Re: Barcodes missing checksum digit

> 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.