You've got to be kidding

[nal1200]

Here's something to think about:
This is my opinion, please respect it as I respect yours.

I'm sure all of you have had you're nice little runabouts with this week's top 5.
Namely this "Latin Fire" which as most of you are aware, is simply a bunch of pre-rendered garageband loops.

Here's what i'm furious about:

If you've checked the song's reviews lately, you'll notice that practically ALL of the reviews giving the song a zero have been deleted.

I am fully aware that the rules state not to publish a review saying the song is stolen. HOWEVER, a good portion of those reviews were simply commenting on how (and I quote this very loosely) 'the song showed little creativity by looping pre-rendered loops together.'

In my honest opinion, I see nothing wrong with telling someone their song deserves a zero because honestly, some songs do. The thing that really pisses me off is that all of this criticism has been erased because it was flagged as abusive. Now the song's relative review score is much, much higher, despite still being a relatively simple song.

Do you see what i'm getting at? I don't believe this friendly environment is AT ALL worth the risk of losing free speech.

Has it occurred to you that perhaps this same idea of conservative speech is also what is elevating the audio portal songs' scores to the point where people are offended when they get an average rating instead of a 4 or 5?

[Carf]

Tssk tssk... well... I get the point for sure... but the main question is... WHAT todo about these kinda things... we are still on the big bad web and besides that, mister roboto-bot does not know the difference between a pre-rendered loop that has been made in garage band, or a complete full arranged piece of art in fruity, cubase or whatever program it could be... in all fairness... you can scream as hard as you want, but there is noone that can solve these *kinda* problems that occur on the audio portal. Yes its free to say whatever you want (between the small list of rules ofcourse) but a user is also free todo whatever they want todo with reviews... so deleting a 0... well... its his/her pointless decision... (in my opinion... why would you delete bad revs if you cannot handle them at all, then be wise and DON'T upload your music if you cannot handle the opinion from somebody else... negative feedback is often positive, aslong its brought in a clear and helpfull way, to improve yourself! But that is another discusion...)

Anyways... you can put it on the list with *things that could be better but are for sure stay for the next couple of years until one or another einstein writes a matrix script that will take over NG and cleansweep all hat0rz* but for now... deal with it...

[Cebster]

At 11/7/08 02:54 PM, nal1200 wrote: Here's what i'm furious about:

If you've checked the song's reviews lately, you'll notice that practically ALL of the reviews giving the song a zero have been deleted.

In my honest opinion, I see nothing wrong with telling someone their song deserves a zero because honestly, some songs do. The thing that really pisses me off is that all of this criticism has been erased because it was flagged as abusive. Now the song's relative review score is much, much higher, despite still being a relatively simple song.

In my opinion the only reason a song should ever deserve a zero is if its stolen or its (and i hate to use this word but i cant find a better way to describe it but) Troll.

I agree with everything else though. If a song sucks than you should be able to explain why without fear of ban or the user being immature and getting all butt hurt. Now the horrible thing about the top five is that people who listen to it are inexperienced so they will most likely enjoy any music bad or good. Also with that being the case it is probably rather easy for them to use their bad opinion to screw up a good one. if they see a comment they disagree with chances are yeah they will click the x, its not hard and takes no time nor energy to do.

So i think this problem has a deeper root and that would be how the AP system is corrupt. So maybe this belongs in a thread previously created.

My best advice is just don't let it get to you because chances are if it really is a bad song it wont last, it will get sero bombed a bunch of times. But the point remains don't let it bother you, it will only drive you crazy. Just focus on your music.

[S3C]

hehe, I kinda agree.

I don't believe a track deserves the score of 0 solely from just using loops though. That's not grounds to detract from a song's rating. Was the arrangement good? An awkward, lack of flow is something that commonly comes with just slapping loops together? Have you heard these loops before? Is there any personalization done, such as splicing and sending the loops through any type of FX? These are criticisms that you can give the author...did any of the 0-reviewers draw a light to these in their reviews? And even at that, does the song really deserve a score of 0?

Also, it's against the rules to say a song doesnt deserve being in the top 5/30. Did any of these reviews mention this?

Otherwise, giving him a 0 just for the sole purpose of just using loops shows bitterness on your part, and is like, criticizing a child for playing with coloring books. Just let them do their thing, they're not going to get anywhere in the music world using this method. In the very rare case that they make the Top 5, well thats life. BANG KO!

