Adding more info to a submission, need your opinion!

Hey everyone,

Hope the start of summer is treating you well. We're starting to bake here in Austin... ☀️🔥

This has been on our todo list for a while, but we want to add the ability to give a little more context to an item <> artist submission. Namely, context on usage - was the gear used live? In the studio? On a recording? It would be optional, and retroactively editable on all past subs. Here's what it would look like, nice and simple:

https://i.imgur.com/lDqFj0x.png

What I want to ask you is - do these 3 options suffice?

If we wanted to, I know we could add tons of options: Used in a music video, used in a commercial, used in a YouTube video or demo, etc.

But the goal here is to not over-complicate what is already a somewhat involved process for an Equipboard newbie. So think about the 80/20 Rule here. What set of these usage tags would apply to the vast majority of gear submissions on Equipboard?

yes, that works for me and you should eb able to check multiples I guess

Dumb question: when/how would an entry here be purely a "recording" gear spot? Wouldn't anything that ended up on a recording be either the product of a live and/or studio context?

I mean, artist x could say "I used a blah blah on our record blah blah" but, that's still born from either a live or studio context, right?

EDIT: Or is "recording" basically the Youtube/TikTok demo option?

Dumb question: when/how would an entry here be purely a "recording" gear spot? Wouldn't anything that ended up on a recording be either the product of a live and/or studio context?

That's a really good point. Recording would be done in a studio the majority of the time. Hmm, ok so maybe Studio/Recording gets combined into one?

And to introduce a 3rd option, what if we had Demo/Promo? That would cover anything promotional like obvious advertisements/sponsorships, YouTube demos, Rhett Shulls/Pedal Show/Josh Scott/Chapmans of the world...

Thoughts?

I'd say that seems like a really good idea, but I kinda think music video should be one of the options, as a lot of artists may use different gear as a one off in a video.

those are props sometimes though, the director picks them sometimes for looks

That's a really good point. Recording would be done in a studio the majority of the time. Hmm, ok so maybe Studio/Recording gets combined into one?

that one blew right by me.... yeah, recordings are studio or live.... although studio might apply to say microphones that were selected by the engineer, they belong to the studio versus and amp you used just for the recording? I;m stretching to make you feel better

wasaraff & jim you both make good points. We're trying to make the options things that will have the most impact across Equipboard. Another way to look at it is, can you flip the context and then be able to say, "this gear is used X% of the time live, and Y% of the time in the studio." That would be cool info to show on gear pages.

So right now we are leaning towards

1. Live
2. Studio/Recording
3. Demo/Promo

Unless a strong case can me made against those :)

Ok, it's live! From your user profile page you can click on X Submissions to go back and see your past subs so you can add more context to them :)

Ok, it's live! From your user profile page you can click on X Submissions to go back and see your past subs so you can add more context to them :)

Wow. That's some crazy productivity if you got the whole thing built, tested and deployed in a day. Impressed.

Question: if a user submits an entry that is otherwise correct and complete, but the evidence provided doesn't fully support the context tag they choose... do we still rate that entry as correct?

e.g. user submits a photo of a performer in a live context, and provides notes only for that live context, but then tags it both "live" and "studio"... should we mark that as "needs more info"... or just deem it correct and move on?

I went in an edited a few older submission to add context tags to try this thing out, and realized that, in some cases, I was tagging "live" and "studio" for entries that really only proved one context or the other, not both... I just happened to know that artist used that piece of gear in both contexts... so did I just vandalize these older submissions by adding context tags that lack complete evidence?

I went in an edited a few older submission to add context tags to try this thing out, and realized that, in some cases, I was tagging "live" and "studio" for entries that really only proved one context or the other, not both... I just happened to know that artist used that piece of gear in both contexts... so did I just vandalize these older submissions by adding context tags that lack complete evidence?

I was just worrying about the same thing when I played catchup on this thread thismorning and here you are having come up against the same question. I wouldn't just assume... Hendrix for example is reputed to have used fender amps and a supro in the studio on are you experienced but there's no evidence of what fenders and the thudnerbolt is some wild guess based on him owning one prior in the USA. But it doesn't mean he used his Marshalls as I trust Kramer's story even without any details.

Wow. That's some crazy productivity if you got the whole thing built, tested and deployed in a day. Impressed.

