Quality Control Brainstorming

[albatross213]

I was discussing this in PMs with someone, and I figured I'd throw this out there. I figured I'd start the discussion here, but if something were to come from it we'd make a new topic in the Workshop forum for it.

 

So, the basic idea is that it would be nice to have some sort of quality control for the DLC that we produce in the (if we were to do it for this group) prog rock/metal genres (maybe broken into a few subgenres if one big thing is too unwieldy). The idea would be to have some sort of organized system which would

a) give some sort of recognition to high quality customs/charters, and

b) provide useful feedback to charters which will help improve the considered customs as well as their future ones.

 

There are a couple of models of things like this already. The Muse Project is probably the big one, with Shiroo acting as a centralized director of quality control, while everyone else in the group works (sometimes apart, sometimes together) to get the customs they make up to the standards he sets. Once the standard is achieved, the customs get a seal of approval.

 

In contrast, the Rocksmith Championship has a more decentralized (and sometimes not heavily utilized) feedback system, where different participants can rate the customs based on the tab, tones, and sync on a scale of 1-10, and various honors are awarded to the CDLC based on the average ratings.

 

So, I guess the question would be, would anyone else be interested in something like this? If so, are there any better models of this that I haven't considered, or have missed? What do people think the best way to go about this would be?

 

Let me know your thoughts!

[Aludog]

Seems like a solid idea but every system like that only works if enough people are actively participating and as far as I can see, activity in the forums has radically reduced over the last few months. I hope that most of them will become active again after the end of summer but who knows.

Nonetheless, I'd be open to work on such a project if we clarify what it really is about. Is it more or less just group internal testing with extensive feedback and the occasional help at correcting issues or is it cooperative custom creation where a few individuals work as a group making customs?

I wouldn't mind either but the latter is something I always wanted to do and the few times I tried it, it never worked how I wanted it to. You really need to find people you can fully trust to do a good job and who can really achieve the standard you are aiming for because otherwise you end up doing it yourself anyway. Also, having people who can transcribe and correct issues by ear as well as being well versed in how EoF and the toolkit works is essential. I know that's the exception but otherwise it becomes tedious to work as a group if there are obvious errors no one knows how to fix. Something of note is also the selection process for group projects and having a very similar music taste or at least having a very open mind about different genres and bands seems like a requirement for close collaborators as well because working on stuff that does nothing for one of the group members might be ok from time to time but won't keep them motivated for long.

Well, those are just some pointers if we want to go that route.

Let me know what exactly you have in mind and we can discuss it more in depth.

[albatross213]

Well, I suppose there could be a few different things that come out of it.

 

If it were to be a group collaboration thing, it might make sense to keep it in a private forum (like this social group), and only let people in who you (or whoever heads the group, of which there could be several for different genres) trust to do a good job at their part. 

For the different parts, the most obvious breakdown of roles that I see is sync, transcribe/arrange, polishing, and tone work (not all of which have to be different people). There's a pretty natural "handoff" structure, where the syncer syncs and produces a synced EoF file, the transcriber/arranger produces a GP file with the arrangements for bass, lead, and rhythm (or whatever) set up (and if it's a very non-obvious song structure or there are no existing GP tabs, maybe send them to the syncer before he starts syncing), the EoF project and GP file go to the polisher, who gets the tracks set up and polished, then things (either EoF project folder or .psarc) go off to the toner, who gets good tones for the song. And I guess you could also have someone to do the vocals somewhere in there. Then you'd probably have to figure out a credit structure - probably the easiest thing to do would be to make a new account that represents the group.

The main problem I see is that the transcriber/arranger can either be a trivial task for great GP files or take orders of magnitude more time than the other tasks.

 

For the other idea, it wouldn't necessarily have to be group internal testing (which to me would imply a smaller group of people testing things before release), but just a group of people who will try to critically evaluate already released CDLC if requested. Charters could submit their own for consideration if they think they're good enough, or people could also submit the work of others for consideration if they think it's great and want it to be recognized, or even if it's not very good but an interesting song selection (more as a "Hey, this guy is doing interesting things but looks like he could use some help learning the ropes. How can we help him out?" than a "Look at this guy! He sucks!"). Then people in the group would give feedback and decide whether the custom should receive an accolade or not.

 

I can post more later, but I'm going to get lunch now.

[Aludog]

Well, the testing aspect as you propose it should ideally be possible in a social group like this; that's why I created open testing forums. It's just that no one feels obliged to actually test any of the songs if they are not something one's really interested in. We will have to find some dedicated testers if we want quality control.

Regarding your concept of the collaboration process: Seems all very reasonable but the more people are involved the more difficult the whole process becomes. Anyone of them can introduce errors or just keep the custom from getting done because he's not doing his part, etc. I personally would propose a two man or three man team at most to do the work. Creating or correcting GP tabs and syncing goes hand in hand for me because up to that point there's a lot of work with the actual arrangement; the rest is either cosmetics or technical work, which can be done by someone else who doesn't necessarily have the skills for the former process. A third person could focus on vocals but I personally like to fine tune them in EoF manually and that can be quite tricky, so whoever does that for me, will have to put in the appropriate amount of work. :D

Anyway, something to think about.

[fripponomic]

the testing idea sounds very similar to what I've tried in the CC. The convenience there was a random selection of 4 songs that are played anyway by the participants, so it shouln't be too much to give some ratings about the 3 points or 1 or 2 of them, but it didn't work really.

I think the collaboration thing should be realizable in the most social groups, maybe with some admins with the needed skills for that. For only testing cdlcs someone could found a new group where existing cdlcs can be proved.

I would singn up for such a group and offer my help anyway if wanted.

[BusterKnott]

I was discussing this in PMs with someone, and I figured I'd throw this out there. I figured I'd start the discussion here, but if something were to come from it we'd make a new topic in the Workshop forum for it.

 

So, the basic idea is that it would be nice to have some sort of quality control for the DLC that we produce in the (if we were to do it for this group) prog rock/metal genres (maybe broken into a few subgenres if one big thing is too unwieldy). The idea would be to have some sort of organized system which would

a) give some sort of recognition to high quality customs/charters, and

B) provide useful feedback to charters which will help improve the considered customs as well as their future ones.

 

There are a couple of models of things like this already. The Muse Project is probably the big one, with Shiroo acting as a centralized director of quality control, while everyone else in the group works (sometimes apart, sometimes together) to get the customs they make up to the standards he sets. Once the standard is achieved, the customs get a seal of approval.

 

In contrast, the Rocksmith Championship has a more decentralized (and sometimes not heavily utilized) feedback system, where different participants can rate the customs based on the tab, tones, and sync on a scale of 1-10, and various honors are awarded to the CDLC based on the average ratings.

 

So, I guess the question would be, would anyone else be interested in something like this? If so, are there any better models of this that I haven't considered, or have missed? What do people think the best way to go about this would be?

 

Let me know your thoughts!

I think this is a great idea!

 

Some of the CDLC is fantastic others not so much...

 

A couple of charters (they shall remain nameless) are so bad that I don't download their work any longer even when it is something I REALLY want!

 

In order to get the songs I want to learn I bought Guitar Player 6 and have downloaded EOF, wWise, and the Rocksmith tool kit. I've also snagged a few YouTube videos and read what I could on the forums in the hope that I can learn to chart songs.

 

I'm a little slow at learning how to use most programs so I probably won't get it at first. Fact is I'll probably beg for help on the various forums on a regular basis.

 

In any event I'll do my best to create quality content and I will definitely upload them when I do!