modulargrid.net - the modular planner

Cwejman, Livewire, TipTop Audio, Doepfer etc... Get your euro on!

Moderators: Kent, Joe., luketeaford, lisa

Post Reply
User avatar
S0210
Common Wiggler
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2017 4:52 pm

Post by S0210 » Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:55 am

How to report duplications?
Image

JohnLRice

Post by JohnLRice » Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:46 am

S0210 wrote:How to report duplications?
Image
If it's not locked for editing (like a Manufacturer Approved module), determine which is the dupe, typically by date added, and then append the title to say something like *DUPE!* and in the long description explain why it's a dupe and maybe put a link to the correct one. Then change the image of the module to something jarringly obvious, have fun with it! :hihi: The reason being that a dupe can't be deleted while at least one person has it in a rack, and not enough people would notice or even care so long as the module image looks correct, so changing it to some goofy picture will get everyone to quickly switch to the correct one. Try something like this:
Image

If a manufacturer did upload an original and then a dupe, there is a link to send them a message where you can explain the situation and ask them to correct it.

User avatar
mgregory22
Learning to Wiggle
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:33 pm

Post by mgregory22 » Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:32 pm

Hey solitud, great job on ModularGrid! That program is amazing. I use it all the time.

Ok, now that I've buttered you up, can I make a feature request?

I wish there was an operation that would allow you to push multiple modules left and right. I can picture clicking on a "Push Left" button, clicking on a module, and it would move the clicked module, and all modules to the left of it, all the way to the left, eliminating all the gaps between the modules.

But seriously, with or without this feature, ModularGrid is totally sweet and it's saved me so much time.

User avatar
solitud
Ultra Wiggler
Posts: 934
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:01 am
Location: Berlin
Contact:

Post by solitud » Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:41 pm

mgregory22 wrote:Hey solitud, great job on ModularGrid! That program is amazing. I use it all the time.

Ok, now that I've buttered you up, can I make a feature request?

I wish there was an operation that would allow you to push multiple modules left and right. [..]
Thanks, we already have a similar function via keyboard shortcuts!
Hover over a module and then press "," or "." to move the module to the next neighbor.
https://modulargrid.net | modular database
https://f0f7.net | online sysex librarian

User avatar
mgregory22
Learning to Wiggle
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:33 pm

Post by mgregory22 » Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:37 pm

solitud wrote:Thanks, we already have a similar function via keyboard shortcuts!
Hover over a module and then press "," or "." to move the module to the next neighbor.
Oh nice! I did not know that. Thank you! That's perfect!

Videographics
Common Wiggler
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 4:25 pm
Location: California

Post by Videographics » Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:23 pm

I knew about the “,” and “.” so I was imagining mgregory22 was asking for a feature where all the modules would be pushed together to close up the empty space for the whole row on one side or the other. I’d love to see that. Right now if I want to move a 2hp module from one side of a row to another, I have to move every module individually — even with the current (super-helpful) keyboard shortcuts. Maybe that could be possible with adding the alt or opt key.

User avatar
prae
Wiggling with Experience
Posts: 435
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 1:50 pm

Post by prae » Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:27 am

hey, i have a Q about this site. is it possible to search existing racks that include certain modules?

so for example you can see everyone who’s using a piston honda, maths, optomix and what they're using them with...
:doepfer:

User avatar
solitud
Ultra Wiggler
Posts: 934
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:01 am
Location: Berlin
Contact:

Post by solitud » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:04 am

prae wrote:hey, i have a Q about this site. is it possible to search existing racks that include certain modules?

so for example you can see everyone who’s using a piston honda, maths, optomix and what they're using them with...
There is a function which might do what you want:

Create a Rack with the modules you want to search.
In Rack view in the top left menu is an entry Show->Similar Racks
https://modulargrid.net | modular database
https://f0f7.net | online sysex librarian

User avatar
solitud
Ultra Wiggler
Posts: 934
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:01 am
Location: Berlin
Contact:

Post by solitud » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:08 am

... and while I am here

update
Marketplace: location based notifications

In your user settings you now can set your country.
If you do this you should only get marketplace notifications of offers in your continent.
https://modulargrid.net | modular database
https://f0f7.net | online sysex librarian

User avatar
S0210
Common Wiggler
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2017 4:52 pm

Post by S0210 » Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:15 am

solitud wrote:
prae wrote:hey, i have a Q about this site. is it possible to search existing racks that include certain modules?

so for example you can see everyone who’s using a piston honda, maths, optomix and what they're using them with...
There is a function which might do what you want:

Create a Rack with the modules you want to search.
In Rack view in the top left menu is an entry Show->Similar Racks
Although there's still place for improvement for the Show / Similar Racks algorithm as noted above. :roll:

User avatar
JoeFuture
Wiggling with Experience
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon May 23, 2016 3:57 pm
Location: the void

Post by JoeFuture » Fri Apr 05, 2019 9:47 pm

Could you add a feature to hide the overall value/price of the rack to save my marriage? :hihi:

User avatar
Sleipnir
Veteran Wiggler
Posts: 707
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 11:24 am
Location: Los Gatos, CA

Post by Sleipnir » Fri Apr 05, 2019 11:06 pm

JoeFuture wrote:Could you add a feature to hide the overall value/price of the rack to save my marriage? :hihi:
In User Settings:
Image

User avatar
sempervirent
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 4427
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:40 pm
Location: Republic of Cascadia
Contact:

Post by sempervirent » Thu Apr 11, 2019 4:34 pm

When trying to sign in, I see an error:
reCAPTCHA error: missing-input-response. Just try again!
Even after trying again a few more times, the error persists. Have disabled all browser extensions.

