backwoods
yeah-- you suck Noel :) 

Full disclosure: I have never heard Noel play "Stairway to Heaven" at a Guitar Center.

Anderton

backwoods
yeah-- you suck Noel :) 

Full disclosure: I have never heard Noel play "Stairway to Heaven" at a Guitar Center.

i know Noel is a terrific player
 

I for one am disgusted with this new feature. The fact I could switch it off not ever worry about it is irrelevant. Even though there is zero chance of anything in my life changing I feel I should protest about something.
 
So I turn this feature on, let's face it all cakewalk are probably interested in is what underwear I am wearing and whether I am into bovine sexual activities. Well of course this simply disgusts me that cakewalk could even think about this stuff.... just because I randomly wrote and invented this out of nowhere is not the point. Yes it is shocking... but when you compare it to the fact they are probably just collecting in their database stuff like me adding new tracks and softsynths, yes I know frightening... is beyond me
 
I have science to prove this... How dare you cakewalk!!

Anderton
I call it the "looking over someone's shoulder" effect.

This about sums up what I don't like about analytics.  I'd like some more detailed examples of what might be collected and how it could help in Sonar's future.  There are very powerful functions that many probably don't know about so will never use, or that have bugs so that those that know of it won't use it either.  Does that mean the function can be removed because no one is using it ?
 
If we opt-out (one more thing to think about) will Sonar still record everything, but just not send it out ?
 

tenfoot
Another thought is that there is a problem report section of your forum stacked with posts from users who took the time to analyse and report bugs. That might be a good place to start if you are looking for relevent feedback that will vastly improve Sonar!

I'm in total agreement with this.  I spent the better part of a couple of days investigating and documenting a bug which I reported in that forum.  Others have done much more.  They never got a pc module for the effort, nor much encouragement.  The problem reporter is impossible to use when the issue is complex so I gave up on that.

Anderton
Someone suggested this in the forums a while back, and I thought it was a good idea.
 

There are lot many people have suggested other ideas as well - since long time back - and you think those ideas were bad?
 
Regards
Snehankur

I couldn't care less about achievements, but I'm not opposed to you adding them. However, by no means should they ever pop up on my screen while I'm working in Sonar. If they are even viewable within the main program, they should be accessed manually from some separate menu. Better yet, only viewable from your Cake account online. 

FanCake
So I turn this feature on, let's face it all cakewalk are probably interested in is what underwear I am wearing and whether I am into bovine sexual activities.

I dunno about Cakewalk, but you've certainly got my attention.

Paul P
There are very powerful functions that many probably don't know about so will never use, or that have bugs so that those that know of it won't use it either.  Does that mean the function can be removed because no one is using it ?
If we opt-out (one more thing to think about) will Sonar still record everything, but just not send it out ?

 
It doesn't mean the feature will be removed but it could help us determine how much attention to give that specific feature in the future. Or on the other hand it might help us understand how to expose that feature to users in a more intuitive way if it indeed is useful but buried.
 
Opting out is the same as zero analytics. No data is saved or sent ever.
 
Regarding bugs I've already said that its different from this. Analytics is not designed to find bugs, its to understand workflow.

I didn't read through this all, but the "rewards" idea could be made even simpler and useful IMO (only caught a few comments on this before typing this post).
 
Example... someone who puts 40+ hours a week behind the wheel of SONAR should get higher precedence in both bug reporting and feature requests over those who have used SONAR for 15 minutes combined in the past 3 months. This does not imply that they "go to the head of the line" and trump everyone else outright, but that their opinions and votes count for "more value" (2:1, 5:1, whatever...) Even a simple "hours logged" multiplier (with fudge factor to keep numbers reasonable) would be a wiser metric for sorting inputs/feedback (plus CW can specifically focus surveys to different groups to bucket "legacy woes" versus "new user hurdles" and such).
 
In this regard, it could highly sway (for the better) the "squeaky wheel gets the oil" syndrome that occurs often in here.
 
For transparency purposes, the above does not apply to me specifically, that ship has sailed.

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]

Paul P
There are very powerful functions that many probably don't know about so will never use, or that have bugs so that those that know of it won't use it either.  Does that mean the function can be removed because no one is using it ?
If we opt-out (one more thing to think about) will Sonar still record everything, but just not send it out ?

 
It doesn't mean the feature will be removed but it could help us determine how much attention to give that specific feature in the future. Or on the other hand it might help us understand how to expose that feature to users in a more intuitive way if it indeed is useful but buried.
 
 
 
Regarding bugs I've already said that its different from this. Analytics is not designed to find bugs, its to understand workflow.

I think that is the point Noel. If we aren't using an advanced feature because of a bug involving an annoying workaround awaiting a fix, wouldn't analytics only make it less likely to get attention because the data you receive tells you no one is using it?