User Posts

We have that update now. What do you think?
-- modulargrid

Is it working though? 'Cause I'm searching based on tag only and I get mixed number of tags on the results. I would assume the ones with just that one tag would appear first, no? Anyway, I think it's a great idea to be honest. We should definitely go with that one.

Side note: I am not pushing this agenda, I am just having a conversation. I work in a filed where we bounce ideas off each other all day long, so I am not married to any of my ideas, just trying to spur creative thinking.
-- dysonant

Don't worry man, I don't think anyone is in love with their ideas here. We're all pushing for a better user experience when it comes to using MG; that's the end goal! Personally, I really enjoy these types of conversations anyway.

Absolutely. I do this all the time, but it's a lot of stuff and my time is limited. Also, manufacturer lock :)

True, but so is everybody else's, including the people who mod the site. This is a community effort, we all pitch in somewhat.

[...] I wonder if a broader category like "Modulation" with sub feature filters that one could select multiple feature from would work? For example the user could select the FUNCTION Modulation and then select 1 or more multiple FEATURES like Attenuator, Envelope Generator, Mixer.

I am not sure adding a multifuntional tag would solve the problem. Though the idea is right in that broader categories to encapsulate modules main function might be beneficial. This is provided more detailed sub-tagging could be applied and the method for searches allowed one to select multiple features. It could mimc ecommerce product listing page filters. For example, if one is looking at a product listing page for the t-shirts category then could then select the colors black, red and blue from a filter list and not have to see white, yellow and orange.

I think you're simplifying the problem to a degree which is not realistic. Color is an attribute and can easily be defines as a subgroup of a product category. It is a rather obvious one and makes for an easy UX choice, whereas functionality VS features are interchangeable attributes. To extend your example, where does Mixing fit in terms of Utility? Is it a subcategory of Utility or a different function entirely? This is all subjective as we try to define usage in an area which by definition tries to avoid it. Modulation, right, what about all the oscillators that can go to LFO speeds? It's a can of worms.

Again, in my most humble opinion, the problem we're facing is having too many disparate modules on the grid. If we get the option to merge, categorize as one-off creations or manufactured (because not all manufacturers are properly listed) and then allow for a maximum of 3 tags per module, that could make things far more easier to navigate. What if a module can do more than those three things? Well, you know what, that's what manuals and demo videos are for. We also have a huge database of info on MW FB and MW forum and that's what the internet is here for.

Personally I don't have much of a problem with the tagging system as it is; I don't even mind being able to give all the tags for all I care. I would only make the question more apparent when someone uploads a module "Can it provide this functionality to other modules?" and have the uploader tag the module as such. It's easier for users to have to answer a question than not, it helps to focus. But you raise a fair point as we do see tags being misused.

Why not edit the modules you deem as tagged inappropriately with what you think is the correct tag and serve the community while helping yourself? For instance, I find that Maths is primarily an Envelope Generator and not a Utility module, so you can clearly see that our points of view on what the main Function of a module is might differ.

That being said, as I replied on your FB post, the question that tagging needs to answer to is whether a module can be used as X or not. If the answer is yes, then the tag should/could be applied. Do not forget that some manufacturers tend to overstate what their modules contain and might also overtag just for marketing purposes; I have no concrete examples of their MO but I have seen some examples of overtagging when a module cannot actually offer such functionality. I simple edit on my part solved that but it's not always possible, especially if a Manufacturer decides to lock the module's description, as is their prerogative.

One easy and immediate solution to this problem would be to limit the tag option down to 2-3 tags at maximum. No exceptions. That would force uploaders/manufacturers to really have to decide what type of Function each module serves and by which tag it is best described. Does that mean that some modules would be underserved or underrepresented in particular categories? By all means, yes, that would be the case, especially for modules that have a million functions (I'm thinking Maths or Sports Modulator as good examples of that), but in my opinion that is a small price to pay to make MG cleaner.

