Song "Bumping" in the database

[Snake3169]

This is kinda an annoying trend i've been noticing lately...  and I don't understand the logic behind it at all.

 

 

Basically it seems like lots of people arn't actually 'updating' their song.. so they just make one minor adjustment in the 'record', so that their song gets bumped to the top of the list in the database and is bold letters again to register as an update.

 

WHICH IS ANNOYING AS HELL... because if I got a song.. I want the latest best version of that song.. and people keep bumping their songs for NO DAMN REASON.. other then to have it at the top of the list again.. because they think that little arrow next to the number represents the amount of people who have actually downloaded the song.. it actually only means someone has clicked on the arrow.. not neccessarily downloaded the song..

 

So why do it? I only bump my songs.. when I have an actual update.

[Wepeel]

Yeah, I think I know the user you're referring to.  It is very annoying.  50 songs in one day with "updated" info, no updates.

 

However, if changing the information in the post results in it showing up as a new submission, that's the fault of the programming for the forum, not the users making the changes.  If it's a loophole they can exploit, the loophole needs to be closed.

 

Maybe there's a way to correct that.  I would hope so anyway.

[Mac66]

I don't know if this is related to the issue that I brought up about numerous version of the same song by the same charter but it might help explain why there is a "new" version of some songs almost daily.

[cstewart]

I get an email when a new version of a song I downloaded is uploaded.  Does it send an email when a song is "bumped"?  I can see that getting annoying.

[Attitude]

No, people were asked to remove letters from the version number. Which is the reason for all the bumps. It's a database thing to make it compatible with something that is being worked on. And the only way you get an email is if you're following that topic and a comment is posted. An update that the charters do not comment on will not email you.

[Wepeel]

No, people were asked to remove letters from the version number. Which is the reason for all the bumps. It's a database thing to make it compatible with something that is being worked on. And the only way you get an email is if you're following that topic and a comment is posted. An update that the charters do not comment on will not email you.

 

Why weren't they just edited from the back-end?  Then there would be no need to have people do it themselves.

[Sharkman828]

For me. i have been adding tags to most of mine.

[Izzy]

 

No, people were asked to remove letters from the version number. Which is the reason for all the bumps. It's a database thing to make it compatible with something that is being worked on. And the only way you get an email is if you're following that topic and a comment is posted. An update that the charters do not comment on will not email you.

 

Why weren't they just edited from the back-end?  Then there would be no need to have people do it themselves.

 

while it would be easy .. trivial even to edit the database, the data in the database should accurately match what the file has.

it would be a disservice to change the entry in the sql, and NOT change the version in the cdlc.  and only the creator of the cdlc should do that.

[Wepeel]

 

 

No, people were asked to remove letters from the version number. Which is the reason for all the bumps. It's a database thing to make it compatible with something that is being worked on. And the only way you get an email is if you're following that topic and a comment is posted. An update that the charters do not comment on will not email you.

 

Why weren't they just edited from the back-end?  Then there would be no need to have people do it themselves.

 

while it would be easy .. trivial even to edit the database, the data in the database should accurately match what the file has.

it would be a disservice to change the entry in the sql, and NOT change the version in the cdlc.  and only the creator of the cdlc should do that.

 

 

The devs are going to do it themselves for any customs not updated by x date anyway, so what's the difference?

[firekorn]

Because it shouldn't be the dev job to choose what number should replace 1.a which could be in the head of a charter either 1.0 or 1.1 for exemple.

 

And I would not appreciate the fact that someone modify my cdlc information without letting me the option to adjust it myself first.

 

And the charter might also want to adjust the number version in the toolkit and in the name of the package at the same time and the devs can't do that.

[Wepeel]

Because it shouldn't be the dev job to choose what number should replace 1.a which could be in the head of a charter either 1.0 or 1.1 for exemple.

 

And I would not appreciate the fact that someone modify my cdlc information without letting me the option to adjust it myself first.

 

And the charter might also want to adjust the number version in the toolkit and in the name of the package at the same time and the devs can't do that.

 

It's a database update (what I'm talking about), so it has nothing to do with changing or adjusting your files.

 

And as I said, they're doing it anyway, so it's already their "job".  So it's faster to do it on the back-end.

 

Regardless, I wasn't asking the community.  The question was directed to a specific person, and it's already been answered privately by that person.  So there's no need to try and start an argument about it.

 

This thread should be locked.

[ForgeOn]

@@Wepeel, the update has to do with changing the way a charter's custom is represented and, as much as possible, we want that to be up to the charter.

 

Our job is to make the site as great as we can for the users! In this case that means giving you all a heads up about an upcoming change and giving you the opportunity to make the change in the way that best suits you (and if you choose not to take advantage of that, the task defaults to us).

 

I'm glad you got an answer to your question from the person you wanted an answer from but that doesn't preclude other people from giving their own response in the thread. I don't think anyone is trying to start an argument with you, please be polite.

 

As for closing the thread, while much of the "song bumping" is explained by this update to cdlc versioning, it is possible there are other instances of bumping not related to this, therefore making this topic still relevant.

[Wepeel]

@@Wepeel, the update has to do with changing the way a charter's custom is represented and, as much as possible, we want that to be up to the charter.

 

Our job is to make the site as great as we can for the users! In this case that means giving you all a heads up about an upcoming change and giving you the opportunity to make the change in the way that best suits you (and if you choose not to take advantage of that, the task defaults to us).

 

I'm glad you got an answer to your question from the person you wanted an answer from but that doesn't preclude other people from giving their own response in the thread. I don't think anyone is trying to start an argument with you, please be polite.

 

As for closing the thread, while much of the "song bumping" is explained by this update to cdlc versioning, it is possible there are other instances of bumping not related to this, therefore making this topic still relevant.

 

I wasn't being rude.  If Firekorn can be blunt, so can I.

 

That's all I have to say about that.

[Unleashed2k]

With MySQL being a PITA lately, I wouldn't even go near MySQL to edit the amount of records that need to be changed. Additionally it would be more than 1 table change (probably around 2-3) per update. So doing it this way would be more difficult.

The correct way to edit the files is to manually edit the records (which the author should do). I've gotten 98% of everyone to already comply and I'm just waiting for two magna charters to update theirs and it will be completed.
And if I am forced to change it for them, I would have to do it via the edit record page.

 

Anyways, in the future we will make a method on when the artist updates the update field only that it bumps the content. 

[Wepeel]

I don't want to be accused of being rude again, but you shouldn't be so dismissive of other people.  Although it may seem more difficult to you, to me it's as simple as writing a script to automate the process.  If all the data is stored in a MySQL db, whether it's done on the front-end or the back-end, it's all done through MySQL anyway.

 

If that's not the way you want to do it, then just say it's not the way you want to do it.  There's nothing wrong with that.  But don't imply that a regular user like me couldn't possibly know what I'm talking about.  You have no way of knowing how much experience I have.

[Unleashed2k]

I wasn't applying that at all. But why write a script just to update 20~ customs? Additionally each custom will need to be set at it's own version. No point in making a script.