kinda expensive, but I guess that's the nature of those keys
La Galaxia de las Llaves Carrer del Dos de Maig, 279, 08025 Barcelona
mayhem
yeah, to be expected.
Pratha-Fish
8% of MBIDs received are not the same as canonical MBIDs from our data set.
out of those 8% unmatched MBIDs, 40% are mismatched values, and 60% are NaN values. (nothing received from the server)
alastairp
!!!!
amazing
mayhem: ^
mlhd MBID -> canonical mbid table
Pratha-Fish
yep
mayhem
only 8%??
alastairp
and mlhd MBID -> recording name (text) -> mapper -> mbid
so, 92% of the time, only using the MB database (1 simple query) gives the same results as going through the whole slow mapper/detuning/search process
Pratha-Fish
Beware tho, the sample size was only 10k rows!
alastairp
I think it'd be really interesting to try and characterise these 8% (well, I guess ~4% since some are due to bad server respond) to see why the mapper and the canonical table give different results
sorry, got a meeting now - happy to continue chatting afterwards if you're still around Pratha-Fish
alastairp: galaxia de Claus has some really friendly people, thanks for the tip!
yvanzo
mayhem: Which day are you expecting us to arrive in BCN?
alastairp
Pratha-Fish: we can absolutely double-check your code to see what the behaviour is for mis-matched data
in fact, I've mostly been focusing on the results of your experiments so far, but maybe next week we can both take some time to look at your code as well and see if there is anything to improve
Pratha-Fish
alastairp: Yes, I was about to ask you to do a code review anyway
For best practices, performance / readability improvements, etc
I think it would be nice if everyone one (but reo) could be there for Friday morning.
alastairp: it turns out my keys can only be copied in one location and the folks galaxia claus were kind enough to explain that to me. (unlike the chap who couldn't be bothered to do his job at LM) So, I went over there and as soon as I told them which address the key was for, they were happy to copy it. for 23€ a piece. ouch.
lucifer: are you about to send your invoice? if so, I can wait and do all the ones from that bank at the same time...
Toasty joined the channel
lucifer
mayhem: sorry for the delay, was afk earlier. sent now.
aerozol
CatQuest: did you have a look at the newer version? Upon further feedback the defamation part has been taken out completely (as it's covered in the MetaBrainz CoC)
If you search for 'v2' above, and then there's a bit of further discussion
CatQuest
i havent see nany newer version thna the one you posted wich contan it
aerozol
There was some more feedback from alastairp after but this is the version with Freso's feedback incorporated
aerozol: Much better! And yeah, SEO manipulation is both covered by the CoC but also by the "promotional content" one in the new one, I’d say. :)
Pratha-Fish
^ It's a set of all rows where a rec-MBID was returned by the mapper, but the MLHD_rec_mbid and the mapper_rec_mbid don't match.
aerozol
Excellent - alastairp mentioned that he found 3. unclear, if anyone has any ideas
Freso
aerozol: If you want more nitpicky things… Instead of "asked" I’d probably say "expected". I’d remove the quotes around review. Point 2 I’d maybe make more general - like "no plagiarising or copying from elsewhere", since we also don’t want people copying from newspapers, magazines, etc. that are not websites. And I’d want to say "unless you are the copyright holder." - the "original author/owner" is not necessarily
the one who holds the copyright or has a license to propagate the work.
aerozol
👌 I will drag my ass out of bed and make some changes
Freso
Maybe with a "if you’re not sure if you hold the copyright or are otherwise allowed to post it, don’t." added too.
I’m trying to think of examples of 3 that wouldn’t also be counter to 1, but I can’t come up with any.
So maybe between guideline 1 and CoC’s last point, that’s covered?
Which means that the guidelines is now only two points… so maybe it would be better presented as two paragraphs rather than a numbered list? :x
(Also just noticed a p too many in suppppport.)
aerozol
I wonder if we still want to be specific on the things that come up the most - promo/SEO, even though it's already covered in the CoC
There's a strange tightrope with promo because alastairp confirmed that we don't necessarily want it all gone
My suggestion was "3. Promotional content that doesn't meet guideline 1. will be removed"
Freso
I feel like if we’re going with a "two paragraph" presentation we’d want to flesh it out a bit more anyway. I feel like I’ve added enough stuff for the copyright to make a proper paragraph (yay! copyright! :|), but for 1) it could include examples like "an artist reflecting on their work would be most welcome, but someone just copying promotional cookie cutter text to promote their music would not be."
aerozol
Trying to find a middle ground...
I thought about lengthening it again too, but I think there's too many grey areas to describe all specific situations so it might be good to not describe any, if that makes sense. I'll have a play
CatQuest agrees with Freso's comments to the cb-coc
CatQuest
"no primarly promotional content unles marked as such" for when we cando this...
bte aerozol you know you can *edit* irccloud pastes right?
aerozol
😱
That's cool!! But I'd like to keep track of the versions tbh
CatQuest
sure, but for small changes like MusicBrainz -> CritiqueBrainz etc
CatQuest goes t oth store. after that I'm going 🌃 probably
natta!
aerozol
I'm awake! Here is the result (so far) of the four buds (me Freso alastairp CatQuest) hammering something out: