If I had to choose two words to describe its interface, they'd be "uniquely awful." For instance searching in the discussions archive for 'upgrade session.org' I get a crazy quilt of hits from the past 7 years, nothing relevant to what I'm after in the first 8 pages, no discernible order, no filter for only searching topics, only 10 hits at a time, no info about who's posting or how many replies, etc.
The tune database is great, but various simple measures would make it much more useful, such as a way to filter out all the original compositions and redundancies.
Would implementing any of this really be that big a headache?
So it's verboten to discuss how session.org works? All I asked was if this would be difficult to carry out, expecting that some here might agree or disagree, sympathize, have experiences to relate, possibly be encouraged to help either personally or financially.
What you're talking about in re: proper subjects for discussion isn't in the FAQ. I can't check if there are guidelines brought up when starting a Discussion, since you can only start one per day...and no, I didn't read them this time out, since I rarely start these things in the first place, and didn't think this would be a contentious topic.
What is in the FAQ is:
"I still have questions. What should I do?
There are two things you can do.
You can ask your question in the "Discussions" section of the site. Other members of The Session can then answer your question. This is probably the best place to post questions about the music or ABC problems.
You can also write to me (Jeremy) but I can't promise as quick a response."
hmmm......guess it's not quite a polite question. Kinda like "you have a nice home...but it needs some work". I can't imagine telling a host that sort of thing after they invited me into their home and made me dinner
>All I have to do here is log on and see the current disscusions. The tune search works fine IMO as well.
this is true but the forum search is as described
>For instance searching in the discussions archive for 'upgrade session.org' I get a crazy quilt of hits from the past 7 years, nothing relevant to what I'm after in the first 8 pages, no discernible order, no filter for only searching topics, only 10 hits at a time, no info about who's posting or how many replies, etc.
Make him an offer he can't refuse, reit.
Personally, I would have thought administering a site like this would be a complete pain in the backside.
But you go ahead, don't let me put you off.
If you go to the home page of this site (the top item in the right side menu, if the interface is so bad that you can't figure out how), and use the Search there, it is powered by Google. And that's arguably the best search in the world
Filtering out redundancies and original compositions is easy - read the comments of the tunes, and then filter it for yourself.
Doing some "official" filter of that *would* be a major headache, because the vast majority of the tune archive is user submitted, not some "official" offering being dictated to us by this site. And where would you draw the line between original and traditional? Something that I composed would probably be considered "original". But what about Paddy Fahy, or Ed Reavey, or Paddy O'Brien? You want to filter those out too?
The only upgrade that I think would be good for this site would be to have the ability to have more than one setting of a tune submitted to the database, instead of having additional settings reside in the comments. But if you do ABC searches using google (from the Home section of the site), it also searches any ABC posted in the comments, so it's not a huge issue. And that would probably just annoy you more, because of the increased amount of redundancy.
BTW, how would you propose Jeremy go about filtering redundancy? If a tune is 65% the same as another, would you filter it? Which one do you filter out? What if they're actually different tunes that share a lot of commonality?
And I agree with bikejen, it's a rather rude question. This site is free. Jeremy doesn't even try to make money with advertising, even though it's a largely successful community site, and he'd probably make a bunch of money. The only revenue stream would be the Make A Donation button. Have *you* used that?
Including all its foibles, this site is a great, free resource. And nobody is forcing you to use it. If you don't like it, you're free to go off and find a better site to use...
This site is brilliant because it's just words. Written by contributers who are verbose, argumentative, articulate, sometimes knowledgeable, always opinionated, sometimes pleasant, occasionally aggressive. Please leave it as it is.
Well, if the folks that run this site decide to give it a face lift, I guess I'd have to see how it looks and, more importantly ,acts.
I dont post much since Im at 11 months playing fiddle and read more than I post since Im not really qualified to give any constructive advice at this point.
This is where I come everyday to learn. There has been times Ive googled a tune and it will link me right here.
typical morning, log on...read..click next page until im caught up......look for tune if needed, log off
seems like it works to me...maybe im an idiot though
I do have plans to upgrade this site—there are plenty of features I want to add and I'd like to redesign it too. The problem is finding the time. Work is keeping me very busy; I feel guilty enough that I never seem to find the time to play some tunes, much less upgrade the site but I really do want to get 'round to it.
But the search functionality probably won't be changing. Currently, if you search in the discussions section, results are returned in order of relevance (which makes sense to me).
Sorry, Kevin. As others have pointed out though, if you use the site-wide search on the home-page, you'll get results sorted by Google so you might have better luck with that.
One change that might be very easy to implement and be a big improvement in the discussion and tune search features is to have them search for pages containing all, rather than any, of the query terms.
I all fairness, speed is what matters to regular users and most of the time the site behaves itself.
Searching isn't bad, and tidying up of what are essentially user-created lists is always a problem.
Good on yer Jeremy
I like most things as they are. The only change I'd like to see is when a comment is posted in a discussion thread that would place it back up to the top of the line. That way active discussions are on top. Just a suggestion.
