Forum Logistics

[Salemosophy]

I believe the forum needs a more concise, logistical approach to its organization. Hopefully, a constructive explanation of my suggestions will lead to a more sensible organization of the forum to make it simpler to navigate and more intuitively balanced with how the forum operates.

For a constructive example of this, YC currently has eight categories of forums. Archives, Uploads, Discussion, Contests, Interactive, Technology, Community, and Board (Announcements). This is entirely unnecessary and cumulative. Not only does it waste space, it leaves some members confused as to whether they should post in one forum or another. I've seen this all too often, and while it might seem "petty" to make such suggestions here, I believe a more concise organization of the forum will make moderation of the forum much more efficient and the user experience more satisfying. Let me explain the cumulative aspect of this that leads to confusion...

Discussion and Community are one in the same. There is no need for two sections that essentially involve various levels of discussion, from broad to narrow. Contests and Interactive are also cumulative sections, in my opinion. You can easily combine these into one section. Archives and Board is another example of cumulative sections that essentially serve similar purposes. Combine them. In total, it reduces the total length of the page making the over all forum presentation more concise. I would recommend the following sections and categories as a constructive example of this improvement:

Community Submissions

(could make the Major Works section the only section accessible to non-members for added incentive)

MAJOR WORKS

(BRING THIS BACK, PLEEEEEEEEEEAAAASSSSSSSSSSEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Orchestra and Large Ensemble

Chamber and Small Ensemble

Instrumental Solo Music

Popular Songs and Lyrics (I combined the Pop and Lyric categories, the only change I'd suggest)

Vocal and Choir Music

Film and Game Music

Electronic Concert Music

Jazz Ensemble Music

Community Activities

(some categories could be for members only)

Competitions (Announcements and Submissions could be sub-forums of this category)

Challenges, Games, and Collaborations

Lessons and Masterclasses (Combines the forums or could be two sub-forums of the category)

Member Podcasts (move this here from the "Board" section)

Community Discussion

(some categories should probably be for members only)

General Discussion (move all "Off Topic" posts here)

Composer's Headquarters (for any and all discussions of music - anything -heated- or excessively offensive moves to "The Inferno")

Suggestions, Advice, and Techniques (Combines "Incomplete Works" with "Advice and Techniques")

Performance and Repertoire (combines both categories from Discussion section)

The Inferno (where "heated debates" go, members-only access - name of this forum is merely a suggestion)

Community Feedback and Archives

Community Announcements

Forum Technical Problems and Suggestions

Young Composers Social Network (from the "Community" section)

Young Composers Wiki

Forum Archives

I believe this type of organization is more concise for the forum and largely more intuitively organized for new and existing members. I'm including a poll to see if anyone else agrees with what I'm suggesting or believes what we have now is better. I think reducing the cumulative organization of the forum will only improve the experience by making the forum more logistically organized and intuitive.

[jawoodruff]

I believe the forum needs a more concise, logistical approach to its organization. Hopefully, a constructive explanation of my suggestions will lead to a more sensible organization of the forum to make it simpler to navigate and more intuitively balanced with how the forum operates.

For a constructive example of this, YC currently has eight categories of forums. Archives, Uploads, Discussion, Contests, Interactive, Technology, Community, and Board (Announcements). This is entirely unnecessary and cumulative. Not only does it waste space, it leaves some members confused as to whether they should post in one forum or another. I've seen this all too often, and while it might seem "petty" to make such suggestions here, I believe a more concise organization of the forum will make moderation of the forum much more efficient and the user experience more satisfying. Let me explain the cumulative aspect of this that leads to confusion...

Discussion and Community are one in the same. There is no need for two sections that essentially involve various levels of discussion, from broad to narrow. Contests and Interactive are also cumulative sections, in my opinion. You can easily combine these into one section. Archives and Board is another example of cumulative sections that essentially serve similar purposes. Combine them. In total, it reduces the total length of the page making the over all forum presentation more concise. I would recommend the following sections and categories as a constructive example of this improvement:

Community Discussion

General Discussion (move all "Off Topic" posts here)

Composer's Headquarters (for any and all discussions of music - anything -heated- or excessively offensive moves to "The Inferno")

Suggestions, Advice, and Techniques (Combines "Incomplete Works" with "Advice and Techniques")

Performance and Repertoire (combines both categories from Discussion section)

The Inferno (where "heated debates" go, members-only access - name of this forum is merely a suggestion)

