#musicbrainz

If someone disagrees they can come and tell me

hurr durr de durr hurr? http://musicbrainz.org/artist/95a17177-500f-45e...

Why shouldn't recordings have exec producers?

Because exec producers are a release-dependent thing

They are?

Yeah

Which is why compilations have exec producers

musicbrainz solr affected by leapsecond issue?

(musicbrainz uses solr, right?)

heh, I used to have one of those

hoover bass

we don't use solr, it's a custom lucene-based system

a bunch of our servers had ntpd turned off to deal with a leapsecond issue though

" Nielsen reported that, in 2011, there were 76,875 albums that sold at least one copy. "

reissues included I think...

haha

It's just my best example of sloppy bot edit / voting, but it's far from the only one

I am really angry because no one seems to listen

that the bot gets it wrong is to be expected I guess. but the human editors voting yes obviously should know better.

the number of bot edits are overwhelming

my only option is to stop caring about anything not in my subscribed artists

good job.

in general they do a good job though.

yes, because there are sanity checks. this kind of edit does not

didn't know bots did destructive edits :/

I actually filter them out of my voting view since there's too many of them

they shouldn't remove stuff it think

nore merge/move/delete

"editor type" should be a condition. liek automod, editor bot etc

not just "is autoedit or is not autoedit

it did catch the error of a release being assigned to russia before 1991 though, so that's nice

pankkake, http://musicbrainz.org/edit/18190719

Wizzcat: heh yes that's true

hi asking because i did it wrojng last time.

adding a track with multiple artists, i.e. artist is "Mark Denardo + Miles Tilmann", what's the correct format?

Press "credits"

And enter Mark Denardo in the first field, + in the join phrase field, and Miles Tillman in the second artist field

(you'll need to press "add new artist" for the second field to appear)

great ta

and is there a way to upload album covers along witha release?

Once you have added the release

Click on its "Cover Art" tab

And you can upload it

(if the mechanism hasn't broken again :/)

ta, would be nice if that was within the main release adding process really

Well, basically you add it, you end in the release page and it's one click from there

It's not in the main process because very often you don't really have an image

Especially for physical releases, unless you scan them...

Hello. How can I have Picard not destroy tags when tagging files? For example removing AcoustID tags? or is the AcoustID only removed when the file is not a FLAC?

removing all tags is an option

Before tagging / Clear existing tags

however some formats might not have a field to put acoustid?

Okay, thanks pankkake.

I only want to keep the AcoustID if it's lossless, else I don't see the point in keeping that data

You might be able to script Picard to detect if the file is not FLAC and "unset" the acoustid field. Why would it be pointless? In my experience, AcoustIDs can be shared between subtly different mixes, let alone lossy vs. lossless audio.

hmmm....

whoops, I was getting confused with AcoustID and the accurateRip DB

But yeah, If it has an AcoustID I wouldn't want it removed.

With Picard can I show more Columns in the cluster area? i.e. release type?

pankkake: What's wrong with http://musicbrainz.org/edit/18148823 ?

it's removing a perfectly valid link?

all data matches, but the bot does not compare the country well (and country is the less relevant detail of a release ever)

Not if the rest of the data about the release is correct.

"History, geography. Learn it." lol

it's a removal

I am really PISSED at those edits.

USSR != Russia though -- if it was in fact released in Russia rather than the USSR, that link is not correct in some way

I am more pissed about the votes actually

Anyway, most people voted no on it

yes, because I caught it

I spent the whole day looking at those crappy edits

which all have votes by the same editors who don't bother to check

so now I vote no, and don't bother to check. why should I?

and even voting no, with an automated javascript, takes time. they obviously didn't even look at the edit notes

did I say I'm pissed?

I think you did

:p

But yeah, I voted on a few, checking the ones which looked dubious (except one I missed and you found)

Then was like "fuck it, this is endless" and went away

Apparently other people were like "fuck it, this is endless" and voted yes on all...

many are easily votes yes, I just wish they left the tricky ones

yesterday there was only ~500 edits with 2 yes votes so I was more or less able to check

People really shouldn't do that

if they say "fuck it, this is endless" they should abstain

Yeah

but gotta get those voting numbers up 'cos we have stats for that!

That sounds obvious to me

But...

One specific autoeditor that I won't name voted 21k times in one day, excluding abstains

It's IMPOSSIBLE to do that and still check stuff

well it is possible if you only vote on easy edits / have specific searches

No. It's not.

3k? 4k? yeah

But 20k+ in 24h?

yeah, I don't really realize :p

I mean, you vote lots

And still, I think your top has been around 5k

In a day

and right now I do it all day :/