I might have this wrong but Google's theme is something like "Don't do evil" That in my mind also includes the statement, "Don't make a website you need 4 gigs of memory to see" Ok, so teal wasn't Jeremy's first color of choice but to his undying credit he chose to have a text heavy as opposed to graphics heavy website allowing it to be used even with the stone tablet technology I have at home. Repeat after me: Don't change, don't change, don't change
Just give me the option to have a longer list of discussions (like 100, that's what I have Google set to) and I'd be happy. I'd settle for 50 - ten is just too flippin' annoying.
I think it would be grand if the tunes section could include a tab for general questions.
We have a number of requests for tune names based on YouTube clips, abc bits . . .
Nothing wrong with these quesries being in the discussion section if this is what works best for Jeremy & all concerned.
Just a thought.
Any plans to upgrade this site?
Any plans to upgrade this site?
Ever?
If I had to choose two words to describe its interface, they'd be "uniquely awful." For instance searching in the discussions archive for 'upgrade session.org' I get a crazy quilt of hits from the past 7 years, nothing relevant to what I'm after in the first 8 pages, no discernible order, no filter for only searching topics, only 10 hits at a time, no info about who's posting or how many replies, etc.
The tune database is great, but various simple measures would make it much more useful, such as a way to filter out all the original compositions and redundancies.
Would implementing any of this really be that big a headache?
# Posted on August 14th 2009 by KLR
Re: Any plans to upgrade this site?
Why ask us? Send an email to Jeremy, that's what you are supposed to do. Read the notes about starting a discussion, it's the last bullet point.
# Posted on August 14th 2009 by John Galt
Re: Any plans to upgrade this site?
Oh, and be sure to offer to lend Jeremy a hand with your time, knowledge and financial backing...
# Posted on August 14th 2009 by john knoss
Re: Any plans to upgrade this site?
So it's verboten to discuss how session.org works? All I asked was if this would be difficult to carry out, expecting that some here might agree or disagree, sympathize, have experiences to relate, possibly be encouraged to help either personally or financially.
What you're talking about in re: proper subjects for discussion isn't in the FAQ. I can't check if there are guidelines brought up when starting a Discussion, since you can only start one per day...and no, I didn't read them this time out, since I rarely start these things in the first place, and didn't think this would be a contentious topic.
What is in the FAQ is:
"I still have questions. What should I do?
There are two things you can do.
You can ask your question in the "Discussions" section of the site. Other members of The Session can then answer your question. This is probably the best place to post questions about the music or ABC problems.
You can also write to me (Jeremy) but I can't promise as quick a response."
# Posted on August 15th 2009 by KLR
Re: Any plans to upgrade this site?
hmmm......guess it's not quite a polite question. Kinda like "you have a nice home...but it needs some work". I can't imagine telling a host that sort of thing after they invited me into their home and made me dinner
# Posted on August 15th 2009 by bikejen
Re: Any plans to upgrade this site?
I actually like the way it is compared to say fiddle world where you have to join a load of groups to see whats interesting.
All I have to do here is log on and see the current disscusions. The tune search works fine IMO as well.
Grampa always said, If'n it aint broke,dont fix it.
# Posted on August 15th 2009 by Barry1963
Re: Any plans to upgrade this site?
>All I have to do here is log on and see the current disscusions. The tune search works fine IMO as well.
this is true but the forum search is as described
>For instance searching in the discussions archive for 'upgrade session.org' I get a crazy quilt of hits from the past 7 years, nothing relevant to what I'm after in the first 8 pages, no discernible order, no filter for only searching topics, only 10 hits at a time, no info about who's posting or how many replies, etc.
try it.
# Posted on August 15th 2009 by cStu
Re: Any plans to upgrade this site?
I hope not. Simple is best. Always.
# Posted on August 15th 2009 by shanty
Re: Any plans to upgrade this site?
And I like the ugly yellow. Reminds me of my grandmom's couch.
# Posted on August 15th 2009 by shanty
Re: Any plans to upgrade this site?
Jeremy doesn't even delete threads as fast as he used to.
WYSIWYG.
# Posted on August 15th 2009 by Ben Steen
Re: Any plans to upgrade this site?
Make him an offer he can't refuse, reit.
Personally, I would have thought administering a site like this would be a complete pain in the backside.
But you go ahead, don't let me put you off.
# Posted on August 15th 2009 by Skull Duggeraigh Dubh
Re: Any plans to upgrade this site?
Plans are to upgrade the clientelle first, then the site. Phase one should be completed in about 30 years. Phase two will take 30 minutes.
# Posted on August 15th 2009 by ayedbl
Re: Any plans to upgrade this site?
If you go to the home page of this site (the top item in the right side menu, if the interface is so bad that you can't figure out how), and use the Search there, it is powered by Google. And that's arguably the best search in the world
Filtering out redundancies and original compositions is easy - read the comments of the tunes, and then filter it for yourself.
Doing some "official" filter of that *would* be a major headache, because the vast majority of the tune archive is user submitted, not some "official" offering being dictated to us by this site. And where would you draw the line between original and traditional? Something that I composed would probably be considered "original". But what about Paddy Fahy, or Ed Reavey, or Paddy O'Brien? You want to filter those out too?