Community Submissions and Feedback

Orchestra and Large Ensemble

Chamber and Small Ensemble

Instrumental Solo Music

Popular Songs and Lyrics (I combined the Pop and Lyric categories, the only change I'd suggest)

Vocal and Choir Music

Film and Game Music

Electronic Concert Music

Jazz Ensemble Music

Community Activities

Competitions (Announcements and Submissions could be sub-forums of this category)

Challenges, Games, and Collaborations

Lessons and Masterclasses (Combines the forums or could be two sub-forums of the category)

Member Podcasts (move this here from the "Board" section)

Community Suggestions and Feedback

Community Announcements

Forum Technical Problems and Suggestions

Young Composers Social Network (from the "Community" section)

Young Composers Wiki

I believe this type of organization is more concise for the forum and largely more intuitively organized for new and existing members. I'm including a poll to see if anyone else agrees with what I'm suggesting or believes what we have now is better. I think reducing the cumulative organization of the forum will only improve the experience by making the forum more logistically organized and intuitive.

I disagree on a number of points. To begin, I'll start with the board and archives forums. Both these forums should maintain there separate status for a number of reasons. First among these is the simple fact that users should not be expected to browse through archived posts in order to see newer posts - the archives serve the purpose of storing posts that are dated. Second, many other forums also have an independent section for archived posts - at least all the sites I have perused.

In regards to your idea of moving off topic posts to the General Discussion forum: I strongly oppose this idea! The off topic forum is completely fine being separate as it is currently. We don't need guests seeing the Pornography thread next to the current piece of the week.

I do agree though, that the site would be well served with the merger of the Lesson and Masterclass forums - seems like a no brainer why the two should be merged.

My only suggestion, really, in regards to this stuff is that the Masterworks section should be put back into place. It would really reward those on the site who are growing as composers by giving them a sense of recognition amongst their peers. I'm STRONGLY in favor of its return!

[Morivou]

I will say... We NEEEEEEED the Major Works forum back... it's important.

[Salemosophy]

I disagree on a number of points. To begin, I'll start with the board and archives forums. Both these forums should maintain there separate status for a number of reasons. First among these is the simple fact that users should not be expected to browse through archived posts in order to see newer posts - the archives serve the purpose of storing posts that are dated.

I just don't understand what you're talking about. I forgot to add Archives to the Community Feedback and Suggestions, which should actually be called "Community Feedback and Archives." I'll make the update now.

Second, many other forums also have an independent section for archived posts - at least all the sites I have perused.

They do, which is why I'll make sure to include it as I intended to do in my example but forgot to...

In regards to your idea of moving off topic posts to the General Discussion forum: I strongly oppose this idea! The off topic forum is completely fine being separate as it is currently. We don't need guests seeing the Pornography thread next to the current piece of the week.

I think Community Discussion in general should be restricted to members-only, regardless of the discussion taking place. After all, this is the meat and bones of the forum activity where you SHOULD be a member to actually read any discussion taking place about music.

I do agree though, that the site would be well served with the merger of the Lesson and Masterclass forums - seems like a no brainer why the two should be merged.

Agreed.

My only suggestion, really, in regards to this stuff is that the Masterworks section should be put back into place. It would really reward those on the site who are growing as composers by giving them a sense of recognition amongst their peers. I'm STRONGLY in favor of its return!

I second that, I'll make the update to the section above... with emphasis no less!

I will say... We NEEEEEEED the Major Works forum back... it's important.

I'll make sure to emphasize the emphasis of this...

[jawoodruff]

I just don't understand what you're talking about. I forgot to add Archives to the Community Feedback and Suggestions, which should actually be called "Community Feedback and Archives." I'll make the update now.....They do, which is why I'll make sure to include it as I intended to do in my example but forgot to...I think Community Discussion in general should be restricted to members-only, regardless of the discussion taking place. After all, this is the meat and bones of the forum activity where you SHOULD be a member to actually read any discussion taking place about music.

I don't think that the archives and board need to be merged and then placed under the community forum. The archives should still remain separate - as they are a combination of every single sub-forum post that is dated. The off topic forum, also, needs to remain separate - and perhaps made members only, as you suggested. As for making the discussion forums members only, I don't like that suggestion. The discussion forums are what tempted me to join this forum, in fact. If this weren't the case, I probably would've just stayed a guest and only listen to member music. But the discussions invited me to become a member of the forum and contribute my opinion and works.

