AmazonRelationship: Special cases

[Martin Lesser-6]

A discussion about a perhaps special case happened today[1] triggered
some questions here:

1. Does it make sense to follow the (probably economic driven) decision
   of amazon which of their stores is the "main" store for a release
   (the one which offers a release without the [IMPORT]-addition) in
   *any* case or could this be sometimes inconvenient for a MB-user?

2. Is the location of the label releasing an album more important than
   the origin and/or location of the artist if it comes to the
   Amazon-Relationship? Especially if script and/or language of release
   and amazon shop differ?

There are cases where an (i.e. French) artist is more popular on a
foreign market (i.e. Japan) also he/she produces his/her titles in his
native language/script and these titles are "only" transliterated into
the foreign language/script by the foreign producing company/label and
this transliteration only happens for the cover/package of the release.

In the situation described above it is IMO unconvenient for a user if
he/she visits a release page on MB with content he/she is able to read
but is forwarded to a shop where the track-titles are totally different
from the ones he/she has seen on MB. Wouldn't it be better to link to
one of the amazon-stores which uses the same script (i.e. Latin) the
titles of the release are written in instead of linking to a shop using
a different script (i.e. Kanji) and not depend too much on decisions
based on marketing-issues by amazon?

According to the MB-guidelines[2] "it is *preferred* to enter the
version of the amazon store which sells the original version". What's
the definition for "original version"? The location of the producing
company/label (vs. i.e. location of recording or mixing company if any)?

The requirement to link to the amazon-store which sells the original is
not traceable over the time (and not logical in some cases) - amazon may
change this at any time caused by marketing decisions. A good example
for this is another release[3] - it's up to the reader to find the
current one of the six amazon shops without the [IMPORT]-note ;-) The
original release was published by sonymusic.fr and you would expect that
amazon.fr is the "main" shop (but isn't).

Should the amazon-linking continue the strict way it is required at the
moment or should this issue be handled more liberate in the future?

Cheers

bettercom / Martin

Footnotes:
[1]  http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=10220113

[2]  http://musicbrainz.org/doc/AmazonRelationshipType

[3]  http://musicbrainz.org/show/release/?releaseid=175481


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users

[Chad Wilson-2]

On 11/03/2009 3:28 a.m., Martin Lesser wrote:
> A discussion about a perhaps special case happened today[1] triggered
> some questions here:
>
> 1. Does it make sense to follow the (probably economic driven) decision
>     of amazon which of their stores is the "main" store for a release
>     (the one which offers a release without the [IMPORT]-addition) in
>     *any* case or could this be sometimes inconvenient for a MB-user?
>    
IMO, if it's inconvenient, too bad. IMPORT pages often have errors and
sometimes different or lower quality artwork, as well as irrelevant
"release" dates and high pricing. So yes, I think it makes perfect
sense. The availability of a release as an IMPORT at various AMZ domains
may change quickly over time; much less so than the availability at its
original release location. There will be more reviews and other data on
the release country's store.

> 2. Is the location of the label releasing an album more important than
>     the origin and/or location of the artist if it comes to the
>     Amazon-Relationship? Especially if script and/or language of release
>     and amazon shop differ?
>    
Yes, IMO. See above.

> There are cases where an (i.e. French) artist is more popular on a
> foreign market (i.e. Japan) also he/she produces his/her titles in his
> native language/script and these titles are "only" transliterated into
> the foreign language/script by the foreign producing company/label and
> this transliteration only happens for the cover/package of the release.
>
> In the situation described above it is IMO unconvenient for a user if
> he/she visits a release page on MB with content he/she is able to read
> but is forwarded to a shop where the track-titles are totally different
> from the ones he/she has seen on MB. Wouldn't it be better to link to
> one of the amazon-stores which uses the same script (i.e. Latin) the
> titles of the release are written in instead of linking to a shop using
> a different script (i.e. Kanji) and not depend too much on decisions
> based on marketing-issues by amazon?
>
> According to the MB-guidelines[2] "it is *preferred* to enter the
> version of the amazon store which sells the original version". What's
> the definition for "original version"? The location of the producing
> company/label (vs. i.e. location of recording or mixing company if any)?
>    

I don't understand why this is an issue. Link to any non-IMPORT version.
Often there will be multiple. We can't control the script that Amazon
use on their pages, but it still doesn't make sense to me to use an
IMPORT on .com for a Japanese release just because .co.jp transliterates
the English to Kanji. Users can always set up preferred Amazon domains
in their preferences, as can anyone syndicating our data.

