Re: RFC-333: Unify track/recording guidelines

On 1 August 2011 10:45, jesus2099 <hta3s836gzacohe <at> jetable.org> wrote:
> -1
>
> « It's hard to discuss something with you if you don't read my emails. I
> explained why is it more difficult. »
> OK I find it more readable like a simple letter, when we don’t include all
> the past text but, if that’s what you want :
>

I think he was referring more to the fact that you didn't comment on
any of the previous points that have been made in this thread, rather
than you didn't include them verbatim in the e-mail.

> « 1) The original editor has to learn the recording style guidelines
> anyway. »
> Not *any* way, just “your” way.
>
> « 2) The original editor ignores recordings and MB starts getting less
> useful data. »
> That’s your point of view. it appears to me as useful data when it’s
> unaltered.
>

So what would your way be?

If it involves not learning recording guidelines, then it sounds like
we'd end up with a pretty useless database, full of junk either from
mistakes on covers or just from users (the cover to DB process via the
user is not faultless).

The primary purpose of putting something in a database is to structure
and normalise it, so information can be accurately retrieved.  It
sounds like what you want instead is a computer-readable cover archive
which unfortunately no-one seems to offer.  Discogs is pretty close
though, but varies massively just as MB does.

I very much doubt you're going to get agreement on a completely
unnormalised database, so a compromise is necessary.

> « 3) Some other editor fixes the recordings, which adds even more work for
> voters. »
> That’s also true when you enter altered titles and then someone with the
> release has to fix track titles back.

What about, as in a large number of cases, where the person does not
have the release?  Many releases I've seen entered come from random
websites like Amazon.  Under your suggestion, these would be treated
as equally valid to the release covers.

>
> « most editors prefer to have normalized track titles »
> Who ? well, at least the users reading the ML maybe ?
>
> « There is a minority of users who would like track titles that more closely
> follow album covers, »
> In the ML, you mean ? very few people are courageous enough to come here
>
> « but NGS doesn't provide a good technical solution to this. »
> Yes it is, with tracks.
>

We can't cater to people who don't bother to speak up.  From what I've
seen, most of the editors I see making edits DO contribute on this
list anyway.

I don't think we should make the entire database cater to transient
users who enter one or two releases badly, then vanish.  Our
guidelines should work on a meritocratic basis, focusing on the needs
of the editors putting the most work into contributing to the database
and the guidelines themselves, rather than some undefined bunch of
people who don't bother to contribute to discussions.

> (About tagger feature to choose between track or recording titles)
> « I also answered this issue earlier. »
> I haven’t read anything about Picard nor foo_musicbrainz in this thread
> yet ?
> And this is not an issue, it’s a feature by the way.

I don't see what features in applications have to do with any of this.

>
> -----
> jesus2099 × Ti = Tristan + patate12 ÷ saucisson7
> mb : http://musicbrainz.org/user/jesus2099
> mb userscripts : http://userscripts.org/users/31010/scripts
> --
> View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-333-Unify-track-recording-guidelines-tp3695823p3709264.html
> Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style <at> lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

--

-- 
Andii 

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style <at> lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style