[Salemosophy]

Discussion

I think the bottom line in terms of -discussion- is to open the forum (i.e., when a discussion takes place, no matter the degree of relevance, debate, or what-have-you, have a place for it), which is why I suggest something like General Discussion, Composers Headquarters, The Inferno, and so forth... the degree to which guests can see these separate sections is at the complete discretion of admins, JW. If CompHead is full of sensible discussions and topics, then General Discussion and Inferno can be members-only categories. If General Discussion is more innocent and sensible, that can be open to guests while the other discussion forums are members-only.

The idea here is that you can make some categories open to the public and other categories open only to the community. IPBoard should carry this functionality in its Administrator interface. I know forums I worked on in the past did as well. No matter how it works out, any discussion that is -safe- or -appropriate- for the public will be available to the public. Integrating all discussion forums under one heading of "Community Discussion" won't prevent this filtering process for administration purposes. Hell, there are way too many open source message board interfaces that already incorporate this category functionality. But it will make so much more sense to group all discussion-based forums under one section, all interaction-based forums under another, and so forth. This improves new-user experience, it makes the forum look monumentally more professional, and it's intelligent structuring of the site layout overall.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Archives

In the end, you need to come to the realization that the Archive forum is not meant to be a place for further discussion. Now, in a perfect world, any thread in the archives that was somehow -resurrected- from the archives due to a member's reply to the thread would automatically return to the appropriate forum for new discussion. I doubt IPBoard has this functionality. In fact, I know of maybe one forum CMS that would actually do this, and it's custom-made. So, the long and the short of this is that the Archives section as it stands now will not be a discussion forum of any sort. Topics will all be closed. No one will post in that section. They will be available only for people to browse different discussion topics from the past and see what was said. It makes absolutely NO sense to have an Archive "section" that does nothing.

Be prepared to post any and all work of yours you want to discuss in the new social network they are creating. Be ready to pay for any additional space you want for purposes of submitting your work to the site, and then get ready when the admins stop allowing you to link to file-sharing websites as an alternative to submitting your work in the Submission section. That's what's happening here at YC. I don't entirely agree with that approach, but I like the site and I'll stick it out to see how this all pans out. My personal take on it is if they're going to start collecting money from members, they need a more professional forum to back it up, and that's one of the reasons I think the layout of the site needs to be thoroughly updated.

[jawoodruff]

Discussion

I think the bottom line in terms of -discussion- is to open the forum (i.e., when a discussion takes place, no matter the degree of relevance, debate, or what-have-you, have a place for it), which is why I suggest something like General Discussion, Composers Headquarters, The Inferno, and so forth... the degree to which guests can see these separate sections is at the complete discretion of admins, JW. If CompHead is full of sensible discussions and topics, then General Discussion and Inferno can be members-only categories. If General Discussion is more innocent and sensible, that can be open to guests while the other discussion forums are members-only.

The idea here is that you can make some categories open to the public and other categories open only to the community. IPBoard should carry this functionality in its Administrator interface. I know forums I worked on in the past did as well. No matter how it works out, any discussion that is -safe- or -appropriate- for the public will be available to the public. Integrating all discussion forums under one heading of "Community Discussion" won't prevent this filtering process for administration purposes. Hell, there are way too many open source message board interfaces that already incorporate this category functionality. But it will make so much more sense to group all discussion-based forums under one section, all interaction-based forums under another, and so forth. This improves new-user experience, it makes the forum look monumentally more professional, and it's intelligent structuring of the site layout overall.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Archives

In the end, you need to come to the realization that the Archive forum is not meant to be a place for further discussion. Now, in a perfect world, any thread in the archives that was somehow -resurrected- from the archives due to a member's reply to the thread would automatically return to the appropriate forum for new discussion. I doubt IPBoard has this functionality. In fact, I know of maybe one forum CMS that would actually do this, and it's custom-made. So, the long and the short of this is that the Archives section as it stands now will not be a discussion forum of any sort. Topics will all be closed. No one will post in that section. They will be available only for people to browse different discussion topics from the past and see what was said. It makes absolutely NO sense to have an Archive "section" that does nothing.

Be prepared to post any and all work of yours you want to discuss in the new social network they are creating. Be ready to pay for any additional space you want for purposes of submitting your work to the site, and then get ready when the admins stop allowing you to link to file-sharing websites as an alternative to submitting your work in the Submission section. That's what's happening here at YC. I don't entirely agree with that approach, but I like the site and I'll stick it out to see how this all pans out. My personal take on it is if they're going to start collecting money from members, they need a more professional forum to back it up, and that's one of the reasons I think the layout of the site needs to be thoroughly updated.

