This website is killing itself. The forum is dead already. There are probably a lot of metalheads like myself who like to post but dont find any topics worthy of a post. When I find a album I like its good to discuss that with other metalheads. And there is a shitload of albums that comes out each day - metal moves fast, but we cant discuss it here. The problem is that only staff here are worthy of adding bands. And the times when users looked up to staff and carefully listened to what bands they thought was good is probaly long gone... The bands that get added here at the moment are mostly pure shit - symphonic blabla or some unsigned heavy metal from the 80s.

My guess is that forum activity would rise if all users could add bands. It would probably be some trolling and even more shit bands but at least the forum activity would rise. And mostly important we would have the best bands here. So whats your oppinion? Is it good now when some obscure staff person adds the bands or should everyone, the users, be able to add bands? Or are there any other options? Discuss.

Let it run the way it's running now. I know bands added in database are really not upto the mark and out of say 10 additions, you hardly find 2 to 3 relevant. But, giving all users permission will turn this neat place into fucking junkyard. Also, permitted users takes responsibility to whichever bands they adding and should have reasoning if they been questioned. As far as staff is concerned, they been appointed to such stage where distinctions can be drawn clearly. In whatever case is, they should be get ready for inclusion of certain bands. For queries/suggestions we have a thread here where you can post your issues. We really don't need to extend of giving permissions to anyone until and unless he/she is authorizes to do the same.

Written by [user id=157444] on 19.09.2016 at 13:06

This website is killing itself. The forum is dead already. There are probably a lot of metalheads like myself who like to post but dont find any topics worthy of a post. When I find a album I like its good to discuss that with other metalheads. And there is a shitload of albums that comes out each day - metal moves fast, but we cant discuss it here. The problem is that only staff here are worthy of adding bands. And the times when users looked up to staff and carefully listened to what bands they thought was good is probaly long gone... The bands that get added here at the moment are mostly pure shit - symphonic blabla or some unsigned heavy metal from the 80s.

My guess is that forum activity would rise if all users could add bands. It would probably be some trolling and even more shit bands but at least the forum activity would rise. And mostly important we would have the best bands here. So whats your oppinion? Is it good now when some obscure staff person adds the bands or should everyone, the users, be able to add bands? Or are there any other options? Discuss.

There are a few things that bug me about this. First of all, the forum comments. What is "worthy" of a post is entirely subjective, and to be quite blunt, if you don't find topics good enough to be graced by your commentary, make some yourself that you think are. It's not hard, it's a permission every user has, and even if you post it in the wrong place Staff will go ahead and move it over to the most suitable area for you. Easy.

To your main point of adding bands... we can't keep track of everything. There are always going to be some bands excluded on site and some users waving the "I can't believe they don't have _____" protest signs voicing their dissatisfaction. I am open to the idea of users adding bands here with strict guidelines for doing so laid out, but I'm skeptical as to whether or not said guidelines would actually be followed. I see people asking fairly often around here where certain features that are relatively easy to find are, which tells me that a good number of people don't take it upon themselves to just search, read, and figure things out on their own. So bearing that in mind, I'm supposed to assume good faith and think that every person who wants to add bands on here would do so in an effective, organized manner, according to our guidelines? That there wouldn't be any mess left over that Staff would have to come back in and clean up? Excuse me if that's just a bit of a hard pill to swallow.

What is really needed, in the wake of Troy and then Johan disappearing from the site, is a new Database Manager. We're working on it.

Yeah giving random users carte blanche is a terrible idea really, and no guarantee that it will increase forum activity. You forget that the average metaller has "shit" taste (according to your standards; and I think you overestimate your own tastes tbh) and that most don't bother to comment on album threads, only vote on them. What you'll get is the same type of thing added on a bigger scale and likely very few interesting underground gems, not to mention you'll have unmoderatable amounts of broken and incomplete profiles to bog down the site.

If you want to talk about bands then there are plenty of places to do so. The What I've Been Listening To one, the New Releases In X Year ones, people's lists, the genre ones and so on, and you can make individual band threads too. You can't claim the forum is dead when you don't really even use most of it yourself.

