|
Cleaning up / Regulating the Production Forum
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DJ RANN |
If any of you have seen what's happened over the past few weeks, in both this sub forum and others on TA, there are a fair few of us that are getting somewhat disillusioned with the general state of things, to the point that many regulars are finding it simply monotonous and soul destroying to navigate the stream of dumb threads.
I for one have been no where near as active simply due to the quality of discussion in here, and I know several others have the same current disposition.
While I actually appreciate Diginut's "hands off" approach to moderation (it's better long term than the alternative) it does mean that low level issues and general erosion of discussion can take place as it's essentially under the radar.
The problem then becomes that people post without even looking, searching or frankly even using their brain. The result is that useful discussion becomes less frequent and aimless, gormless and redundant questions fill a once useful forum.
Therefore, I think some need change, right now, but I want to guage people's opinions on some of things that might help.
1, Mind-numbingly obvious questions that have been covered before, get directed to the appropriate resource (FAQ, tut thread, google, correct forum) and shut down (closed). Repeat offenders get a holiday or ban.
2, While off topic discussion has actually produced some pretty interesting information, it has to be the exception, and not the norm, or the bulk of conversation. This is the Production Forum, not the MD and sure as , not the COR....
3, ....Which leads me on to more regulation about what belongs where. Again, Production discussion, belongs in the Production Forum. Let's keep it that way. You want to talk bollocks, then take it to the COR. you want to tell us what you had for dinner? then save it for your facebook newsfeed. You want to talk body building supplements? Save it for the bath house.
I for one, just don't want to see this place go the way of other forums when there are still many talented and well educated producers on here. There's honestly no where else left on the net like this, so we shouldn't let it go to waste, and if people on here want this place to survive then there's a pretty simple way of making sure it does (with the help of Diginut).
Please chime in..... :) |
|
|
| Trancelover03591 |
| I think something needs to be pointed out more. The search on this forum isn't the best. I believe it was Deep Eddie Zilker that pointed out that one should use google-with Tranceaddict added into the searchbar-as a means to search this site. So instead of saying 'use the search' to repeat questions, I think the google trick should be pointed out (and maybe a sticky thread). |
|
|
| dj_alfi |
Well there was the extreme view, good to have if for nothing other than a blue-print should we ever need to evacuate this sub-forum for good.
But somewhere in the middle there's a moderate solution that would filter out the yet still encourage learning and healthy discussions.
I'm gonna be a super-Norwegian and propose, instead of a revolution, that we reform the rules one at a time, and that the first step would be to introduce your first rule;
1, Mind-numbingly obvious questions that have been covered before, get directed to the appropriate resource (FAQ, tut thread, google, correct forum) and shut down (closed). Repeat offenders get a holiday or ban.
as this addresses the most severe problem, in my humble opinion, and I think it would improve the general mood of the sub-forum. A trial-period of 3 months sounds reasonable to me.
Maybe get someone appointed to enforce the rule, if DigiNut isn't up for it, You've done a great job for a long time, but something needs to be done, so noone would think less of you if you want to pass on the torch. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancelover03591
I think something needs to be pointed out more. The search on this forum isn't the best. I believe it was Deep Eddie Zilker that pointed out that one should use google-with Tranceaddict added into the searchbar-as a means to search this site. So instead of saying 'use the search' to repeat questions, I think the google trick should be pointed out (and maybe a sticky thread). |
Exactly right - the search function on this forum has always been poor at best. You can still find stuff with it, but to be honest the google version works for everything I've needed to find in the last couple of years.
I think it needs to be a major point in the FAQ and brought up when people don't search. you get told once. That's it.
| quote: | Originally posted by dj_alfi
Well there was the extreme view, good to have if for nothing other than a blue-print should we ever need to evacuate this sub-forum for good.
But somewhere in the middle there's a moderate solution that would filter out the yet still encourage learning and healthy discussions.
I'm gonna be a super-Norwegian and propose, instead of a revolution, that we reform the rules one at a time, and that the first step would be to introduce your first rule;
1, Mind-numbingly obvious questions that have been covered before, get directed to the appropriate resource (FAQ, tut thread, google, correct forum) and shut down (closed). Repeat offenders get a holiday or ban.
as this addresses the most severe problem, in my humble opinion, and I think it would improve the general mood of the sub-forum. A trial-period of 3 months sounds reasonable to me.
