« Return to Thread: [mb-style] Lets put GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle to the vote.
Re: [mb-style] Lets put GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistSty
by Matthew Exon
::
Rate this Message:
Michelle . wrote:
> Can't we have both feat. and AR on the same track? Then we can have both
> searchable infomation and relationship levels for now until the new
> tagger's done.
>
> Also, relationship levels are sometimes difficult to figure out, so this
> lets you stick a "feat." in for now and wait for someone else with more
> expertise to add in supplementary information. Then there's no
> information loss, and we can modify SG5 in the meantime to stop the
> "compounding problems".
>
> -0.75, SC member. (for now, until someone explains to me why we can't
> have both.)
Another possibility that isn't in the wiki is to abandon the idea of an
official style guideline on this issue altogether. This is the "even
more pragmatic" option, where FeaturingArtistStyle would give several
possible ways to represent that information ("use 'feat.'", "use AR",
"use both"), and leaves it up to users to guess which they'd rather use.
The only thing the guideline would officially discourage is changing
existing information to a different style, since that just leads to
pointless edit wars and inflammatory subject lines.
Yes, this makes the database inconsistent and confusing, and yes this
would make it impossible to automatically recover this information when
we finally get a "good" solution. But the former point is true now, and
will always be true in the future, due to users not reading the
guidelines. I also think the latter project is doomed anyway: programs
that attempt to parse freetext records into structured databases just
never scale to hundreds of thousands of records (believe me; I've tried).
By letting go of the leash we encourage people to contribute new
information, rather than waste time on editing existing entries. This
new information will just have to be manually converted over, one record
at a time, to a better representation when the time comes. At least we
can comfort ourselves in the knowledge that the one resource MusicBrainz
does have in abundance is users.
-0.9, no official status whatsoever. I'm sympathetic to Rod's cause,
but I think replacing one dubious rule with another dubious rule is just
going to make things worse.
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
> Can't we have both feat. and AR on the same track? Then we can have both
> searchable infomation and relationship levels for now until the new
> tagger's done.
>
> Also, relationship levels are sometimes difficult to figure out, so this
> lets you stick a "feat." in for now and wait for someone else with more
> expertise to add in supplementary information. Then there's no
> information loss, and we can modify SG5 in the meantime to stop the
> "compounding problems".
>
> -0.75, SC member. (for now, until someone explains to me why we can't
> have both.)
Another possibility that isn't in the wiki is to abandon the idea of an
official style guideline on this issue altogether. This is the "even
more pragmatic" option, where FeaturingArtistStyle would give several
possible ways to represent that information ("use 'feat.'", "use AR",
"use both"), and leaves it up to users to guess which they'd rather use.
The only thing the guideline would officially discourage is changing
existing information to a different style, since that just leads to
pointless edit wars and inflammatory subject lines.
Yes, this makes the database inconsistent and confusing, and yes this
would make it impossible to automatically recover this information when
we finally get a "good" solution. But the former point is true now, and
will always be true in the future, due to users not reading the
guidelines. I also think the latter project is doomed anyway: programs
that attempt to parse freetext records into structured databases just
never scale to hundreds of thousands of records (believe me; I've tried).
By letting go of the leash we encourage people to contribute new
information, rather than waste time on editing existing entries. This
new information will just have to be manually converted over, one record
at a time, to a better representation when the time comes. At least we
can comfort ourselves in the knowledge that the one resource MusicBrainz
does have in abundance is users.
-0.9, no official status whatsoever. I'm sympathetic to Rod's cause,
but I think replacing one dubious rule with another dubious rule is just
going to make things worse.
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
« Return to Thread: [mb-style] Lets put GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle to the vote.
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
