so then ....

[cjdenecia]

ok. lets cover the immediate topic. I have spoken to gregg briefly regarding the future - albeit only the immediate one.

hosting is covered. in house. for now .... it won't necessarily be the ideal setup and if the sql side falters, we could be looking at extended down times but that doesn't happen all that often. it won't require any money at this time but we are probably gonna have to go ahead and use some ads on the site to help offset the cost. I have never liked that idea but I admit there is little choice so it'll be happening. when? not sure but it will take place.

the transfer will likely take place later on this month and there will be down time and probably a glitch or two after ....

but with our current needs, it means the site will stay online. who knows what will take place regarding the site performance. it might actually get better - or it might be slightly off ... we will have to wait and see.

but that doesn't solve the problems as I see it. we still have the lack of membership and the lack of participation by the existing membership to deal with.

every idea given thus far regarding direction and structure are good and deserve looking at - but - and it's a big but, only when we address and at least partially solve the lack of activity problem. if we show some sort of increase in this regard, we will revisit all the suggestions and probably start to adapt the site to some sort of changes that might make us more easily accessible and popular. no promises but I think some of your ideas have merit stebs. and we have a few ideas of our own that might fit in .... but - we simply must increase our user base somehow first. otherwise, it's all just a lot of work for basically no return.

so, despite the premise that what we have here may indeed be an outdated concept - the whole peer review system, it is the system we have and even in these times, we can do better at it than what we have. and we have to if we're gonna adapt.

take your thinking caps, twist them around a bit and maybe tilt them to screwy angles and come up with some ideas - real ideas - on how we can bring back our existing membership and go on a membership drive to attract new blood. try to do it without the idea of changing what we have and what we do for now. lets dance with who brung us .... we are not gonna go into a site overhaul and conceptually change what we do without there being some promise that it will be for more than 6 to 12 people. I realize it may be the old chicken before the egg and visa versa problem but we have what we have here. and the fact remains that amongst the worlds population, we really ought to be able to come up with a hundred = or even a few hundred people who really dig the concept still.

we need to find them and bring them here. how do we do that? what can be done individually and collectively and as a website?

don't let up on ideas now. simply cus this isn't as glamorous a task as site concept. this is where gregg and I have been stifled. this is where we need the help most. we aren't against having to add a few pages and modifications to suit new ideas but they must be within the concepts or what we already do. and that is review independent music. I might be ready to try to enlist gregg in setting up a pro review system where a band can purchase a panel review.

kim and I have had the same idea come to light .... specialty reviews by our ap expert panel. covering what our reviewers are best at .... there's a possibility we can cover all aspects of a song with different people. technical .... emotional .... musical .... lyrical .... etc etc ..... but do understand, when a band buys into this, the panel must be there to do the work. as immediately as possible. and we must be professional.

that's one idea but it must be something we can spread the news about. how? where? the ideas must be accompanied by how to make it work .... otherwise, we're still in the same boat.

so, what say you?

[steban]

Hooray!

I thank you both for keeping the site alive, and now is the time to think of incremental improvements that won't cause too much new development.

But that being said, we will need to change things to some extent if we expect to increase our numbers. It is not just members but reviewers. As I see it, we have nothing to fear/lose if we start requiring more reviews or money to get reviews faster. If we keep the formula reasonable, and by that I specifically mean less than the old GB deal, we can get more reviews.

If we also simply allow us to give our review credits to anybody else, then we can voluntarily generate a new kind of goodwill.

I truly believe this is the first thing we have to do to fix what is broken in the review system. And whatever it will take to make that happen, please let us know. I will help as I can. Maybe we need to buy a shopping cart and a merchant deal, so let's price that out and buy it!

You are so right, the review model we have may be out of vogue, but it is what we do. I'm not saying, hey, make an announcement starting next week we are charging blah blah blah, that needs to announced like a marketing idea and sold on its merits, being the long term viability of the site and the increased speediness of getting reviews. The more we can spin the good side, especially if it really is for the better, the better it will work.

And Rick, there's no need for you to try to overanalyze the site as if cj's personality is what drives everyone away, because that is not it. It just isn't. You are always welcome here, even though reviewing or even entering songs is not your big thing. I may be visiting Maine next summer, too, dude, and if you're still with us, maybe we could have a beer, politics notwithstanding. You're not the only quiet one, and nobody assumes all the people who are infrequent are simply pissed at cj or somebody else here, more it's just where life has diverted you. Now some are, but even most of them are not mad, just focusing on their own thing. Some are here all the time and never say anything! They are in many ways the calmest ones, and they contribute in their own fashion. Some contribute songs but never enter the contest. Other share their music or the music they've heard, and others share all the things they've been doing in the name of music, all good.

[ingolee]

I'm glad the host issue is resolved, good work!

Suggestions? , well sort of, might just be more wah-wah . . . .

1. Does anybody know how many reviews/reviewers it would take to rearrange the top 5 that appear every time we view the index page? Really need more action on the opening page somehow, that's a big turn-off.

