Do we really need 300 music categories?

September 26, 2007 11:17 AM

Is 300 categories (give or take a few) too many for an online music listing?

We are putting together a new music centered website. The chief music editor submitted a list of 300 categories for the site to sort music by. Some of us think the size of the list is too big, others think it's ok.

The site is a music directory that lists upcoming shows in on a weekly basis, in a smallish midwestern town (about 200,000 in the area). The editor admits that some of the generes, such a NYC Punk or Jangle-Pop rarely come through town, but his thinking is that it's important that we list when they do. We agree and think putting a small blurb with the listing will cover that. The editor says he can't do that, as it's time consuming on a weekly basis and he'd prefer to be able to list one of these 300 categories instead of writing a blurb.

What do you think? Should we have so many categories or is it overkill?

posted by MichaelKnight to Media & Arts (25 answers total)

So if I want to look for jazz concerts, do I have to click through a dozen or so obscure styles? If so, then you have a problem, because the site will be completely unusable. Listing subgenres as additional (possibly searchable) information is OK though.
posted by sour cream at 11:25 AM on September 26, 2007

If the webpage will list all 300 even if the niche ones have no entries, then yes that's way too many.

One possible solution would be to put the top [X] popular categories on the main listing page (where X is a suitable number, ~20), and then put the complete list on a second page.

Another solution is to make a tree structure where you gradually refine as you navigate. So you'd go to Punk, there you'd find any upcoming shows in the Punk genre but also a listing of further genres (NYC Punk, Hardcore Punk, etc)
posted by Meagan at 11:30 AM on September 26, 2007

Yes, 300 is too many unless you have terminal hipsterism and can't live without micro-genres that are meaningless to 99% of your audience. But hey, maybe your editor has Pitchfork envy.
posted by rhizome at 11:39 AM on September 26, 2007

It sounds like you have two problems you're trying to solve with the categories: users finding bands and the editor describing bands. Categories can be used to solve both, but you will need a category tree to make it work. Genres aren't great for searching except at the highest level—after a certain point the boundaries become too fuzzy to be meaningful (may I direct your attention to the Wikipedia talk page for emo). But having that many categories will be very useful for the editor who only has to click a few buttons to categorize an artist and give the reader a fair sense of what to expect.

So: keep the categories, but structure the site according to only a handful of genres.
posted by wemayfreeze at 11:40 AM on September 26, 2007

Also note that non-hardcore fans may have no freaking clue what "NYC Punk" refers to. If you insist on breaking things down to that kind of detail, at least make them sub-categories instead of 300 incomprehensible 'genres' - but broader categories and blurbs is definitely much more useful, at least to me.
posted by Tomorrowful at 11:42 AM on September 26, 2007

Seconding those who have suggested a category tree.
posted by dseaton at 11:42 AM on September 26, 2007

Wait, give me more about what the hell you're trying to do. Three hundred sub-genres may or may not be too many.
posted by klangklangston at 11:42 AM on September 26, 2007

If browsing shows by category is an option, yes that's entirely too many. Or if the reader's use of the site depends on them knowing/agreeing with your categorization of a band/musician. Trees, subcategories, like everyone up there sez, would help.

Frinstance, if I missed a show by my favorite power-pop band because your editor had them categorized as pop-punk, or something like that, I would not be likely to use your site again.
posted by jessenoonan at 11:43 AM on September 26, 2007

I think it could be cool to have that many categories; if you knew _exactly_ what you liked, it could make it easy to narrow things down. But people may need help categorizing things (if you allow that kind of user submission). And you may need to allow items to belong to more than one category (music may not always fit exactly into a predefined category).
posted by amtho at 11:44 AM on September 26, 2007

For these purposes, I don't see why you'd need any more than ten categories. Three hundred would be quite silly indeed.

Someone's going to have to wade through that list every time and find the category that best represents each artist. I don't understand how that's less time-consuming than writing one or two brief sentences.
posted by Reggie Digest at 11:47 AM on September 26, 2007

I just want to find music, not play librarian. More than a dozen is acting as if your potential users were as into music as you are.
posted by yerfatma at 11:51 AM on September 26, 2007

To put it simply: 300 subcategories would be fine, but 300 categories would not.