Question: if a user submits an entry that is otherwise correct and complete, but the evidence provided doesn't fully support the context tag they choose... do we still rate that entry as correct?

e.g. user submits a photo of a performer in a live context, and provides notes only for that live context, but then tags it both "live" and "studio"... should we mark that as "needs more info"... or just deem it correct and move on?

Haha thank you! We've made lots of under the hood changes in the last year that allow us to build/test/deploy a bit quicker, so it's exciting!

You bring up a good point, and maybe my answer is overly simple but don't overthink it :) Meaning, check the box that correlates best with the proof/source.

IF you happen to know that some gear usage is both live AND studio, and have proof, simply say so in the notes. For instance, the proof might be a photo of an artist playing a guitar live, but there happens to be a Sound On Sound article which mentions studio usage as well. Well, in the notes say something like:

Also according to this SOS article, Artist used the guitar on the recording of such and such album as well...

IF you happen to know that some gear usage is both live AND studio, and have proof, simply say so in the notes. For instance, the proof might be a photo of an artist playing a guitar live, but there happens to be a Sound On Sound article which mentions studio usage as well. Well, in the notes say something like:

Also according to this SOS article, Artist used the guitar on the recording of such and such album as well...

Will do. But if submitter checks more than one box, and submission only covers one of those boxes, do we kick it back as "needs improvement" or let it slide in the name of not frustrating people?

I'm never going to say this again in this or any other context but my vote is not to frustrate people.

I'm never going to say this again in this or any other context but my vote is not to frustrate people.

I'm leaning same way. It's hard enough for some people to get the whole reasonable evidence thing, I feel like getting kicked back just for a context checkbox issue would be too big a turn-off for a lot of newer folks.

If it bothers anyone, it's an easy enough fix for that annoyed person to enter a quick edit and check/un-check what's needed themselves... and/or an opportunity for someone to add another layer of information onto an existing spot. 2 bites from every apple. We all win.

Late suggestion:

What about Borrowed/Rented gear? I belive I remember hearing some story about Alex Lifeson of Rush renting a Fender Strat to record an album when he didn't have the money to make the purchase, aswell I've seen many pictures/videos of band members swapping/using eachother's gear (e.g. a photo of Metallica's Bass player using their Guitarist's Flying V.) I think it might be useful as there are many examples of trading/swapping/borrowing across the board and rather than labeling incorrect what is otherwise a perfectly valid submission due to the fact that the wrong person has the item, we could include borrowed gear without it technically being incorrect.

Or have I misundersood and this is only a filter for usage and not ownership status?

I'd say usage more than ownership, Clifford. I think the spirit/intent here to help musicians and producers make informed decisions based what gear pros use and how they use it... whether it was borrowed, stolen, or gifted from the manufacturer seems kind of immaterial, IMHO. Maybe others feel differently?

I mean, does it really matter if the guitar(s) James used on Ride the Lightning were ones he paid for himself? The important thing, for me at least, is which guitar am I hearing, what pickups were in there, what the signal chain was, etc. Once you are flush with success, you stop paying for most of your gear anyway, companies just throw it at you... The very concept of ownership kinda loses its teeth/meaning when you can call up a marketing rep and get 2 of whatever you want expressed to you no questions asked.

I'd say usage more than ownership, Clifford. I think the spirit/intent here to help musicians and producers make informed decisions based what gear pros use and how they use it... whether it was borrowed, stolen, or gifted from the manufacturer seems kind of immaterial, IMHO. Maybe others feel differently?

I mean, does it really matter if the guitar(s) James used on Ride the Lightning were ones he paid for himself? The important thing, for me at least, is which guitar am I hearing, what pickups were in there, what the signal chain was, etc. Once you are flush with success, you stop paying for most of your gear anyway, companies just throw it at you... The very concept of ownership kinda loses its teeth/meaning when you can call up a marketing rep and get 2 of whatever you want expressed to you no questions asked.

Spot on here.

If it bothers anyone, it's an easy enough for that annoyed person to enter a quick edit and check/un-check what's needed themselves... and/or an opportunity for someone to add another layer of information onto an existing spot.

exactly, as long as anyone can make a correction it doesn't need to be part of the submission rating process.