I'm against any of the discussion forums being viewable only by members. I don't care if they are merged - perhaps have a Discussion sub-forum and then have those be sub-sub forums of that one. Key thing there is on the membership though, members do have the advantage of being able to partake in the discussions and are able to post their own works for review. Guests can only merely view - and are unable to comment unless they become members. To remove from their sight a large portion of this site is ridiculous and would do nothing to generate new membership. See my point?

And yes, I do agree that the archive sub-forum needs to be locked. However, with the bugs that we have now - some of us have no other choice to post our works there (myself included). The idea of archives online is the idea of archives in the real world. You don't go to an archive at your state library and then ADD to a book that was written years ago - the same thing here - you don't go to a post that was posted back in 2007 and add to it. In most cases, the original posters are either not around OR on different account names. So what is the point in adding?

As for posting links to file sharing sites. I can fully understand the need to restrict that and implement a process at which to upload ones works to the site for categorization. A few users in the past have used on site called mediashare. I went to review their work and was treated to a nice virus courtesy of the site. It took me 4 hours to rid my computer completely of the virus and its replicated files. With the internal upload now, I don't have to worry about that sort of thing anymore. I go to review a persons work and I can just listen ON SITE to their music without any concern at all. The problem there is easy to see. Without an internal upload system, there is no regulation of this sort of thing.

As for the cost to subscribe. The fact that I can upload my works on here is enough for me to pay for a subscription. I produce a lot of work and I love the ability to post my work here for exposure. If that means that I need to shell out a small amount of money to purchase more upload space - then I will gladly do that. The site to me does have a much more professional look to it than MANY other forums on the net. The interface still is easy to grasp and doesn't take much to learn the intricacies - if one puts the effort into getting to know it. Yes, things need to be updated a little bit to make them operate as smoothly as Chopin wishes them too. I have no doubt, however, that the sites administration is doing its best to address the problems that do exsist AND they are doing all they can to prevent any further problems that may arise in the future.

[Salemosophy]

"Feel free to dissect..." eh?

Okay. :)

I'm against any of the discussion forums being viewable only by members. I don't care if they are merged - perhaps have a Discussion sub-forum and then have those be sub-sub forums of that one. Key thing there is on the membership though, members do have the advantage of being able to partake in the discussions and are able to post their own works for review. Guests can only merely view - and are unable to comment unless they become members. To remove from their sight a large portion of this site is ridiculous and would do nothing to generate new membership. See my point?

Yes I do. Fortunately, a large portion of the site doesn't need to be removed. If the General Discussion forum is not the appropriate place to discuss pornography, then where, pray-tell, do you think that discussion belongs?? Regardless of your answer, it BELONGS in a DISCUSSION section. It doesn't matter if one forum of the discussion section is a members-only section if what people are interested in discussing (not pornography, music) IS open to the public. So, any discussion that's not appropriate for public viewing SHOULD BE MOVED to a forum that is not open to the public where members can still carry on the discussion/debate/whatever.

And yes, I do agree that the archive sub-forum needs to be locked. However, with the bugs that we have now - some of us have no other choice to post our works there (myself included). The idea of archives online is the idea of archives in the real world. You don't go to an archive at your state library and then ADD to a book that was written years ago - the same thing here - you don't go to a post that was posted back in 2007 and add to it. In most cases, the original posters are either not around OR on different account names. So what is the point in adding?

Well, there are pieces in the archives forum that I've had discussion about that I would love to have MORE discussion about. But posting a new thread about it instead of having it re-emerge if someone takes an interest would be cumulative, duplicate content. We DO add to discussions about music from as far back as 500 years ago or longer, so there appears to be a point in adding.

That being said, if the functionality isn't there, then it's not. This is distracting from the core issue anyway. Let's stay on topic, shall we?

As for posting links to file sharing sites. I can fully understand the need to restrict that and implement a process at which to upload ones works to the site for categorization. A few users in the past have used on site called mediashare. I went to review their work and was treated to a nice virus courtesy of the site. It took me 4 hours to rid my computer completely of the virus and its replicated files. With the internal upload now, I don't have to worry about that sort of thing anymore. I go to review a persons work and I can just listen ON SITE to their music without any concern at all. The problem there is easy to see. Without an internal upload system, there is no regulation of this sort of thing.

