Harzilein, if it's not there, I guess it's just not in MB
2012-01-11 01148, 2012
ianmcorvidae
or, perhaps more simply: there's more information that "matters" for classical, which means more decisions to make, which means more decisions to screw up :P
2012-01-11 01107, 2012
CallerNo6
My point (to the extent that I have one) is that I'm all for a rich, complex CSG /if/ there's a simple way for non-classical editors to enter a disc.
2012-01-11 01120, 2012
ianmcorvidae
yeah, I agree
2012-01-11 01135, 2012
Harzilein
reosarevok: so, how would i go about adding it? i have a badly scratched cd and lost the booklet
2012-01-11 01153, 2012
reosarevok
Harzilein, discogs is generally trusted for electronic stuff
2012-01-11 01155, 2012
ianmcorvidae
really I wish we'd move more away from a unified "artist credit" field, or define it VERY carefully as "exactly what's on the case, and you'd damn well better add ARs to clarify"
2012-01-11 01116, 2012
Harzilein
reosarevok: but it can't just be copied to mb, right?
2012-01-11 01119, 2012
reosarevok
Harzilein, I'd go with that, maybe see if you can get the tracklist confirmed from musik-sammler or whatever
ianmcorvidae, while I agree, we'd need a much better UI for relationships for that
2012-01-11 01141, 2012
ianmcorvidae
they're the same problem
2012-01-11 01107, 2012
ianmcorvidae
we'd have a much better UI for relationships if we weren't writing UI for artist credits :)
2012-01-11 01112, 2012
ianmcorvidae
once again, though, RDF bias -- RDF is, in some ways and translated to MB terms, nothing but ARs ;)
2012-01-11 01154, 2012
hawke_
ianmcorvidae: Isn’t ocharles working on an AR editor?
2012-01-11 01155, 2012
ianmcorvidae
(more powerful than that, but :P)
2012-01-11 01102, 2012
hawke_
ianmcorvidae: Also, we still need artist credits IMO. :-p
2012-01-11 01118, 2012
ianmcorvidae
hawke_: yeah, and if I were to bet on when it's done the time would be measured in years
2012-01-11 01127, 2012
reosarevok
ianmcorvidae, ouch :p
2012-01-11 01148, 2012
FoolMoon joined the channel
2012-01-11 01157, 2012
hawke_
ianmcorvidae: And you think creating the AC editor has caused that?
2012-01-11 01142, 2012
ianmcorvidae
I think that a focus on the special reified special-cases like ACs rather than focusing on a general case (more like ARs) has caused that
2012-01-11 01111, 2012
reosarevok had to look "reified" up
2012-01-11 01112, 2012
reosarevok
Pedant :p
2012-01-11 01118, 2012
ianmcorvidae
sorry :P
2012-01-11 01132, 2012
hawke_
special cases, as used everywhere. :-p
2012-01-11 01140, 2012
CallerNo6
ianmcorvidae wins this round of stump the translator!