2. Need an incentive with more pizzazz than review credits (yawn). Didn't GB used to offer a recording contract or something like that? Can't help but think that if a responsible party affiliated with this website was to put on a suit and a sleazy smile, and then network/schmooze with some of the many other forces in this wacky industry that we could create some kind of offer/tie-in/promotion/introduction type incentive that we could splash onto the front page? You say you want promotion, I have to question if you are really willing to do what needs to be done. Peer review is a good concept but it won't sell itself!

But in the meantime, it's business as usual, and I'm good with that.

[cjdenecia]

[cjdenecia]

[ingolee]

[cjdenecia]

[steban]

The review problem is we let a song be entered, for 5 reviews, a pittance, and then we say they need to review, but it is not required in order to receive more reviews or get reviewed quicker, ergo there is absolutely no incentive to review. It is like almost everyone is behaving like the other guy will do it.

That is a built in flaw in the system, cj, is what I'm saying.

If we want everyone to review, which we certainly do, we need to up the value of the review. Pay $5 and go to the front of the line or review 5 pairs or even 5 songs, something so people realize their songs will never get reviewed unless they keep reviewing or pay up.

We need reviews more than money right now, I agree, but by offering a pay alternative we place a comparative value on a review. It suddenly is not free.

We need new members and old as well to understand that, because they right now are under the false impression that they'll eventually get reviews doing nothing.

The more we want reviews over money, the more we charge to bypass reviewing. Sure, we'd like to be fair, but when we put it like, yes, you can just pay $10 and get a review, then you can get 5 reviews fast for $50. Or you can review 25 songs and pay nothing to get 5 reviews fast. And if the price were halved, $5 to get an instant/fast track review ahead of all the nonreviewing, nonpaying members, that would be $25 to get 5 reviews. Either way is a whole lot of incentive to review, and we can do it because the inactive members' songs will not move.

I have thought about reviews for a decade or so now, as you know, and we need to pat the reviewers on the back a lot more. Recognition is free, so why not caress the egos? That is largely why I would like the ability to do reviews and give them away to deserving bands. Imagine you are a band and get an IM saying, steban likes your music, here's a song upload/fast track credit. Keep up the good work! It might be like that Starbucks pay for the car behind you thing, it just keeps it interesting and makes you feel good, whether you pay more or less.

Ingo's right on about the chart stagnation. We need to devote more space to nonchart recognition. Remember all the Song of the Day, Song of the Week, the badges, Best in a bunch of categories? That was completely outside the stagnant chart, but I think I looked at that stuff more than the charts themselves.

Right now we have new songs, new members/bands, new reviews, chart songs. That's actually all pretty good, so it might be we have some front page news headline or two, a feature story on a band or a reviewer. Maybe a large picture, a glimpse into their world. Maybe an editorial by the editor.

I think we all use the forum for this sort of thing, but maybe on the Audiopolis side would be a better place.

And if we don't do something, those who do reviews will wait and wait while nonreviewers get reviews first just because they submitted their songs first. That is a huge disincentive as soon as one figures out that's how it works.

I'd say go with no money, just review requirements to fast track, but money makes it all seem so much more of a value and for some a preferred option.

[pharquartt]

[cjdenecia]

well rick, we seem to have a different recollection of various events - and maybe we can continue this aspect of the discussion in the future but for now, I don't have time for a continued personal battle with you. I told you what you had to do and in the time it took you to gather your steam and throw your punch, you could have done some reviews or brainstormed some sort of ideas regarding the actual problems but apparently, you found it more important to defend yourself and go on the offensive. fair enough. but it simply will have to wait. btw - if you and any others you speak of care to get together and pull off some sort of siege to somehow remove me from this lofty height, well, go for it. I doubt I'll be hurt in my great fall back to earth.

in the meantime, did you have anything of importance to add?

[HUD]

[ingolee]

[jaymz]

sup bitches.

couple of words of advise which you can take or ignore.. even if you do take 'em, don't know what good they will do. Gettin people on a website is hard.

.


anyhow.. first and foremost, what I've learned is this.

You must be able to offer a product or service that people (not users) want to consume. It's the hardest thing to do. Think about this. If you didn't have a website, why would anyone want to listen to you? Maybe you have something tangible to sell? Maybe you are a great preacher? I dunno.. what? Websites are just windows to supply. If you open the door, is anyone there? Or are they down the street somewhere else? To often we (myself included) get caught up in "can i build a website that does so and so". Once we get through the technology part, we look back and can't figure out why no one is participating? For the love of Pete, I struggled and built this great website, where are you people!?!?!!? Don't you see how great my idea is now? It's such a hard gig.. really.

Now on to the actual website itself. If you are going to revamp, start with your design. Template is fine, drupal is fine. You need a designer to brand your site and create your graphics. It doesn't look like a professionally built site as it is. You'll lose points for this (even in your SEO). First thing I would spend money on if I were spending money.

Secondly, I give you this neat little report I ran through our companies SEO system. Maybe it will help a little in your further efforts.

http://1drv.ms/1sbBPLt

I once wanted to create a site called Channel Production that offered a way for users to collaborate on production tips and techniques as well as rate and review samples and songs. Then I realized I don't have any users. And then I realized there are 1000 sites out there that already do this. Reality sucks.

[Krispy]

[cjdenecia]