• Staff 3.4k

    nik over 5 years ago

    jcrosen edited over 5 years ago
    Status 27th Sept 2016

    * Added and invited all users who were in the version 2 test group into this new version
    * Created this Group
    * Indexed 100 smaller artists (including any of their aliases, groups, and members)

    For the moment, we want to focus on the basic list view and the automatic algorithm that tries to sort tracks into reasonable groups on the page.

    At this stage, I recommend looking at artists that don’t have too many tracks in their discography. This makes it easier to figure out what is working / what is not working regarding the auto grouping. Only the listed artists in the two threads are fully indexed right now.

    You'll see from the pages that there are three layers to the grouping

    * Compositions
    * Recordings
    * Tracks

    "Tracks" is the unique track on a release. "Recording" is a grouping of tracks, based on being on the same Master Release (at the moment) and some other matching. "Composition" is a grouping of Recordings, based on the composer and some other matching. We'll tell you more about the matching algorithm once we have a little more work on it.

    The most important things we are looking for feedback on:

    * How does the three layer system work for you?
    * What problems do you see with the auto-match?
    * How does the layout of the page feel to you? What other information do you want / need to see?

    This is an early stage for this beta, we plan to do a lot of development, and expect a lot of changes, so please feel free to give honest feedback, but try not to be frustrated :-)

    Thanks!
  • zevulon over 5 years ago

    Thanks for the invite!

    I'm not sure if I do understand the status of these artists ATM.
    cv313 is a bit interesting, cause I basically have all their releases :)
    but I can't find anything indexed beyond what's obvious for all users (?) - not anything is grouped as described in the first thread ~ I use a w10/PC/Chrome.
  • auboisdormant over 5 years ago

    The link is in the upper right side, below the "Vinyl and CD" button, and above the discography sorting options. Or alternatively you can just add "/tracks" after the url.
    Here's a direct link: https://www.discogs.com/artist/820353-cv313/tracks
  • zevulon over 5 years ago

    ...oh! I found the Tracks Page! ( cv313 )

    I sure like the idea (as with previous attempts) . A bit in its infancy, but the idea of having the tracks in an alphabetical order will be a great tool, specially for me who likes remixes etc.

    Is it possible to add the In Collection / In Wantlist buttons on the Track Page?
  • Staff 3.4k

    nik over 5 years ago

    Is it possible to add the In Collection / In Wantlist buttons on the Track Page?


    Yeh we want to do this fairly soon for sure!

    I can't find anything indexed beyond what's obvious for all users


    Uuh yeh, the link is in the upper right side as mirva says. Sorry for the confusion.
  • harderslg over 5 years ago

    Thanks for the invite, In the earlier stage I was very happy with the results. I'll keep you informed!

    Leo
  • joeybolt over 5 years ago

    thanks for the invite. looked over the artist Angie Stone, the layout seems to work, but the track titles seem to be all over the place, different variations of the same title are in different spots, and not being alphabetical , it does make it a bit confusing, will look over other artists.
  • auboisdormant over 5 years ago

    First thoughts...

    nik
    * How does the three layer system work for you?

    I like it, though with a smaller screen having everything open at once when you click a composition is a lot. But I understand the reasoning behind that, it's not really useful if the releases are not shown.

    nik
    * What problems do you see with the auto-match?

    I'm thinking I'm not getting this just because I've been awake for 27 hours, but is there a reason why for example Roy Orbison's Almost Eighteen has six different compositions?

    joeybolt
    different variations of the same title are in different spots, and not being alphabetical

    Yeah, I'm not sure what the default view is, but it definitely isn't alphabetical order. But if you change it to "Sort by Title", the order of the titles seems to be correct at least to me.
  • hmvh over 5 years ago

    Thanks for the invite.
  • maxxyme over 5 years ago

    Thanks for inviting me.
  • marilen1965 over 5 years ago

    Thanks for the invite
  • Mop66 over 5 years ago

    Thanks for the invite. Do I understand correctly that currently we can only look at artists where indexing was initiated by staff or can we initiate indexing for artists on our end as well? If so, how?
  • gone4sure over 5 years ago

    Thanks for the invite
    I think it's really important to have the tracks listed alphabetically.
    Much easier to search
  • Staff 3.4k

    nik over 5 years ago

    Mop66
    Do I understand correctly that currently we can only look at artists where indexing was initiated by staff


    That's correct, but we can index more soon!

    gone4sure
    I think it's really important to have the tracks listed alphabetically.


