Collections

Well you don't seem to have created any collection yourself thus far.

And currently we normally don't edit other users' collections.
It actually was suggested to make it possible to allow that to specific users 4 comments above.

That is what I mean by editing it.

I actually posted my opinion on that here yesterday: https://lyricstranslate.com/en/forum/report-problem-ask-question/modify-...

I have also thought about different categories, it might make browsing the collections easier. Like hariboneagle927 said, one category could be for song competitions/TV shows about singing etc., one for personal collections... Soundtracks could also be one category - or just a category for music used in different TV shows/movies.

I normally just give them a like and say thanks.

Otherwise, also the one who started the collection would need to be rewarded for what they add to their collection on their own.

Frankly speaking, the idea and purpose of creating collections isn't quite clear for me. On one hand, collection can be "interesting experience" for its creator, then he operates it solely on his own, describes as he wants, adds or not the songs, suggested by others, and if not, they don't get dissapointed. But on the other hand, collection can be a navigation tip, used to improve differentiation of the songs by some criterions. Then it has global, omni-classifying nature, must be very accurate, and needs some sort of regulation. It appears to me that at this moment collections is more like first scenario. But I want to ask creators of this feature itself - what was your original idea? just want to understand.

Collections are a quite new feature, and their purpose has never been officially stated. I would suppose they simply are what users make of them.
@lt Perhaps you want to give some input on this, admins?

Since collections currently can only be edited by their creator, they are often of a personal nature.
However, they are also useful for making global, objective collections, and quite many of those collections have already been created.

I agree, most collections should be just what users make of them.

But with some, they would be very handy for being officially used for content that was previously grouped together by special artist pages.
And for those, some more centralized form of quality control would be of advantage.

I agree, sometimes it's unnecessary. It would be better to make it optional, but I think someone already told so.

Yep, it was me, as it annoys me when I use my phone. :)

Yeah, good idea. Even on my laptop I have the impression that it's slowing down a tad.

That makes no difference. Haven't even clicked on "play" and it already seems to slow down the browser at times

Exactly.

I know that some users have started making such collections. They could be given into the hand of the staff, and editing rights could be given to users who seem fit for the job and want to take care of it, or a suggestion feature for collections could be added that doesn't work via comments.
.

I find it also very useful to have categories that precisely defined will help to chose quickly a song speaking of a particular theme.
If i come to this website which has more than 1000 songs, do i have hope to find a song (i mean the right one that explains my situation) speaking of "a cat with whom i broke, and i feel sad now?"
With collections officially used, and updated by suggestions having to be checked by someone in charge of it
i go to the right collections, and look in a restrained field of songs, that have already been pre-selected, according to a human factor, which can understand the real meaning of the song, which helps categorize better than just a search engine, and if possible with description
That would greatly help in a short time the user to chose a song in thousands.

That problem has been occurring for a while now. It's not a real error warning though: you've actually published a first and a second collection perfectly identical. That's because the collection has been published anyway, but you didn't know that and tried to publish it a second time.

Maybe, you can help me with other problem - I've created some collections and want to combine them in one big collection. But when I "add item", my collections don't display among possible options. And I want to finish that because without this one big collection it doesn't make sense.

I see all the items with similar names, but not my collection. I think it's because the engine recognizes it as non-existent due to error. Copy-pasting the URL doesn't help, but thank you anyway. I'll do some sort of middle ground.

I had this problem once or twice, but it seems to be random.

Thanks for details. I've noticed that every song has unique number (it appears when you add songs as items), and I suppose the collection has it too. I wish I knew it but seems like it's a techical detail, not accessible via customary interface.

Some of them I tried to save as a draft, it ended in error. So I then tried to save them and publish - the same error. But they are still accessible from my account. Maybe, some of you can just try to enter first letters of the name of any of my collection and check if it's available for adding as an item?

Hi LT contributors,

I know collection is considered a personnal order to put things on.

But i noticed a collection was twice created, (exactly the same) of course, one can do it, but then, I guess if anyone should do that three times, or maybe more, hundred do that a hundred times, for each collection, this is going to be rapidly insane to look for any song, and we would precisely lose the point of having collections,
if the point is to ease users to find some types of song.
(> in the common interest point of view, on a personnal level, everybody having its own private collection, this is ok of course)

I guess one should have some kind of rules, to avoid a collections' jungle, but this also means to list collections for a common interest purpose.

Thx

why won't you let us add a number of new entries of our choice - we still have to add each entry by hand, takes 7 seconds. go figure. this website should be renamed "waste your time database."