Nothing prevents anyone who wants to put a virus in their submission from doing so, on this site or any other. YOU take the risk each and every time YOU download ANYTHING. Get Avast, it's free, it's convenient, it's fast, and it doesn't have any of the AVG bullcrap upgrade pop-ups. It works, too. A mod can just as easily delete a thread that links to a page containing a viral download anyway. So, don't think for a minute that just because uploads are ON SITE, your computer will be any more secure. It won't. The site is just as functional now as it has been before now. No matter how much filtering they try to do, an upload is an upload. Putting a file on a server that carries a virus is still just as possible whether it's here or somewhere else. AND, it only makes YC MORE prone to attack from hackers by having a server that accepts uploads to the site at all. It's a risk they're taking, not exactly something that brings about "more security."

As for the cost to subscribe. The fact that I can upload my works on here is enough for me to pay for a subscription. I produce a lot of work and I love the ability to post my work here for exposure. If that means that I need to shell out a small amount of money to purchase more upload space - then I will gladly do that. The site to me does have a much more professional look to it than MANY other forums on the net. The interface still is easy to grasp and doesn't take much to learn the intricacies - if one puts the effort into getting to know it. Yes, things need to be updated a little bit to make them operate as smoothly as Chopin wishes them too. I have no doubt, however, that the sites administration is doing its best to address the problems that do exsist AND they are doing all they can to prevent any further problems that may arise in the future.

Great. Me too. But I'm not joe-schmoe high school student living on my parents' allowance money either. If I want to contribute to the forum and I'm able to churn out ten works a week like you do (I'm exaggerating, and I'm a little jealous that you're able to do that, honestly, but w/e :) ) but I'm a kid on an allowance with no credit card and Mommie won't pay the bill, guess what? I'm stuck. I can only speculate as to how this will happen, but I know the very nature of a site like "Young Composers" is absolutely cutting off 90% of its userbase if they're only allowing uploads of a limited quantity for free and expecting kids to pay for extra space. Hence, the benefits of a web forum that allows you to link outside to free-share websites.

There are ways of making money online. If this works for the admins here, then great. I'll believe it when I see it.

[Morivou]

"Feel free to dissect..." eh?

Okay. :)

Yes I do. Fortunately, a large portion of the site doesn't need to be removed. If the General Discussion forum is not the appropriate place to discuss pornography, then where, pray-tell, do you think that discussion belongs?? Regardless of your answer, it BELONGS in a DISCUSSION section. It doesn't matter if one forum of the discussion section is a members-only section if the what people are interested in discussing (not pornography, music) IS open to the public. So, any discussion that's not appropriate for public viewing SHOULD BE MOVED to a forum that is not open to the public where members can still carry on the discussion/debate/whatever.

<_<

This was the reason we had the Free-For-All forum, and the Off Topic forum was completely clean...

To address your o

[jawoodruff]

"Feel free to dissect..." eh?

Okay. :)

Yes I do. Fortunately, a large portion of the site doesn't need to be removed. If the General Discussion forum is not the appropriate place to discuss pornography, then where, pray-tell, do you think that discussion belongs?? Regardless of your answer, it BELONGS in a DISCUSSION section. It doesn't matter if one forum of the discussion section is a members-only section if what people are interested in discussing (not pornography, music) IS open to the public. So, any discussion that's not appropriate for public viewing SHOULD BE MOVED to a forum that is not open to the public where members can still carry on the discussion/debate/whatever. Well, there are pieces in the archives forum that I've had discussion about that I would love to have MORE discussion about. But posting a new thread about it instead of having it re-emerge if someone takes an interest would be cumulative, duplicate content. We DO add to discussions about music from as far back as 500 years ago or longer, so there appears to be a point in adding. That being said, if the functionality isn't there, then it's not. This is distracting from the core issue anyway. Let's stay on topic, shall we?

Nothing prevents anyone who wants to put a virus in their submission from doing so, on this site or any other. YOU take the risk each and every time YOU download ANYTHING. Get Avast, it's free, it's convenient, it's fast, and it doesn't have any of the AVG bullcrap upgrade pop-ups. It works, too. A mod can just as easily delete a thread that links to a page containing a viral download anyway. So, don't think for a minute that just because uploads are ON SITE, your computer will be any more secure. It won't. The site is just as functional now as it has been before now. No matter how much filtering they try to do, an upload is an upload. Putting a file on a server that carries a virus is still just as possible whether it's here or somewhere else. AND, it only makes YC MORE prone to attack from hackers by having a server that accepts uploads to the site at all. It's a risk they're taking, not exactly something that brings about "more security."....Great. Me too. But I'm not joe-schmoe high school student living on my parents' allowance money either. If I want to contribute to the forum and I'm able to churn out ten works a weeklike you do (I'm exaggerating, and I'm a little jealous that you're able to do that, honestly, but w/e :) ) but I'm a kid on an allowance with no credit card and Mommie won't pay the bill, guess what? I'm stuck. I can only speculate as to how this will happen, but I know the very nature of a site like "Young Composers" is absolutely cutting off 90% of its userbase if they're only allowing uploads of a limited quantity for free and expecting kids to pay for extra space. Hence, the benefits of a web forum that allows you to link outside to free-share websites.

