An Idea for the Betterment of the Site

[The Deku Trombonist]

The problem is that we're going to check for musical errors anyway, so it doesn't necessarily save us time but as you said, perhaps projects aren't the best way of handling the situation either. Thoughts?

I've had lots of orchestra work over the past couple of weeks but I've got some more free time now so I might devote some time to getting replacements chugging along.

[JDMEK5]

I understand completely, maelstrom, and I concur for the most part. Essentially this is just a simple, "nothing special" process just to make the site in general look a little better. There are still a lot of things it won't fix obviously (hence the need for replacement sheets) but it may prove to be fairly effective. So each person would grab a sheet, maybe even just fix one or two things, and leave it. No status would change because obviously those wouldn't be the only problems but stuff like formatting and such which really sticks out would be handled pretty quick if all goes according to plan. If this picks up speed, I'm in.

[Maelstrom]

Exactly. I'm glad someone finally understands.

[Bespinben]

I think one concern perhaps is that when a sheet is re-uploaded to the site, it loses it's popularity rating?
(You'll have to check with Olimar/Deku on that one)

If so, it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to do minor reformatting without doing the whole shebang. On the other hand, I do recognize this position has its faults, as by demanding perfection from replacements, less replacement efforts are made.

[Maelstrom]

The popularity rating would return at the end of the week. From what I understand, it is not based on total downloads, but which of the eleven categories it fell into durring the past week. So, a song may be in the top 11th one week, but if nobody downloaded it the next week, it would go to the bottom 11th. So it wouldn't matter at all.

edit in response to Ben's edit: True, but it is not the lack of replacements that is a problem. It is the ridiculous amount of time it takes to review an entire project. Additionally, people are not going to submit edits they don't even get their name on when they can submit new arrangements or challenge arrangements.

[Olimar12345]

Ben: We can edit it in such a way as to not disrupt the popularity.

[mikey]

lol betterment

[Dude]

id rather have buttermints

[SlowPokemon]

This is a good idea. The old arrangements are largely shit.

Nocturne if you would start asking yourself whether your posts add anything worthwhile at all to any conversation your posts would be far fewer and far less headache-inducing

[JDMEK5]

This is a good idea. The old arrangements are largely shit.

^This ultimately is the main reason this would work at all. Most of said old arrangements are so bad, I (and most of us here) could take one and have it (if nothing else) 'looking' 1001x cleaner within 20 minutes. Even with just 5 minutes it could be hugely improved.

Now, am I correct in speculating that this would be a volunteer, "no permission needed", wiki-style updating shindig? Just kinda go at your own whim and fix whatever you want to fix? Obviously in such a case we need to have a way to keep pranksters from grabbing one, deleting 80% of the song, and putting it back up. (Or something like that.)

Two systems I'd like to suggest to avoid such a thing is: 1) to have the mods grant arrangers a status allowing them to edit like this. Obviously we would require the arrangers' word that they won't reupload a sheet with fixes that haven't been finished. But such status would only be granted to arrangers who have proven themselves through submissions of their own and have demonstrated that they take arranging seriously. Also maybe a system for removing said status if they step out of line too much.
2) This isn't a substitute for the first suggestion but maybe to avoid people trying to improve sheets that are already fine we could have the mods go through all the sheets first and just check a box on each on whether a sheet could be improved or not. Now, I know you're probably thinking, "No way; updates take long enough as it is. We can't just go through every sheet all over again." But what I'm saying is only the really bad sheets would be checked as "fixable". The ones that a second-year piano student could look at and say "Yuck". We don't need to search hard for things to fix to check the sheet off, just if any big things pop out immediately.

And hey, a system like this may be a nice way to get all the urls on all the sheets updated quick and easy.

[Maelstrom]

I definitely agree with #1. We need to make sure random people don't start needlessly editing sheets in some way. I'd recomend that those who are not already excellent arrangers wi lth a thorough understanding of formatting and music theory have a chance to demonstrate their skills by exiting a sheet or two (eg me). We should not, however, advertise this on the main site so as not to attract people who know nothing.  For #2, however, I feel a little different. What would constitute as needing an edit? The wrong url? A one-measure system? That would need to be defined well before the project began.

[JDMEK5]

For #2, however, I feel a little different. What would constitute as needing an edit? The wrong url? A one-measure system? That would need to be defined well before the project began.

Fair point. Oh well, such is the fruit of discussion.

[Maelstrom]

I'm curious. What do all you updaters think about this?

[Olimar12345]

I haven't quite read everything in this thread yet, but from what I have it seems like an unnecessary step in the process.

(although, maybe I'm not getting it...)

[Maelstrom]

(although, maybe I'm not getting it...)

Nope. JDMEK5 seems to be the only person to get it so far. Bespinben sort of gets it, but it's hard to tell.