Designing Young Composers

This might require a little extra programming, but here's a sketch for a new Directory:

I think this is what the Music page should have been but just hasn't yet. Right now it's in shambles and is rather useless. My propositions:

First, We have four panels. Nav panel on the left, a main panel with two major filters that apply to both the following: a panel displaying music results, and a panel displaying composer/member results.

Second, about the Nav panel. This is pretty close to what we already have, but what we have is clunky. (been hearing that word a lot lately... ) Idea is that subs are expandable. If I click on the genre "Classical music" you see that several sub-genres pop up. One of them is "21st century". If that is selected, more subgenres pop up specific to that. For instance, "Post-modernism.". You can see the delineation without actual filter names in the sketch. Also, when one filter is selected (or multiple) the rest do not disappear like in the current build of the site. Instead they stay there to make it easier to decide what the user wants to browse next. Maybe they want to look up what kind of jazz is going on so they just go to Jazz. They don't have to remove all the filters and start over - they're all there, neat and organised. Only the ones selected expand to reveal sub-areas. This can be done for instrumentation as well, of course.

Second and a half, I suggest a search filter added to this system. If I want a piece about water for whatever reason or winter or weddings or something, I just search for that keyword and it will match the search term to composition titles (and possible descriptions as well if possible) according to the currently selected filters below.

Third, this page can be called "Directory" because I am including the composer search on here as well. So at the main navbar at top, it should either read "Browse" or "Directory", but not "Music". In the top, horizontal panel, there are the two major filters as they appear today, just situated horizontally.

Fourth, the Uploads panel. This displays results every time a user clicks a filter or enters a search term. Right now this only displays composition title, but in my sketch we have the name of the composer/username, the title, and some miscellaneous data like current rating (additionally we can have no. of comments since I think that's important as well. So if a piece has a rating of four and has two comments it would show four stars and (2) indicating comments (or number of people that rated the piece... either/or))

Fifth, the Composers panel. I thought I'd add this for two reasons. A.) Apple Charlie thinks the COMPOSERS should get a little more visibility, and B.) I really don't like that the current composer searching system is so... deserted. It's on it's own page, nobody uses it... and... nobody uses it. If we put this on a page that might get used, this feature might ... get used. Essentially, every time a user clicks a filter or enters a search term, not only do upload results show up, but it also displays relevant composers and their rating (or some other indication of their reputation, such as a number of stars indicating member rank but not explicitly disclosing member rank - for instance, 1-100 can be five stars, 200-300 four stars, and so on, whatever the scheme)

Sixth, this whole page should be dynamic, fast, and update immediately. Instead of clicking on links which involves loading the page every for every click on a new filter, maybe this could be flash-based or some other manner of operation that doesn't involve reloading the page for every click. Results would update immediately. Sure, might take a second or two to load the page itself, but once it does, it will operate smoothly.

With this in place there will be at least three ways for users to browse music on the site:

1. This Directory

2. The upload/reviews forums

3. Uploaded compositions box on the Homepage

additional: people sharing links with each other, main site search, possibly more if people can find ways.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've heard talk about a changing homepage. What's meant by this is illustrated on Facebook. When you go to Facebook, you see that little map thing and a login or join field and some other pretty stuff - but you only see this page when you are viewing Facebook as a guest. When you log in, you are greeted by your user dashboard and right dab in the center is your feed which can be filtered a number of ways. The way this would work on YC as I understand is if you take the sketch I did of the homepage in my earlier, you only see that page when viewing YC as a guest. When you log in to the site, www.youngcomposers.com no longer displays that page, but displays a dashboard of sorts.

I'm against this idea and the reason is simple - I think the homepage is important to both guests and members. It introduces new people to the site, and it keeps members aware of the components of the site. On Facebook, that guest homepage just has a login/join field and a couple of graphics. No important information at all, no up-to-date activity. Our homepage at YC should have stuff on it. When a new member joins YC they might still need the aid of the homepage to understand components of the site. We also can have the featured article and featured profile of the month on the homepage.

Instead, when logging in, just take people to the global Feed. If they would rather be taken straight to their profile or the forum or the wiki or whatever, this can be set in the account settings page.

