Submissions

Is this forum going to be used to send in submissions or does that still have to happen the old fashioned way? I just found a couple of interesting (IMO) connections. I've already sent in dozens of connections the past few weeks to Mark and I can imagine it takes a couple of hours to verify everything; he probably started cursing every time he received one of my emails :-)

If we post new connections on the forum, other forum members could help out finding missing info. That way the people that run this site don't have to spend time looking up missing info if one of the forum members already knows where that info can be found.

Just an idea :-)

-Jan

LOL and I thought it was just me and Matt making them curse at the volume of emails ;)

Kate

Jan,

We'd still prefer to have the final submission information to land in the 'help' mailbox as we use that as our To Do list and chip away at that mailbox every chance we get. Although I fully encourage the use of the forums to coroborate data and get all the details worked out I'd hate for any work to get lost in the shuffle as a post may eventually get buried over time. At least in the 'help' mailbox we know it won't get lost and will eventually work our way to it.


Kevin

You might want to add a forum for "reasons to reject" a submission - in the rules it says that you reserve the right to delete and ignore emails with extreme prejudice if they don't adhere to the rules ... but as I say, it would be nice (if you have time) to announce reasons *not* to include certain bands ...

That may also help prevent other people sending the same info only to have it rejected. Perhaps.

Kate

Everyone is arrogant enough to believe it's their OWN large submissions lists causing the site to bog to a crawl and the maintainers to tear out their hair :)

(Yes, I believed this too)

Perhaps Mark and Kevin should add another maintainer. Of course, since they seem to be incredibly anal control freaks (no worries, I am too), they'd likely not wish to risk that :D

> Perhaps Mark and Kevin should add another maintainer.
> Of course, since they seem to be incredibly anal
> control freaks (no worries, I am too), they'd likely
> not wish to risk that :D

Kevin alluded to it in his post in the Rules Meeting forum about the importance of data integrity--one previous version of the project died a miserable death due to the contributions of our "helpers." So we're very careful this time around. We find ourselves calling each other out on rules violations every once in a while, so I don't know if anyone else would even want to work with us.

-Mark

I've got to second Mark's note about having 3rd party maintainers, we've run into real trouble every time we've tried it. I do think that having a post of rejected bands and the rational behind the rejection may be a good thing to have for people to reference and potentially debate. Let me think of how to set that up and I'll get on that shortly...


Kevin

i sent an email and was just wondering?

Sometimes I've had submissions added the same day (especially if an easy one - just one band with a clear link) and sometimes I've waited a week or two, especially if it's complex and the guys are busy!

Kate

Right on Kate. Sadly, we still have some messages to take care of from early March. We try to go in the order we receive them, but it's a lot easier for us to get more bands into the tree by working on the submissions that are well-documented (one or more URLs that will verify that each person was a band member on the release) and come with a nice cover photo. Also, sometimes when I'm short on time, I'll try to take care of a small submission even if there are older, longer, unfinished submissions still waiting to be processed. I'm sure that some of the regular contributors have noticed that.

The more obscure the band and/or the harder to verify the info, the longer it will take us. We also only use cover photo images that are "big enough," which means that they are at least 144x144 pixels in size. I have to say that PK gets the gold star for always finding big images. Sometimes we have to do a lot of google searching or some cropping/touching-up images. That takes a while too.

I guess the lesson here is that the more work you do for us, the easier it is for us to get it in. On average, it takes me somewhere between 5 and 15 minutes to verify and insert each submission, which doesn't sound like a lot... but it all adds up. We averaged 100 new bands per week for eleven straight weeks, but I suspect that our pace will start to slow down soon.

We do appreciate every submission though and we will get to them all. And don't feel like you have to wait for us to finish one before you send another.

And I suspect that the guys have lives, work etc outside of this website as well! ;)