There are ways of making money online. If this works for the admins here, then great. I'll believe it when I see it.

Ok, let me start again by further clarifying the membership. What you are saying, by making the discussion forums MEMBER ONLY is that the posts therein would not be visible to guests. This is in essence removing 1/2 of the forum itself from their viewing. It is this, that I am opposed to. I, no where in my post, stated that I feel the off topic forum should be removed. I think that particular forum needs to remain BUT it should be member only - largely due to the conversation topics there.

In regards to the dated pieces you wish to comment on: The reason users post music is for review and exposure purposes. If a person is no longer using this site, however, they are no longer there to receive either. So it's rather moot to allow posting to those threads BUT in order to preserve the thread - in the even the user were to return - they should be archived and not deleted. Then if the user wishes his/her work to be taken from the archived forum and placed back in its respective forum all he/she has to do is contact an admin or a moderator. I see no reason to post a review on a work that was posted on the site years ago - especially if the original poster isn't here to receive the feedback.

The off-topic forum again: This is precisely why we have the off topic forum. It serves the purpose now of being our random forum. Posts that are inappropriate for the works and discussion forums belong here. Its that simple. If I want to post a thread regarding pornography or sex or anything else of that nature - then this forum is home to me!

In regards paying for membership: Keep in mind, as many have said before, that the paying for membership is not set in stone yet. Even if it were in stone, your only paying for server space NOT a membership. My membership in the site, as well as everyone elses, is NOT in danger at all - no one is going to be deleted or moved down to guest status. I agree, however, that the cost will be problematic to children - but, you can't appease everyone. That's not to say that the idea is not a good one. It serves its purpose. And who knows, enough of us older members sign up for it - there may be enough to allow Chopin to up the size of standard upload space.

And yes, the upload of a virus into the network would be problematic if I downloaded the file. As the network now has a music player - that's not an issue at all. I can download the score - directly from site and scan as always - and then listen to the music on site without worry. The fact that this is done ALL via YC makes it much more convenient and safer to me as opposed to going to mediashare or other external sites. Also, if a user uploads such file - this provides a way in which the user can be identified AND admins and moderators can take action. If a user uses an external site, however, that contains harmful attributes - what reprimand can they receive? Can one say they truly knew? At least with posting internally, it will be easier to control - though not 100% safe, its a little more safer for my liking.

[SSC]

Well I wouldn't change the actual layout since it's... uh, good enough. The thing is, for those wanting something to replace the "major works" bit from the old system there could be an "editor's picks" forum, or something like that. Of course it's entirely subjective but it'd be in effect the exact same thing as the "major works" forum without sounding retarded.

[jawoodruff]

Well I wouldn't change the actual layout since it's... uh, good enough. The thing is, for those wanting something to replace the "major works" bit from the old system there could be an "editor's picks" forum, or something like that. Of course it's entirely subjective but it'd be in effect the exact same thing as the "major works" forum without sounding retarded.

I like that idea. The name is a lot better, I think.

[Salemosophy]

Ok, let me start again by further clarifying the membership. What you are saying, by making the discussion forums MEMBER ONLY is that the posts therein would not be visible to guests. This is in essence removing 1/2 of the forum itself from their viewing. It is this, that I am opposed to. I, no where in my post, stated that I feel the off topic forum should be removed. I think that particular forum needs to remain BUT it should be member only - largely due to the conversation topics there...

The off-topic forum again: This is precisely why we have the off topic forum. It serves the purpose now of being our random forum. Posts that are inappropriate for the works and discussion forums belong here. Its that simple. If I want to post a thread regarding pornography or sex or anything else of that nature - then this forum is home to me!

Okay, you're about to drive me nuts, JW.

We're not actually disagreeing at all, which is what I'm about to point out to you in a moment. Understand that at the moment, "Off Topic" is in a -SECTION- called Community. It is a discussion forum, just like any other, and it belongs in a -DISCUSSION- section called "Community Discussion" to include ALL THE OTHER discussion forums that might discuss topics that are more specific. So, first and foremost, you've misinterpreted my whole basis for this from the start...