We could add a multifuntional tag as a representative of that particular category. A "well, it does more than that" type of thing.
But then again, I prefer clarity. Someone might disagree.

Please think about limiting the number of whatched modules for non unicorn members. It constantly drains my wallet if I get notifications for modules that look interesting :o)
And maybe it would be cool to delete all notifications at once.
-- suomynona

How about: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/stayfocusd/laankejkbhbdhmipfmgcngdelahlfoji?hl=en ? Keep yourself away from MG entirely, that way you won't spend your money on modules.

How about a section in the search criteria for expansion boards for modules?
I guess that parameter could be tacked on to the description pop-up in the rack. It'd be useful to be able to search for this because of the nature of expansions being a plus (or minus) toward the decision to include a module in your rack.
-- Sandrine

You mean to signify whether a module has an internal* expansion on it or not? You can always add that as part of the available info on the module itself and then link to the original site with more info on the expansion.

I'm not sure I'm following. By the way, there aren't a lot of modules with internal* expansions - yours and a handful of others are the entirety in Eurorack.

*I'm unsure if you mean expansions like the MIDI option on your VCO or expanders/break-out modules like the others available on MG. The latter are always posted as separate modules and tagged as such.

EDITED Oct 2nd 2017, 10:20

Just go to www.addacsystem.com there is a way to buy their modules from them directly both in EU or US.

It's the least I can do for now! Keep in mind that there are some parts of the uploading process that are still based on the module uploading M.O. Minor stuff though. Just checked, the snap grid is indeed off but it keeps on throwing some stuff out of the board when I refresh. Additionally, some of the background options are not Unicorn only, but they don't seem to work anyway.

Keep up the good work!

EDITED May 29th 2017, 12:35

Hi,

it's great so far. Thanks for adding this! Unfortunately it seems adding one pedal creates a serious issue to all other pedals, as if you can't really place it wherever you want on the pedal board. If it's the first pedal there you have free movement, as soon as there is another pedal on the board the movement of the pedal becomes quantized and it's very difficult as it forces you to place some pedals half-on and half-off the board.

Still, it's a great idea and I'm hoping it will enhance your (paying) user base!

PP

Actually it's been a big pain for me, having to edit different modules because the uploader doesn't get how the tag system works. I just had to edit a new oscillator which includes an internal quantizing option because the manufacturer/uploader tagged it as "Quantizer" amongst other things.

Is it that difficult to understand that the tagging system is here to help finding modules based on their features and not to promote the features of a module? The question people should be asking themselves when uploading is "Can I use this as a [feature]?" not "Does the module contain a [feature]?". Sheesh.

Can we add a question above the tag area when a new module is created, or a message that prompts people not to over-do the tags? It's irritating.

Sorry for apparently necroing this thread but I'd like to chyme in now that the brilliant panel swap option has been applied. I've been meaning to ask: is there a way we (as users) can start merging modules? Most of the times the different versions available only have panel/design as the main difference whereas all other characteristics remain intact (or should be equivalent).

I wouldn't mind helping reduce the clutter by merging some modules in one and being able to change the panel (as is already available).

Thanks

Just wanted to second this notion. I visit MG through the mobile a lot and I need to apply ninja skills to avoid moving a module (thank goo I don't have sausage fingers!). :) So yeah, if/when this is an option that will be great.

When creating a new rack it would be very practical to be able to input the power qualifications of your case (as an optional requirement) so power warnings are particular to your current setup, when modules exceed your case's power possibilities.

EDITED Jun 5th 2016, 14:36

I've been having the same project on hold until I get my Batumi. Been in the planner since forever! 1hp is ideal. Colour me intersted, especially for the panel.

EDITED Mar 18th 2016, 09:33

Yes, please do make whatever you like for yourself, and enjoy the great sounds Ben made, and don't present it as though you're offering a module with his sounds - pretty simple, really.
-- jicamasalad

MG is not a shop. Even more so it's not DSC's or Ninstrument's shop. So if you educate yourself as to what is available for purchase through MG the mistake is obviously on you.