Some thoughts after reflection:

I can tell you what I don't want YC to become. I don't want it to become a social networking site like FB, because sites like FB are not about collaborating with people so much as having relationships with other people. FB is a very personal-natured site because we talk about romantic relationships, perhaps share a youtube video, talk about how one's day was a school, stuff like that. Walls and "friending" people is not designed for collaboration. When I want to collaborate with a performer (or vice versa), I'll send them an email and very professionally, note that word professionally, state my interest in collaboration. You don't do that on a wall on some obscure website. If I did, that would be unprofessional and a serious musician would likely be turned away from that. I use FB as a last means of resort to contacting online. Likewise, I would do the same with YC's network. I would not use it for this "collaboration" thing you keep talking about.

If I want to connect to people related to music, I would connect with them on Facebook or Youtube and then follow them on Twitter to stay updated to what they're doing. YC doesn't provide those services, nor do I want them to because 1) I'll have no guarantee that they're on YC, and 2) I don't want another dang friends list and feed to deal with.

In regard to the visibility of music: The simple fact is that a "social network" won't do little to nill for it. Since you actually have to friend people to get to see music, unless you're part of the network, you won't see the music in your feed. What a waste for just a couple people who already will look at your music through the forum anyway. Besides, their music won't be helped by visibility within the community because that community is closed. To make music visible, you have to put it out there on the whole of the internet. And YC is not the whole of the internet, nor will it attract it, ever.

If YC makes all music private on YC, I'll leave and stop posting my music because that's not fair to us who actually want to showcase it to the world, to increase visibility, ironically enough. We want it to be broadcast to everyone on the internet, that's the whole point, and that is easily accomplished by using services like Twitter and FB. To use an analogy, you don't use YouTube to spread your videos around, you use it to PLACE your videos on the internet, then use Twitter or FB or w.e to spread the link TO the video around. YouTube has this very specific purpose and does it very well. It also uses the other sites such as Twitter and FB to their advantage by drawing users in from those sites by actually encouraging people to use those services to share things. Just look at the share feature on YT, or its APIs which allow one to automatically update their Twitter and FB status whenever you upload a YT video or comment or w.e. THAT is what YC should do. It's a win-win for YouTube and Twitter if they're mutually in cooperation. (That's called good business practice.) They should USE the services, not replace or compete with them. Because YC will not generate its own traffic through social networking, it will just be a waste of money and time. It would be more effective if YC uses those services to its advantage and *draws* people from those sites to YC.

That's my

I see reason for your concern and I think it has good grounds, but I also don't see YC as becoming a social network like FB. I think you're misunderstanding that we aren't TRYING to do that. Maybe we're trying to borrow some design concepts from sites like FB because that's what a lot of people are used to, but we aren't trying to mimic the function. What we are doing however may serve to make YC independent from FB as much as it needs to be.

Consider the possibility that you're coming from a slightly biased point of view because you already have a number of solid connections on social networking sites with other composers, possibly a number of producers, performers, conductors - but how about the young composers that are less experienced than you? They come on to Young Composers and they're expected to find these YC composers on Facebook? Maybe they don't use Facebook or other social networking sites. Instead, they can build their connections here where the purposes of these connections is one-fold: sharing music. The purpose of Facebook is more gossip, friend, relationship, culture-based. We are just trying to develop a more powerful way of sharing on this site with more options than we had before, not change the purpose of the site. If we were changing the purpose of the site, we'd get rid of the forum and just use the network for everything. What social networks are based around a forum? I can't name any. Think of it as an addition to a house rather than tearing the thing down and replacing it with a hotel.

Specifically, I mentioned a "Global" feed and a "Private" feed. For stuff to show up in your "Private" feed,

A: you have to be a logged-in member

B: you have to have added contacts on YC. Maybe we can call them "subscriptions" to the feed instead.

For stuff to show up in your "Global" feed,

A: you have to be viewing the page.

That's it. Member, guest... whatever. (but say I share a piece of music and I set it to "private" - it only shows up in my contacts' feeds, and doesn't show in the global... that's something to think over because I know there are some people on here that want to share and network but don't want their stuff plastered all over the net)

I don't think YC should be independent of FB that's the point. I think it should embrace it and use FB's audience for our advantage.

Maybe we're trying to borrow some design concepts from sites like FB because that's what a lot of people are used to, but we aren't trying to mimic the function. What we are doing however may serve to make YC independent from FB as much as it needs to be.

