Forums

  • avatar
    102 sounds
    862 posts

    3686 - archont

  • avatar
    67 sounds
    822 posts

    Perhaps newer forum user roles may help.
    Moderators, Taggers, etc.

  • avatar
    321 sounds
    1925 posts

    3685 - Syn

  • avatar
    321 sounds
    1925 posts

    Actually Alien, those terms don't explicitly forbid Freesound to modify the preview. The file is already modified, because it's transcoded for the lower file size in preview quality (which is technically a modification).

  • avatar
    321 sounds
    1925 posts

    Although it is a good idea, I'm scared of the prospect a little. Because believe it or not there's a limited amount of people I trust in the community (judging by the way people tag their own sounds). No offence, but although that number of trustworthy users is high in my book, we do have trolls inevitably here. And i've seen a good share of really bad tagging coming through moderation.

    What about whitelisted uploaders? (this does restrict the opportunity somewhat)

    And what about tag suggestions that send a notification to the uploader or moderator about a new improved tagging recommendation on their sound? (this would be the best way to include the majority which also bypasses tolling).

    I'm probably thinking too deeply into it, and perhaps it's the case that only dedicated members of the community will even use this opportunity.

    Food for thought

  • avatar
    102 sounds
    862 posts

    3684 - plant

  • avatar
    321 sounds
    1925 posts

    3683 - Growing

  • avatar
    121 sounds
    1552 posts

    In FS1 only people who had uploaded sounds could tag other people's sounds.

    That would take care of many nines ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_availability#Percentage_calculation ) of people

    - bram

  • avatar
    121 sounds
    1552 posts

    There could be the possibility that in the analysis we write the maximum loudness somewhere in the HTML file and that the player can "negate" this volume somehow. I.e. some automatic gain control when the user hits play.

    This would be quite experimental, but it COULD actually work!

    Maybe something for a hack-day!

  • avatar
    23 sounds
    3 posts

    Yeah, I totally see your point. I wasn't really saying to straight up change uploads, but rather make it a recommendation, or have an option for listeners to do it in the preview player.

  • avatar
    1731 sounds
    1752 posts

    Bram alluded to this in his posts, but I will say it here very clearly.
    I do not think Freesound is allowed to modify the sounds. (unless we change the user agreements/terms)

    Freesound is a 'user content website'. We are only allowed to host the user's content 'as is', not allowed to modify it. - and this includes permanent changes such as normalizing the sounds.
    Sounds must remain at Freesound exactly as the user uploaded them.
    We are entitled to accept or reject a sound, but if we accept then we should not modify it.

    There is another discussion going in another forum about improving tags. Although related, these points are fundamentally different because of the licenses and upload terms.
    If I recall correctly, when uploading, the users will have no claims in relation to any 'metadata' (descriptions, tags) and other data they upload to Freesound (such as personal profiles). On the sounds, the terms are those of the chosen license and Freesound commits to hosting the sounds "as uploaded".

    So I think we are Ok in relation to tags, especially as we are talking about ADDING - the user original content would remain.
    As for the sounds themselves, they should remain as the uploader intended.

  • avatar
    1731 sounds
    1752 posts

    frederic.font wrote:
    Finally, in relation to strangely_gnarled's suggestion, in the past Freesound sounds could be tagged by anyone (not only the uploader). This functionality was removed in Freesound 2 because it was not being used. However, we think that it would be good that members of the community willing to participate more in Freesound could contribute by providing additional tags in existing sounds.

    Hi Fred!
    I strongly support this and I would definitely use this feature.
    However, I ask that if it is implemented, it is kept to a restricted number of trusted users.
    Not because I am an elitist, but because we have seen a few spammers and trolls here recently.
    In the wrong hands, the ability to tag other people's sounds could do a lot of damage, which would then be difficult, if not impossible, to undo.

  • avatar
    13 sounds
    290 posts

    3681 - pains

  • avatar
    321 sounds
    1925 posts

    Bram wrote:
    Do a search for normalization on the forum. We've had this request before...
    There are many reasons not to do it wink

    - bram

    Actually I remember that conversation now you mention it.

    Here it is: http://www.freesound.org/forum/bug-reports-errors-and-feature-requests/33429/

    Its was nice to reminisce on that, thank you.

  • avatar
    121 sounds
    1552 posts

    Do a search for normalization on the forum. We've had this request before...
    There are many reasons not to do it wink

    - bram

  • avatar
    321 sounds
    1925 posts

    klankbeeld wrote:

    Oh no, please don't... sad

    Ah, that wasn't me approving the idea. That was me being impartial.

    I still disagree with the idea, and it will never happen.

    I had to edit my post to make that clear.

  • avatar
    18 sounds
    43 posts

    Hi everyone,

    I agree that low-quality and high-quality are very subjective terms.
    As Headphaze pointed out, one way to minimise low-quality sounds (whatever that means) is using the sorting options.
    We could however make that more useful by allowing to filter by average rating in the advanced search option. What do you think?

    As you know, Freesound development is mostly research-driven, and to turn research outcomes into new features is typically a slow process. In our roadmap, we plan to research in improving the analysis of sounds and providing new ways to search that would, for example, include filtering by noisy and non-noisy sounds. I think this would be very useful but we don't know when we'll be able to actually deploy this as a feature in Freesound.

    Regarding the tags, this is a tricky thing wink As some of you probably know, I've been doing a lot of research on that, and many of you participated in the experiments that I carried out here in Freesound. As a quick summary, my main conclusion is that we should i) particularly encourage the use of some tags whose meaning is well understood in the community (without disregarding other tags), and ii) make uploaders aware of the importance of tagging and encouraging to tag "well" (again quite subjective...). It is also in our roadmap to improve the uploading interface to make this process easier.

    Finally, in relation to strangely_gnarled's suggestion, in the past Freesound sounds could be tagged by anyone (not only the uploader). This functionality was removed in Freesound 2 because it was not being used. However, we think that it would be good that members of the community willing to participate more in Freesound could contribute by providing additional tags in existing sounds.

  • avatar
    1123 sounds
    914 posts

    Headphaze wrote:

    Something more acceptable would be to normalise the transcoded preview, so that the original file is left unadulterated, which creates a more seamless auditioning experience when cycling through sound results...... That is more reasonable than forcing processing on peoples sounds.

    smile

    Oh no, please don't... sad

  • avatar
    16 sounds
    13 posts

    Chest ))

  • avatar
    321 sounds
    1925 posts

    I believe it's unethical to interfere and tamper with the community's uploads.

    Moderating uploads for poor descriptions and illegal audio is as far as we should go.

    I have sounds that I deliberately uploaded at a low dBFS level, because they were intended to be that way, having them normalised without my consent would destroy my intention:

    http://www.freesound.org/people/Headphaze/sounds/234508/

    Something more acceptable would be to normalise the transcoded preview, so that the original file is left unadulterated, which creates a more seamless auditioning experience when cycling through sound results, YouTube does something like this on playlists to level out the contrast in volume between music tracks. That is more reasonable than forcing processing on peoples sounds.

    edit: The above statement is indented for impartiality, still disagree with doing things like that. I'm an advocate of diversity and an adversary of the loudness war.

    smile