Dearest @senzenfrenz, I am certain this was in error. You have been a valued friend of The Open-Mic and the Songwriters Challenge as well. I am certain that your entry was misclassified, and as such, did not appear in the “see who played list” as it should have.
What’s worse is that this happened to you only two weeks ago as well! On behalf of the team, please accept my apologies for these errors, as they are not intentional.
Yes, some “valid” entries simply do not make the “See Who Played List” simply due to space constraints and quality control factors, however, clearly, neither of your entries in question should have been classified as they were.
I have brought this to the attention of the team, and each of the judges will take your entry for week 73 into full account.
Thank you for your patience and understanding, my good brother.
I accept your apologies, of course, that is nothing in personal I see, and the same from my view.
I hope you won't take it amiss that I seemed to be a little bit disappointed and I want to take the chance to bring something to your awareness, while I studied the context of beeing missed and why others are on the see who played lists and again others not.
I could link performances here but I don't want to miscredit people right away, for it is not their fault and no problem with them personally, but if rules are set in a contest they should be transparent and to be consequently followed otherwise impression will be that it gets random and this would hurt the reputation.
Do not take that personal, it is just my personal view on the new developements of the contest in general. I guess this is dissatifying people, and they are right with it, just to be honest.
Thank you very much for your time reading this, it seems you are taking it very seriously and I highly appreciate that! So I hope such things won't stay between us in the future for as I said this is nothing personal, just some experiences I made in the last few weeks as (concerned myself) looked into this a little bit closer.
Dear @passion-ground, Besides the fact that my entry was probably just forgotten and besides the fact that the rules had to be adjusted recently, which I in general agree with in order of scam and quality purposes,the rules are not judged consequently from my opinion.So for example, obviousely cutted and postprocessed performances as well as playbacked songs are on the see who played lists while others are not although I can barely find any reason why they shouldn't be. And for quality matters it is the same thing, does @luzcypher mean recording qualtity or song quality, singing or instrumental skills in general? It is not clear- some four chord song that a six year old could play from taking two piano lessons is hailed while on the other hand it is said that "just put together some chords" is not ok, and entries that are obviously much more advanced are left behind. Kind Regards, @senzenfrenz
Thank you, @senzenfrenz. I very much appreciate your understanding, and I shall try my best to answer the additional questions posed in your comment.
Given the sheer volume of “valid” entries, we find it necessary to put a loose cap on the number of such entries that make it into the “See Who Played List” each week. One measure that helps achieve such goals is to try and leave out the poorest of performances – even though they are perhaps “valid” entries.
Insofar as the “quality” aspect to which you referred, I suspect @luzcypher is using his best discretion to classify rather poor performances as not suitable for the weekly “See Who Played Lists.” I suspect such quality measures have more to do with general “entertainment value” and “listen-ability” as opposed to song structure or audio quality.
His reference to throwing some sloppy senseless chords together and calling it an “original” simply to get extra bonus rewards is sort of a scam in and of itself. Such entries are rather obvious, and that’s where @luzcypher’s discretion must come into play.
All of this initial “filtering” and “classification” falls exclusively on the shoulders of @luzcypher. He has to manually sift through more than a thousand entries per week to make sure they are first and foremost “valid,” following the general rules, and are not “scam” or “bogus” entries of any sort.
After that, he must then make hundreds of judgment calls in order to determine which of all these “valid” entries are suitable for the weekly “See Who Played List.” I am not aware of the precise mechanics; however, it is very much a “manual process” that he must go through to keep the “See Who Played List” of reasonable size and general quality.
Now, given such burden for one individual human being, it is natural to expect that he will make mistakes on occasion. In addition, we do have some level of automation that works off of @luzcypher’s manual inputs, and on occasion, that automation system goes down, and sometimes we don’t notice it’s down for several hours. As a result, even though @luzcypher’s manual inputs may have been flawless, a downed system of automated classification may allow several or more entries to fall through the cracks.
We had such an automation failure this week, and I think that’s why you and a small handful of random others were inadvertently left out of this week’s “See Who Played List.”
I trust in lifting the hood a bit for you, that you now have a better appreciation for what’s required of us each week, what can go wrong on a human level, and what can go wrong on a software level.
I also hope that my explanation of quality criteria was suitable in answering many of the related questions posed.
Thank you again, @sensenfrenz, I very much appreciate this open dialog.
Kind Regards,
@passion-ground
As you are explaining it that way, I can easy understand what it is all about. Thank you very much for making all this transparent, leaves me a lot more satisfied.
This happen to me too... and I dont know what I do wrong I post my link and ita one of the first coments on the open mic week 73 and I dont get into the list but I dont know if i do something wrong and its super sad