To address the second paragraph specifically... renaming the Off Topic forum to General Discussion changes NOTHING. That's what this supposed "Off Topic" forum IS... GENERAL DISCUSSION, about anything. So, no worries JW, you'll still have a place to talk about porn and sex all you want! I'm simply suggesting these changes because they a) make intuitive sense, b) organize the forum more succinctly, and c) bring a sense of formality and professionalism to the site overall.

In regards to the dated pieces you wish to comment on: The reason users post music is for review and exposure purposes. If a person is no longer using this site, however, they are no longer there to receive either. So it's rather moot to allow posting to those threads BUT in order to preserve the thread - in the even the user were to return - they should be archived and not deleted. Then if the user wishes his/her work to be taken from the archived forum and placed back in its respective forum all he/she has to do is contact an admin or a moderator. I see no reason to post a review on a work that was posted on the site years ago - especially if the original poster isn't here to receive the feedback.

This is not an issue for me. I don't know why you still persist in debating this point.

In regards paying for membership: Keep in mind, as many have said before, that the paying for membership is not set in stone yet. Even if it were in stone, your only paying for server space NOT a membership. My membership in the site, as well as everyone elses, is NOT in danger at all - no one is going to be deleted or moved down to guest status. I agree, however, that the cost will be problematic to children - but, you can't appease everyone. That's not to say that the idea is not a good one. It serves its purpose. And who knows, enough of us older members sign up for it - there may be enough to allow Chopin to up the size of standard upload space.

I'm not even making the argument that my -membership- is at stake. I've had conversation with Chopin about this very topic, and yes, I do realize that there are still things up in the air. I don't agree with you in any way, shape, or form that the "You can't appease everyone" statement is at all a valid approach to the issue. Anything that potentially limits access to a large group of the forum (the "young" composers) is particularly harmful to growth no matter how you cut it.

And yes, the upload of a virus into the network would be problematic if I downloaded the file. As the network now has a music player - that's not an issue at all. I can download the score - directly from site and scan as always - and then listen to the music on site without worry. The fact that this is done ALL via YC makes it much more convenient and safer to me as opposed to going to mediashare or other external sites. Also, if a user uploads such file - this provides a way in which the user can be identified AND admins and moderators can take action. If a user uses an external site, however, that contains harmful attributes - what reprimand can they receive? Can one say they truly knew? At least with posting internally, it will be easier to control - though not 100% safe, its a little more safer for my liking.

No it doesn't. If anything, harmful file uploads may never generate from actual users of the site at all. A backdoor virus from a crawler (literally a program that scours the web looking for ways to attack social sites, like Myspace and Facebook who fight this battle constantly) is more likely to be a culprit for harmful uploads. This could easily be done by hacking the user's account and attaching a virus to the user's upload parameters so the next time the user uploads a file, the virus uploads as well. There are probably dozens of other ways I'll never know about, but in all honesty, there is no difference between uploading files here and uploading on any of a hundred different other sites.

[jawoodruff]

It took you an hour to write all of that??? And kudos to you on finally stating clearly what you meant on the off-topic forum. I was confused because you didn't clearly delineate exactly your proposal. Yes, it makes sense to put that as a sub-sub forum under the General Discussion. As for my second post, I wouldn't of brought it up if you didn't mention it again. ;) And that's good you realize its not at stake. My only thing on paying for membership is that well, your NOT paying for membership - as he himself said! If those of us who can afford to pay for more server space for our uploads - I fully believe it will benefit those who can't afford in the long run. I've seen it myself on many other forums and online games. And you completely missed my point on the uploads... lol!

[Salemosophy]

No, you're paying for upload space, which means if you have X number of compositions to upload and someone with no money has the same number, you get to post yours while the other doesn't. Now, of course, the solution to that would be allocating enough upload space for users to upload enough works in a cycle that they can then "off-load"(?) to make room for more uploads. This is a possible solution, though, I still don't see how money will be made in that case. Either you'll have to limit uploads to the point that it creates deprivation so -someone- has to pay (the people with money then benefit more than the people without, regardless of the quality in their music) or just outright not charge for uploads and level the upload space for everyone. If there is a happy medium, well, I don't see it.

Now, are there other ways to "monetize" this forum so that it produces the money that at least went into it? Absolutely. Advertising is a big one for a forum that receives about 200 users and probably another hundred or so guests per day. But this involves calculated placement of -relevant- ads that people will actually follow to other websites (like college music websites, low to mid-range priced music gear, and other kinds of products/services). When the site grows to incorporate more users, climbs in ranking for other search terms, and generates more traffic (advertising and so forth), this revenue will only increase as new users join. But this requires a direct communication with said sources and an advertising page where such vendors can come to submit their information and interest in advertising on the site. There are also other sources of income as well, including affiliate marketing through Amazon, EBay, and tons of other well-known online retailers.