You understand Tokke's concerns and they are mine too but the audience we are drawing to this site is not the same as Facebook. So why should we be adopting FB like concepts. As I have outlined previously, there are better solutions to this sites problem that using one site, which isn't even doing the same function as us as our mould. Just because someone knows how to use Facebook isn't a valid reason for doing this either because as long as the site is easy to navigate and use people will understand how they can make their contribution on this site.

I second Tokke when he says we should be USING sites like FB to get links to our music out there not hiding it. Out of my real life friends from various music related things, none of them use this site nor would I recommend this site to them. Personally, even if YC adopted a "Share this page/video/piece of music" system that other sites like YouTube use, I would also still have my MySpace and the website I am in the process of designing. Why? Because I should not be limiting access to my music to people who want to come to this website.

You're slightly biased because you already have a number of solid connections on social networking sites with other composers, possibly a number of producers, performers, conductors, but how about the young composers that are less experienced than you? They come on to Young Composers and they're expected to find these YC composers on Facebook?

I didn't want to waste space quoting all that but I am in the same position. I am a college graduate, commissioned (though not getting paid for them :P) to write a few works at the moment and planning to go to Grad school. I come to this site because I want to learn and right now I am going through a creative mental block and this site helps me relax about it. I was lucky in that I had one work recorded from this site but I don't see how adopting FB like features will help the not so experienced composers. What would help newbie composers would be a site that is better suited to their needs - do they really need a feature that will let them tell the whole of YC they have posted on X thread or a website that has links with professional organizations like one of the suggestions I outlined?

Can you honestly tell me you reckon this site will get more people here with ideas like a news feed? :blink:

I am sorry but reiterating my point from before ... YC needs to make itself youthful, unique and relevant to its user. We are specialized site and what we have as our foundation works. Strip away the bad colour scheme with no personality or custom options, the awkward layout of the site (by this I mean the weird homepage and so on), the lame profiles section and what we have is apparent. We have members, we have members who post music already, we have a wiki section which members can use to their advantage, we have an established community spirit here. Why ruin that by adding things which don't fit in with the nature of that?

As I said before, kick this site up a gear (or twelve) and make the site great at what it does now. The ONLY reason I still come here is because of the people. In all honesty without the people that are on this site, I would not have a reason to come here ... and yet I am on this thread trying to get you guys to not kill this site by making it even 2% like FB.

Below I have put three links. These are websites, I have used in the past (the first one for a very long time) and all service our target "audience" in someway. The first two are websites that are for young people - not musicians - just young people. The last is a website which is super important to UK composers and musicians. If any American users here know of the American Composers Forum - simply put this is our version. I linked to that site for one purpose alone - it looks good without overstating with a huge space-taking violin at the top its a music site.

The Student Room - Been a member there since 2003 and they once used our old style forum look too. So simple and so popular that it makes the news and even gets politicians on there answering questions around election time

The more educational Sparknotes - use to study for english exams on this site. 5 years on its had a makeover and looks good

Sound and Music

I would also like to apologise if I sound frustrated in this post. Its nothing personal except after my last post Chopin basically had me doing :facepalm: in real life at Shoutbox because he still didn't get the point. While, I honestly haven't been round much in the past year, I will be in future if this site does improve. If it stays the same, I'll come for Shoutbox and maybe the odd post. If it goes even a tad like Facebook in anyway - forget it. I already have a Facebook. I want a Composers Forum and there are other places out there that are not trying to be something its not.

I still don't see why the network is a turn-off for the forum-oriented people because the forum won't be changing. :wacko: Aside from switching from vB to IPB, the forum hasn't changed at all yet. The only change I could ask for in the forum is that music uploads have embedded mp3 and direct link to scores, rather than having to visit the music network first.

Like I asked before, is it the community's opinion that we lose the network altogether and just be a forum+wiki like we were a year ago? Basically... revert everything we've done so far. Because if it is, why did the community vote in favour of a social network in the first place? Was it the horrible implementation? If the next iteration worked as promised, would it still be a turn-off? Do you find the site sketches I made to be acceptable changes? If none of this, what do you want to see as far as site layout? I think chopin is open to all ideas, but it's worth nothing if we never achieve any kind of consensus.