As Che said we need one of two proper staff to deal with it; someone who is happy to trawl through what's new and interesting, both for the more mainstream end and the lesser side as well.

Agree that it should not be free for all, as the possible amount of trolling would make it dangerous for the database. But MS should certainly add more people to their staff in terms of adding info. Not only about adding bands, but for everything else too.
The fact everything (edits, gigs, news, albums) has to be checked by staff that are not always around makes this website very slow for band info. And discourages people of adding stuff, just too lazy if a staff is gonna do it anyway (at least it's the case for me). I know you can earn the "right" to do so through community points, but I don't see why X or Y amount should be a requirement if you already proved to be competent enough. And I don't think this has much to do with forum activity.
I like MS the way it is, but it's certainly not the best place for searching band related info.

Fine by me ^

"Satanic Black Metal Princess"

The only way that users can add bands is if staff has the power to veto any new additions

Staff and + bands people. All staff has + bands and few chosen people has same perms
In old days it was + 10 000 com points IMO and you was able add bands, and there was that some ad nsbm bands and demo bands

MS is webzine not data base, we have much much more and we are open mindet but I think its how it should be, staff and + bands
we add bands for review purpose and also new super bands and good bands what fit standart and also sometimes +bands people add bands as they like.

Non wants ten tousend bands per day

This is why we are so super good, we use official sources

Forum is dead yes, but why don't you start post, I remember how it was in old days and I agree, but you can open thread and actually ms has most important bands, and you always can suggest band, most suggestion are based on MA anyway ....

@Cynic
I agree whit cybic ad what I have seen people who has extra by earn points also turned it a bit messy in some ways ... look at MA; I fixed 100 errors last year from MA in MS when contacted band in FB

so this is bets way

Che
Troy is gone, JN is actvie on FB and pregnant maybe something and I agree but actually I suggest someone clean up and fix existing bands, even visible
I started work on DB because I liked, anybody can pick up band, and work, but they nee know official sources
It wont be, x says to y add a band and y will add 200 albums ... when I asked baraley and wws to add a band, I worked my way, now pp ask and bunch of blank and emthy profiles are what is to me pain in the ass fix and also I asked Brigit delete bunch of bands, what never should be add as demo and no links ever was.


Jooe
well you don't need staff non taffers like work whit bands as that idiot from latvuvija

dima - if you want band pm staffer ad put some effort
db is running OK, actually somehow when someone was like db chef 300 bands wa spending I activated, rejected bunch of them anyway, DB thing is never pending , like bands videos,

and MA well MA every iduiot can add and how came I conact bands and fix 100 errors here based on MA ?

No offence, but it seems like one of the worst ideas for MS to let any willing members to add bands. This will lead to old data loss and an overflow with new, relatively unapproached data. BUT- I do think that MS elite staff should give some added privileges to members that pass a certian, previously agreed upon, set of terms; for instance, a member that has proven to be adding legitimate, currently up to date information, adding new previously 'invisible' bands by filling the necessary information, and being a consistant, dedicating provider of information, can be given the permission to add a suggested band to an 'invisible' state, once per, let's say, a week. That way it would be legitimized by the elite staffers, and no harm will be done to any existing data, and more suggested bands will be previewed.

With all of this being said, I do like the way MS is handling the information trafficking of relevant, active bands, and the system the webzine is built on, so I wouldn't mind it staying the way it is now.

To be honest I think the MS site has more pressing issues, for example vote abuse and albums that have rated over 8.5 for a relevant year with 20+ votes that are still nowhere to be seen in the Top 20 list.

I don't mind the way MS adds bands at the moment, and the band suggestions page is pretty neat.