2012-01-11 01153, 2012
ianmcorvidae
except the places they don't work :P
2012-01-11 01156, 2012
ianmcorvidae
like all of classical
2012-01-11 01100, 2012
ianmcorvidae
:)
2012-01-11 01111, 2012
reosarevok
hawke_, technically, a "credited to" relationship would do the same :p
2012-01-11 01119, 2012
ianmcorvidae
and yes, that
2012-01-11 01124, 2012
hawke_
reosarevok: Except we can’t relate to tracks
2012-01-11 01142, 2012
reosarevok
meh
2012-01-11 01144, 2012
ianmcorvidae
yes, that's another problem -- everything should be relatable
2012-01-11 01149, 2012
hawke_
and we would have to be able to “credit to” artist aliases instead of just artists
2012-01-11 01151, 2012
ianmcorvidae
but anyway
2012-01-11 01103, 2012
ianmcorvidae
this is a pipedream on my part; MB decided many MANY years ago against going this route
2012-01-11 01109, 2012
reosarevok
"technically, a 'credited to' relationship would be able to do the same"
2012-01-11 01110, 2012
ianmcorvidae
I just think we'd be better off if it hadn't :)
2012-01-11 01127, 2012
reosarevok
(it would just need to be designed for it)
2012-01-11 01134, 2012
hawke_
Anyway, this is way off track from the problem of CSG being followed because it’s The Rules and not because it makes sense
2012-01-11 01135, 2012
BrianFreud joined the channel
2012-01-11 01139, 2012
reosarevok
It doesn't because the design centers on artist credits
2012-01-11 01108, 2012
reosarevok
hawke_, CSG is followed because in all its rulesy complicatedness, it gives a relatively clean set of data
2012-01-11 01119, 2012
reosarevok
Except in the works page :p
2012-01-11 01129, 2012
hawke_
reosarevok: If you love having performers in the title, I guess
2012-01-11 01135, 2012
hawke_
And that only sometimes
2012-01-11 01141, 2012
reosarevok
Note *relatively*
2012-01-11 01142, 2012
reosarevok
:p
2012-01-11 01145, 2012
ianmcorvidae
it's consistent; that's what CSG is there for :P
2012-01-11 01153, 2012
hawke_
relative to what, though? :-p
2012-01-11 01153, 2012
ianmcorvidae
it's not fantastic because our data model is stupid for classical
2012-01-11 01155, 2012
ianmcorvidae
as I was saying :P
2012-01-11 01158, 2012
CallerNo6
there's no csg for recordings, so you can't blame the csg
2012-01-11 01101, 2012
ianmcorvidae
relative to "put whatever you feel like"
2012-01-11 01116, 2012
hawke_
CallerNo6: I can blame the CSG for stupid crap like 'put the performer in the title'
2012-01-11 01133, 2012
reosarevok
hawke_, that's far from being the center of CSG though
2012-01-11 01141, 2012
reosarevok
The center of it is "put the composer in the artist"
2012-01-11 01142, 2012
hawke_
and 'don't allow the performer to be used in an AC ever'
2012-01-11 01147, 2012
reosarevok
Which admittedly you also oppose
2012-01-11 01149, 2012
reosarevok
But still :p
2012-01-11 01101, 2012
hawke_
I don’t mind the title normalization
2012-01-11 01108, 2012
hawke_
That bit is reasonably sensible
2012-01-11 01122, 2012
hawke_
but the bit about how the composer, and only the composer, matters…
2012-01-11 01123, 2012
ianmcorvidae
my argument, incidentally, has always been for "mark the performer as a performer, mark the composer as a composer, and then people can use WHAT THEY WANT"
2012-01-11 01124, 2012
reosarevok can say all the cleanup he's been doing would be completely impossible without CSG
2012-01-11 01133, 2012
hawke_
ianmcorvidae: People want different things
2012-01-11 01144, 2012
reosarevok
hawke_, that's why they can pick their favourite! :p
2012-01-11 01147, 2012
ianmcorvidae
yes, that's why you mark things as what they are and let people choose what they want :P
2012-01-11 01107, 2012
ianmcorvidae
rather than fabricating _anything_ -- which, like it or not, any AC for anything classical is fabricated
2012-01-11 01129, 2012
ianmcorvidae
CSG is there because we require an AC and so we have to fabricate something -- so it may as well be consistent
2012-01-11 01148, 2012
reosarevok
(again, practicality - helps cleanup)
2012-01-11 01103, 2012
hawke_
ianmcorvidae: Then why put performers in the titles?
2012-01-11 01110, 2012
hawke_
That’s not necessary.
2012-01-11 01114, 2012
reosarevok
hawke_, agreed
2012-01-11 01115, 2012
ianmcorvidae
that's a pre-NGS normalization
2012-01-11 01117, 2012
CallerNo6
(feat. xxx) was a temporary, ugly fix that predates ARs. It made sense at the time.