[S3C]

I should also make note, although not stated in writing anywhere in the NG rules, that its against the audio submission rules to use a song totally comprised of garageband loops. Therefore, maybe a 0 is really warranted and overrides everything I said above.

[TwilightNecrosis]

At 11/7/08 03:19 PM, Cebster wrote: In my opinion the only reason a song should ever deserve a zero is if its stolen or its (and i hate to use this word but i cant find a better way to describe it but) Troll.

I agree with everything else though. If a song sucks than you should be able to explain why without fear of ban or the user being immature and getting all butt hurt. Now the horrible thing about the top five is that people who listen to it are inexperienced so they will most likely enjoy any music bad or good. Also with that being the case it is probably rather easy for them to use their bad opinion to screw up a good one. if they see a comment they disagree with chances are yeah they will click the x, its not hard and takes no time nor energy to do.

This is a simple fix: When a user clicks the yellow 'x' for abusive, they then have to select a reason for flagging that review (like for new submissions in the FP). Then, if a review gets enough flags in any one of the 3 or 4 predetermined reasons, that review is removed for review. If a mod reviews and it turns out that the review wasn't abusive, whoever flagged it gets reprimanded in some fashion.
How does this sound? It doesn't really fix the overall problem, and probably would lead to even more work for the mods, but I think it could be a step in the right direction. Maybe.

[Cebster]

At 11/7/08 03:46 PM, TwilightNecrosis wrote:

At 11/7/08 03:19 PM, Cebster wrote: In my opinion the only reason a song should ever deserve a zero is if its stolen or its (and i hate to use this word but i cant find a better way to describe it but) Troll.

I agree with everything else though. If a song sucks than you should be able to explain why without fear of ban or the user being immature and getting all butt hurt. Now the horrible thing about the top five is that people who listen to it are inexperienced so they will most likely enjoy any music bad or good. Also with that being the case it is probably rather easy for them to use their bad opinion to screw up a good one. if they see a comment they disagree with chances are yeah they will click the x, its not hard and takes no time nor energy to do.

This is a simple fix: When a user clicks the yellow 'x' for abusive, they then have to select a reason for flagging that review (like for new submissions in the FP). Then, if a review gets enough flags in any one of the 3 or 4 predetermined reasons, that review is removed for review. If a mod reviews and it turns out that the review wasn't abusive, whoever flagged it gets reprimanded in some fashion.
How does this sound? It doesn't really fix the overall problem, and probably would lead to even more work for the mods, but I think it could be a step in the right direction. Maybe.

I don't know if ng would like that. They would have to set up a whole new system, not to mention if a mod had to review every abusive flagged comment they would have no life. I mean that's kinda the whole point in giving us the user that ability. We are supposed to be helping the site out. Maybe the answer is making the ap community more aware of the problem, or just simply eliminating our review power.

[PaulStetich]

Happens to everyone, nuff said. Stop worrying about it.

[InGenius]

The abusive review system is horribly broken. And to top it off, the Rage's Abusive thread ends up getting ALOT of legal reviews thrown out simply because of a handful of jerks who can't take criticism posting a review and having a few hundred people go get "free whistle points".

But beyond that, if you are going to have this abusive flag system, how about adding an abusive REPLY flag as well. I can't tell you how many times a perfectly good review has gotten a horribly abusive reply from the artist that needed to be deleted. There are a handful of people who cannot take any form of criticism at all and ruin it for those who do choose to review and tell them the truth about their music, and being able to flag a reply would balance out some of this review nonsense because most of those who give abusive replies also post to Rage's to get reviews pulled.

[Fuoco]

At 11/7/08 09:19 PM, InGenius wrote: The abusive review system is horribly broken. But beyond that, if you are going to have this abusive flag system, how about adding an abusive REPLY flag as well.

Exactly my line of thinking.

[TwilightNecrosis]

x2 on that, sounds like a good idea.

[Cebster]

At 11/7/08 09:19 PM, InGenius wrote: But beyond that, if you are going to have this abusive flag system, how about adding an abusive REPLY flag as well. I can't tell you how many times a perfectly good review has gotten a horribly abusive reply from the artist that needed to be deleted. There are a handful of people who cannot take any form of criticism at all and ruin it for those who do choose to review and tell them the truth about their music, and being able to flag a reply would balance out some of this review nonsense

I believe the ap has bigger issues such as zero bombing. The review scores don't really effect a song and if someone doesn't want to take criticism well then they don't have to they can sit there with crappy music. besides half the people leaving reviews are not good critics even when they think they are.