    Thanks for the feedback. You can switch to alphabetical by selecting "sort by title" in the right hand dropdown, does that help?

    auboisdormant
    is there a reason why for example Roy Orbison's Almost Eighteen has six different compositions?


    Yes, because the algorithm that converts per-release tracks to the new tracks does it a very specific way (for good reason), and we need to hone it to make it better. That is something we are looking to work on as a matter of priority, and I hope to surface more details on the algorithm and help you all give us more detailed feedback and ideas on it soon!
  • joeybolt over 5 years ago

    auboisdormant
    First thoughts...

    nik* How does the three layer system work for you?
    I like it, though with a smaller screen having everything open at once when you click a composition is a lot. But I understand the reasoning behind that, it's not really useful if the releases are not shown.

    nik* What problems do you see with the auto-match?
    I'm thinking I'm not getting this just because I've been awake for 27 hours, but is there a reason why for example Roy Orbison's Almost Eighteen has six different compositions?

    joeyboltdifferent variations of the same title are in different spots, and not being alphabetical
    Yeah, I'm not sure what the default view is, but it definitely isn't alphabetical order. But if you change it to "Sort by Title", the order of the titles seems to be correct at least to me.


    thanks mirva, does make it easier to search
  • helix over 5 years ago

    When a release has a track by an unrelated track main artist, the track appears for both the release artist and track main artist.

    e.g. LFO Tracks contains tracks by Aphex Twin:
    46 Analord-Masplid - LFO / AFX* - Untitled
    Icct Hedral (Philip Glass Orchestration) - LFO - Basic Flannel (The M-People Years)

    I would find it more useful for the track main artist to take precedence over the release main artist, so that the tracks only appear as Aphex Twin Tracks.
  • snap07801 over 5 years ago

    I am excited that the Tracks Beta is back. It helps me find spelling errors in the database. Once they are corrected, how do you reindex the artists?
  • sebfact over 5 years ago

    Thanks for the invite. Tracks Beta was fantastic and I am also glad it's back.
    At the moment I receive Script errors when opening e.g. New Order (large index) Skript: https://s.discogs.com/dst/java…ections/artist/tracks.js?4cfbc:30 (sorry that's all I could grasp).

    Then if I look at the track "Age Of Consent", I find two entries - 1 with 1 Recording and 1 with 6 Recordings - where I would expect 1 entry with 7 Recordings. Same with Atmosphere (1 with 1 and 1 with 3 instead of 1 with 4)...

    Would this indicate a typo somewhere and how can I find it?
  • sebfact over 5 years ago

    New Order now fails to load....

    Would it be possible to have the Track title without versions as first level and the various versions on 2nd level, e.g.
    > This Is A Title (100 Recordings)
    > This Is A Title (50 Recordings)
    > This Is A Title (Extended) (20 Recordings)
    > This Is A Title (Edit) (20 Recordings)
    > This Is A Title (DJ XYZ Remix) (10 Recordings)
  • Staff 3.4k

    nik over 5 years ago

    helix
    I would find it more useful for the track main artist to take precedence over the release main artist, so that the tracks only appear as Aphex Twin Tracks.


    Thanks Helix, makes sense to me!

    snap07801
    I am excited that the Tracks Beta is back. It helps me find spelling errors in the database. Once they are corrected, how do you reindex the artists?


    At the moment, all the artists are reindexed manually. We basically throw away all the data and start again. We will likely do this a few times so we can tweak the algorithm. Once the system gets out of beta, this will all happen automatically, and we will be building on top of the data, not throwing things away (for example, there will be a history of changes).

    I will post in this group when things are reindexed.

    sebfact
    At the moment I receive Script errors when opening e.g. New Order


    Yeh, that is not surprising, that artist is too large for us at the moment, until we have optimised a bunch of stuff.

    sebfact
    Then if I look at the track "Age Of Consent", I find two entries - 1 with 1 Recording and 1 with 6 Recordings - where I would expect 1 entry with 7 Recordings. Same with Atmosphere (1 with 1 and 1 with 3 instead of 1 with 4)...