> The requirement to link to the amazon-store which sells the original is
> not traceable over the time (and not logical in some cases) - amazon may
> change this at any time caused by marketing decisions. A good example
> for this is another release[3] - it's up to the reader to find the
> current one of the six amazon shops without the [IMPORT]-note ;-) The
> original release was published by sonymusic.fr and you would expect that
> amazon.fr is the "main" shop (but isn't).
>    
That's probably because Amazon.fr is junk and mislabels many local
releases as import. Other stores do not typically have this issue in my
experience. We can't really avoid this.
> Should the amazon-linking continue the strict way it is required at the
> moment or should this issue be handled more liberate in the future?
>    
Strict, IMO, for consistency and maximum probability that the data on
the main page will be relevant and useful.

Chad / voiceinsideyou

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users

[chabreyflint]

Sorry, Chad, but I strongly disagree with your point of view – and with your philosophy. For me you argue on a principle which seems to be "laws are laws and they have to be enforced, whatever the cost". A company arguing: "Inconvenient for the user? Too bad!" would quickly be out of business (ok, ok, unless it's called Microsoft ;-) What we're having here are Style'''Guidelines''', not Style'''Laws''' (and we're not even in the domain of StrongGuidelines). And we have a specific problem, which you seem to ignore completely in your answer. 

Bettercom has tried to give a sensible answer to a "special case", based on our guidelines at doc:AmazonRelationshipType which specify "It is ''preferred'' to enter the version of the amazon store which sells the original version"  and "The purpose of the Amazon relationship is to provide cover images, ''but also additional information'' for releases". Based on this he made the well reflected choice to link not (only) to the Japanese site, which not only does not give the actual track listing of the release (which is in french on the CD cover), but only a transliteration in Kanji, but also has no "additional information" for all MB-users not familiar with Japanese. Bettercoms way of dealing with a "special case" makes sense IMO and has the advantage of being user-friendly. He was voted down with formalistic arguments (probably also a communication problem, since all involved editors AFAIK, and as it often happens, had to explain themselves in a foreign language...).

I see a few cases where listing to an non-primary (“import“) amazon-ASIN can make sense and should be tolerated – or even encouraged (maybe in addition to the primary link, since more than one amazon link can be entered):

1. When the "import" mention on amazon is obviously wrong (often the case on amazon.fr)

2. When an "import" site has better, additional information (reviews, additional or different cover pics)

3. When the primary site shows a transliterated version of the release information, be it for a french artist published in Japan (like here) or for a Russian artist published (with cover in Cyrillic) in France or in the United States (we then would add an additional link to amazon.ru ;-)

If such exceptions can not be accepted, then we should at least reformulate the guidelines for doc:AmazonRelationshipType, changing "it is *preferred*…" to "it is *compulsory*…" and removing "All ASINs are ok…"

And that links *may* not work for an eternity is no argument: this happens all the times to links provided on MB: fan pages closing down, official sites disappearing, record labels being discontinued…

Chris / chabreyflint

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Chad Wilson <chad.wilson@...> wrote:

On 11/03/2009 3:28 a.m., Martin Lesser wrote:
> A discussion about a perhaps special case happened today[1] triggered
> some questions here:
>
> 1. Does it make sense to follow the (probably economic driven) decision
>     of amazon which of their stores is the "main" store for a release
>     (the one which offers a release without the [IMPORT]-addition) in
>     *any* case or could this be sometimes inconvenient for a MB-user?
>

IMO, if it's inconvenient, too bad. IMPORT pages often have errors and
sometimes different or lower quality artwork, as well as irrelevant
"release" dates and high pricing. So yes, I think it makes perfect
sense. The availability of a release as an IMPORT at various AMZ domains
may change quickly over time; much less so than the availability at its
original release location. There will be more reviews and other data on
the release country's store.

> 2. Is the location of the label releasing an album more important than
>     the origin and/or location of the artist if it comes to the
>     Amazon-Relationship? Especially if script and/or language of release
>     and amazon shop differ?
>

Yes, IMO. See above.

