Challenger for Beatport? - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- Challenger for Beatport?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Posted by Alcont on Nov-20-2010 08:56:

Challenger for Beatport?

Has anyone used this new download store yet? What do you think of it?
http://www.nowtrax.com

Posted by bas on Nov-20-2010 09:43:

Not a bad site, needs a bit of a redesign and a playlist queue function.

Posted by Verdale on Nov-20-2010 19:52:

It just looks like somebody fused Beatport and Audiojelly.

Posted by trancypantzzz on Nov-20-2010 20:39:

$1.12 is that for 320?

Posted by Mr.Mystery on Nov-20-2010 21:17:

Re: Challenger for Beatport?

quote:
Originally posted by Alcont
Has anyone used this new download store yet? What do you think of it?
http://www.nowtrax.com

I'm sure you're in no way affiliated with it.

Posted by MindShifter on Nov-21-2010 05:20:

Re: Re: Challenger for Beatport?

quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Mystery
I'm sure you're in no way affiliated with it.

lol my thoughts exactly when i saw this post.

then my second was "$1.12 for tracks? someone alert osterzone!"

Posted by orTof�nChiLd on Nov-21-2010 08:06:

when is beatport gonna stop listing 3-5 month old tracks in the new release date section. Searching seven weeks ago is fine but yearly old tracks dont belong there. AM i missing something or is there someplace out there where i can gear the latest releases without any oldies mixed in.

Posted by basilisk on Nov-21-2010 22:54:

This is a joke, right? A bloated, virtually unusable Flash interface and no FLAC or WAV download option? No one will challenge Beatport's dominance of the market with a cheap imitation like this... it will take some real innovation and business acumen to succeed in that endeavour, and this sure as hell ain't it.

Posted by Rashad648 on Nov-21-2010 23:06:

Posted by nefardec on Nov-21-2010 23:39:

gross.

bloated, over the top, like a fox news war on terror special report intro

and bank gothic.

what a gross font in this context.

Posted by orTof�nChiLd on Nov-22-2010 01:11:

quote:
Originally posted by Rashad648
OMG is it true mate. New tracks are 3-5 month old? I cant belive how is that possible.

u better shut your whole if you know wuts good for you

7 weeks old = 1 month and 2 weeks

3-5 month old tracks dont belong there, it belongs in the 3-5 month old section dumbass

Posted by Rashad648 on Nov-22-2010 02:42:

quote:
Originally posted by orTof�nChiLd
u better shut your whole if you know wuts good for you

7 weeks old = 1 month and 2 weeks

3-5 month old tracks dont belong there, it belongs in the 3-5 month old section dumbass

Oh no you're not nice. I didnt understand why are u so mad at me

Posted by orTof�nChiLd on Nov-22-2010 04:15:

quote:
Originally posted by Rashad648
Oh no you're not nice. I didnt understand why are u so mad at me

sorry i thought u were being sarcastic, my apologies

Posted by Rashad648 on Nov-22-2010 04:53:

quote:
Originally posted by orTof�nChiLd
sorry i thought u were being sarcastic, my apologies

Ok dude peace. I'm a noob in this kind of things.

Posted by freakster on Nov-22-2010 22:01:

quote:
Originally posted by orTof�nChiLd
when is beatport gonna stop listing 3-5 month old tracks in the new release date section. Searching seven weeks ago is fine but yearly old tracks dont belong there. AM i missing something or is there someplace out there where i can gear the latest releases without any oldies mixed in.

its very annoying to me as well. labels release compilations with every song in their catalog and they are put in the new releases section. to me it seems like only half the tracks in new release are actually that. they need a new section which is for previously unreleased tracks.

Posted by orTof�nChiLd on Nov-23-2010 03:51:

quote:
Originally posted by freakster
its very annoying to me as well. labels release compilations with every song in their catalog and they are put in the new releases section. to me it seems like only half the tracks in new release are actually that. they need a new section which is for previously unreleased tracks.

yeah man its bullshit

Posted by Voci on Nov-23-2010 10:42:

So this is actually interesting.

What are beatport's downsides?

- high prices.
- different price between mp3 or wav
- no full previews
- ....

fill?

Posted by Mr.Mystery on Nov-23-2010 15:28:

quote:
Originally posted by Voci
So this is actually interesting.

What are beatport's downsides?

- high prices.
- different price between mp3 or wav
- no full previews
- ....

fill?

Flash.

Posted by Voci on Nov-24-2010 08:12:

quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Mystery
Flash.

Yeah I saw this before as an argument.

Would you care to explain why it should NOT be flash-based?