    Would this indicate a typo somewhere and how can I find it?


    No, it is likely a different main artist on the release (for example, a compilation various release) that can throw this. We will be working on improving this.

    sebfact
    Would it be possible to have the Track title without versions as first level and the various versions on 2nd level


    Yup, that is the eventual idea. Some of that kind of matching may need to be done manually, but we are going to try to get as far as we can with automatic algorithms for now.
  • sebfact over 5 years ago

    nik
    Yeh, that is not surprising, that artist is too large for us at the moment, until we have optimised a bunch of stuff.
    May I request artist Revenge?
  • Coincidence_vs_Fate over 5 years ago

    Thanks for the invite. Waiting for some more of my favourite artists (The Associates, The Pale Fountains, Josef K, Happy Mondays to be indexed.... :-)
  • Staff 3.4k

    nik over 5 years ago

    sebfact
    May I request artist Revenge?


    That is a label, was that what you were asking for?

    Coincidence_vs_Fate
    Waiting for some more of my favourite artists (The Associates, The Pale Fountains, Josef K, Happy Mondays to be indexed.... :-)


    Yup, we are aware that the ability to see artists you are interested in would be good here! We will be working on making this easier, thanks for your patience!
  • sebfact over 5 years ago

    nik
    That is a label, was that what you were asking for?
    Oops, sorry no, it was the band Revenge
  • Staff 3.4k

    nik over 5 years ago

    Got it, thanks!
  • mawiles over 5 years ago

    Can you enhance the algorithm to ignore punctuation, hyphens and whitespaces? So, for example
    - 5 A.M. Club Mix
    - 5 AM Club-Mix
    - 5 A.M Clubmix
    would be grouped altogether. This would eliminate many dupes.
  • Bladerunner1858 over 5 years ago

    thank you for invite
  • Bladerunner1858 over 5 years ago

    thank you for invite
  • TOPVARIETIES over 5 years ago

    Thanks for the invite, I'm willing to collaborate with what I can.
  • Ivo94 over 5 years ago

    Thanks for the invite! Not entirely sure to which extent this will be developed but I hope that credits are going to be assigned per track in some way. The differences between submissions of various editions of the same release would be greatly reduced (no more different/incorrect/lacking credits). And credits are generally track-specific, of course.
  • zen-dog over 5 years ago

    I've read most of the posts in this group, but I'm still strugging to see much of a benefit in this feature.

    Secondly, I've looked at the ATCQ page and I do not understand the difference between 'track', 'recording' and 'composition'. Maybe better terminology is needed, maybe I'm misunderstanding the concept. I'm not sure.

    For instance, a particular 'recording', let's say, the Woodstock live version of a song, appears on a live album and 5 different compilations (= 6 different master releases). If I wanted to find out which master releases contain that particular recording, I would expect to click on the track and get a list of all master releases that contain said Woodstock live version, similar to typing the artist name and full song title (including 'woodstock live version') into the search bar. Is this the intended purpose? If so, why then does it say above that a 'recording' is mainly based on being in the same master release only?
  • caobao over 5 years ago

    Thanks for the invite.
    I like the idea, to find easily all versions of one song. List is way easier to read with alphabetical order.
    Starting by a tracktitle, then all master releases where that song is include (only where composer are credited I suppose), then releases in each master release.
    Does this will work for cover version? If yes, how can it be done if a cover is untitled on release (Untitled in tracklist) and only referenced in notes?
    What about Folk or Traditional?
    It could be nice to have more filters, once you've found the track you want, to sort tracks in "recording" by year, label, format (album/EP/single, comp... + CD, Vinyl, Cassette...), style, performer...
  • Erit_Invictus over 5 years ago

    First of all, thanks for the invite. I was taking a rain check on my Discogs projects ([shameless shilling]I have to do a major amend to the Latin Reorganization proposal[/shameless shilling]) due to end of semester university exams. I'll take a quick look and see what I can do.

    Boy, this is a big project.