The only upgrade that I think would be good for this site would be to have the ability to have more than one setting of a tune submitted to the database, instead of having additional settings reside in the comments. But if you do ABC searches using google (from the Home section of the site), it also searches any ABC posted in the comments, so it's not a huge issue. And that would probably just annoy you more, because of the increased amount of redundancy.
BTW, how would you propose Jeremy go about filtering redundancy? If a tune is 65% the same as another, would you filter it? Which one do you filter out? What if they're actually different tunes that share a lot of commonality?
And I agree with bikejen, it's a rather rude question. This site is free. Jeremy doesn't even try to make money with advertising, even though it's a largely successful community site, and he'd probably make a bunch of money. The only revenue stream would be the Make A Donation button. Have *you* used that?
Including all its foibles, this site is a great, free resource. And nobody is forcing you to use it. If you don't like it, you're free to go off and find a better site to use...
# Posted on August 15th 2009 by Reverend
Re: Any plans to upgrade this site?
This site is brilliant because it's just words. Written by contributers who are verbose, argumentative, articulate, sometimes knowledgeable, always opinionated, sometimes pleasant, occasionally aggressive. Please leave it as it is.
# Posted on August 15th 2009 by RichardB
Re: Any plans to upgrade this site?
Try searching google directly, limiting to this site.
For example:
site:www.thesession.org "concertina bellows"
Use the 'advanced search' in google to get even more control
# Posted on August 15th 2009 by Hup
Re: Any plans to upgrade this site?
Well, if the folks that run this site decide to give it a face lift, I guess I'd have to see how it looks and, more importantly ,acts.
I dont post much since Im at 11 months playing fiddle and read more than I post since Im not really qualified to give any constructive advice at this point.
This is where I come everyday to learn. There has been times Ive googled a tune and it will link me right here.
typical morning, log on...read..click next page until im caught up......look for tune if needed, log off
seems like it works to me...maybe im an idiot though
# Posted on August 15th 2009 by Barry1963
Re: Any plans to upgrade this site?
That's a great homily, Reverend. The congregation are mostly nodding their heads.
# Posted on August 15th 2009 by the wounded hussar
Re: Any plans to upgrade this site?
I do have plans to upgrade this site—there are plenty of features I want to add and I'd like to redesign it too. The problem is finding the time. Work is keeping me very busy; I feel guilty enough that I never seem to find the time to play some tunes, much less upgrade the site but I really do want to get 'round to it.
But the search functionality probably won't be changing. Currently, if you search in the discussions section, results are returned in order of relevance (which makes sense to me).
Sorry, Kevin. As others have pointed out though, if you use the site-wide search on the home-page, you'll get results sorted by Google so you might have better luck with that.
# Posted on August 15th 2009 by Jeremy
Re: Any plans to upgrade this site?
One change that might be very easy to implement and be a big improvement in the discussion and tune search features is to have them search for pages containing all, rather than any, of the query terms.
# Posted on August 15th 2009 by GaryAMartin
Re: Any plans to upgrade this site?
I all fairness, speed is what matters to regular users and most of the time the site behaves itself.
Searching isn't bad, and tidying up of what are essentially user-created lists is always a problem.
Good on yer Jeremy
# Posted on August 15th 2009 by geoffwright
Open letter to the Wizard of the Mustard People ~
Jeremy, make the time to play some tunes!
Life is too short as it is.
# Posted on August 16th 2009 by Ben Steen
Re: Any plans to upgrade this site?
I like most things as they are. The only change I'd like to see is when a comment is posted in a discussion thread that would place it back up to the top of the line. That way active discussions are on top. Just a suggestion.
# Posted on August 16th 2009 by Plunkett.mi
Re: Any plans to upgrade this site?
After clicking on the *Discussions* link click on the *comments* tab.
This will display the most recent comment (of all discussions) 1st.
# Posted on August 16th 2009 by Ben Steen
Re: Any plans to upgrade this site?
I might have this wrong but Google's theme is something like "Don't do evil" That in my mind also includes the statement, "Don't make a website you need 4 gigs of memory to see" Ok, so teal wasn't Jeremy's first color of choice but to his undying credit he chose to have a text heavy as opposed to graphics heavy website allowing it to be used even with the stone tablet technology I have at home. Repeat after me: Don't change, don't change, don't change
# Posted on August 16th 2009 by jrathbun
Re: Any plans to upgrade this site?
Just give me the option to have a longer list of discussions (like 100, that's what I have Google set to) and I'd be happy. I'd settle for 50 - ten is just too flippin' annoying.
# Posted on August 17th 2009 by CelticRambler
Re: Any plans to upgrade tune section?
I think it would be grand if the tunes section could include a tab for general questions.
We have a number of requests for tune names based on YouTube clips, abc bits . . .
Nothing wrong with these quesries being in the discussion section if this is what works best for Jeremy & all concerned.
Just a thought.
# Posted on August 18th 2009 by Ben Steen