I will answer your questions then you will see where I stand on a basic level

Is it the community's opinion that we lose the network altogether and just be a forum+wiki like we were a year ago?

I would like to see the forum updated in appearance and layout as the number one priority. I would also like the easy of uploading music return to the site in that you write what your piece is about, you attach the files and your done. Problems I have had with the new system include a piece I couldn't upload recently, I could because it was a live recording and the file I was sent was a MP4. Every time I want to mention that piece, I have to link to my MySpace page because I can't post on here. Also, a piece I uploaded prior to the change had been recorded and from my performer's comments I had updated the score. Could I post the new revised score on the thread? Nope :facepalm:

I would like the cobwebs dusted off the Wiki and the new profile system trash canned. I would like people to see my Wiki bio instead so that I can customize it to tell people what I want about myself and not be resisted by the limits being imposed at the moment. In a dream world, I would also like, if possible, to also be able to have all the links to my music on this site (which is nothing at the moment because I deleted it all) available at the bottom of that page so people can access my music quickly. Finally, the option of putting one of my piece's music (not score just music) embedded into the wiki style bio so that people just randomly searching difference composers can hear something by me there and then would be good.

You do that and keep Shoutbox (of course) and :)

Why did the community vote in favour of a social network in the first place?

I was only on this site at the time now and again. My impression was that the stuff I mentioned in the second paragraph was going to happen and NOT the creation of a new site called Record Hall *shivers* If I was wrong fine but the above is what I want.

Was it the horrible implementation?

I left for six months because of an ugly piano, a place called Record Hall and the fact I couldn't upload my music even on that place ... does that answer that?

If the next iteration worked as promised, would it still be a turn-off?

I would not be planning ANY next steps until a clear site plan as been agreed on, researched, designed where need be etc. Right now, any changes you make would likely make me go :blink: or :facepalm: or *get my coat* (Sorry nothing personal there but I have no confidence in the staffs ability to implement anything and have it work.)

Do you find the site sketches I made to be acceptable changes?

No. For one thing the layout still includes that Violin. Its Beige/Brown and where is the Youth in that? As a member that has been here familiar with the site for years, why must I see description of what YC is everytime I come go www.youngcomposers.com - why can't I go to my own homepage which I have customize with my moveable widgets, which I have discussed before in the last week, with what I want to see and with the site in a colour I want.

As for the profile sketch, I've addressed that before. So I'd been removing a bulk of what you've got on your sketch and altering its layout. I've included a very very rough layout of how the profiles would be laid out under my plan.

Yeah, I am being picky here but this site needs a modern edge to it and the sooner the staff realize that the less painful getting stuff done will be. I feel you are being too nice to Chopin, James. Every idea I have heard from him recently has had some link to Facebook and more than half of his sentences have included the word Facebook. He's a Facebook junkie ;) You at least seem willing to hear me out (you listened to my feelings on getting Composers more attention for example) and I am sorry if this post seems I am being too hard on you. Its just the habit I am in because Chopin really does promote pro-Facebook clone ideals. Please don't go that way yourself. Facebook is not the answer in ANY form, including the news feed idea. I would like at least one member working on the new plans to be willing to listen - since Chopin won't.

Wow. I think Charlotte said it all. That wiki-style profile is a brilliant idea!

Way to go! :thumbsup:

Wow. I think Charlotte said it all. That wiki-style profile is a brilliant idea!

Way to go! :thumbsup:

I'm not just a cute face :rolleyes: ... I'm just bored tonight but you know what, writing that last post cleared my creative block :happy:

I would like to see the forum updated in appearance and layout as the number one priority.

We already did this - we went from vB to IPB. What specifically are you looking for?

I would also like the easy of uploading music return to the site in that you write what your piece is about, you attach the files and your done.

This we know is still a little rough and needs waxed a little bit.

I would like the cobwebs dusted off the Wiki and the new profile system trash canned. I would like people to see my Wiki bio instead so that I can customize it to tell people what I want about myself and not be resisted by the limits being imposed at the moment.