    I have some things I don't understand:

    How do we differentiate tracks, in order of likeness with the original composition:

    - Different masterings (ie: loudness wars and that excellent 2013 Aqualung remaster)
    - Different mixes of the same song
    - Different versions of the same song (rerecordings, and covers)

    Right now it seems we are lumping based on: same name, master release and credits

    -----

    Answering the three questions:

    * How does the three layer system work for you?

    Right now, a mess. Not because of the system itself but rather the extremely high complexity of the project - an algorithm will be hard pressed to do this in a satisfactory way.

    * What problems do you see with the auto-match?

    Mainly, false positives. Credits don't necessarily say the truth or simply omit a certain piece of info, in such way the system considers the tracks separate recordings. given that recording lists are changed depending on who has the most important credit, we will end up several list of the same song being split multiple times on minutalia.

    We should be able to write down notes on the individual tracks when submitting, probably to differentiate them (ie: reecording, standard/cover, remaster).

    This raises a big concern regarding as on release vs user knowledge. In order to make this system work neatly (as in: no mistakes at all) we would depend heavily on user input.

    * How does the layout of the page feel to you? What other information do you want / need to see?

    Working on Opera: It's very limited - I can't read the full tracks. And it's very hard to differentiate between compositions, recordings and tracks.

    ---

    My suggestions are, therefore:

    For the system itself:

    a. Find a way to add the information I spoke about into the tracks system. We should be able to know when it's a remix, a different recording or a remaster. Right now, the credits are listed pretty much randomly and are hard to understand

    b. make credits unrelated to the tracks (I saw an Artwork and management credit!) illegible to make a new recording list.

    c. Like the master release header, Tracks should have an "first version" or "original version" tag that makes it appear on top of the list.

    For the layout:

    d. Reformat the layout in such way information is easier to read. Consider using colour coding and different line thickness to differentiate between composition, recording and inditvidual tracks.

    e. Rename a couple things. Being more specific will make the layout much more intuitive. Right now the words are vague and people wouldn't understand them on first read, this inevitably leads to confusion and people making up their own interpretations of the term.

    e.1 Change Recording to a form that is understood that the same track is present in the following master release ie:"Track present in"

    e.2 Change Artist to something akin the lines of "Composers, Performers & Producers" to cover all possible artists that could modify the track

    f. Add a "hide all tracks" (should be named hide all recordings) button to minimize all open composition credits and save a considerable amount of time. Consider adding a hide all compositions button too

    ---

    notes:

    a is possibly the hardest to implement because it it requires user input. I also think it's the most important change,

    mawiles' suggestion should be implemented if it wasn't already

    zen-dog
    but I'm still strugging to see much of a benefit in this feature.


    If we do this properly, it will make it very easy to distinguish between tracks. Right now people has to rely on the individual release notes of each release to know when a song is different to another with the same title. Sometimes people don't even bother with that!
  • IbLeo over 5 years ago

    Thanks for the invite, although I can't remember being involved in such a discussion a few years ago. I take it as a sign that my opinion matters. However, I don't have much time to spend on this so I will provide a few comments here and there and mostly watch from the sideline.

    For the moment I spent less than 30 minutes looking at the tracks of Jonathan Wilson. Here are my first impressions.

    1) At an overall level it's a good idea to provide a detailed view of the tracks recorded by an artist. It should make it very easy for example to find the albums containing a song you heard on the radio for example.

    2) In terms of key concepts (Compositions, Recordings, Tracks), I believe I understand the first and the third; .however I am seriously struggling with the second. Example: Take the 7th composition on Jonathan Wilsons page: Ballad Of The Pines. It has for the moment two recordings: One with performer Andy Cabic and another with performer Otto Hauser. When I unfold them, The former has 7 tracks, all from different versions of MR Gentle Spirit while the latter has one single track from an 8th version of the same MR. Andy Cabic and Otto Hauser are both credited as performers on all tracks for all versions of the album. together with a bunch of other people. The logic here completely fails me.

    3) Like many others I also believe releases from the same MR needs to be grouped somehow. I don't see the value of simply listing all releases one by one as it's done today.

    4) The logic behind the Artist column also fails me. Sometimes it's blank, sometimes it contains a writer, sometimes an arranger and sometimes a performer. I currently have no clue why this column is there. I did not read through all threads of this group to try to understand it, and anyway, it shouldn't be necessary. Each information presented on the screen should be easily understandable to the users.