Written by Kais on 19.09.2016 at 19:13

No offence, but it seems like one of the worst ideas for MS to let any willing members to add bands. This will lead to old data loss and an overflow with new, relatively unapproached data. BUT- I do think that MS elite staff should give some added privileges to members that pass a certian, previously agreed upon, set of terms; for instance, a member that has proven to be adding legitimate, currently up to date information, adding new previously 'invisible' bands by filling the necessary information, and being a consistant, dedicating provider of information, can be given the permission to add a suggested band to an 'invisible' state, once per, let's say, a week. That way it would be legitimized by the elite staffers, and no harm will be done to any existing data, and more suggested bands will be previewed.

With all of this being said, I do like the way MS is handling the information trafficking of relevant, active bands, and the system the webzine is built on, so I wouldn't mind it staying the way it is now.

there are such people array is was one of them , syk to some contributor as nica ze and that lotvian idiot to G7 something
full list is here
http://www.metalstorm.net/users/permissions.php?p_type=12

Written by Bad English on 19.09.2016 at 19:40

Written by Kais on 19.09.2016 at 19:13

No offence, but it seems like one of the worst ideas for MS to let any willing members to add bands. This will lead to old data loss and an overflow with new, relatively unapproached data. BUT- I do think that MS elite staff should give some added privileges to members that pass a certian, previously agreed upon, set of terms; for instance, a member that has proven to be adding legitimate, currently up to date information, adding new previously 'invisible' bands by filling the necessary information, and being a consistant, dedicating provider of information, can be given the permission to add a suggested band to an 'invisible' state, once per, let's say, a week. That way it would be legitimized by the elite staffers, and no harm will be done to any existing data, and more suggested bands will be previewed.

With all of this being said, I do like the way MS is handling the information trafficking of relevant, active bands, and the system the webzine is built on, so I wouldn't mind it staying the way it is now.

there are such people array is was one of them , syk to some contributor as nica ze and that lotvian idiot to G7 something
full list is here
http://www.metalstorm.net/users/permissions.php?p_type=12

If it's insufficient in the elite staffers' eyes, they should add more.

Every people has own option in this site ,

Yeah, what ppl said about the forum excuse holds: You can comment/create threads about bands which aren't featured on ther site so...

Now I don't think the adding band being done by users is a bad idea per se, but instead of turning this into MA I think it could work if it had some security on it...
Say, add the power of adding bands after some cp, just like you can begin to add everything else, otherwise every band addiction will go to a pending status where the ones who already have cp will check and see if the addition is worthy or not... Namely, treat the power of adding bands just like the power of adding anything else, that couldn't go wrong then or would it?

This has nothing to do with taste as JOOE wrote. I couldnt care less what bands are added for people with dissimlar taste to mine. As long as people want a band here it should be here. Having a staff that bless what bands are here is a bit old-fashioned. You cant stop the development anyway, maybe halt it a bit for the users here but sooner or later metal wins

But my main point is that metal moves to fast for staff. They cant cope with the massiveness of great bands that the users are listening to. And Id say its a big difference posting about a band in the rec thread and a album thread. So why keep a system that gives staff a bad conscience and users the feeling that they are here on borrowed time. In the end staff have to add what the users could have added today. Lets see how long it takes for Nox Formulae to be added here http://www.metalstorm.net/bands/band_suggestions.php?suggested_search=Nox+Formulae I am quite sure some of the staff thats in to bm will love that album

Written by [user id=157444] on 20.09.2016 at 13:34

This has nothing to do with taste as JOOE wrote. I couldnt care less what bands are added for people with dissimlar taste to mine.

Quote:
The bands that get added here at the moment are mostly pure shit - symphonic blabla or some unsigned heavy metal from the 80s.

You made it about taste whether or not you wanted to. If you don't want to confuse the issue then stop making statements like that because it doesn't help your case. In fact it damages it. You go on and on quite frequently about the supposed quality of bands getting added. Lambasting the taste of the staff who add bands quite recently in the shoutbox. You can't hide your agenda because you've made your biases so very clear in recent times.

