The Song Fight Bulletin Board

You should assume that the voting deadline is the same as the deadline for the next fight.

SPUD

Spud wrote:You should assume that the voting deadline is the same as the deadline for the next fight.

SPUD

That would make an ass out of you and me.

frankie big face wrote:I actually think JB and Spud are a little too efficient with the site.

You can let JB off the hook on that one.

Spud wrote:You should assume that the voting deadline is the same as the deadline for the next fight.

That's easy to say to a bunch of people on a message board, but it is not obvious on the front page, which is where your "1000 unique visitors" get their information.

As much of a purist as I am, I think the time may have come to revise the voting system, given the number of entries. I think a system similar to (or exactly the same as) somesongs would work well because you could rate the songs you had time to listen to and not have to worry about picking one song as "the best" for the week. The ratings could remain anonymous until the rating period is over and then the highest score (with, say, a minimum of 10-12 ratings) wins. If the songs stay up longer than the rating "deadline," you'll know the rating period is over because the scores will now be visible in place of the radio buttons or whatever you use for scoring.

You can't blame me. I vote for Melvin almost every single week.

frankie big face wrote:

Spud wrote:You should assume that the voting deadline is the same as the deadline for the next fight.

That's easy to say to a bunch of people on a message board, but it is not obvious on the front page, which is where your "1000 unique visitors" get their information.

As much of a purist as I am, I think the time may have come to revise the voting system, given the number of entries. I think a system similar to (or exactly the same as) somesongs would work well because you could rate the songs you had time to listen to and not have to worry about picking one song as "the best" for the week. The ratings could remain anonymous until the rating period is over and then the highest score (with, say, a minimum of 10-12 ratings) wins. If the songs stay up longer than the rating "deadline," you'll know the rating period is over because the scores will now be visible in place of the radio buttons or whatever you use for scoring.

Under the current system, if an artist can convince 10 of his friends (but no one else) to vote for him, then all I have to do to win is get 11 people to vote for me. Under the somesongs system, if an artist can convince 10 of his friends to vote his song "good" AND ALSO convince those same ten friends to vote my song "bad", then I'm pretty much totally fucked.

erik wrote: Under the current system, if an artist can convince 10 of his friends (but no one else) to vote for him, then all I have to do to win is get 11 people to vote for me. Under the somesongs system, if an artist can convince 10 of his friends to vote his song "good" AND ALSO convince those same ten friends to vote my song "bad", then I'm pretty much totally fucked.

Oh well, yeah, there is that.

frankie big face wrote: As much of a purist as I am, I think the time may have come to revise the voting system, given the number of entries. I think a system similar to (or exactly the same as) somesongs would work well because you could rate the songs you had time to listen to and not have to worry about picking one song as "the best" for the week. The ratings could remain anonymous until the rating period is over and then the highest score (with, say, a minimum of 10-12 ratings) wins. If the songs stay up longer than the rating "deadline," you'll know the rating period is over because the scores will now be visible in place of the radio buttons or whatever you use for scoring.

There are two thing I really hate doing here:
1) offering any suggestions to Spud or JB on how they run their excellent service (I am usually happily in the "if it ain't broke don't fix it' camp), and
2) agreeing with Frankie Big Face

I now find myself guilty of both charges.

The voting system has never changed. There has never been a notice on the page to the effect that the voting period is over when the new songs are due. There was no such notice back in Aug/Sep last year when "History of My Broken Heart" was up, so those voters had no more information than today's voters. There were 25 songs in that fight, and we have 19 this week and 26 last week, so it hard for me to convince myself that it is the large fights (there were 38 in the fight the week before "History" with 115 votes).

It seem to me a little like somebody's cooking the books with those averages, though, because if you go back a couple of weeks from "History", you have "So Weird" with 65 votes, "Ottoman" with 72, "That's What She Said" with 66, "Late To A Funeral" with 68, etc. In fact, it is the "History" period that stands out as as an anomaly.

Frankie complains that we are too efficient, but wants a hard deadline for voting. The reality is that if I don't have the time to post the songs, I also don't have the time to turn off the voting, so sometime you get a few extra hours, or even days. Is that so wrong? Do you want me to turn it into a cron job so that late entries and late votes are a thing of the past? I can't see that either pushing up the numbers or making this a more user-friendly site.

What about the fight interval? Are we turning it around too quickly? "History" had an 11-day cycle, the song before it 11, and the song after it 8. The most recent modern cycles have been 8 days, 7 days, and 8 days, so maybe there's something there. I have just extended the current deadline to Friday the 20th. That's 11 days. Let's see if that helps.

Spud wrote:Frankie complains...

I wasn't complaining, I was discussing. On the discussion board. Where the discussions take place. Because we were all discussing it. Not just me. Discussing.

So maybe I should have elaborated more. What I was trying to say is kind of what you just suggested. That the time interval between fights is too short. One week is probably not enough time for normal people (i.e. not the people who post to this board and do occasional reviews) to listen to 30+ songs and pick a favorite. But at the same time, longer intervals for songwriters may result in more songs, which means that there will be more songs to listen to and so on. So, I think you keep the song submission deadline but let people have more time to listen to the songs.

Caravan Ray wrote:
Yes - I've never understood the problem with FF-ing. It seems fine to me.

Unless of course someone is somehow giving themselves multiple votes - that would suck.

What's the difference exactly? you're still getting yourself multiple votes, just from different sources ...

I still don't believe that any but the tiniest majority of people who come through friend-flooding listen to any of the songs, even the one they're voting for. So it's just a waste of everybody's time. Is my opinion.