[nal1200]

At 11/7/08 03:28 PM, S3C wrote: I should also make note, although not stated in writing anywhere in the NG rules, that its against the audio submission rules to use a song totally comprised of garageband loops. Therefore, maybe a 0 is really warranted and overrides everything I said above.

Ding ding ding

[war-spawn]

Only reason why that song got # 1 is because no one ever goes to the latin section. Ever. So since no one saw it when it was in the latest submissions, and the name didn't stand out, no one clicked it, and it remained with a high score. Once off the charts, it was safe until top 5 came along, and poof. #1

The Best Of The Week has nothing to do with the effort, skill, or even time you put into your song. It's basically the rate its going on the site, and does everything by ratios. If I post a song on a Thursday, get 30 reviews and 50 votes until BOTW changes again, a song that was released on the day of the change with 12 reviews and about 30 votes, the newer song will get it. Just for the simple fact that the program that chooses the top 5 is based off progress, and the newer song obviously has got a better ratio. 12 reviews in less than 24 hours to 30 reviews in about 100 hours. That's basically it. I rest my case.

:*faints*

[Phyrnna]

At 11/7/08 10:59 PM, Cebster wrote: I believe the ap has bigger issues such as zero bombing. The review scores don't really effect a song and if someone doesn't want to take criticism well then they don't have to they can sit there with crappy music. besides half the people leaving reviews are not good critics even when they think they are.

One solution to zero bombing is that the song has to be played through at least once before a vote is allowed. May or may not work, just a suggestion.

[Kr1z]

I didnt read all the replies, but imo, Nal is so right :O
What's wrong with some honest criticizing? :@

[Dj-Immune]

It comes to a simple saying... You have nothing good to say, don't say anything at all.

But seeing as artists are supposed to guide and teach others on this site, that statement probably doesn't matter.

I learned a very hard lesson by giving critism to someone (to g-Rave, who's music I still don't like), and that person came to my account and 0'd all of my work constantly, so I guess their might be bad intentions in the long run for both sides.

I'm guessing the Mods or Admins are just trying to avoid that.

[DarKsidE555]

At 11/7/08 02:54 PM, nal1200 wrote: Here's something to think about:
This is my opinion, please respect it as I respect yours.

I'm sure all of you have had you're nice little runabouts with this week's top 5.
Namely this "Latin Fire" which as most of you are aware, is simply a bunch of pre-rendered garageband loops.

Song has already been noted on my shitlist. It's sad that such "songs" get on the feature spots in the first place. >___>

[jrhager84]

It's easy. You make reviews anonymous. Then you can't be vindictive. If people WANT to sign it, they're allowed to. If you feel someone is being abusive, you PM a mod who knows who writes the reviews.... and if you're right, they can't review any of your stuff again (something that would have to be added). If they keep giving less-than-constructive reviews, their right to review period is taken away... Seems like an easy solution to me.

-Joel

[nal1200]

Well, while I feel everyone has made a lot of valid points, I have to admit that this topic really doesn't have a quick fix.

I suppose we'll just have to talk our ideas to the new MK3 NG thread

Tankus for listening! :P

[wyldfyre1]

From what your saying the fella that made that song just took loops and really didn't do to much original eh? Thats to bad the real unfortunate part is not everyone knows or see's that those are loops so they don't see it that they are loops or taken to be used in the song. The whole situation is unfortunate. Though i will say this. It WILL happen from time to time that a song like that one will go on front page.

Long story short. I feel your pain hah.

Much luv

[Psychophan7]

At 11/8/08 02:01 AM, HalcyonicFalconX wrote: One solution to zero bombing is that the song has to be played through at least once before a vote is allowed. May or may not work, just a suggestion.

Then you would have to disable the ability to skip around a track, because then you can just skip to the end and say you've listened to the whole thing.

[Dj-Immune]

I saw we all drop our pants!

Must *beep bloop* escape Chron's *bleep bleep* programming

[Phyrnna]

At 11/8/08 05:35 PM, Psychophan7 wrote:

At 11/8/08 02:01 AM, HalcyonicFalconX wrote: One solution to zero bombing is that the song has to be played through at least once before a vote is allowed. May or may not work, just a suggestion.

Then you would have to disable the ability to skip around a track, because then you can just skip to the end and say you've listened to the whole thing.

I know. Even though we shouldn't disable skipping around a track, that can definitely be used to loophole around this. Of course, in that fashion there is always a way to get around things. It's just probably a better way?