Messages

That sheet was replaced, yes, but not everyone here was happy about that. I'm not an administrator but I know first hand how much time it takes to get a sheet through this process, and I know first hand how much time it takes to check the sheets as well. I don't doubt that you invest a lot of time in your sheets, we all do here, but there is nothing inherently disrespectful about replacing somebody else's sheet.

It Is ridicoulus to add some articulation and replace identically the sale score, there Is an admin Who told me some months ago that replacement was only for the old scores (because the quality you are talking), unfortunately appened so If everyone has their say, I have mine.

I think it's very unfair of you to criticise this aspect of the site Jacopo, the admins here devote much of their spare time to ensure that all the sheets are of high quality. You are right that this limits the website's growth rate, but this is the approach that the staff here have decided to take (and where NSM stands out from every other sheet music website).
Also, you will find that the sheets you and your students submit don't require less time than other submissions. Part of the reason for this is the language barrier, which is not anyone's fault, but it is something we all have to work around.
The other part of it is what you called bureaucracy. While I agree that the submissions process can be a bit tedious at times, it is like that for a reason (see Point 1 about website quality). Having everyone complete the same bureaucratic work and follow the same means that all the sheets that make it onto the website will be of consistent quality. It has repeatedly come up that you disregard the research into the source material for your sheets, and now you are disregarding the rules. If you had simply followed the rules, we wouldn't be having this long discussion right now. You can either follow the rules and contribute to the site, or not contribute at all.

Recently a score that has passed your "quality control" has been replaced (without being consulted because I found casually) by another user and you administrators have allowed it, you must know that I also dedicate a lot of my time as you say, to teach and write even just two stupid notes which, however, have a great value for the growth of my students and also for me this was very disrespectful towards me and above all my student, I accepted it because it is you who make the rules and we must shut up and respect them.

Also wanted to re-emphasize that we do this work voluntarily: we don't earn any money with this, so all of us have a job and/or college, friends, hobbies and free time besides NSM. We can't just increase our work load for the site's sake, because we don't have the time and energy for that. We're still humans.

you are decreasing the workload of others, because I understand that 50 is too much as Static says but 2 are still few, if then considering that I work with various students you are limiting their work, I understand that to you (not at all ) I don't like that my name is in more scores than yours and I can also understand it but I even taught my students to create an account and upload scores, this because one day they will decide what to do.
By doing this, I don't have time to send him anything because by publishing one score a month I can't get one piece done per student. The songs I insert are finished and formatted according to your rules. I respect the limit of two and the students respect it too, the fact that it has many students should only be an advantage for you and not just for now but also for the future.

The reason we have to set these limits, is because we are with a small team of 4 updaters, who do this work voluntarily in our free time. Opening up a third submission slot for example would increase our work load to 150% of what we're doing now too, which is just not feasible.

Ok as long as you keep the limit of 2 of the site the site will not grow, the more the site will publish scores the more users will be able to visit the site to know it and to collaborate.
It is a limit that limits.
The more types of scores there are (for example mine for NES are always easy because they are mainly made by 11-13 year olds) the easier it is for someone to start contributing and actively participating even with a few simple indications.
Honestly, I feel an active part of the project and it seems absurd that we are here talking about bureaucracy instead of music and scores.

If there are no other admins it is also for this reason,

That's what we're asking of you instead. If you prefer having your name on all sheets, we're only asking to delete one sheet from your submissions, and submit it again after an update.

Ok this is clear thanks, I Just asked why?
What s the problem to write a few score per months instead of 1

There's not a problem with adding your name on the site after the update. The arranger or admins can still do that after approving. The reason we have a rule of maximum 4 sheets (of which 2 collaborations), is because it is unfair to other people to have your name on a lot of sheets in an update. That's why Latios suggested removing your name from the sheets, so we didn't have to delete any sheets. If you want your name on all sheets, your name has to be added again in the collaboration box of Federico's and Matteo's sheets, but one sheet has to be deleted so you don't have more than 4 sheets up with your name.