> There are cases where an (i.e. French) artist is more popular on a
> foreign market (i.e. Japan) also he/she produces his/her titles in his
> native language/script and these titles are "only" transliterated into
> the foreign language/script by the foreign producing company/label and
> this transliteration only happens for the cover/package of the release.
>
> In the situation described above it is IMO unconvenient for a user if
> he/she visits a release page on MB with content he/she is able to read
> but is forwarded to a shop where the track-titles are totally different
> from the ones he/she has seen on MB. Wouldn't it be better to link to
> one of the amazon-stores which uses the same script (i.e. Latin) the
> titles of the release are written in instead of linking to a shop using
> a different script (i.e. Kanji) and not depend too much on decisions
> based on marketing-issues by amazon?
>
> According to the MB-guidelines[2] "it is *preferred* to enter the
> version of the amazon store which sells the original version". What's
> the definition for "original version"? The location of the producing
> company/label (vs. i.e. location of recording or mixing company if any)?
>

I don't understand why this is an issue. Link to any non-IMPORT version.
Often there will be multiple. We can't control the script that Amazon
use on their pages, but it still doesn't make sense to me to use an
IMPORT on .com for a Japanese release just because .co.jp transliterates
the English to Kanji. Users can always set up preferred Amazon domains
in their preferences, as can anyone syndicating our data.

> The requirement to link to the amazon-store which sells the original is
> not traceable over the time (and not logical in some cases) - amazon may
> change this at any time caused by marketing decisions. A good example
> for this is another release[3] - it's up to the reader to find the
> current one of the six amazon shops without the [IMPORT]-note ;-) The
> original release was published by sonymusic.fr and you would expect that
> amazon.fr is the "main" shop (but isn't).
>

That's probably because Amazon.fr is junk and mislabels many local
releases as import. Other stores do not typically have this issue in my
experience. We can't really avoid this.

> Should the amazon-linking continue the strict way it is required at the
> moment or should this issue be handled more liberate in the future?
>

Strict, IMO, for consistency and maximum probability that the data on
the main page will be relevant and useful.

Chad / voiceinsideyou

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users

[Chad Wilson-2]

On 13/03/2009 9:06 a.m., SwissChris wrote:
> Sorry, Chad, but I strongly disagree with your point of view – and
> with your philosophy. For me you argue on a principle which seems to
> be "laws are laws and they have to be enforced, whatever the cost".
Rubbish. I wrote down exactly the reasons that the rules are there; how
is that saying "rules are rules"? I disagree on your alleged "cost".
That cost from your perspective is a benefit to me.

> What we're having here are Style'''Guidelines''', not Style'''Laws'''
> (and we're not even in the domain of StrongGuidelines). And we have a
> specific problem, which you seem to ignore completely in your answer.
No, i did not ignore it, I said I don't agree that what you see as a
problem is a problem. And said

"I don't understand why this is an issue. Link to any non-IMPORT version.
Often there will be multiple. We can't control the script that Amazon
use on their pages, but it still doesn't make sense to me to use an
IMPORT on .com for a Japanese release just because .co.jp transliterates
the English to Kanji. Users can always set up preferred Amazon domains
in their preferences, as can anyone syndicating our data."

> Bettercom has tried to give a sensible answer to a "special case",
> based on our guidelines at doc:AmazonRelationshipType which specify
> "It is ''preferred'' to enter the version of the amazon store which
> sells the original version"  and "The purpose of the Amazon
> relationship is to provide cover images, ''but also additional
> information'' for releases". Based on this he made the well reflected
> choice to link not (only) to the Japanese site, which not only does
> not give the actual track listing of the release (which is in french
> on the CD cover), but only a transliteration in Kanji, but also has no
> "additional information" for all MB-users not familiar with Japanese.
> Bettercoms way of dealing with a "special case" makes sense IMO and
> has the advantage of being user-friendly. He was voted down with
> formalistic arguments (probably also a communication problem, since
> all involved editors AFAIK, and as it often happens, had to explain
> themselves in a foreign language...).

His example is not the "special case" you and he seem to think it is. A
very high percentage of Western American or British mainstream releases
have a Japanese version with bonus tracks, only available non-IMPORT in
Japan. Most of them will use kanji on .co.jp.

Your attitudes appear to be entirely Euro/Western centric. You argue for
convenience of Latin-reading Westerners of the origin artist's country,
not Japanese locals (for instance). Given Amazon choose to use Kanji,
it's obviously of convenience to /someone/ (Japanese) to have the titles
transliterated for sales purposes. What's convenient for you is
inconvenient for someone else.