Written by [user id=4365] on 20.09.2016 at 13:45

Written by [user id=157444] on 20.09.2016 at 13:34

This has nothing to do with taste as JOOE wrote. I couldnt care less what bands are added for people with dissimlar taste to mine. As long as people want a band here it should be here. Having a staff that bless what bands are here is a bit old-fashioned. You cant stop the development anyway, maybe halt it a bit for the users here but sooner or later metal wins

Quote:
The bands that get added here at the moment are mostly pure shit - symphonic blabla or some unsigned heavy metal from the 80s.

You made it about taste whether or not you wanted to. If you don't want to confuse the issue then stop making statements like that because it doesn't help your case. In fact it damages it. You go on and on quite frequently about the supposed quality of bands getting added. Lambasting the taste of the staff who add bands quite recently in the shoutbox. You can't hide your agenda because you've made your biases so very clear in recent times.

Agenda

Ok, ok, the bands that are being added at the moment are great. I regret everything I said about that And if youre not aware of it your shitting yourself in the face at the moment

Written by [user id=157444] on 20.09.2016 at 13:54

Agenda

Ok, ok, the bands that are being added at the moment are great. I regret everything I said about that And if youre not aware of it your shitting yourself in the face at the moment

Everyone has an agenda of some sort. Nothing wrong with that. The way you word yours though often sounds a bit petty as though you want bands that you specifically like added. I'm only going on what you've said here and recently in the shoutbox. You don't come across well sometimes is all, even if your intentions are good.

Quote:
And mostly important we would have the best bands here

The best bands according to you. Shit symphonic metal and unsigned 80s bands could be the best according to many people. Word your arguments better.

Written by Karlabos on 20.09.2016 at 05:30


Now I don't think the adding band being done by users is a bad idea per se, but instead of turning this into MA I think it could work if it had some security on it...
Say, add the power of adding bands after some cp, just like you can begin to add everything else, otherwise every band addiction will go to a pending status where the ones who already have cp will check and see if the addition is worthy or not... Namely, treat the power of adding bands just like the power of adding anything else, that couldn't go wrong then or would it?

Make band additions allowable for members if they have a certain (very high, probably) number of community points AND have been a member for a long time. That could keep some security on it.

Written by Sword_Chant on 19.09.2016 at 19:32

To be honest I think the MS site has more pressing issues, for example vote abuse and albums that have rated over 8.5 for a relevant year with 20+ votes that are still nowhere to be seen in the Top 20 list.

If the band is invisible, they won't appear on a top year list, only the top genre lists. Or at least that's how it worked back when SubRosa was invisible.

Ex scueze me mr luis ferum from grayness
I think MS bands are way to modern I want more old bands to be add, but old bands has just of MA , and like few still likes to use it even rules says no, old bands has no good info
MS are more open politics about bands as MA has and more to chose from

Jooe has a point about it and MS add many bands and as you see bunch of bands was add because of reviews...

Greyness, you can not see what bands has been add, you have no perms and as bands you see are new activated, most of them are old what was refixed because their profiles was fucked up, blank, or simply band has been good info... non visible bands was add newly, most are old from 2007 something

MC Vice
Its how it happens, this is how I work my way up, just do DB, do it good, year and then ask staffers about it, they will look your logs and see, this is how happens, many has self com point perms, why don't they use and start fixing blank profiles, make all invisible bands visible, fix it ... dig deep, read bio, ints and so on, dig deep as I dig, conact via email, FB .... this is how I do ... many wont do it they want magic boy fix all and visiblize it

Written by Auntie Sahar on 19.09.2016 at 13:36


What is really needed, in the wake of Troy and then Johan disappearing from the site, is a new Database Manager. We're working on it.

This is the issue.

While I haven't done any database work aside from adding bands I've been asked to review, I have done more than my share, your share, and (insert four or five other people here)'s share of proofing reviews and articles. Based upon that the idea of opening up adding bands to anyone, or even those over a certain point total is a recipe for disaster.

I'd rather we be limited in who we have rather than have a whole truckload more entries if those are inaccurate, incorrect rife with spelling errors. If you want a warehouse database of all things metal, the Metal Archives is good for it.

