« Return to Thread: For the love of god, let's sort out this (feat) nonsense
Re: [mb-style] For the love of god, let's sort out this (feat) nonsense
by Rod Begbie
::
Rate this Message:
On 10/18/05, Cristov Russell <wolfsong@...> wrote:
> 1st: I can find nothing wrong with mo's mods, he followed the SG exactly and
> corrected your incorrect use of the Artist field data.
I agree that he followed the SG. However, I consider the SG broken,
and I want it changed, so that this doesn't keep happening.
> 2nd: I see no data loss whatsoever.
Explain to me how, at a SQL level, I can identify Ice-T as a performer
on this track:
http://musicbrainz.org/track/481a78d2-0524-45c9-b094-29d1ed750ff7.html
Before mo mangled it, it was possible to use the collaboration ARs on
the "Slayer & Ice-T" artist to make the join. Now, it isn't. This
moderation *reduced* the usefulness of MB data.
> 3rd: Railing away and making demands probably won't get the support of
> myself or other members of the SC. This is a long standing problem that no
> one really likes but for which there is no simply solution. This has already
> been reiterated in each thread you mentioned by several members of the SC.
In May, I was told to "give it time". It's been four and a half
months, and I see no improvement.
Squeaky wheel, etc.
I find "we'll get to it after AR can deal with it".... "we'll get to
it when Picard can deal with it"... "We'll get to it when our alien
overlords can deal with it"... an unsatisfactory answer.
>> 2) The "put (feat.) in the title" hack was only in place
>> because there was no way to link artists to collaborations.
>> Now there is.
>> It's AR. It works.
> Wrong. AR does NOT work ANY tagger...yet.
Read my statement again. I say nothing about tagging. I'm talking
about data storage.
MB is oh so much more than just a way to tag MP3s.
> Until it can, the hack is
> necessary.
Why? Why is it necessary? Are there any users who are saying "Please
put artist information in the title field of my MP3s"?
Re-reading the "no mean (feat.)" thread, the concensus from Style
Guide members seemed to be that putting it in Title was wrong, and
that "the" tagger should be putting them in the artist field in the
future.
Personally, I'd like my MP3 tags to resemble the information from the
back of the CD sleeve.
Either way, the database isn't going to be able to do that without a
lot of editing in the future, and the current state of the SG will
just keep compounding this. The more crap we pour in now, the more
we'll need to sift in "The Future" to find the nuggets of corn.
> > 3) In "The Future", we may have smarter taggers, or a
> > different DB schema that can assign more than one artist to a
> > track. But we're not in the future, we're in the present.
> > And presently, the best way to store this data, SO THAT IT
> > CAN BE ADAPTED TO FUTURE WHIMS is to use AR to specify collaborations.
>
> The initial release of AR was never intended to replace the SG, only to add
> more functionality.
You're missing my point. I know that AR isn't a replacement for a SG.
You need both. But the SG needs to change to take into account the
existence of AR.
To quote myself from five months ago:
---
So since there is a clear plan, namely that In The Future, "the"
tagger (and, let's not forget, any other app powered by the MB data)
will allow the user to customize how the data will be used to populate
"artist" and "title" fields, why don't we start cleaning the data
*now* by changing the styleguide?
---
No-one answered that question satisfactorily. Jamie Munro made some
excellent points about future directions the database could go, but
nothing that precluded this SG change as an intermediary event.
> > 4) Deleting collaborative artists, picking one at random,
> > stuffing the other in the text Title field ONLY MAKES IT
> > HARDER FOR THIS TO HAPPEN in "The Future".
>
> It's what makes sense with the current schema.
I disagree. It's what made sense with the schema a year ago. It's
inappropriate for the current schema.
> > Please, for my sanity's sake, can we change
> > the styleguide?
>
> Not yet.
Do you now speak on behalf of the entire Style Council? Is there a
musicbrainz-cabal list where you've discussed this proposal in detail
before giving your official ruling?
Or could we perhaps get a vote from the Style Council members?
[ ] Leave as is until Picard is finished (in about 12-18 months)
[ ] Change SG5 now
[ ] Other
Rod.