That's why I specifically mention a point which you fail to address,
also mentioned above, and repeated again:

"Users can always set up preferred Amazon domains
in their preferences, as can anyone syndicating our data."

> I see a few cases where listing to an non-primary (“import“)
> amazon-ASIN can make sense and should be tolerated – or even
> encouraged (maybe in addition to the primary link, since more than one
> amazon link can be entered):
> 1. When the "import" mention on amazon is obviously wrong (often the
> case on amazon.fr <http://amazon.fr>)
Yes, this clearly should be done, if it's an Amazon error. I'm not
arguing against this case.

> And that links *may* not work for an eternity is no argument: this
> happens all the times to links provided on MB: fan pages closing down,
> official sites disappearing, record labels being discontinued…
It's a completely rational argument. If you have a choice between buying
products A and B, which are say fundamentally the same, except A will
probably last longer than B, would you decide to buy B instead just
because product C, which you also buy, has a tendency to break? That
doesn't make sense, it's comparing apples with oranges, instead of A with B.

Fundamentally, I don't agree with moves to make the choice of domain
more subjective. Your suggestions appear to veer down a path of choosing
what is more convenient to /you/ rather than more convenient to
everyone. Personal preferences should be removed from the guidelines as
much as possible, which is why we have the objective guideline of using
a non-import "home of original release" page. That is why we have user
preferences in MB itself, so if you want to have your Amazon
click-throughs go to .fr all the time, you can already do so.

Chad / voiceinsideyou

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users

[Aaron Cooper-3]

I struggled with this issue at one point, too.  Why would I want to
add a link to Amazon.co.jp when I can't read anything on those pages?

The reasons have been stated many times - Imports often have
inaccurate data and should not be used for release dates.  Tracklists
can easily be verified by copying & pasting into translate.google.com
to confirm a match before linking an ASIN to a MB release.

-cooperaa



On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Chad Wilson <chad.wilson@...> wrote:

> On 13/03/2009 9:06 a.m., SwissChris wrote:
>> Sorry, Chad, but I strongly disagree with your point of view – and
>> with your philosophy. For me you argue on a principle which seems to
>> be "laws are laws and they have to be enforced, whatever the cost".
> Rubbish. I wrote down exactly the reasons that the rules are there; how
> is that saying "rules are rules"? I disagree on your alleged "cost".
> That cost from your perspective is a benefit to me.
>
>> What we're having here are Style'''Guidelines''', not Style'''Laws'''
>> (and we're not even in the domain of StrongGuidelines). And we have a
>> specific problem, which you seem to ignore completely in your answer.
> No, i did not ignore it, I said I don't agree that what you see as a
> problem is a problem. And said
>
> "I don't understand why this is an issue. Link to any non-IMPORT version.
> Often there will be multiple. We can't control the script that Amazon
> use on their pages, but it still doesn't make sense to me to use an
> IMPORT on .com for a Japanese release just because .co.jp transliterates
> the English to Kanji. Users can always set up preferred Amazon domains
> in their preferences, as can anyone syndicating our data."
>
>> Bettercom has tried to give a sensible answer to a "special case",
>> based on our guidelines at doc:AmazonRelationshipType which specify
>> "It is ''preferred'' to enter the version of the amazon store which
>> sells the original version"  and "The purpose of the Amazon
>> relationship is to provide cover images, ''but also additional
>> information'' for releases". Based on this he made the well reflected
>> choice to link not (only) to the Japanese site, which not only does
>> not give the actual track listing of the release (which is in french
>> on the CD cover), but only a transliteration in Kanji, but also has no
>> "additional information" for all MB-users not familiar with Japanese.
>> Bettercoms way of dealing with a "special case" makes sense IMO and
>> has the advantage of being user-friendly. He was voted down with
>> formalistic arguments (probably also a communication problem, since
>> all involved editors AFAIK, and as it often happens, had to explain
>> themselves in a foreign language...).
> His example is not the "special case" you and he seem to think it is. A
> very high percentage of Western American or British mainstream releases
> have a Japanese version with bonus tracks, only available non-IMPORT in
> Japan. Most of them will use kanji on .co.jp.
>
> Your attitudes appear to be entirely Euro/Western centric. You argue for
> convenience of Latin-reading Westerners of the origin artist's country,
> not Japanese locals (for instance). Given Amazon choose to use Kanji,
> it's obviously of convenience to /someone/ (Japanese) to have the titles
> transliterated for sales purposes. What's convenient for you is
> inconvenient for someone else.
>
> That's why I specifically mention a point which you fail to address,
> also mentioned above, and repeated again:
>
> "Users can always set up preferred Amazon domains
> in their preferences, as can anyone syndicating our data."
>
>> I see a few cases where listing to an non-primary (“import“)
>> amazon-ASIN can make sense and should be tolerated – or even
>> encouraged (maybe in addition to the primary link, since more than one
>> amazon link can be entered):
>> 1. When the "import" mention on amazon is obviously wrong (often the
>> case on amazon.fr <http://amazon.fr>)
> Yes, this clearly should be done, if it's an Amazon error. I'm not
> arguing against this case.
>
>> And that links *may* not work for an eternity is no argument: this
>> happens all the times to links provided on MB: fan pages closing down,
>> official sites disappearing, record labels being discontinued…
> It's a completely rational argument. If you have a choice between buying
> products A and B, which are say fundamentally the same, except A will
> probably last longer than B, would you decide to buy B instead just
> because product C, which you also buy, has a tendency to break? That
> doesn't make sense, it's comparing apples with oranges, instead of A with B.
>
> Fundamentally, I don't agree with moves to make the choice of domain
> more subjective. Your suggestions appear to veer down a path of choosing
> what is more convenient to /you/ rather than more convenient to
> everyone. Personal preferences should be removed from the guidelines as
> much as possible, which is why we have the objective guideline of using
> a non-import "home of original release" page. That is why we have user
> preferences in MB itself, so if you want to have your Amazon
> click-throughs go to .fr all the time, you can already do so.
>
> Chad / voiceinsideyou
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-users mailing list
> MusicBrainz-users@...
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
>