Spud wrote:What about the fight interval? Are we turning it around too quickly? "History" had an 11-day cycle, the song before it 11, and the song after it 8. The most recent modern cycles have been 8 days, 7 days, and 8 days, so maybe there's something there. I have just extended the current deadline to Friday the 20th. That's 11 days. Let's see if that helps.

personally, i would prefer a 10-11 day cycle. that's not to say that every once in awhile it shouldn't get changed up (like the THEY CONTROL THE WEATHER/CUTE BOOTS short fights). thanks for extending the deadline on the current fight.

frankie big face wrote:

Spud wrote:Frankie complains...

I wasn't complaining

I didn't mean it in a negative way. As always, I appreciate your valuable participation in the discussion.

SPUD

yeah, this last fight's two-weekend span was nice for finishing a song to satisfaction.
-bill

People seem to like the faster cycle because they want to hear new music. But they also like longer cycles to be able to make a good song without having to ignore our families and quit our jobs.

I still like the idea of staggered fights, so that the fighters have 14 days to complete a song, but the songs and new titles are posted every 7 days. Also, the new titles are posted on Monday morning and the deadline ends 14 days later on Monday morning. It can be set up to do reviews and voting every 7 or 14 days.

pros: More time to finish a song, for the working family man/woman. Two weekends for each song. Possibly better quality songs.

cons: More work for the fight masters. Larger fights.

Bottom line:
1. A new song and title every 7 days.
2. 14 days to complete a song.
3. Two weekends for each new song.

Hello, perfect world? Yeah, umm, Song Fight would like to be in you.

BLT, you are changing the subject.

This discussion is about voting, and how to give more people the positive experience of listening to the songs and voting for their favorite.

This discussion is not about giving you more time to finish your song. History shows that people always wait until the last few days anyway. Besides, you might have 14 days, but if they are overlapped, you really still only have 7 days each, if you want to enter all the fights.

Your suggestion does nothing to increase the voting period, nor the number of voters. Conversely, it would seem to require putting up twice as many songs at a time in overlapping layers, exacerbating the (perceived) problem.

Spud wrote:BLT, you are changing the subject.

A. This discussion is about voting, and how to give more people the positive experience of listening to the songs and voting for their favorite.

B. This discussion is not about giving you more time to finish your song. History shows that people always wait until the last few days anyway. Besides, you might have 14 days, but if they are overlapped, you really still only have 7 days each, if you want to enter all the fights.

C. Your suggestion does nothing to increase the voting period, nor the number of voters. Conversely, it would seem to require putting up twice as many songs at a time in overlapping layers, exacerbating the (perceived) problem.

A. Yes it is.

B. But two weekends would be put to use, I feel. You would still have 14 days to work on one title if you choose every other title. But even if you choose every title, you are just starting a new song as you are finishing another, which is great for the guys/girls that have that kind of time. I personally would enter more fights if I were entering two a month.

C. Voting and reviews go for 14 days per song, which in turn could increase the vote count. Also, there is a chance that some don't vote if all the songs aren't good to them. Maybe more time per title will increase song quality, in turn increasing votes.
A new title every 7 days. Yes, that could be an issue. But this could be changed to 21 or 28 day things. The idea is two weeks with two weekends per fight. Hell, I'd be fine with two titles every 28 days. This is just my opinion, of course.

Bottom line:
1. More time to make better songs
2. More time for reviews and voting per title
3. Increased votes

Meh, I am still thinking you just want more time. Fuggidaboutit! I just gave you 11 days. Get to work.

Billy's Little Trip wrote:

Spud wrote:BLT, you are changing the subject.

A. This discussion is about voting, and how to give more people the positive experience of listening to the songs and voting for their favorite.

B. This discussion is not about giving you more time to finish your song. History shows that people always wait until the last few days anyway. Besides, you might have 14 days, but if they are overlapped, you really still only have 7 days each, if you want to enter all the fights.

C. Your suggestion does nothing to increase the voting period, nor the number of voters. Conversely, it would seem to require putting up twice as many songs at a time in overlapping layers, exacerbating the (perceived) problem.

A. Yes it is.

B. But two weekends would be put to use, I feel. You would still have 14 days to work on one title if you choose every other title. But even if you choose every title, you are just starting a new song as you are finishing another, which is great for the guys/girls that have that kind of time. I personally would enter more fights if I were entering two a month.

C. Voting and reviews go for 14 days per song, which in turn could increase the vote count. Also, there is a chance that some don't vote if all the songs aren't good to them. Maybe more time per title will increase song quality, in turn increasing votes.
A new title every 7 days. Yes, that could be an issue. But this could be changed to 21 or 28 day things. The idea is two weeks with two weekends per fight. Hell, I'd be fine with two titles every 28 days. This is just my opinion, of course.

Bottom line:
1. More time to make better songs
2. More time for reviews and voting per title
3. Increased votes

tuneflow.com gives 4 titles with a month until the deadline. you could just assign yourself a new one every seven days.
i like songfight the way it is with one title at a time and no overlapping deadlines.

Spud wrote:Meh, I am still thinking you just want more time. Fuggidaboutit! I just gave you 11 days. Get to work.

Yeah hi, world to the right of the perfect one? yeah, umm, could you move a little to the left please?

WS, tuneflow? Sorry, I never cheat on my woman.

You'd just ask her to dress up like someone she works with.

erik wrote:You'd just ask her to dress up like someone she works with.

or in BLT's case, he'd just ask her to dress up like Caravan Ray.