Maybe get someone appointed to enforce the rule, if DigiNut isn't up for it, You've done a great job for a long time, but something needs to be done, so noone would think less of you if you want to pass on the torch. |
TBH, if we just did the first one then that would be enough to sort about 80% of the problems.
One thing to bear in mind is that just by doing this, and knowing there is actually a ceiling/limit/recourse, it changes behavior of those that do it, and those that have so far been tolerating it; those that do it, get told quickly and efficiently not to as there will be repercussions, and those that have been tolerating it up to now, get to tell those others, in no uncertain terms, where to shove it and what will happen if they don't. |
|
|
| MSZ |
| With mr liar-bags gone, im stepping up my troll game. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
I do hope Digi pardons this one meta-discussion and I know he's even taken issue with one of the threads under discussion, in this one. It might be healthy to control most of the griping, most of the time, but I'm respectfully submitting that the occasional open meeting of the minds, or a common conscience thread, is called for.
I've pointed out, before, this is a specialized discourse community that requires a certain level of literacy to adequately participate in. I don't think it's reasonable to issue a test for every new person who wants to join to participate but I do think there are reasonable expectations to be adhered to for open participation. Where the rubber meets the road, in that regard, is a little more difficult to determine.
There clearly are such things as stupid questions. Because this place encounters a number of beginners on a consistent basis and because being a beginner is a fraught with more opportunities to be misinformed than it is to be properly informed, it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. It's sometimes hard to distinguish between innocent naivety that might actually merit an answer - once we have an understanding of what they're getting at - from questions that should be unwelcome. Here are some of the things I've found create truly stupid questions that shouldn't be allowed in PF:
1. It is supported with underlying assumptions about its topic that are completely erroneous. (e.g. "How do I mix in mono?", when you shouldn't be mixing in mono, at all)
1a. It is asking for instructions on how to produce, using self-made terminology. (e.g. How do I make sweeps?) This person could be referring to any number of things from automated panning to LFO controlled filter sweeps. They're revealing a deficit of knowledge so fundamental to beginning music production that having this question answered effectively is not realistic.
1b. It is asking questions for which there is no direct, clear-cut answer. (e.g. How many dB's should I set the soft-knee on my compressor to?)
1c. It is asking a question that is effectively, asking for permission. (e.g. Should I side-chain my bass-line to my pads?)
1d. They are asking to attain a qualitative ideal; whether or not it is accompanied with a subjective reference? (e.g. How do I get a perfect kick? Like Tiesto?)
1e. They are asking a question bereft of context. (e.g. Why do my friends say my kick sounds muddy? Doesn't post kick sample.)
1f. Any combination of the above? (Can I side-swipe my bass-reflex to my arp sweeps?)
2. It is asking for information normally provided in an instruction manual. (e.g. How do I use my own samples using NN-XT in Reason?)
3. It is asking questions that have been frequently asked and answered. (e.g. How do you side-chain?) As pointed out, earlier, the broken search function can be circumvented by typing (or copying and pasting) "http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums - " prior to the Google topic to find out if it's been answered before.
4. Without associating it with http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums, in Google, the topic of the question can be found in the first page of search results. (e.g. Where is a good place I can find samples?)
5. It is asking how to imitate someone else's sound. There is nothing wrong with trying to emulate someone else's sound. It's actually a great way to learn sound-design - by getting your feet wet. You are clearly not here to learn anything if you're asking for a simple path to follow or a patch will do that, for you. These questions are probably some of the most pernicious because, 9 times out of 10, the person asking them is reluctant to accept advice on how to create the sound and is also quick to berate the person answering it. If these sorts of questions are going to be allowed, I think serious consideration should be given to instantly banning anyone who responds with hostility to respectful answers they receive when asking these questions.
6. It is asking how to do something for which there is no evident, single, direct, nor clear-cut answer but rather several that involve many different approaches supported by individual experience. (e.g. How can I give my mix that ASOT production gloss?)