A score Need the names of the composers and arrangers, do you prefer to remove the arranger name from a score to respect a rule of this site?

Well, because we want the arranger names on-site to reflect the arranger names in the sheet, that's just a settled rule we have. It also makes sure the sheet shows up when you search by arranger.

I think that the simplest solution is to publish the score, some other time we publish the score without the field collaboration compiled (there some pupils who have not a NSM account) so an admin published the score adding the collaboration manually After the approvation. Like in this case

Yes I am, that's why I mentioned that your name should be re-entered in the collaboration box, if you wanna keep the name in the arranger text box on the sheet.

There are currently 5 sheets submitted that are by you and/or your students, but we have mentioned before that you can have 2 sheets of your own and 2 extra collaborations. So you'll have to do one of these:
-Your name is not included in the collaboration box and in the arranger text box in the sheet: all 5 of the sheets can stay, and your students can update the sheets on their own merit.
-Your name is included in the collaboration box and in the arranger text box in the sheet: one of the 5 sheets will have to be deleted and resubmitted when at least one of the other 4 sheets is accepted and updated onto the site.

What I was trying to make clear, is that it's not allowed to have more arrangers in the text box in the sheet than in the collaboration box, those should be the same

ok, why?

The arranger names listed on the site next to the sheet title, should be the same as the arranger names within the sheet itself. You could add a text box with a "Special thanks to Jacopo Tore" instead, though. However, if you really wanna keep your name in the arranger box, then you should have your name in the collaboration box as well. But note that you can only have 4 sheets submitted at once with your name on it (2 of your own and 2 collaborations), which has been brought up before by Latios.
The same goes for the other sheet by Federico and the sheet by Matteo, by the way.

Excuse the question, but are you aware that the score was written by me too?

[approve]

I see that the rests have been added. Make sure to remove Jacopo's name from in the "Arranged by" box in the sheet too, so that it doesn't have different names as the one on site. Aside from that I'll approve!
You cannot view this attachment.

good morning I think there was a misunderstanding, the score was transcribed by Federico Mariane and me, Jacopo Tore

-I hear the R.H. up an octave throughout the whole song.
-I hear the L.H. in m4 and beat 1-2 of m5 down an octave.
-m1: Usually you don't use a dotted rests larger than the beat value, so in this case the dotted quarter rest should be divided into a quarter rest and an 8th rest.
-m4 and 5: The R.H. 8th note beams in beat 3-4 should be connected similarly to the L.H.
-m8: Since I think most people looking for sheets here are more knowledgeable about English than Italian, it might be best to write "ripetere" as "repeat" instead. You can leave the ad libitum (or shorten it to ad lib.), since that is a better known musical direction.

Sorry I forget to transpose an octave upper the R.H.!
Thank you, I did it

Soundtrack of my childhood

Yes. The problem is that there are too many active submissions with your name on them. If your students submit sheets without you listed as a collaborator, they can continue to do so at a rate of two sheets per arranger.

Ok I think there is no problem, in a few days I will ask everyone (as soon as I see them) to remove the collaboration

Hey Jacopo, we noticed that you have too many submissions with your name on them. You have two accepted submissions that will be posted in the next update, plus four active submissions. The normal submission limit is two, and we will relax this to be four submissions in cases where you collaborate with another arranger. You are above that now.

I understand that you have students who work on their own sheets. However, it is not fair to other arrangers if you have your name on so many of them per update. Your students are free to continue submitting their sheets at a rate of two per arranger per update if your name is not on them and they make updates to the sheets themselves.

After you've had a chance to respond, I will archive this and one of your other most recent submissions (from Dragon Buster). You can submit them next time when you don't already have enough sheets in submissions. Let me know if you have any questions!

Hi Latios I did not understand what the problem is, can my students continue to insert scores but without entering my nickname in the "collaborators" field?

That's what I'm saying; you wouldn't need to, because it's basically the same as the NES one, which you've transcribed.

Ok thank you