I have to imagine that you could get by with a dozen or so. If the count got up to more than twenty, I don't think I'd even bother looking through it.
posted by mjgrady at 12:00 PM on September 26, 2007

We can not do major categories and subcategories (software limitation). This may sound bad to you, but that's the way it is, so it's off the table.

The editor's point is that it's important to have comprehesive list. My point is that it's counterproductive and potentially frustrating to the user. If you get keep looking for NYC Punk and it doesn't show up, then why keep looking for it? The editor's take is that those who now and like NYC Punk as opposed to Straight-Edge or Cowpunk willl appreciate the fact that we have such categories and view us more favorably and those are the times to repeatedly check for shows in those genres. My point is that how many is that really?

As for what we're trying to do, it's something similar to LA Weekly's music listing, where you can find out who's playing and where. If LA weekly or any of the other big alt weeklies aren't using 300 categories, there's no reason why we should.
posted by MichaelKnight at 12:05 PM on September 26, 2007

Someone who likes NYC Punk, but won't go anywhere near Straight-Edge and Cowpunk is really, really anal.
posted by Reggie Digest at 12:13 PM on September 26, 2007

Magnatune categorizes their albums into just seven genres, and I find their site eminently usable.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:14 PM on September 26, 2007

You are right. Your editor is wrong. Tell him I said so. Users will not appreciate 275 categories that are empty 50 weeks a year. If after the 3rd or 4th visit it's still empty, they won't check again. And users will view you much less favorably if your categorizations don't match their own.
posted by jessenoonan at 12:25 PM on September 26, 2007

Jessenoonan is absolutely correct. The internet is for many people about instant gratification. If I check somebody's blog and they don't have an update after the 4th or 5th time I check it, I delete the bookmark. 300 categories on a website and 270 are empty 50 weeks a year?

Goodbye website.
posted by Justinian at 12:29 PM on September 26, 2007

Also, the people who would repeatedly check a genre that repeatedly comes up empty probably already have some other source of information just for fans of that particular genre.
posted by jessenoonan at 12:38 PM on September 26, 2007

If you really need to make "proof" to convince the editor, write up a sample survey and ask as many music lovers in the town to respond. But good luck convincing the editor you're right - one of the biggest problems in web development/design is telling the client that what THEY want may not be what the USER wants, and it is the USER that matters most.
posted by Meagan at 12:46 PM on September 26, 2007

Yeah, so, as someone who has worked on music events listings, your editor is full of shit. I could understand it if it were 300 separate genre tags that could be added to things, but frankly both your editor and your software seem to be suboptimal for the task you'd like to accomplish.

Feel free to email me for more advice, but this seems like yet another FargoRockCity.com that will annoy people looking for information and be abandoned entirely a year down the road.
posted by klangklangston at 12:50 PM on September 26, 2007

Categories are the wrong way to do this. Tags are the right way. You need to be able to slap multiple labels onto each entry, so instead of having a category for "bluesy rock with a psychedelic influence", you just tag "blues, rock, psychedelic" and call it a day.

That way, people browsing any one tag will see all the entries they might be interested in, and they can see the other tags to get an idea of what twist this group offers.

If you must, have a couple main categories (like the Magnatune seven, above), but do everything underneath with tags. If your software doesn't allow this, get new software. The point of computers is to do what we tell them, after all.
posted by Myself at 12:51 PM on September 26, 2007

Maybe think of it in terms of the number of listings you'd like to have per category; Pick categories that will have 2-10 listings each period (week?), or whatever number makes sense.
posted by amtho at 1:03 PM on September 26, 2007

We can slap multiple categories on a listing, no problem. The editor wants to use that in the fashion that myself describes, as opposed to writing a blurb.
posted by MichaelKnight at 1:20 PM on September 26, 2007

Well, then fine. Put a million catagories on there.
posted by klangklangston at 1:25 PM on September 26, 2007

The general rule of menus is that any more than 6 categories or 6 headings at any one level and the users eyes will glaze over. Use hierarchy, or searching.

(and it's 6 so that when it stretches to a necessary 9 or 10 you can put a stop to it there)
posted by holloway at 3:53 PM on September 26, 2007