    5) In terms of UI, I would suggest to make a better distinction between Recording and Track, maybe a slight indentation of the latter. I find myself getting easily confused about what I am looking at.

    That's all for now, folks ;)
  • Staff 3.4k

    nik over 5 years ago

    Hi folks. Thanks for your great feedback here!

    IbLeo
    Thanks for the invite, although I can't remember being involved in such a discussion a few years ago.


    Sorry about the confusion, we sent out some incorrect text there, so you may not have been involved in previous betas. Good to see you here now though!

    IbLeo
    In terms of UI, I would suggest to make a better distinction between Recording and Track, maybe a slight indentation of the latter. I find myself getting easily confused about what I am looking at.


    Erit_Invictus
    it's very hard to differentiate between compositions, recordings and tracks.


    Thanks folks, we'll see if we can improve this.

    zen-dog
    I do not understand the difference between 'track', 'recording' and 'composition'. Maybe better terminology is needed, maybe I'm misunderstanding the concept. I'm not sure.


    That is fair enough. I'm not sure what better terms we could use are, but open to suggestions!

    Track - this is the individual section of audio on one specific release.
    Recording - is supposed to be a grouping of all the same tracks that derive from the same recording session. This is all done automatically at the moment, the current system isn't perfect at all, and no matter what we do, it will never be able to perfectly separate things. The best it can do is a 'best guess'. We envision a time when we will all be able to manually update things to get them into the right recording 'buckets'.

    Composition - This is intended to be the consetual 'top level' for a work. For example, the lyrics and music written down would be the obvious 'blueprint', although of course not all compositions are conveyed in that way. It will gather all the recordings, eventually by all the artists that recorded a version.

    caobao
    Does this will work for cover version? If yes, how can it be done if a cover is untitled on release (Untitled in tracklist) and only referenced in notes?


    Eventually we hope you'll be able to manually edit the relationships (links) between tracks->recordings->compositions, so anything will be possible. We do want to get the basics right first though.

    caobao
    It could be nice to have more filters, once you've found the track you want, to sort tracks in "recording" by year, label, format (album/EP/single, comp... + CD, Vinyl, Cassette...), style, performer...


    I agree. Filters everywhere ;-)

    Erit_Invictus
    How do we differentiate tracks, in order of likeness with the original composition:

    - Different masterings (ie: loudness wars and that excellent 2013 Aqualung remaster)
    - Different mixes of the same song
    - Different versions of the same song (rerecordings, and covers)

    Right now it seems we are lumping based on: same name, master release and credits


    Yup, we can't do this automatically to any great extent or accuracy. Welcome to a whole new realm of editing (eventually, I hope!).

    Erit_Invictus
    * How does the three layer system work for you?

    Right now, a mess. Not because of the system itself but rather the extremely high complexity of the project - an algorithm will be hard pressed to do this in a satisfactory way.


    I agree, but we want to do our 'best effort' with the automatic matching, to hopefully minimise the amount of manual editing later.

    Erit_Invictus
    This raises a big concern regarding as on release vs user knowledge. In order to make this system work neatly (as in: no mistakes at all) we would depend heavily on user input.


    Yup. It is going to be a lot of trust in everyone being able to work the manual editing system with reasonable accuracy and knowledge. I think we can do it, especially if the system is well defined and flexible.

    Erit_Invictus
    I can't read the full tracks.


    We have a fix for this coming :-)

    Erit_Invictus
    My suggestions are


    Thanks you very much for all of those, much appreciated and we will refer to them for future updates!

    IbLeo
    I am seriously struggling with the second. Example: Take the 7th composition on Jonathan Wilsons page: Ballad Of The Pines. It has for the moment two recordings: One with performer Andy Cabic and another with performer Otto Hauser. When I unfold them, The former has 7 tracks, all from different versions of MR Gentle Spirit while the latter has one single track from an 8th version of the same MR. Andy Cabic and Otto Hauser are both credited as performers on all tracks for all versions of the album. together with a bunch of other people. The logic here completely fails me.


    Yup, it is not that easy to explain how it works, as it is somewhat involved. We hope to have a summary of the matching logic for you all soon, so you can walk through it for yourself and perhaps help us make it better!
  • caobao over 5 years ago

    nik
    Yup. It is going to be a lot of trust in everyone being able to work the manual editing system with reasonable accuracy and knowledge. I think we can do it, especially if the system is well defined and flexible.


    The system will be partially independant from releases (no need to update a release to add missing link) or does that mean more flexibility about uncredited credits?
  • Staff 3.4k

    nik over 5 years ago

    caobao
    The system will be partially independant from releases (no need to update a release to add missing link) or does that mean more flexibility about uncredited credits?


    Very good question!

    To an extent, we'll have to "feel our way" here. This is how we like to develop (program) stuff anyway. The impact of making a human-editable tracks system could be massive. Imagine intelligent auto-complete / auto-suggest on track titles when submitting, for example.

    Credits will be included in tracks, and we could of course then have ways of showing them on the recording or composition 'layer', thereby creating a potted summary of all the credits. We still need to experiment and try things and hopefully get your feedback on what you want to see and what makes sense to build. Exciting stuff I think!
  • IbLeo over 5 years ago

    nik
    Track - this is the individual section of audio on one specific release.
    Recording - is supposed to be a grouping of all the same tracks that derive from the same recording session. This is all done automatically at the moment, the current system isn't perfect at all, and no matter what we do, it will never be able to perfectly separate things. The best it can do is a 'best guess'. We envision a time when we will all be able to manually update things to get them into the right recording 'buckets'.

    Composition - This is intended to be the consetual 'top level' for a work. For example, the lyrics and music written down would be the obvious 'blueprint', although of course not all compositions are conveyed in that way. It will gather all the recordings, eventually by all the artists that recorded a version.

    That's an important clarification and it makes logical sense to me. Thanks!

    IbLeo
    Take the 7th composition on Jonathan Wilsons page: Ballad Of The Pines. It has for the moment two recordings: One with performer Andy Cabic and another with performer Otto Hauser. When I unfold them, The former has 7 tracks, all from different versions of MR Gentle Spirit while the latter has one single track from an 8th version of the same MR. Andy Cabic and Otto Hauser are both credited as performers on all tracks for all versions of the album. together with a bunch of other people.

    This has been fixed; now there is only one recording of the composition Ballad Of The Pines which corresponds to the reality.

    However, I note that titles that are the same except for spacing are considered different compositions. Again, on Jonathan Wilson:
    - "Born To Be My True Love" and "Born To Be My Truelove" are listed as different compositions
    - "Can We Really Party Today ?" and "Can We Really Party Today?" are listed as different compositions
    In both cases they are obviously the same compositions and same recording - the tracks just comes from different versions of the same release - and probably the result of careless graphical designers or careless discogs users (I didn't check which one). I would say that from a logical point-of-view such cases should be displayed as same composition and recording.

    Going back to the Artist column - still on Jonathan Wilson: For most compositions, we have the writer in the artist column which makes sense with the definition of composition. However, for a few compositions like "All The Way Down" and "Fanfare" we have an "Arranged By" credit which does not make logical sense; different recordings of the same composition would typically be arranged by different people. So IMHO it does not make logical sense to display "Arranged By" at composition level; it belongs at recording level.

    Now, if I unfold "Fanfare" I see a "Cover" credit in the Artist column. Again, here the logic fails me; how can the cover artist be a relevant attribute to a specific recording?

    nik
    Yup, it is not that easy to explain how it works, as it is somewhat involved. We hope to have a summary of the matching logic for you all soon, so you can walk through it for yourself and perhaps help us make it better!

    With all respect, users should not have to understand the matching algorithm to grasp the logic; the algorithm is just the implementation of the specified logic behind the scene. While I now understand the three main concepts (composition, recording, track) on a logical level, I am still struggling to see what you are trying to do with the "Artist" column.
  • Staff 3.4k

    nik over 5 years ago

    Hi IbLeo, thanks for your extensive feedback!