7. Questions that have nothing or are vaguely associated with it to do with Music Production. (Should I use a Herman Miller Aeron Chair in my studio?)
8. High Order Optic Naval Gazing. (What does a rainbow sound like?)
9. Check out my new track! (Can you tell me your honest opinion on something I'm working on?)
I'm sure I can think of more to add, including what makes a smart question, but this is what I came up with, tonight. Good night, all.
EDIT #1 on 7/4 TO ADD: 7, 8, & 9 |
|
|
| wayfinder |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
I do hope Digi pardons this one meta-discussion and I know he's even taken issue with one of the threads under discussion, in this one. It might be healthy to control most of the griping, most of the time, but I'm respectfully submitting that the occasional open meeting of the minds, or a common conscience thread, is called for.
I've pointed out, before, this is a specialized discourse community that requires a certain level of literacy to adequately participate in. I don't think it's reasonable to issue a test for every new person who wants to join to participate but I do think there are reasonable expectations to be adhered to for open participation. Where the rubber meets the road, in that regard, is a little more difficult to determine.
There clearly are such things as stupid questions. Because this place encounters a number of beginners on a consistent basis and because being a beginner is a fraught with more opportunities to be misinformed than it is to be properly informed, it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. It's sometimes hard to distinguish between innocent naivety that might actually merit an answer - once we have an understanding of what they're getting at - from questions that should be unwelcome. Here are some of the things I've found create truly stupid questions that shouldn't be allowed in PF:
1. It is supported with underlying assumptions about its topic that are completely erroneous. (e.g. "How do I mix in mono?", when you shouldn't be mixing in mono, at all)
1a. It is asking for instructions on how to produce, using self-made terminology. (e.g. How do I make sweeps?) This person could be referring to any number of things from automated panning to LFO controlled filter sweeps. They're revealing a deficit of knowledge so fundamental to beginning music production that having this question answered effectively is not realistic.
1b. It is asking questions for which there is no direct, clear-cut answer. (e.g. How many dB's should I set the soft-knee on my compressor to?)
1c. It is asking a question that is effectively, asking for permission. (e.g. Should I side-chain my bass-line to my pads?)
1d. They are asking to attain a qualitative ideal; whether or not it is accompanied with a subjective reference? (e.g. How do I get a perfect kick? Like Tiesto?)
1e. They are asking a question bereft of context. (e.g. Why do my friends say my kick sounds muddy? Doesn't post kick sample.)
1f. Any combination of the above? (Can I side-swipe my bass-reflex to my arp sweeps?)
2. It is asking for information normally provided in an instruction manual. (e.g. How do I use my own samples using NN-XT in Reason?)
3. It is asking questions that have been frequently asked and answered. (e.g. How do you side-chain?) As pointed out, earlier, the broken search function can be circumvented by typing (or copying and pasting) "http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums - " prior to the Google topic to find out if it's been answered before.
4. Without associating it with http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums, in Google, the topic of the question can be found in the first page of search results. (e.g. Where is a good place I can find samples?)
5. It is asking how to imitate someone else's sound. There is nothing wrong with trying to emulate someone else's sound. It's actually a great way to learn sound-design - by getting your feet wet. You are clearly not here to learn anything if you're asking for a simple path to follow or a patch will do that, for you. These questions are probably some of the most pernicious because, 9 times out of 10, the person asking them is reluctant to accept advice on how to create the sound and is also quick to berate the person answering it. If these sorts of questions are going to be allowed, I think serious consideration should be given to instantly banning anyone who responds with hostility to respectful answers they receive when asking these questions.
6. It is asking how to do something for which there is no evident, single, direct, nor clear-cut answer but rather several that involve many different approaches supported by individual experience. (e.g. How can I give my mix that ASOT production gloss?)
I'm sure I can think of more to add, including what makes a smart question, but this is what I came up with, tonight. Good night, all. |
In summary -
- don't be new
- know everything already
- phrase everything in a very specific and precise way that necessitates knowing the answers beforehand
- this forum shouldn't exist
Seriously, almost none of your examples necessarily constitute a stupid question.
1. stems from ignorance. easily corrected, forum did its job (knowledge transfer/technical help)!