I mean, the site works, right?

Posted by KrisA on Nov-24-2010 09:00:

quote:
Originally posted by Voci
Would you care to explain why it should NOT be flash-based?

I mean, the site works, right?

I personally don't mind that it's Flash based - from a functional perspective - although it does take some time to load.

A huge problem though, is that you never get 'beatport' results when you search on google. All of these 'casual' buyers who don't know about Beatport will be presented with a zippyshare link instead of a buy option on Beatport.

Posted by Igaryok on Nov-24-2010 11:47:

quote:
Originally posted by KrisA
I personally don't mind that it's Flash based - from a functional perspective - although it does take some time to load.

A huge problem though, is that you never get 'beatport' results when you search on google. All of these 'casual' buyers who don't know about Beatport will be presented with a zippyshare link instead of a buy option on Beatport.

That's not true. I'm pretty sure Beatport has an HTML version of the site running in the background for Search Engines to crawl their site.

For example http://www.google.com/search?source...igweed+beatport

The reason they're not appearing in most top results is because they really haven't done any Search Engine Optimization because people that need to know about the site already know about it. In reality casual buyers would not spend $2.50 per track when they can get the same thing at iTunes or Amazon for 99 cents so really they're not going to spend a ton of money for SEO when their entire strategy is word of mouth advertising. They've done pretty well with that strategy too.

Posted by KrisA on Nov-24-2010 16:36:

quote:
Originally posted by Igaryok
That's not true. I'm pretty sure Beatport has an HTML version of the site running in the background for Search Engines to crawl their site.

For example http://www.google.com/search?source...igweed+beatport

The reason they're not appearing in most top results is because they really haven't done any Search Engine Optimization because people that need to know about the site already know about it. In reality casual buyers would not spend $2.50 per track when they can get the same thing at iTunes or Amazon for 99 cents so really they're not going to spend a ton of money for SEO when their entire strategy is word of mouth advertising. They've done pretty well with that strategy too.

You included the word 'beatport' in the search result. I guess you're right about the SEO thing though? Stuff from Audiojelly and namely djtunes do pop up in search results on google. I absolutely do not agree that the people who need to know about Beatport, already know about it. Especially not with the influence electronic music has these days. I know that Beatport is for DJs and the like but nonetheless it has a lot of potential.

Posted by Igaryok on Nov-24-2010 17:04:

quote:
Originally posted by KrisA
You included the word 'beatport' in the search result. I guess you're right about the SEO thing though? Stuff from Audiojelly and namely djtunes do pop up in search results on google. I absolutely do not agree that the people who need to know about Beatport, already know about it. Especially not with the influence electronic music has these days. I know that Beatport is for DJs and the like but nonetheless it has a lot of potential.

It doesn't really matter that I included Beatport in the search result. I was proving a point that Beatport is still being indexed by Google regardless of the fact that's it's flash based.

Buy anyway, type in "John Digweed Download" and Beatport will be the fourth result down.

http://www.google.com/search?source...e29d8a479094d56

Even for far more popular search terms like "Tiesto Download" Beatport still shows up on the second page of Google which is much higher than AudioJelly and DJtunes.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=find+nanny#q=tiesto+download&hl=en&pwst=1&prmd=ivl&ei=QEbtTPjwKJO6sQO9tYy5Dw&start=10&sa=N&fp=9e29d8a479094d56

Posted by KrisA on Nov-24-2010 17:23:

quote:
Originally posted by Igaryok
It doesn't really matter that I included Beatport in the search result. I was proving a point that Beatport is still being indexed by Google regardless of the fact that's it's flash based.

Buy anyway, type in "John Digweed Download" and Beatport will be the fourth result down.

http://www.google.com/search?source...e29d8a479094d56

Even for far more popular search terms like "Tiesto Download" Beatport still shows up on the second page of Google which is much higher than AudioJelly and DJtunes.

http://www.google.com/search?source...e29d8a479094d56

I stand corrected (somewhat). I have never seen a release from our label in the results, ever. Which is pretty much my primary cause for concern in this matter. Not sure why that is though.

If I type in "funkagenda past dreaming download" (just an example) i get tonnes of illegal download options, even though it's available exclusively on Beatport. I'm no expert on search results tbh but it's concerning.

Posted by Mr.Mystery on Nov-24-2010 17:37:

quote:
Originally posted by Voci
Yeah I saw this before as an argument.

Would you care to explain why it should NOT be flash-based?

I mean, the site works, right?

It's slow to load for one, takes ages even on my 10MB line.

And you can forget about even trying to access the site with an iPhone...

Pages (2): [1] 2 »