EDIT: this problem seems to be resolved.

User avatar
solitud
Ultra Wiggler
Posts: 934
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:01 am
Location: Berlin
Contact:

Post by solitud » Thu May 16, 2019 11:16 am

sempervirent wrote:When trying to sign in, I see an error:
reCAPTCHA error: missing-input-response. Just try again!
Even after trying again a few more times, the error persists. Have disabled all browser extensions.

EDIT: this problem seems to be resolved.
Yes, sorry for that.
Beside the dreadful server performance in the last weeks we were hit by a lot of spam and I tried to fight it with an invisible recaptcha on login. That was a bad idea, login is back to normal.
(and server should be more stable too)
https://modulargrid.net | modular database
https://f0f7.net | online sysex librarian

User avatar
dysonant
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 1493
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2014 10:18 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by dysonant » Fri May 17, 2019 8:26 am

Hi Solitud & friends, I brought something up a while back about metadata. Specifically the function field and how users tend to use this field to describe all of the functions of a module. I suggested that it had become extremely difficult to find modules that serve the intended function. There is not a clear way to discern which modules have the ability to do random things and an actual random module. The implemented solution was to give priority to the functions through sorting results by the number of functions. Therefore somewhat penalizing the modules listed with many functions by having them appear lower in the list. I believe the hope was that people would prioritize the main function of a module so the submitted module would appear higher on the list.

This is clearly not the reality. Today, I went to research random modules. Very specifically I wanted to see modules intended to generate random signals. Quite high up in the list, I saw the WMD Metron. While the Metron is clearly capable of random, it is definitively a sequencer first. Also high up in the list is the Eloquencer(another sequencer), Batumi (an LFO) and Furthrrrr Generator(an oscillator). These all display before the SSF Ultra-Random Analog.

I know this is due to the sorting and the amount of functions listed per module. I also realize that many modules are cross functional. I had originally proposed that two levels of meta data could be a solution. For example "module type" or "main function" only 1 selection allowed, for which the URA would be assigned "Random". Then "functions" in which many selections could be made. I realize there are problems with this approach, because many modules have a multitude of equally weighted functions.

Given that the site data is maintained by its users, I believe a more foolproof method of assigning data would be beneficial to all. You provide and extremely valuable service to the modular community which I greatly appreciate. It is unfortunate that over time, the usefulness degrades because it is only as good as the data input by the community.

I am not proposing a solution here as I do not know what may work. I am simply curious how many others have as much difficulty as I when researching. And, if this is an issue for others, I am hoping to encourage a productive dialogue that may lead to a solution.

User avatar
eircom
Common Wiggler
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 2:07 am
Location: moscow

Post by eircom » Fri May 17, 2019 8:43 am

dysonant wrote:I believe a more foolproof method of assigning data would be beneficial to all
I completely agree. One possible improvement would be if a tag system could be implemented that would allow for adding a number of pre-programmed tags, somewhat akin to VCV rack which has what looks to me like an efficient module selection system.

But what would justify the clean up the mess cat then? :love:

User avatar
evileye0702
Ultra Wiggler
Posts: 955
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 1:31 pm

Post by evileye0702 » Fri May 17, 2019 9:01 am

The bigger challenge is probably fixing what is already "broken".

I would think a "primary" function (one only) plus additional secondary function (0 or more) would work pretty well.

It could even be extended to 3 levels : primary (one only), secondary (0-5) and auxillary (0 or more). Then a category "score" based on those 3 levels.

No matter the solution I think it'll require the user community to improve it. It's going to be a bit troublesome because categories are somewhat subjective.

User avatar
propertyof
Wiggling with Experience
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 7:58 pm

Post by propertyof » Fri May 17, 2019 11:21 am

Is it possible to search modules by filtering using its depth?
If not, would be nice and very helpful to add this feature I guess, considering the recent trends on eurorack case with shallow depth.

JohnLRice

Post by JohnLRice » Fri May 17, 2019 11:50 am

propertyof wrote:Is it possible to search modules by filtering using its depth?
If not, would be nice and very helpful to add this feature I guess, considering the recent trends on eurorack case with shallow depth.
There is but it really needs some enhancements. The depth really needs to be displayed on the sorted selections, like the little gray box that shows HP. Also there needs to be a check box that affects all sort parameters to exclude modules that don't have a value for the searched parameter, because all modules that don't have a value end up randomly at the beginning or end of the search and since there is no way to tell how deep a module is without going to the full info page for each one it's really tedious and frustrating to find minimum depth modules. :bang: :cry: Owners of 4ms Pod cases can relate I'm sure. :hihi:

Image

User avatar
propertyof
Wiggling with Experience
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 7:58 pm

Post by propertyof » Fri May 17, 2019 12:00 pm

Exactly what John has said :chug:

I just realized that we can sort the search result by “depth”. Seems new addition? or maybe I just didn’t pay attention.