How about keeping the profile (as I have in my sketch, redesigned), but instead give a preview of the wiki profile and a direct link to the wiki profile? Either way, we can't trash the profile system - it's your member account. It's where people go when they click your name, it tracks posts and profile/member data. As far as the wiki cobwebs, could you address some specific thoughts in the Wiki devoted forum? I'd like to hear any suggestions you might have since you obviously think it needs work (not that I think it doesn't)

I would not be planning ANY next steps until a clear site plan as been agreed on, researched, designed where need be etc. Right now, any changes you make would likely make me go :blink: or :facepalm: or *get my coat* (Sorry nothing personal there but I have no confidence in the staffs ability to implement anything and have it work.)

I think we'll try for getting a test site approved by the whole community before anything else is implemented.

Without bothering quoting and whatnot, here's a CLEAR list (for chopin and for you to say "yes that's what I meant") of other things you mentioned.

• Get rid of the violin. (Chopin plans to anyways.)
  
• Get rid of the brown. (I'd like to see this as optional - pick your colour choice from about 3 or 4 choices)
  
• Display site outline on homepage only as an option. (or not at all, but I disagree with that - we could make it a hide-able widget)
  
• Movable homepage widgets (Could you be more specific what kind of widgets on the homepage? You're suggestion what chopin already tried with the Dashboard and failed miserably.)
  
• No feeds.
  
• No status messages, no commenting on profiles.
  
• Avoid Facebook ideas in general.
  

As for the profile sketch, I've addressed that before. So I'd been removing a bulk of what you've got on your sketch and altering its layout. I've included a very very rough layout of how the profiles would be laid out under my plan.

Alright, I could alter my sketch to fit your ideal and see what you think. Would you be in favour of keeping the "favourites" and "fans" features?

Yeah, I am being picky here but this site needs a modern edge to it and the sooner the staff realize that the less painful getting stuff done will be.

I think we all are aware that we need a modern edge, but none of us really understands what it is to have a modern edge in webdesign. The only people that say this are people that don't have enough programming knowledge to help out.

I think we all are aware that we need a modern edge, but none of us really understands what it is to have a modern edge in webdesign. The only people that say this are people that don't have enough programming knowledge to help out.

NO REALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!

:facepalm:

Yeah, DUH! Well, you can't blame for trying. This site could still look like 1999. :P

Yeah, DUH! Well, you can't blame for trying. This site could still look like 1999. :P

I know man! Can we find some college grad who is a designer and ask him?

Easier said than done, however why I'm not sure.

We already did this - we went from vB to IPB. What specifically are you looking for?

Specifically, I would like the dated appearance to go. For example, the banners pattern reminds me of the wallpaper in my Grandparents living room. The Logo, while, professional, has no youth to it.

I have limited web design experience so I googled IPB to see what IPB is like on other sites and then googled IPB skins. Here's some of the skins I found that I like. Not saying, turn us into this but it will give you a jumping off point for figuring out where my head is at. I know some of the links are for an older style IPB than we are, I am just linking what I like ...

IPB skin 1: This one I like the colour of though I don't think that colour scheme would work here. The main reason I am linking to this is because of the tab system on the profile page. We can't lose the profile system as you've said but we can adapt it more for our members. Also, My Assistant?? Woah, could that solve that feed issue - if it works?

IPB skin 2: I love the colour and the fact that everything has the right amount of space on this one. This site feels cluttered.

IPB skin 3: This was a custom site design done for a site which has now, from what I understand from my google search, has closed. Its simple yet functional.

IPB Skin 4: Hello Blue! First off things I don't like about this one. The colour, the big banner and thinks like the status updates and calender. One of the main reasons I linked this was the "Watched Content" box and the layout - nicely spaced out not crushed.

There are a lot of skins I have found which I like in someway. In terms of colour, these are vivid, bright though I'll agree the brightness might need to be toned down for regular use. They scream being young and alive etc. What I am picturing is a white background, very clean and simple lines in those colour shades that are changeable depending on your tastes. For example, I like the purple colour and have it as my layout choice. Taking skin 2 from above as the template for an example. Then the top of the section - the box where it says A test Category would have a purple background to it and then the bottom box of that section is also purple but the rest is a white background. Its hard to describe it in words but I hope this give you some idea of how I think we can modernize the look of this site.

I am not saying the site isn't good looking. Its very professional but for the average age of the user here, it lacks fun. It also looks like a standard forum layout. There probably was some customizing of the IPB standard look but I don't think it was enough to make the site different from most of the IPB fourms out there.