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users

[chabreyflint]

Maybe this is really a communication problem for us non-native speakers. It seems to me you don't (or don't want to) understand my point of view, picking just some arguments and ignoring the others.

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 2:32 AM, Chad Wilson <chad.wilson@...> wrote:

On 13/03/2009 9:06 a.m., SwissChris wrote:
> Sorry, Chad, but I strongly disagree with your point of view – and
> with your philosophy. For me you argue on a principle which seems to
> be "laws are laws and they have to be enforced, whatever the cost".

Rubbish. I wrote down exactly the reasons that the rules are there; how
is that saying "rules are rules"? I disagree on your alleged "cost".
That cost from your perspective is a benefit to me.

 

You wrote also: " if it's inconvenient, too bad". I think convenience for the user (every user!) is important. 

> What we're having here are Style'''Guidelines''', not Style'''Laws'''
> (and we're not even in the domain of StrongGuidelines). And we have a
> specific problem, which you seem to ignore completely in your answer.

No, i did not ignore it, I said I don't agree that what you see as a
problem is a problem. And said

"I don't understand why this is an issue. Link to any non-IMPORT version.
Often there will be multiple. We can't control the script that Amazon
use on their pages, but it still doesn't make sense to me to use an
IMPORT on .com for a Japanese release just because .co.jp transliterates
the English to Kanji.

This answers shows that you didn't even look at the specific case. There is no other non-IMPORT version. We're speaking of a French artist producing and releasing a french disc exclusively in Japan.

 

Users can always set up preferred Amazon domains
in their preferences, as can anyone syndicating our data."

My preferred Amazon is set to french: but amazon.fr (other than amazon.com!) has no tracklisting and no helpful information whatsoever on this release. 

> Bettercom has tried to give a sensible answer to a "special case",
> based on our guidelines at doc:AmazonRelationshipType which specify
> "It is ''preferred'' to enter the version of the amazon store which
> sells the original version"  and "The purpose of the Amazon
> relationship is to provide cover images, ''but also additional
> information'' for releases". Based on this he made the well reflected
> choice to link not (only) to the Japanese site, which not only does
> not give the actual track listing of the release (which is in french
> on the CD cover), but only a transliteration in Kanji, but also has no
> "additional information" for all MB-users not familiar with Japanese.
> Bettercoms way of dealing with a "special case" makes sense IMO and
> has the advantage of being user-friendly. He was voted down with
> formalistic arguments (probably also a communication problem, since
> all involved editors AFAIK, and as it often happens, had to explain
> themselves in a foreign language...).

His example is not the "special case" you and he seem to think it is. A
very high percentage of Western American or British mainstream releases
have a Japanese version with bonus tracks, only available non-IMPORT in
Japan. Most of them will use kanji on .co.jp.