1a. what for you may have a thousand subtly different meanings may be crystal clear to someone else. ask for clarification, proceed. forum did its job!
1b. tell them the factors it depends on. they learn. forum does its job!
1c. debate pros and cons. they learn. forum did its job!
1d. explain that not everyone agrees on what's perfect and ask for a specific sample of the sound they want to achieve. proceed from there.
1e. ask for sample
2. it's not always possible to navigate a manual with the info you have. references are written with very accurate nomenclature, what if people don't yet know that? where do they start their search? if it#s a small thing, just answer - if it's a large thing, "rtfm :D" is completely acceptable
3. nobody knows what has or hasn't been asked before. i agree that when there's a sticky that says "search first, before you post a question" and people don't do that, they're being stupid. but again, not everyone knows the names of things well enough to find what they search. It's completely illusory to require people to know that the forum search software sucks a bit and to use google instead (and how to do it!).
4. kind of agreed. alas, not everything that's high up in google results is good content, so you'd pretty much have to go on a case by case basis and that's just not practical
5. we all hate these threads probably (unless we're the ones asking :)), but you said it yourself – it's a useful tool to learn, so the questions themselves probably shouldn't be disallowed.
6. these are actually the most interesting and useful questions in here, why the would you outlaw them
edit: removed a vestigial "4." |
|
|
| dj_alfi |
| This thread has been locked as it is a breach on out TOS. If you feel your thread has been locked erroneously, or if you would like to rephrase your post, please pm PDJailMaster. |
|
|
| dj_alfi |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
TBH, if we just did the first one then that would be enough to sort about 80% of the problems. |
And that's totally acceptable by me. The last thing I, and I even dare say we, want, is for this place to turn into some t.nu unicorn wankaton. It's a reason that went down the ter, and oversensitive ******s is the reason.
And don't get me wrong, I have nothing against gay people. Sure you like putting dicks in your mouths, I kinda get that, but that just makes you gay, it's not until the whining starts that you're a ******. |
|
|
| Beatflux |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
I do hope Digi pardons this one meta-discussion and I know he's even taken issue with one of the threads under discussion, in this one. It might be healthy to control most of the griping, most of the time, but I'm respectfully submitting that the occasional open meeting of the minds, or a common conscience thread, is called for.
I've pointed out, before, this is a specialized discourse community that requires a certain level of literacy to adequately participate in. I don't think it's reasonable to issue a test for every new person who wants to join to participate but I do think there are reasonable expectations to be adhered to for open participation. Where the rubber meets the road, in that regard, is a little more difficult to determine.
There clearly are such things as stupid questions. Because this place encounters a number of beginners on a consistent basis and because being a beginner is a fraught with more opportunities to be misinformed than it is to be properly informed, it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. It's sometimes hard to distinguish between innocent naivety that might actually merit an answer - once we have an understanding of what they're getting at - from questions that should be unwelcome. Here are some of the things I've found create truly stupid questions that shouldn't be allowed in PF:
1. It is supported with underlying assumptions about its topic that are completely erroneous. (e.g. "How do I mix in mono?", when you shouldn't be mixing in mono, at all)
1a. It is asking for instructions on how to produce, using self-made terminology. (e.g. How do I make sweeps?) This person could be referring to any number of things from automated panning to LFO controlled filter sweeps. They're revealing a deficit of knowledge so fundamental to beginning music production that having this question answered effectively is not realistic.
1b. It is asking questions for which there is no direct, clear-cut answer. (e.g. How many dB's should I set the soft-knee on my compressor to?)
1c. It is asking a question that is effectively, asking for permission. (e.g. Should I side-chain my bass-line to my pads?)
1d. They are asking to attain a qualitative ideal; whether or not it is accompanied with a subjective reference? (e.g. How do I get a perfect kick? Like Tiesto?)
1e. They are asking a question bereft of context. (e.g. Why do my friends say my kick sounds muddy? Doesn't post kick sample.)
1f. Any combination of the above? (Can I side-swipe my bass-reflex to my arp sweeps?)
2. It is asking for information normally provided in an instruction manual. (e.g. How do I use my own samples using NN-XT in Reason?)
