Home Forums Pianobook Clarity / Transparency in review process?


Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
  • #4223
    Eamon Coughlan

    I’ve had instruments in the review queue for upwards of a month now – which is fine; with over 300 samplists now I expect there are quite a few submissions and a lot of work for reviewers. However I think it would be nice to have some kind of avenue of communication (even if only one way, reviewer to submitter) to help explain what is actually going on. I had one instrument marked as ‘KONTAKT ISSUE’ (in the title, which I guess is the only place reviewers can easily flag an issue, but also meant I had to jump through some hoops in order to change the title back).
    I attempted to resolve this by resetting sample paths to the instrument folder, but without any idea what the actual problem was it’s hard to know whether I’ve fixed it before resubmitting or if I’m just wasting reviewers’ time submitting the ‘problematic’ instrument again. The second (different) instrument I submitted has disappeared from the ‘pending submissions’ without explanation (and without going ‘live’).
    I have a bunch of other instruments at various stages of creation but the motivation to continue is not really there with everything I submit ending up in Pianobook Purgatory. I think it would be helpful to have some kind of feedback / messaging system to give a rough idea of what’s going on, and so that if there are problems the submitter can attempt to fix them with the knowledge of what the actual issue is, rather than trying blind fixes of different parts of the instrument which have the potential to cause repeated time-wasting for both parties.

    S Fyffe

    Hi Eamon

    As you rightly point out, we do get a large number of sample pack submissions, about a quarter of which have at least one issue.

    Occasionally this results in a bit of a backlog of sample packs waiting to be published and people we need to contact regarding issues. We have had an unusually high number of submissions since we launched the latest version of the website last month.

    With regards to your sample packs, one will be going live on the website in the next week or so and we will be reaching out to you about the other one shortly.

    Eamon Coughlan

    Thanks! I guess maybe I should’ve posted this under ‘website feedback’ – what I was mainly getting at was that it would be good to have a dialogue box or something on the pending submissions to make it easier for reviewers to mark issues or give info about review status.

    Sam Ecoff

    I had a similar experience to the one you’re describing, Eamon. I was pleased to find out that my library will be released as part of the Advent Calendar after I fixed the issues. I just ended up uploading the whole thing a second time once I’d fixed the issues. That took a bit of doing as the library is a whopping 9.9 GB. I feel for the the people who have to work through everything before its posted. I don’t know to what extent Spitfire is involved in paying staff to handle such duties, or if they’re paid at all. They might all be volunteers for all I know, so I’ve been careful to tread lightly, to try to set my frustrations aside, and to approach with respect. I think the site is going through some growing pains at the moment, and I think they will work themselves out eventually. I don’t know what percentage of PianoBook users are also Spitfire customers, but hopefully Spitfire sees some value to their company in supporting Piano Book. Every single sample library I bought this past year was from Spitfire. Hopefully they’re aware of those connections.

    BTW, loved your Shakuhachi library, Eamon!


    Sam E.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.