Contributors really means Visitors

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Contributors really means Visitors
  • title says it all, and im sure the devs know this...i would just change that box of  to Visitors or Listeners

    but i think it would be really cool if you could see who actually did something, and what they did, maybe a work log of some kind...
  • I would like to see that too, I think there is a lot of interests going on and people are waiting to see what they want to go on a project before they lay something down. I hope this thing work's.
  • I'll add my +1: a "read only" mode so people didn't have to "join" a project just to see what it's all about would be nice.  Only if you want to contribute should you need to actually join.
  • yhea. plus project shouldn't be "saved" and displayed as "last modified" just because you enter to have a listen...
  • Ok very interesting points here.

    Contributor just means that someone has the right to do certain things.
    More informations can be found here:

    It is really hard to tell how much a member contributed to a project. We could log every action but the hard part would be to display only relevant informations.

    I mean it is possible to say that "user_x" created "note_x" on "track_x" at "time_x"

    But impossible to say "all the credit for this melody goes to user_y".  :)

    A 3rd type of member called Visitor had been considered but we gave up the idea (although I can't remeber why).

    If people simply want to listen, they can (and should) listen to the exported audio on the project page (or from the project inspector). A project Owner can "Export Audio to project page" at any time, even if the project is not finished yet.

    Make sure to set your project to "private" if you want to decide you should join your projects.

    I hope this cleared things up a little

  • nice one orange_force

    well, i think there still needs to be another term for someone who just stops in for a listen...'contributor', has a specific definition, and that ain't it, lol

    i understand the the minutia of every sessions changes would be tedious....but being able to tell who made any changes to a set would be great, not nescessarily what exactly they did...i think that those envlolved, actually working on the project would easily see what was different, and would probably be able to deduce who did what

    people never use the site exactly as the devs intend, that has been my experience in sitemaking to know that y'all are listening!

  • Some wiki software goes to town on recording page history - you can see back forever who did exactly what to which line of the page (and then who correct it, who undid the correct, who deleted the whole paragraph... etc...), so that kind of detailed record keeping does get done in collaborative software tools.

    But is OhmStudio the "wiki" of the music world..?  And does that detailed log have any use to anyone?

    +1 to the thanks to orange_force, though -- some good ideas there!
  • is the wiki of music!....for now anyway
  • I think ´people might want to enter to just "Listen" for educational purpose for example. To see what's going on behind the scene. How the track is structured, hove many layers where used for certain sounds. what effect chains were used etc etc...
    To just listen to a track i could just go to soundcloud or some other service. What OHMS could add to that experience is what I just mentioned...

    I think PLJONES was the one who said in a different post, that OHMS have to find it's unique selling points - and this is an additional one. 

    OHMS could even be used to give technical and theoretical classes on line - and even provide a scene where a tutor/teacher could profit/charge for this.
    (project private - only accessible on invitation after a fee has been received).
    This way you might even convince BIG name producers to join and post sessions!!!/??? Who knows. But OMHS is definetly the start of something new and it is not possible for any one to know, nor control?, how it will be used?
  • Auditors...that could be the word for the drive-by's...'contributor' if they actually do something

    having every project you give a listen to show up in your 'my projects' list is not nescessary imo...if i work on something then yes, def want it in there...makes it look like there is more activity going on than there really is....

  • ...come to think of it...theres really no need to log every person that breezes thru a project at all....this would save a lot of room for other stuff in the right column as a +


    when i saw a project with 37 'contibutors in the list i was like WOW, the i opened it and was like.....oh

  • I totally agree with the idea of a "visitor" status. The first thing I thought when I heard about OhmStudio was how much of a learning experience it would be to be able to witness the creation process of other musicians. As a beginner, I am often struck with the "where do I begin" syndrome. Youtube tutorials are somewhat useful, but they don't replace first hand witnessing of real musicians doing their thing.
  • OK then terminology: why not simply "Listener"?  I don't like Auditor because in English that has connotations with accountancy and banking :-q.  I suggest the following:
    Listener: someone who opens a project but adds nothing
    Contributor: someone who adds (anything) to a public project
    Collaborator: someone who adds significantly to a project; only the project owner(s) can promote someone to the status of "Collaborator".
  • ^^^^^^

    that'll do
  • Spectator......Guest.........
  • I think the need for more definition is a good idea.
    I for one would like to know in the public projects who joined and why!
    Tracing every "move" is a waste of server space    

    My personal take on the above suggestions is this 

    Project-Observer = Can look at everything including plugins but can not touch anything.
    Project-Contributor = Can add and copy but only edit / delete own work with in project.
    Project-Producer = Can add, copy, edit and delete everything within project.
    Project-Manager = Can do Everything. ( I assume manager version history / locking of tracks etc in the future and of course exports etc etc.)  

    As a comparison use the operating theater in a hospital

    Observers = sit up in the gallery behind glass.
    Contributor  = Nurses, anesthetist, assistance,etc etc 
    producer = 
    specialist consultant
    Manager = Surgeon ( sometimes more then one )      

    The details of each sub group should be discussed deeper but I think it's not such a mammoth task for The_Force to implement these changes. 
    ( having said that I'm sure there's a very colorful re verb plate spring on it's way from Paris right now with it's target being my face  
    b-(  )
  • Oh BTW orange_force 
    if the owner decides not to export there is nothing to hear so you have to become a member just to find out what it is. Let alone the Web export being way out of date!

    ( oops that's the second reverb spring on it's way better start to run ............I really must lose weight )

  • This is a pretty good list I must say. I'd be happy myself with just adding visitors (can hear, can't do anything else) to projects but a bit more nuances may be a good idea.
  • well i think it is a MUST to separate visitors and real contributors for the simple fact that legalities could be involved upon releasing a track made in ohm studio. who made the track? who has "rights" to it? who should be credited? if you had an open project and 50 people are "members" that does not mean they all took part in making the tune.

    imo this is REALLY important and can't be overstated, 
  • Hello,
    There has already had this discussion.
    According to ohmforce clarifications, I think that owner and contributor categories have absolutely no legal force. What matters is the effective contributions (who record what track) and eventual external contract. For purpose of managing own projects  and explorating others projects, I think this distinction is useful. I found them one defect: it may increase confusion mentioned above between "owner" and "copyright".
  • For copyrights issues. I wonder if it should not be a checkable option for "commercial projects":

    The (effective) contributor transfers all rights to the owner.

  • maybe this could be simplified by making a feature on the track details page that lets the owner chose a licence, for the project itself - whether commercial limited or creative commons with choices of cc type. problem solved imo.
  • This is more of what I'm talking about Red with forum not being used well, these are the same ideas I was having but this was bought up in 2012.

    red_force said:

    This is a pretty good list I must say. I'd be happy myself with just adding visitors (can hear, can't do anything else) to projects but a bit more nuances may be a good idea.

  • Although the idea of a "visitor role" sounds very nice, I suspect there are technical difficulties preventing them from adding this feature.
    Otherwise it would already be there, given that it's such a highly requested feature.

    There are 2 things that the developer team could implement regarding that "Contributor vs. Visitor" problem:
    1. make it simple for an Admin to "kick out" any project member that did not really contribute to the song (I'm sure many people don't know how to do it)
    2. keep track of when a user joined a project and how much time he/she has spent inside that project