3. It is asking questions that have been frequently asked and answered. (e.g. How do you side-chain?) As pointed out, earlier, the broken search function can be circumvented by typing (or copying and pasting) "http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums - " prior to the Google topic to find out if it's been answered before.
4. Without associating it with http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums, in Google, the topic of the question can be found in the first page of search results. (e.g. Where is a good place I can find samples?)
5. It is asking how to imitate someone else's sound. There is nothing wrong with trying to emulate someone else's sound. It's actually a great way to learn sound-design - by getting your feet wet. You are clearly not here to learn anything if you're asking for a simple path to follow or a patch will do that, for you. These questions are probably some of the most pernicious because, 9 times out of 10, the person asking them is reluctant to accept advice on how to create the sound and is also quick to berate the person answering it. If these sorts of questions are going to be allowed, I think serious consideration should be given to instantly banning anyone who responds with hostility to respectful answers they receive when asking these questions.
6. It is asking how to do something for which there is no evident, single, direct, nor clear-cut answer but rather several that involve many different approaches supported by individual experience. (e.g. How can I give my mix that ASOT production gloss?)
I'm sure I can think of more to add, including what makes a smart question, but this is what I came up with, tonight. Good night, all. |
This is ridiculous.
If you're not trolling, this is ridiculously over the top and uptight about correctness.
Besides the obvious answers that are on youtube, I don't really give a if someone asks something dumb as long as they have put forth an effort.
LOL I know the answer to #6, its on Anjunabeat forums.
Stop acting like you ing know everything. |
|
|
| Beatflux |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
If any of you have seen what's happened over the past few weeks, in both this sub forum and others on TA, there are a fair few of us that are getting somewhat disillusioned with the general state of things, to the point that many regulars are finding it simply monotonous and soul destroying to navigate the stream of dumb threads.
I for one have been no where near as active simply due to the quality of discussion in here, and I know several others have the same current disposition.
While I actually appreciate Diginut's "hands off" approach to moderation (it's better long term than the alternative) it does mean that low level issues and general erosion of discussion can take place as it's essentially under the radar.
The problem then becomes that people post without even looking, searching or frankly even using their brain. The result is that useful discussion becomes less frequent and aimless, gormless and redundant questions fill a once useful forum.
Therefore, I think some need change, right now, but I want to guage people's opinions on some of things that might help.
1, Mind-numbingly obvious questions that have been covered before, get directed to the appropriate resource (FAQ, tut thread, google, correct forum) and shut down (closed). Repeat offenders get a holiday or ban.
2, While off topic discussion has actually produced some pretty interesting information, it has to be the exception, and not the norm, or the bulk of conversation. This is the Production Forum, not the MD and sure as , not the COR....
3, ....Which leads me on to more regulation about what belongs where. Again, Production discussion, belongs in the Production Forum. Let's keep it that way. You want to talk bollocks, then take it to the COR. you want to tell us what you had for dinner? then save it for your facebook newsfeed. You want to talk body building supplements? Save it for the bath house.
I for one, just don't want to see this place go the way of other forums when there are still many talented and well educated producers on here. There's honestly no where else left on the net like this, so we shouldn't let it go to waste, and if people on here want this place to survive then there's a pretty simple way of making sure it does (with the help of Diginut).
Please chime in..... :) |
I pretty much agree with all of this, the last thing that is missing is this:
members making written tutorials. I think that is sorely lacking. Or at least member driven discussions.
It's kind of absurd to think about how much writing were doing about non-production . |
|
|
| dj_alfi |
| quote: | Originally posted by Beatflux
I pretty much agree with all of this, the last thing that is missing is this:
members making written tutorials. I think that is sorely lacking. Or at least member driven discussions.
It's kind of absurd to think about how much writing were doing about non-production . |
then we should set forth a committee to put down some guidelines on what constitutes a 'good tutorial'. i know a few members here have tried recently, and no for that, but they seemed a bit too basic perhaps. some hardly even english.
maybe try to go together and collab on tutorials, or AT LEAST get someone to look it over before posting, if youre in any doubt.
people can be a little quick to hit the Enter key sometimes. |
|
|
|
|