It's precisely *not* an American or british (or french) mainstream release, and *not* just a japanese *version* with additional tracks. And the release (cover, booklet, liner notes, credits) is entirely in latin script (see: http://bettercom.de/misc/mb/lvci.png and http://bettercom.de/misc/mb/lvc.png (user:mb pass:mb)) 

Your attitudes appear to be entirely Euro/Western centric. You argue for
convenience of Latin-reading Westerners of the origin artist's country,
not Japanese locals (for instance). Given Amazon choose to use Kanji,
it's obviously of convenience to /someone/ (Japanese) to have the titles
transliterated for sales purposes. What's convenient for you is
inconvenient for someone else.

This is plain unfair and wrong, if you re-read my text. I wrote (what you omit to quote here): "When the primary site shows a transliterated version of the release information, be it for a french artist published in Japan (like here) or for a Russian artist published (with cover in Cyrillic) in France or in the United States... (we then would add an additional link to amazon.ru ;-)". More seriously I could have written: "of course, in a similar case (of a japanese artist being released (only) in France), with a booklet all in Kanji, we should not only link to the transliterated form on amazon.fr, but also to the tracklisting in it's original form found on amazon.co.jp, even if it is marked as import. What's Euro/Western centric about that? And wouldn't that be convenient for everybody – and inconvenient for nobody?

That's why I specifically mention a point which you fail to address,
also mentioned above, and repeated again:

"Users can always set up preferred Amazon domains
in their preferences, as can anyone syndicating our data."

Well ok, see above. But as we know: "All ASINs are OK, but some are more OK" (from: http://musicbrainz.org/doc/AmazonRelationshipType). Thus, pointing – for non-japanese-speaking MB-Users –  to the one of the 5 "import" sites which has the most valuable information still makes sense.

> I see a few cases where listing to an non-primary (“import“)
> amazon-ASIN can make sense and should be tolerated – or even
> encouraged (maybe in addition to the primary link, since more than one
> amazon link can be entered):
> 1. When the "import" mention on amazon is obviously wrong (often the

> case on amazon.fr <http://amazon.fr>)
Yes, this clearly should be done, if it's an Amazon error. I'm not
arguing against this case.

> And that links *may* not work for an eternity is no argument: this
> happens all the times to links provided on MB: fan pages closing down,
> official sites disappearing, record labels being discontinued…

It's a completely rational argument. If you have a choice between buying
products A and B, which are say fundamentally the same, except A will
probably last longer than B, would you decide to buy B instead just
because product C, which you also buy, has a tendency to break? That
doesn't make sense, it's comparing apples with oranges, instead of A with B.

Ok, agreed. I may not have been clear enough. I'm not talking about B instead of A, but of B in addition to A. So I would say: "I some rare cases listing to a non-primary (“import“) amazon-ASIN (...) should be tolerated – or even encouraged (in addition to the primary link)... if there is valuable additional information not to be found elsewhere".

Fundamentally, I don't agree with moves to make the choice of domain
more subjective. Your suggestions appear to veer down a path of choosing
what is more convenient to /you/ rather than more convenient to
everyone. Personal preferences should be removed from the guidelines as
much as possible, which is why we have the objective guideline of using
a non-import "home of original release" page. That is why we have user
preferences in MB itself, so if you want to have your Amazon
click-throughs go to .fr all the time, you can already do so.

Whatever your imputations: we're not dealing with subjective views or personal preferences. But just with a specific problem which asks for a specific ("objective"!) answer for the benefit of as many MB users as possible.

And I'm still waiting to get an answer from a native speaker why "preferred" (in the guidelines) obviously translates as "compulsory" ;-)

Chris / chabreyflint

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users

[chabreyflint]

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 2:59 AM, Aaron Cooper <cooperaa@...> wrote:

I struggled with this issue at one point, too.  Why would I want to
add a link to Amazon.co.jp when I can't read anything on those pages?

The reasons have been stated many times - Imports often have
inaccurate data and should not be used for release dates.  Tracklists
can easily be verified by copying & pasting into translate.google.com
to confirm a match before linking an ASIN to a MB release.