For example, The One outside of Left Field - yeah, I think this layout looks gorgeous but I reckon if we went like this, someone would kill me for suggesting it. Its just an over the top example of how we don't have to look like "IPB Basic"

How about keeping the profile (as I have in my sketch, redesigned), but instead give a preview of the wiki profile and a direct link to the wiki profile? Either way, we can't trash the profile system - it's your member account. It's where people go when they click your name, it tracks posts and profile/member data. As far as the wiki cobwebs, could you address some specific thoughts in the Wiki devoted forum? I'd like to hear any suggestions you might have since you obviously think it needs work (not that I think it doesn't)

As I have shown in a couple of those links, its possible to tab the profile so lets do that! Let's combine my ideas and yours and redesign the profile section. As along as members of the option of creating a bio like I described (doesn't need to be a wiki) then the way the profile looks as it is now would be fine. As for the Wiki section, I will have a look at where you've suggested but I have just spent over an hour and a half on this post after googling this, that and the other.

I think we'll try for getting a test site approved by the whole community before anything else is implemented.

Seems fine to me. The moveable widget idea was something that I discussed with Chopin in a private chat he did. In hindsight, I am going to say that right now, it would be better to focus on getting the basics right because I can live without moveable widgets if we get the right design to the site.

I think we all are aware that we need a modern edge, but none of us really understands what it is to have a modern edge in webdesign. The only people that say this are people that don't have enough programming knowledge to help out.

A lot of the websites I linked to do custom website design or allow for an extra fee the ability to customize the skins they have on sale ... maybe this is a possibility? I don't think the site needs or should to be tricked out if the staff cannot maintain it in the long run but just updating the appearance of the site to something less dated would help the site look modern. I am pleased that you're being honest though - seems like you have your feet on the ground.

I hear everything you are saying, but I specifically want to comment on this.

...The ONLY reason I still come here is because of the people. In all honesty without the people that are on this site, I would not have a reason to come here ... and yet I am on this thread trying to get you guys to not kill this site by making it even 2% like FB.

I never expected anything else. The community defines this site, and I know this very well. Whether the site is A+ material, or has a look from the late 90's, this place still represents the community. The technology, or any of the fine tweaks we do, have nothing to do with who we are as a community, this site simply acts as a way to facilitate our needs. Having a great, or poor site alone, isn't a reason to visit the site. It's the other way around, people visit a site for the community. This will always be true.

With that out of the way, I plan on overhauling the entire site design, and building it again from ground up. My aim will be "simplify, simplify, simplify". We are going to modernize YC, and use pleasing colors and a better layout. I believe that a site great on the eyes (not just colors, but layout too) will increase user experience, and even if we do borrow some common networking features, the forum will still be a big part of the community. The network will do a great job increasing visibility to forum posts, threads, and music uploads. And if you think about it, this "feed" idea isn't just a Facebook thing. Feeds have been around for awhile, it's really all about presentation. And social networks have been around even long before the internet. Again, it's about presentation and "how" a network will benefit our communities needs.

First some facepalms:

Having a great, or poor site alone, isn't a reason to visit the site. It's the other way around, people visit a site for the community. This will always be true.

:facepalm:

You forgot fundamental rule No. 2: If people don't have a site that they want to go to, i.e. a GOOD site, then the community will break up. It is just a matter of how bad the site has to be before the community dissipates. To use an analogy: it's as if the Chess Club no longer has a place to set up their boards and play Chess; it will either find a new place out of necessity, build a new place, or break up and end the club. You saw this with the changeover in Dec. Massive amounts of the community fled; it is only the loyal ones that stayed and didn't abandon ship.

And social networks have been around even long before the internet.

:facepalm: Wow.

Now for some more positive comments:

With that out of the way, I plan on overhauling the entire site design, and building it again from ground up My aim will be "simplify, simplify, simplify". We are going to modernize YC, and use pleasing colors and a better layout. I believe that a site great on the eyes (not just colors, but layout too) will increase user experience, and even if we do borrow some common networking features, the forum will still be a big part of the community.