I'll just go ahead and say it... in my opinion, the -best- way to manage upload space among users should be based on total contributions to the site, which ensures that users continue submitting content to the site and benefiting from doing so in terms of available upload space. Any users who leave and don't return after a semi-arbitrary period have their uploads removed to make space for other users' contributions. Hell, I could probably write a book about all of this and sell it, but I'm a free-ware guy that's not really interested in contributing to a system that's obsolete (speaking of the "free-market" system overall, not YC) and insufficient for meeting the world's needs today. No, I'm not a Marxist either, in case you were wondering.

[jawoodruff]

No, you're paying for upload space, which means if you have X number of compositions to upload and someone with no money has the same number, you get to post yours while the other doesn't. Now, of course, the solution to that would be allocating enough upload space for users to upload enough works in a cycle that they can then "off-load"(?) to make room for more uploads. This is a possible solution, though, I still don't see how money will be made in that case. Either you'll have to limit uploads to the point that it creates deprivation so -someone- has to pay (the people with money then benefit more than the people without, regardless of the quality in their music) or just outright not charge for uploads and level the upload space for everyone. If there is a happy medium, well, I don't see it.

Now, are there other ways to "monetize" this forum so that it produces the money that at least went into it? Absolutely. Advertising is a big one for a forum that receives about 200 users and probably another hundred or so guests per day. But this involves calculated placement of -relevant- ads that people will actually follow to other websites (like college music websites, low to mid-range priced music gear, and other kinds of products/services). When the site grows to incorporate more users, climbs in ranking for other search terms, and generates more traffic (advertising and so forth), this revenue will only increase as new users join. But this requires a direct communication with said sources and an advertising page where such vendors can come to submit their information and interest in advertising on the site. There are also other sources of income as well, including affiliate marketing through Amazon, EBay, and tons of other well-known online retailers.

I'll just go ahead and say it... in my opinion, the -best- way to manage upload space among users should be based on total contributions to the site, which ensures that users continue submitting content to the site and benefiting from doing so in terms of available upload space. Any users who leave and don't return after a semi-arbitrary period have their uploads removed to make space for other users' contributions. Hell, I could probably write a book about all of this and sell it, but I'm a free-ware guy that's not really interested in contributing to a system that's obsolete (speaking of the "free-market" system overall, not YC) and insufficient for meeting the world's needs today. No, I'm not a Marxist either, in case you were wondering.

:huh: I never said that you were paying for membership. You were the one who repeatedly said that. I said you are NOT paying for membership but instead server space - which is technically the same as upload space, imo. Also, this site receives FAR more visits than what you've stated in your post. Also, your option on contributing more/receiving more upload space is flawed. There are many here that make TONS of contributions to the discussion forums but they download little music. You also have those who contribute greatly to the size of the music forums but don't contribute at all to the discussion forums. Those who contribute to the discussion forums do so on a more active basis in comparison. See my logic there?

[Salemosophy]

Also, your option on contributing more/receiving more upload space is flawed. There are many here that make TONS of contributions to the discussion forums but they download little music. You also have those who contribute greatly to the size of the music forums but don't contribute at all to the discussion forums. Those who contribute to the discussion forums do so on a more active basis in comparison. See my logic there?

Flawed? Maybe.

Out the gate, a new member should have the opportunity to post several works over a granular period of time. If they want more space to keep more works uploaded, then they contribute more to the community through a variety of mediums. They can contribute with Masterclass lessons, Competition announcements they might find online, games and challenges to other members (or participation in those challenges/games) and also general discussion as well (about anything). Heck, they can post reviews of other composers' works to build their contribution levels. In other words, people who only come here to post works without contributing to forum discussion, feedback, and activities aren't really fulfilling the needs of the full community. So, I don't care if they're friggin' Mozart or Bach, if they're not participating and simply mooching off of their ability to upload files here, then they aren't building the community.

That's an approach that has greater potential in my book, because it's not based on your ability to pay but your knowledge, creativity, and overall concern for other members' submissions, ideas, and struggles. That's a forum, JW.

[jawoodruff]

Well, I agree on principal with what you said BUT iono too many variables. Hence why this is an issue.

[Salemosophy]

Well, I agree on principal with what you said BUT iono too many variables. Hence why this is an issue.

What? Are? You? Saying?