« Return to Thread: Barcodes missing checksum digit
Re: Barcodes missing checksum digit
by Chad Wilson-2
::
Rate this Message:
On 22/02/2009 5:35 a.m., SwissChris wrote:
> I don't think adding two release events makes sense: it's not like for
> box sets where you have two different barcodes. Here's one and the
> same barcode, with the one printed on the cover being incomplete and
> thus invalid. I'd go for solution #2 – eventually, to refrain people
> with disc in hand from making wrong "corrections" – with a annotation:
> "Incomplete barcode on back cover of disc completed"
>
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Brant Gibbard <bgibbard@...
> <mailto:bgibbard@...>> wrote:
>
> > So either we:
> > 1. Kept what is written on the back cover ("4228374212") 2.
> > Or save the correct barcode ("042283742123") in database,
> > which can be retrieved e.g. with
> > http://users.musicbrainz.org/~luks/ean.html
> <http://users.musicbrainz.org/%7Eluks/ean.html> from the
> > incomplete barcode.
> >
> > I would go for solution #2, since otherwise the barcode
> > information won't be computer-usable. I'm thinking about
> > people using a barcode reader on the release, e.g. libraries.
> >
> > - Aurélien / murdos
>I regularly come across these, and I /always/ fix the barcode. The
problem here is the /printed/ representation, rather than the actual
barcode, which will have correctly encoded all digits; someone's just
decided to leave them off the printing. If you were to scan the barcode
with an actual scanner, you would get the full number, as you suggest.
This is what will be stored at AMZ etc.
I don't think there's any real value in retaining/duplicating the
incorrect printed representation - there's always catalog numbers for
that. Adding an annotation can't do any harm though, and is a good idea.
Chad / voiceinsideyou
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
> I don't think adding two release events makes sense: it's not like for
> box sets where you have two different barcodes. Here's one and the
> same barcode, with the one printed on the cover being incomplete and
> thus invalid. I'd go for solution #2 – eventually, to refrain people
> with disc in hand from making wrong "corrections" – with a annotation:
> "Incomplete barcode on back cover of disc completed"
>
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Brant Gibbard <bgibbard@...
> <mailto:bgibbard@...>> wrote:
>
> > So either we:
> > 1. Kept what is written on the back cover ("4228374212") 2.
> > Or save the correct barcode ("042283742123") in database,
> > which can be retrieved e.g. with
> > http://users.musicbrainz.org/~luks/ean.html
> <http://users.musicbrainz.org/%7Eluks/ean.html> from the
> > incomplete barcode.
> >
> > I would go for solution #2, since otherwise the barcode
> > information won't be computer-usable. I'm thinking about
> > people using a barcode reader on the release, e.g. libraries.
> >
> > - Aurélien / murdos
>
problem here is the /printed/ representation, rather than the actual
barcode, which will have correctly encoded all digits; someone's just
decided to leave them off the printing. If you were to scan the barcode
with an actual scanner, you would get the full number, as you suggest.
This is what will be stored at AMZ etc.
I don't think there's any real value in retaining/duplicating the
incorrect printed representation - there's always catalog numbers for
that. Adding an annotation can't do any harm though, and is a good idea.
Chad / voiceinsideyou
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
« Return to Thread: Barcodes missing checksum digit
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