Yay! So we got through to you in some way or another. YC needs a completely new site that is desgined to have all the various pages, i.e. "Music", "Reviews", "Forum", "Tutorials", and "Wiki" work together and built from the same technology! It also has to be Web 3.0 style and HTML5 compatible (instead of or along side Flash because Flash is quickly dying out and may be obsolete within a few years). What about Microsoft Silverlight? Has anyone looked into that?

I say we start a new discussion and have users post what they want if they wanted the ideal site assuming money, time, and existing stuff is no object. Imagine what people would say!

Specifically, I would like the dated appearance to go. For example, the banners pattern reminds me of the wallpaper in my Grandparents living room. The Logo, while, professional, has no youth to it.

So you want to get rid of the banner and logo - Chopin has already decided this in our preliminary drafts, so no worries. When we get a draft to a presentable state, we'll probably post it and you guys can speak your mind. The other thing you want is a new forum skin. I like the first one you linked to the best - we could do that very easily. We could also easily to #4 and your "One outside left field" ... and all of them for that matter, as long as they work for our version of IPB. We could even tweak them as far as colour and brightness as have several versions - but I think all skins that we have for the site should be the same designs, just having different colour schemes. Now the trick is getting the network pages to match the forum pages. I think we can try to use the same stylesheet for the network as the forum, so when we change the appearance of the forum, the network matches. The wiki is much much much more difficult to do that with, so we may just stick with one colour scheme there.

As I have shown in a couple of those links, its possible to tab the profile so lets do that! Let's combine my ideas and yours and redesign the profile section. As along as members of the option of creating a bio like I described (doesn't need to be a wiki) then the way the profile looks as it is now would be fine.

Good idea. We could actually have three tabs for the middle/main box on the profile. One is general information (basically what we have now minus some extraneous stuff), another tab embeds the profile directly from the Wiki (hopefully this is possible, so you can have the bio stored on the wiki, and indexed by search engines on the wiki, but also appears on the user's profile), and another tab for uploaded music. Perhaps we'll try this instead of my slightly different original idea.

YC needs a completely new site that is desgined to have all the various pages, i.e. "Music", "Reviews", "Forum", "Tutorials", and "Wiki" work together and built from the same technology!

I do hope you realise that having "Reviews" separate from "Forum" is very difficult if not impossible and also, if I might add, rather stupid. This is because our reviews our forum-based. The forum posts are what show up on the music page in the comments section. Now what you suggested earlier in this thread is a separate subdomain, "reviews.youngcomposers.com". Because reviews are on a forum, this would mean installing IPB separately on two different subdomains. It doesn't quite work that way - we'd end up with two completely independent forums. So let's just try and keep "reviews" on the "Forum". They are the Upload Forums, and they're not going anywhere any time soon, especially since they've been rooted there since day one. Also, if we isolate the upload forums, the rest of the forums might die off because we're using to browsing from one universal forum index.

It also has to be Web 3.0 style and HTML5 compatible (instead of or along side Flash because Flash is quickly dying out and may be obsolete within a few years). What about Microsoft Silverlight? Has anyone looked into that?

Silverlight is for fancy display tricks and stuff to make things look awesome. We don't need that. Also, it's SLOOOWW to load, and it requires you to download and update a plug-in for it to even work. It's only slightly worse than Flash, which suffers the same downfalls. AND it's difficult to program and a lot of people hate flash sites (ever notice how a lot of the sites the use flash have an HTML-only alternative?)

So you want to get rid of the banner and logo - Chopin has already decided this in our preliminary drafts, so no worries. When we get a draft to a presentable state, we'll probably post it and you guys can speak your mind. The other thing you want is a new forum skin. I like the first one you linked to the best - we could do that very easily. We could also easily to #4 and your "One outside left field" ... and all of them for that matter, as long as they work for our version of IPB. We could even tweak them as far as colour and brightness as have several versions - but I think all skins that we have for the site should be the same designs, just having different colour schemes. Now the trick is getting the network pages to match the forum pages. I think we can try to use the same stylesheet for the network as the forum, so when we change the appearance of the forum, the network matches. The wiki is much much much more difficult to do that with, so we may just stick with one colour scheme there.