2012-01-11 01120, 2012
reosarevok
That can be dropped with better UI
2012-01-11 01128, 2012
ianmcorvidae
but yes, I agree that that particular choice is stupid
2012-01-11 01141, 2012
hawke_
ianmcorvidae: That was a pre-AR normalization
2012-01-11 01142, 2012
ianmcorvidae
I'm saying moving to ACs will just cause different problems; the problem is a lower-level thing than EITHER of those choices
2012-01-11 01146, 2012
hawke_
and it hasn’t been fixed since
2012-01-11 01151, 2012
hawke_
and it won’t be fixed
2012-01-11 01157, 2012
ianmcorvidae
well, great, so it needs fixing/changing
2012-01-11 01157, 2012
hawke_
because CSG is The Rules
2012-01-11 01159, 2012
reosarevok
hawke_, it can be fixed
2012-01-11 01105, 2012
ianmcorvidae
isn't that what the CSG rewrite is about? :P
2012-01-11 01140, 2012
reosarevok
It won't as long as you can't easily find the disambiguation info with a simple search
2012-01-11 01142, 2012
hawke_
ianmcorvidae: Some people like the CSG just the way it is and are afraid of having to change things to match a new CSG
2012-01-11 01101, 2012
hawke_
reosarevok: You can’t find shit now with a simple search. :-p
2012-01-11 01109, 2012
reosarevok
Not true
2012-01-11 01119, 2012
zarlino joined the channel
2012-01-11 01152, 2012
ianmcorvidae
hawke_: that problem applies to any solution to this problem, including yours
I'm saying bringing that up doesn't matter at all :P
2012-01-11 01146, 2012
hawke_
The idea of “we have so much data in the old format” will prevent any change to something that makes sense
2012-01-11 01151, 2012
reosarevok
With "simple" I don't mean "completely basic"
2012-01-11 01104, 2012
reosarevok
:p
2012-01-11 01127, 2012
reosarevok
hawke_, I thought the same
2012-01-11 01141, 2012
reosarevok
Then we got the feat. guideline passed
2012-01-11 01153, 2012
ianmcorvidae
hawke_: you're right, it's just not worth paying attention to because a.) it's going to be a problem for anyone/any solution and b.) the only way to solve it is, as mentioned, time travel :P
2012-01-11 01138, 2012
reosarevok
ianmcorvidae, I'd only partially agree
2012-01-11 01145, 2012
hawke_
reosarevok: Congratulations, your search doesn’t find the one I was looking for at all. :-p
2012-01-11 01101, 2012
reosarevok
hawke_, that means someone didn't follow the rules
and by reified I basically was saying "special" again :P
2012-01-11 01120, 2012
ianmcorvidae
also to some degree "fabricated"
2012-01-11 01134, 2012
reosarevok
BrianFreud, who is the second president?
2012-01-11 01114, 2012
hawke_
CatCat: reified means “made more concrete” (in this sense, I believe the computer science sense of “building a data model out of some ideas”)
2012-01-11 01138, 2012
reosarevok
hawke_, what we need is a nice way to search by relationships
2012-01-11 01141, 2012
hawke_
ianmcorvidae: I call bs on “non-advanced search can never work’
2012-01-11 01153, 2012
BrianFreud
reosarevok, no idea
2012-01-11 01100, 2012
reosarevok
hawke_, can it do something the advanced one can't?
2012-01-11 01119, 2012
hawke_
reosarevok: It should be doing a more general search
2012-01-11 01147, 2012
BrianFreud
I just stumbled on to it, looks like it was added in 2006 from freedb. I only added the ASIN just now when I went to see if it really actually was a real release :P
2012-01-11 01150, 2012
reosarevok
I mean, don't get me wrong. Compared with, say, allmusic's our basic search is amazing
2012-01-11 01106, 2012
BrianFreud
compared with allmusic, myspace's search is amazing
2012-01-11 01108, 2012
reosarevok
But I can't see it giving anything the advanced one can't
2012-01-11 01116, 2012
hawke_
reosarevok: But the fact that the first two results in my search don’t contain search terms I entered, while others do, is just stupid