--
:: Rod Begbie :: http://groovymother.com/ ::
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
> 1st: I can find nothing wrong with mo's mods, he followed the SG exactly and
> corrected your incorrect use of the Artist field data.
I agree that he followed the SG. However, I consider the SG broken,
and I want it changed, so that this doesn't keep happening.
> 2nd: I see no data loss whatsoever.
Explain to me how, at a SQL level, I can identify Ice-T as a performer
on this track:
http://musicbrainz.org/track/481a78d2-0524-45c9-b094-29d1ed750ff7.html
Before mo mangled it, it was possible to use the collaboration ARs on
the "Slayer & Ice-T" artist to make the join. Now, it isn't. This
moderation *reduced* the usefulness of MB data.
> 3rd: Railing away and making demands probably won't get the support of
> myself or other members of the SC. This is a long standing problem that no
> one really likes but for which there is no simply solution. This has already
> been reiterated in each thread you mentioned by several members of the SC.
In May, I was told to "give it time". It's been four and a half
months, and I see no improvement.
Squeaky wheel, etc.
I find "we'll get to it after AR can deal with it".... "we'll get to
it when Picard can deal with it"... "We'll get to it when our alien
overlords can deal with it"... an unsatisfactory answer.
>> 2) The "put (feat.) in the title" hack was only in place
>> because there was no way to link artists to collaborations.
>> Now there is.
>> It's AR. It works.
> Wrong. AR does NOT work ANY tagger...yet.
Read my statement again. I say nothing about tagging. I'm talking
about data storage.
MB is oh so much more than just a way to tag MP3s.
> Until it can, the hack is
> necessary.
Why? Why is it necessary? Are there any users who are saying "Please
put artist information in the title field of my MP3s"?
Re-reading the "no mean (feat.)" thread, the concensus from Style
Guide members seemed to be that putting it in Title was wrong, and
that "the" tagger should be putting them in the artist field in the
future.
Personally, I'd like my MP3 tags to resemble the information from the
back of the CD sleeve.
Either way, the database isn't going to be able to do that without a
lot of editing in the future, and the current state of the SG will
just keep compounding this. The more crap we pour in now, the more
we'll need to sift in "The Future" to find the nuggets of corn.
> > 3) In "The Future", we may have smarter taggers, or a
> > different DB schema that can assign more than one artist to a
> > track. But we're not in the future, we're in the present.
> > And presently, the best way to store this data, SO THAT IT
> > CAN BE ADAPTED TO FUTURE WHIMS is to use AR to specify collaborations.
>
> The initial release of AR was never intended to replace the SG, only to add
> more functionality.
You're missing my point. I know that AR isn't a replacement for a SG.
You need both. But the SG needs to change to take into account the
existence of AR.
To quote myself from five months ago:
---
So since there is a clear plan, namely that In The Future, "the"
tagger (and, let's not forget, any other app powered by the MB data)
will allow the user to customize how the data will be used to populate
"artist" and "title" fields, why don't we start cleaning the data
*now* by changing the styleguide?
---
No-one answered that question satisfactorily. Jamie Munro made some
excellent points about future directions the database could go, but
nothing that precluded this SG change as an intermediary event.
> > 4) Deleting collaborative artists, picking one at random,
> > stuffing the other in the text Title field ONLY MAKES IT
> > HARDER FOR THIS TO HAPPEN in "The Future".
>
> It's what makes sense with the current schema.
I disagree. It's what made sense with the schema a year ago. It's
inappropriate for the current schema.
> > Please, for my sanity's sake, can we change
> > the styleguide?
>
> Not yet.
Do you now speak on behalf of the entire Style Council? Is there a
musicbrainz-cabal list where you've discussed this proposal in detail
before giving your official ruling?
Or could we perhaps get a vote from the Style Council members?
[ ] Leave as is until Picard is finished (in about 12-18 months)
[ ] Change SG5 now
[ ] Other
Rod.
--
:: Rod Begbie :: http://groovymother.com/ ::
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
« Return to Thread: For the love of god, let's sort out this (feat) nonsense
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
