Rate the raters

[kvnlnt]

I don't know if this is a good idea or not...but I'll throw it out there. If you agree...just reply with an "I agree" and see if we can't get some feedback on this as a potential account feature request. I'm wondering if there is a way that we as TAXI artists can rate our reviewers ratings. Like a simple 5 star rating system with feedback. That way, TAXI can see potentially positive or negative trends with some of it's reviewers. I'm not looking to rant...quite the contrary. I just received a return but 100% agreed with the review...and wish there was a way I could say "5 stars" for this reviewer...as with other reviews I was left feeling like my song wasn't given a fair shot...if listened to at all. I just feel like this type of public facing quality control mechanism would be mutually beneficial. TAXI would be able to track positive and negative trends with it's artists as well.Just an idea...let me know your thoughts out there...-Kevin

[kvnlnt]

Did my post make any sense?

[mazz]

The Screener Shoutout section is designed for this very purpose. I don't think TAXI uses it for any metrics, but it's a place to express yourself in relation to the screeners.Check it out.Welcome to the forum!Mazz

[scounter72]

Hi Kevin,I think some sort of two way communication would greatly benefit the TAXI experience. The variation in quality of feedback is pretty extreme, even where critiques are provided. Based on some of the comments I've read here, the 'shoutout' section is ineffective, as screeners rarely look in. Please note, that's an opinion, not a fact You could really get deeply into something like this, and I agree that sometimes you just wanna say thanks for a beneficial review (even if your song is returned). My feeling is that the current TAXI business model won't support such a time consuming exercise, however I'm prepared to be proved wrong I see a fair bit of 'thanks' and requests for clarification in that section of the forum, but I don't know if it gets through. Perhaps there are folks here that can divulge a little more, or perhaps have experience of dealing with such things through contacting the relevant TAXI team directly.

[kvnlnt]

Thanks for the quick response fellas...yes, I'm fully aware of all the other forum topics. Mazz used the word "metrics" and this is precisely what I'm referring to. Very similar to what you find on ebay where both buyers and sellers have ratings. It's valuable information to know if a screen or artist is overly negative....it puts their feedback "in context".Imagine if one reviewer is constantly getting poor reviews by artists...doesn't TAXI want to know about that? If not, it doesn't seem like they are doing their job. Imagine if an artist is constantly pissed they didn't get their music forwarded...in light of such a "rate the raters" system, wouldn't taxi want to know about that? What I'm suggesting is nothing new, it's basic "success indicator" metrics. I'm not in any way suggesting TAXI create a new business model...just implement some quality control measures that would help facilitate weeding out the riff raff and allowing diamonds in the rough to be found...which IS their business, is it not?

[mazz]

This is a slippery slope because we're talking about something that isn't really quantifiable: music.Also, artists are notoriously unable to assess their own music and if someone is continually pissed that their music isn't getting forwarded, it may very well be that their music isn't forwardable in it's present state, but they refuse to acknowledge it.TAXI has very high standards for their screeners and they do run a very tight ship as far as that goes. Often, if a person has been very disgruntled, they have contacted TAXI directly with their complaint. That is more effective than spewing on a public forum, which is the reason one of the sections is available by login only.The thing to remember is that the screeners are bound by the listings and are required to critique based on the criteria of the listing. They are not judging a song on it's own merits as a stand alone entity. Hence the potential disparity in reviews. The same song that gets raves from fans and family may be just not right for the client that is requesting music, possibly for different reasons than another potential client.We also don't know what TAXI is bringing forth with TAXI 2.0. There may very well be some sort of feedback mechanism built in. But any of this would add greatly to the workload of a TAXI screener. Imagine sitting there listening to a wide array of songs of varying quality (probably widely varying) and having to then carry on a conversation with potentially hundreds of writers via online technology. That's not going to happen, I'd be willing to bet.I propose that our time is better spent honing our craft and learning to treat our songs as a product for business purposes and learning to target the listings and practicing emotional detachment from our music when digesting feedback. The process of reviewing and critiquing music is always going to be an inexact science, and accepting that and moving on and taking the long view would serve us all well, IMO.Cheers!Mazz

[matto]

Actually something like this already exists...it's not called "rate the raters" but instead "screen the screeners"...close enough in my book .What it is is something like once a year a number of members get invited to go to Taxi HQ and spend a day reading and rating/critiquing a stack of Taxi critiques. It's a controlled environment so they can make sure you actually really spend some time evaluating the critique and advice given, and since you are not critiquing your own critique you have the necessary distance to make objective comments. To me this is a more useful and productive approach than what you are suggesting, your model runs the risk of people subjectively giving 5 stars to screeners that forward them or say things they like, which may not be an indication of the screener's critiques' quality.The existing method rates those screeners highly that consistently give helpful, constructive advice that's objectively on the money.Btw, I have participated in such a "screen the screeners" session, and I know that low rated screeners have gotten the boot as a result of these.matto

[kvnlnt]

Matto, Mazz,Thanks for responding. I do understand music is not "quantifiable "and I do agree some artists need to just "deal". Fact is, my suggestion is not to propose an avenue for "rants", hopefully I was clear about that. It wasn't something I would envision as being public facing, like "hey, here's your review from our 1 star reviewer". Just a simple one time opportunity for artists to respond to the critiques they are being given....to promote quality control...a metric FOR TAXI. Should they have a screener who has 300 negative feedbacks in a row...might be something to check out!Interesting enough Matto has just shared that such a platform already exists...and I think that's great to hear!!! Taxi should promote that more. I guess my thought is born out of the fact that I'm a web developer by day and implement such systems. All raiting systems are opinions and opinions are hard to quantify. They can't tell you things precisely but they can let you know when somethings not right...In the way Matto has shared. To me, the fact that TAXI has already implemented such a system demonstrates that it IS a key factor into keeping their service reliable...and for me I feel this make my suggestion stronger, because through the review profile interface, TAXI would be collecting a much larger pool of data. Perhaps that pool of data would be the critiques chosen for screen the screeners!!!