with the performer (if not added to the database yet).
Mathieu , Bastien : Something is still not working as I would expect it. If I reuse a newly created performer, then I get an internal error when I try to use it. The only workaround is to replace the performer with a known one , then change the performer information with the new performer. Sequence of the error and workaround is in the attached images (numbered as the attachments for some reason do not show up in sequence of upload).
Last edit: 2021-02-07 13:30:22 UTC by Pommel
Attachments:
New Editor
Posts: 533
Had the same problem this morning and solved it in the same way.
But new today.
Didn't happen yesterday.
Had the same problem this morning and solved it in the same way.
But new today.
Didn't happen yesterday.
It happened to me yesterday as well, I was just too lazy to write a post immediately.
And the oddities continue: Now I am all of a sudden not able to add a release to a newly submitted original. There is an error "Please specify the release" but the database is not letting me...the related fields do not appear. I finally found a workaround by adding a completely different performer, which somehow broke the internal error for "The Brothers Johnson" and then rea-dding them instead of the the other performer, but it is not accurate behaviour.
Attachments:
These are all likely the same errors as reported below:
https://secondhandsongs.com/topic/76503
..., though the trigger may "move around".
Logged as Ticket #3373 and set priority critical.
Mathieu will look into this as soon as he can.
Should be fixed now.
Indeed it seems to be gone and working normal now, thank you!!