Love the condescending tone, love the false equivalency of forum with adding bands - amusingly adding album-specific threads, though a good idea - has helped contribute to the forum being far less active. (As has the rise of social media and the fact a good chunk of the community has been here a while. only so many times you can post on the same subjects/topics. )

I'm not sure what LoG thinks of as not enough places to discuss albums. There are plenty of places for that like the New Metal Recs 2016 thread, the Non-Metal recs 2016, genre specific recs thread and if thats not sufficient for you, you can always create your own.

And for the band adding part, I think it will be better if it will be left with the staff and they are doing a stellar job from what I've seen. I've been over here for more half a decade and I've seen some incredible and enormous amount of work done by them. Just look at the band pages of Buckethead, Merzbow, Senmuth and whole lot of bands with tons of discographies. I can see that the addition to band catalog might be slowed down in recent times but giving users the right will diminish the quality of the band db, for lack of a better word.

And I can see more than enough ways to contribute for a user which I've always enjoyed. So I'd say we better get to work than whining about lowering standards.

Gayness
Give me 10 bands what you want to be add in MS; post it here, we all are curouise what bands do you want
10 examples ..... just for fun, prove that you can do it

Written by Bad English on 21.09.2016 at 17:52

we all are curouise

Nope, just you.

Written by [user id=4365] on 19.09.2016 at 14:47

Fine by me ^

we can add The Moz as well.

I think Metal Storm has spent far too long overlooking The Smiths' and Morrissey's contribution to the thrash genre so that would be a welcome addition.

As OBC stated (just not in so few words), we've always been about quality over quantity. If you want a shitload of info (regardless of completeness or accuracy), then MA is where you should be looking. Many people forget that MS is not a database site, but an ezine with a database feature; key/operative word being a database FEATURE.

I can attest that I have personally tried and tested several users over the last couple of years, trying to bolster our database team, and every single one lost focus/interest and gave up within days/weeks of working in our database. The reason MA is so large is because they have tens of thousands of users submitting one or two things to various bands here and there, whereas we only have maybe a dozen users who are actually actively interested in helping work in our database, and even those dozen people are still really only interested in doing it part time at their leisure, which their whim typically dictates only ever so often, and only ever certain aspects of profiles (like only albums or only musicians). What we need are people interested in doing the whole enchilada, and there's only really a couple of people interested in doing such a thing.

I've not been around too whole hell of a lot lately, but if you are genuinely interested in helping out with full band profiles, which does include actually doing legitimate, journalist-style research into the band's complete history (which does include doing things like spending hours pouring over other news sites AND pouring over interviews and album reviews for every scrap of info you can find for that one single band) to insure quality over quantity, then hit me up in PM, or on Facebook, and I'll give you a shot. But if all you want to do is add bands and copy/paste whatever MA and Wikipedia have on said band(s), then don't even bother wasting my time or yours because I'll figure out what kind of person you are and drop you like bag of lead plates long before you've even realized that I've figured you out.

Most people think that working in a proper historical database is like simple data entry, but, realistically, proper databasing is more akin to journalism because you have to actually be willing to do research, and sometimes even contact bands to confirm or request information, not just enter mass quantities of data that some other tool has already compiled.

Written by Auntie Sahar on 19.09.2016 at 13:36

What is really needed, in the wake of Troy and then Johan disappearing from the site, is a new Database Manager. We're working on it.

What is actually needed, more than just a single Database Manager, are more people like Edgar, Haris and Janne who want to dedicate/devote some of their time to doing legitimate database work.

Part of why this site can't ever seem to keep a Database Manager for very long is because once you agree to take that title and be that role, then suddenly all of the users and all of Staff expect that one single person to do and shoulder EVERYTHING. And people just don't seem to realize or understand that's a lot of fucking responsibility and pressure for one single person. Which is why I stepped away from it, and now basically just kind of half-assedly monitor and instruct Edgar and Haris from time to time, and why I've been very reluctant to even consider assuming the role again.

Bottom line is we need more workers more than we need a manager to manage our currently minuscule "work force".