OCR Collaborations - Specific ordering on Youtube?

[Rexy]

Thought I'd ask this in here for those that run OCR's Youtube page. If it needs to be merged somewhere, then feel free, I guess.

When I saw the recent mixpost for Super Dodge Ball "Almost Frozen" on Youtube, I saw that whoever uploaded it gave Monobrow first dibs. Usually, I'm under the assumption that the lead arranger (in that case, me) would be stated first, then the other artists involved; if not, is there a specific ordering on how you list the artists on Youtube?

Please reply as soon as you can. Thanks

[Liontamer]

M came before R. But the intention is to list lead arranger first on YouTube, and I forgot to here, so fixed.

[WillRock]

  Liontamer said:

the intention is to list lead arranger first on YouTube, and I forgot to here, so fixed.

I don't actually think thats a good idea because it just confuses what order the they are put in. Its all very pedantic, but if listing the lead arranger is your intention, you've put mixers in the wrong order on a few of my collabs (I believe i've been the main arranger in all my collabs)

If you don't know the lead arranger, listing it as such is a bit pointless. I'd stick with doing it alphabetically for everything to keep things more simple.

That said, I don't think its worth too much thought over.

[DusK]

  WillRock said:

I'd stick with doing it alphabetically for everything to keep things more simple.

As a ReMixer whose nick begins with a D, I endorse this.

But seriously, he's got a point. It just keeps things simple. It's alphabetical on the site, right? So why not on YouTube too?

[Argle]

Alphabetically works for me.

[Liontamer]

  WillRock said:

I don't actually think thats a good idea because it just confuses what order the they are put in. Its all very pedantic, but if listing the lead arranger is your intention, you've put mixers in the wrong order on a few of my collabs (I believe i've been the main arranger in all my collabs)

If you don't know the lead arranger, listing it as such is a bit pointless. I'd stick with doing it alphabetically for everything to keep things more simple.

That said, I don't think its worth too much thought over.

It's not worth too much thought, but I like the informal system I have for YouTube. For example: http://youtube.com/1NryFD9_hR0 - There are 4 arrangers, but I could only fit 1 in the video title, and I know Theophany was the lead, I'm going to put his name there first. It wouldn't make sense to list Docjazz4 if I can only fit 1 arranger name just because D comes first alphabetically.

People are often guilty of skimming over information and not giving credit where credit is due, and I don't have the benefit of including the writeup in the video description to provide context, so sometimes not listing artist in alpha order on the video title helps me for either space or recognition concerns. Can't please everyone though.

[WillRock]

  Liontamer said:

It's not worth too much thought, but I like the informal system I have for YouTube. For example: http://youtube.com/1NryFD9_hR0 - There are 4 arrangers, but I could only fit 1 in the video title, and I know Theophany was the lead, I'm going to put his name there first. It wouldn't make sense to list Docjazz4 if I can only fit 1 arranger name just because D comes first alphabetically.

People are often guilty of skimming over information and not giving credit where credit is due, and I don't have the benefit of including the writeup in the video description to provide context, so sometimes not listing artist in alpha order on the video title helps me for either space or recognition concerns. Can't please everyone though.

Fair enough. I'd still opt for alphabetically personally, but giving the right mixer the right amount of props is thoughtful. Just gotta make sure you don't highlight the wrong artist