Agreed. We all know that IMPORT-data tend to be even less accurate than other online sources ;-) And that, when editing release dates, you should never ever rely on any single source ;-) But we are not talking about editing here, but about giving additional, helpful information (on duly researched and accepted edits) to the ordinary MB-User

Chris / chabreyflint

-cooperaa

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Chad Wilson <chad.wilson@...> wrote:
> On 13/03/2009 9:06 a.m., SwissChris wrote:
>> Sorry, Chad, but I strongly disagree with your point of view – and
>> with your philosophy. For me you argue on a principle which seems to
>> be "laws are laws and they have to be enforced, whatever the cost".
> Rubbish. I wrote down exactly the reasons that the rules are there; how
> is that saying "rules are rules"? I disagree on your alleged "cost".
> That cost from your perspective is a benefit to me.
>
>> What we're having here are Style'''Guidelines''', not Style'''Laws'''
>> (and we're not even in the domain of StrongGuidelines). And we have a
>> specific problem, which you seem to ignore completely in your answer.
> No, i did not ignore it, I said I don't agree that what you see as a
> problem is a problem. And said
>
> "I don't understand why this is an issue. Link to any non-IMPORT version.
> Often there will be multiple. We can't control the script that Amazon
> use on their pages, but it still doesn't make sense to me to use an
> IMPORT on .com for a Japanese release just because .co.jp transliterates
> the English to Kanji. Users can always set up preferred Amazon domains
> in their preferences, as can anyone syndicating our data."
>
>> Bettercom has tried to give a sensible answer to a "special case",
>> based on our guidelines at doc:AmazonRelationshipType which specify
>> "It is ''preferred'' to enter the version of the amazon store which
>> sells the original version"  and "The purpose of the Amazon
>> relationship is to provide cover images, ''but also additional
>> information'' for releases". Based on this he made the well reflected
>> choice to link not (only) to the Japanese site, which not only does
>> not give the actual track listing of the release (which is in french
>> on the CD cover), but only a transliteration in Kanji, but also has no
>> "additional information" for all MB-users not familiar with Japanese.
>> Bettercoms way of dealing with a "special case" makes sense IMO and
>> has the advantage of being user-friendly. He was voted down with
>> formalistic arguments (probably also a communication problem, since
>> all involved editors AFAIK, and as it often happens, had to explain
>> themselves in a foreign language...).
> His example is not the "special case" you and he seem to think it is. A
> very high percentage of Western American or British mainstream releases
> have a Japanese version with bonus tracks, only available non-IMPORT in
> Japan. Most of them will use kanji on .co.jp.
>
> Your attitudes appear to be entirely Euro/Western centric. You argue for
> convenience of Latin-reading Westerners of the origin artist's country,
> not Japanese locals (for instance). Given Amazon choose to use Kanji,
> it's obviously of convenience to /someone/ (Japanese) to have the titles
> transliterated for sales purposes. What's convenient for you is
> inconvenient for someone else.
>
> That's why I specifically mention a point which you fail to address,
> also mentioned above, and repeated again:
>
> "Users can always set up preferred Amazon domains
> in their preferences, as can anyone syndicating our data."
>
>> I see a few cases where listing to an non-primary (“import“)
>> amazon-ASIN can make sense and should be tolerated – or even
>> encouraged (maybe in addition to the primary link, since more than one
>> amazon link can be entered):
>> 1. When the "import" mention on amazon is obviously wrong (often the
>> case on amazon.fr <http://amazon.fr>)
> Yes, this clearly should be done, if it's an Amazon error. I'm not
> arguing against this case.
>
>> And that links *may* not work for an eternity is no argument: this
>> happens all the times to links provided on MB: fan pages closing down,
>> official sites disappearing, record labels being discontinued…
> It's a completely rational argument. If you have a choice between buying
> products A and B, which are say fundamentally the same, except A will
> probably last longer than B, would you decide to buy B instead just
> because product C, which you also buy, has a tendency to break? That
> doesn't make sense, it's comparing apples with oranges, instead of A with B.
>
> Fundamentally, I don't agree with moves to make the choice of domain
> more subjective. Your suggestions appear to veer down a path of choosing
> what is more convenient to /you/ rather than more convenient to
> everyone. Personal preferences should be removed from the guidelines as
> much as possible, which is why we have the objective guideline of using
> a non-import "home of original release" page. That is why we have user
> preferences in MB itself, so if you want to have your Amazon
> click-throughs go to .fr all the time, you can already do so.
>
> Chad / voiceinsideyou
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-users mailing list
> MusicBrainz-users@...
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
>

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users