    IbLeo
    I note that titles that are the same except for spacing are considered different compositions. Again, on Jonathan Wilson:
    - "Born To Be My True Love" and "Born To Be My Truelove" are listed as different compositions
    - "Can We Really Party Today ?" and "Can We Really Party Today?" are listed as different compositions
    In both cases they are obviously the same compositions and same recording - the tracks just comes from different versions of the same release - and probably the result of careless graphical designers or careless discogs users (I didn't check which one). I would say that from a logical point-of-view such cases should be displayed as same composition and recording.


    This is understandable for sure, I feel the same way when I see variations like that!

    One thing to keep in mind would be, maybe it is better to see these variations at the moment? maybe they are data entry errors, and this new system will let us find and correct such errors quite easily?

    I don't have a definitive answer, however!

    IbLeo
    Going back to the Artist column


    We are going to remove that for now. It is causing confusion, and we feel it will be better to come back to it at a later data (or surface credits in another way), so we can all focus on the basics right now.

    IbLeo
    With all respect, users should not have to understand the matching algorithm to grasp the logic; the algorithm is just the implementation of the specified logic behind the scene.


    This was my fault not using words precisely. I was meaning that the logic should be available for all to see and grasp.
  • IbLeo over 5 years ago

    IbLeo
    I note that titles that are the same except for spacing are considered different compositions. Again, on Jonathan Wilson:
    - "Born To Be My True Love" and "Born To Be My Truelove" are listed as different compositions
    - "Can We Really Party Today ?" and "Can We Really Party Today?" are listed as different compositions
    In both cases they are obviously the same compositions and same recording - the tracks just comes from different versions of the same release - and probably the result of careless graphical designers or careless discogs users (I didn't check which one). I would say that from a logical point-of-view such cases should be displayed as same composition and recording.
    nik
    This is understandable for sure, I feel the same way when I see variations like that!

    One thing to keep in mind would be, maybe it is better to see these variations at the moment? maybe they are data entry errors, and this new system will let us find and correct such errors quite easily?

    I don't have a definitive answer, however!

    That is indeed a valid point; it could be a way to spot and fix data entry errors. I had a deeper look at my two examples and from the images it's currently not possible to decide if they are all data entry errors or not (I do suspect so).

    This discussion also made me realize that such variations could be due to language differences. For example, in French, you always put a blank before a "?" or a "!" while you don't do it in English, Danish, German, and other languages I know about. So you could imagine a French version of an American release with a specific artwork and a French cover designer who decides that "Can We Really Party Today?" should be written "Can We Really Party Today ?" on the French version. That would not make it a data entry error, but it's still the same composition.

    Alas, I don't have a definitive answer either. So it's probably best to leave it as-is, and keep this point in mind for later when we have gained more experience. I have a feeling you came to the same conclusion and expressed it in your usual diplomatic way ;)

    nik
    We are going to remove that for now. It is causing confusion, and we feel it will be better to come back to it at a later data (or surface credits in another way), so we can all focus on the basics right now.

    Fully agree that this would be a wise thing to do for now.

    nik
    This was my fault not using words precisely. I was meaning that the logic should be available for all to see and grasp.

    Then we are on the same page. My apologies if you feel that I am nit-picking, it is not my intention. As you might have guessed, I work in the IT business so I am familiar with the language and probably have a good idea about what's going on behind the scene.

    May I suggest that at the end of each sprint, you let us know in this space what new functionality has been added/removed so we can appreciate the changes?
  • Staff 3.4k

    nik over 5 years ago

    IbLeo
    May I suggest that at the end of each sprint, you let us know in this space what new functionality has been added/removed so we can appreciate the changes?


    Yup, we have been doing this. There are not always changes that you will see, so it isn't regular. For larger changes (one coming up soon), I'll PM everyone in the beta group.

    nik
    maybe it is better to see these variations at the moment? maybe they are data entry errors, and this new system will let us find and correct such errors quite easily?

    I don't have a definitive answer, however!


    IbLeo
    I don't have a definitive answer either. So it's probably best to leave it as-is, and keep this point in mind for later when we have gained more experience.


    Yup, for sure. A big part of this whole thing is learning what the data looks like, and part of that is accepting that things are not going to be nearly 'perfect' for some time!
  • Staff 3.4k

    nik over 5 years ago

    New thread at https://www.discogs.com/group/thread/731022 , so I am locking this one!

Log In You must be logged in to post.