As I said, I only posted those to show different things that I liked that were possible using the forum software we use. Personally, except for the last one which I doubt would feel right on here, I don't like any of them 100% and there is no perfect one there for this site among them. My point is that, in my opinion, this site looks a lot like the standard IPB forum out there. What I would like to see is a simple, functional design which is a less bit mainstream and gives the forum a personal look and suits the members needs as well as being modern looking. I can appreciate what I am saying might be difficult to put into action but that's where I stand.

As for Chopin's post, I think Tokke beat me to it.

As I said, I only posted those to show different things that I liked that were possible using the forum software we use. Personally, except for the last one which I doubt would feel right on here, I don't like any of them 100% and there is no perfect one there for this site among them. My point is that, in my opinion, this site looks a lot like the standard IPB forum out there. What I would like to see is a simple, functional design which is a less bit mainstream and gives the forum a personal look and suits the members needs as well as being modern looking. I can appreciate what I am saying might be difficult to put into action but that's where I stand.

No, I don't think it would be that hard. After all, we made this skin by taking the IPB default and just giving it our own colour scheme. We could easily do that with any other skin. We'll give it a try as long as we can find a skin that the community likes.

Why is there such a hate-on for Facebook?

Why would incorporating "even 2%" of the best relevant FB features "kill this site" ??

I do hope you realise that having "Reviews" separate from "Forum" is very difficult if not impossible and also, if I might add, rather stupid. This is because our reviews our forum-based. The forum posts are what show up on the music page in the comments section. Now what you suggested earlier in this thread is a separate subdomain, "reviews.youngcomposers.com". Because reviews are on a forum, this would mean installing IPB separately on two different subdomains. It doesn't quite work that way - we'd end up with two completely independent forums. So let's just try and keep "reviews" on the "Forum". They are the Upload Forums, and they're not going anywhere any time soon, especially since they've been rooted there since day one. Also, if we isolate the upload forums, the rest of the forums might die off because we're using [*used??] to browsing from one universal forum index.

I never said reviews shouldn't be forum based, doy! It would be two different forum pages, that's the whole point. One forum page would be for the very structured reviews, and the other for the still-but-not-so-structured discussions forum. This would provide a great amount of visibility to the discussion area because the reviews would be separated. Personally, I don't like having to pass over all those review forums to get to the discussion just to see if anything of a discussion is there, which most often, there isn't. My other justification of splitting them is that there is very little "discussion" in the reviews forums in the first place while elsewhere there's supposed to be tons of discussions.

Why is there such a hate-on for Facebook?

Why would incorporating "even 2%" of the best relevant FB features "kill this site" ??

Its more about how Chopin is being a Facebook fanboy than someone who wants to take the community into consideration.

My hate-on stems from the fact we are a community not a social network and there are better ways of making this site great without having Facebook like features. The news feed idea which has been put forward, for example, is just one of several put forward recently all having roots from that website. To me we aren't Facebook and we shouldn't even be trying to be like it.

Why I say it will kill the site is because going down that route will not only change the feel and nature of this site and will, in my opinion, alienate members who come here for things like Shoutbox and discussion. It would also make new members likely be confused about whether this is a forum or a social network and it would likely overcomplicated an already complicated site. If the forum improves and we make it great at being an internet community then we are not trying to something we aren't be trying to be something we aren't and that will be our edge over other sites. Simply, we are who we are - we are great at what we are, people will recognize that and come or stay on this site.

I admit I was being a little bit OTT when I said that original quote. However, it is only because Chopin has driven me to frustration this past week by only suggesting ideas which are Facebook in its roots. Things like the ideas James H and I have been discussing about making the profiles more customizable to allow us to put more personality into them and allow us to make them into our own "Composer Bio" page have nothing to do with Facebook, would of more long-term use and an improvement on a system we already from. From my side of the computer screen, those are the types of things I would have preferred to hear from Chopin or flexibility in his ideas with ours. Yet neither has been happening and hence the OTTness of my comments.

My hate-on stems from the fact we are a community not a social network ..

Perhaps it's just me, but... aren't "community" and "social network" essentially the same thing?

And, for that matter, why must we decide to be one or the other? What's wrong with being a socially networked community?

I admit I was being a little bit OTT when I said that original quote. However, it is only because Chopin has driven me to frustration this past week by only suggesting ideas which are Facebook in its roots.

Just for argument's sake...can anyone come up with something that Facebook hasn't incorporated yet?