JohnLRice

Post by JohnLRice » Fri May 17, 2019 12:27 pm

propertyof wrote:Exactly what John has said :chug:

I just realized that we can sort the search result by “depth”. Seems new addition? or maybe I just didn’t pay attention.
It's actually been a feature since Dec 1st 2016 . . . but I don't think I noticed myself until the middle of last year sometime! :oops:

User avatar
solitud
Ultra Wiggler
Posts: 934
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:01 am
Location: Berlin
Contact:

Post by solitud » Fri May 17, 2019 2:14 pm

dysonant wrote:[..]The implemented solution was to give priority to the functions through sorting results by the number of functions. Therefore somewhat penalizing the modules listed with many functions by having them appear lower in the list. I believe the hope was that people would prioritize the main function of a module so the submitted module would appear higher on the list.
yes, that was the idea.
dysonant wrote: This is clearly not the reality.
The function is simple and works as intended but what people like to find is more complicated than an "if else" statement can deliver.
dysonant wrote: I know this is due to the sorting and the amount of functions listed per module. I also realize that many modules are cross functional. I had originally proposed that two levels of meta data could be a solution. For example "module type" or "main function" only 1 selection allowed, for which the URA would be assigned "Random". Then "functions" in which many selections could be made. I realize there are problems with this approach, because many modules have a multitude of equally weighted functions.

Given that the site data is maintained by its users, I believe a more foolproof method of assigning data would be beneficial to all. You provide and extremely valuable service to the modular community which I greatly appreciate. It is unfortunate that over time, the usefulness degrades because it is only as good as the data input by the community.
My hope was that the manufacturer accounts would improve the situation but it turned out that they are even more lazy than the normal user.
evileye0702 wrote:The bigger challenge is probably fixing what is already "broken".
[...]

No matter the solution I think it'll require the user community to improve it. It's going to be a bit troublesome because categories are somewhat subjective.
That is a problem. The data is not complete as it should. Look at *Product Lifecycle -> Property unassigned*. All these modules are missing data if they are available or discontinued. Same thing with the tagging, it's inconsistent because it's done by a lot of different users.
JohnLRice wrote:The depth really needs to be displayed on the sorted selections, like the little gray box that shows HP. Also there needs to be a check box that affects all sort parameters to exclude modules that don't have a value for the searched parameter, because all modules that don't have a value end up randomly at the beginning or end of the search and since there is no way to tell how deep a module is without going to the full info page for each one it's really tedious and frustrating to find minimum depth modules. :bang: :cry: Owners of 4ms Pod cases can relate I'm sure. :hihi:
Great idea and quite easy to do, so... we have that now! If you sort by *depth*, module depth is displayed in the info boxes. Modules with a depth of NULL are excluded by the search.
https://modulargrid.net | modular database
https://f0f7.net | online sysex librarian

JohnLRice

Post by JohnLRice » Fri May 17, 2019 2:31 pm

solitud wrote:
JohnLRice wrote:The depth really needs to be displayed on the sorted selections, like the little gray box that shows HP. Also there needs to be a check box that affects all sort parameters to exclude modules that don't have a value for the searched parameter, because all modules that don't have a value end up randomly at the beginning or end of the search and since there is no way to tell how deep a module is without going to the full info page for each one it's really tedious and frustrating to find minimum depth modules. :bang: :cry: Owners of 4ms Pod cases can relate I'm sure. :hihi:
Great idea and quite easy to do, so... we have that now! If you sort by *depth*, module depth is displayed in the info boxes. Modules with a depth of NULL are excluded by the search.
:party: YEAY!!!!! :party: Thanks so much! :yay: :hail: I thought I had suggested this last year on the ModularGrid forum but assumed it was too much work or something but maybe you didn't see the comment or maybe I thought I posted it but didn't? :oops:

User avatar
solitud
Ultra Wiggler
Posts: 934
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:01 am
Location: Berlin
Contact:

Post by solitud » Fri May 17, 2019 3:57 pm

JohnLRice wrote: :party: YEAY!!!!! :party: Thanks so much! :yay: :hail: I thought I had suggested this last year on the ModularGrid forum but assumed it was too much work or something but maybe you didn't see the comment or maybe I thought I posted it but didn't? :oops:
Sorry it took so long, sometimes its hard to keep track about the requests ...
https://modulargrid.net | modular database
https://f0f7.net | online sysex librarian

User avatar
propertyof
Wiggling with Experience
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 7:58 pm

Post by propertyof » Fri May 17, 2019 5:28 pm

Wow that was fast! Thanks solitud
:tu:

Post Reply

Return to “Eurorack Modules”