I have not reviewed the underlying code, but I try to properly check my tagging scripts and run extensive tests before using them on my audio files. And with digital releases I keep a copy the original downloads untouched.
I have no issues with Kodi. (I mainly collect audio, of course)
Yeah, I add to improve the database, not to tag my files. I really get no personal benefit from the work. I use Picard mainly for the purposes of adding a release and submitting AcoustIDs. I use Picard sometimes when I have a folder of recordings that I believe to be a release. I can cluster them and scan… and this often identifies the release in question, or at least a very good starting point to the release. There is a lot of benefit to the MB database aside from tagging. This is one of the reasons I am so picky on things. I have an issue of “selective OCD” though… I added a release that one editor pointed out the coverart was a clear indicator it was for a bootleg. Once pointed out, it was clear, however, when I looked at it, I seemed to notice everything but that, as I was not looking at/for such things.
I actually do not write “everything” to tags - only what’s useful for being displayed on screen. MB and its database is a very useful information source in itself.
What do you mean by that? What’s “selective OCD”?
When you look really close at CD packaging and know for certain it is the exact same copy. Then six months later you spot the CD actually says made in Germany and not made in Holland like the release you matched to.
Or @thwaller’s example was a good one. The rear cover looked like a match… until you held it side by side with a real one and saw it had been created in photoshop with wrong fonts and layout.
Brain is complex. It can convince you that you have an exact match - but it is only matching what you look at. Go look at some of your very first MB or Discogs submissions and you will find comical errors that you would never make now.
It is strange… if I am looking for something specific, I am easy to ignore what I am not looking for. Example on the release I mentioned, I was looking for the labels for the (p) and (c), and the labels for distribution and manufacture. I failed to notice that the apostrophes were on the bottom of the words vs the top for example.
I was doing a bunch of adds, focusing on the same, so I become so focused on what I am looking for, I fail to recognize irregularities elsewhere. I have also caught myself in the past making sure my CDs were all properly aligned in their cases, so you can read them proper when opening, that I failed to realize that some of them were in the wrong case… A was in B case and B was in A case for example.
It can be most useful and most crippling… at the same time. It works well in my work, but that is how our personalities and traits tend to guide us to professions and interests.
And an OT reply… some CDs will have barcodes on stickers on the shrinkwrap. Something that often has disappeared in the second hand market. I like the idea mentioned above that the online stores are the shrinkwrap - the delivering packaging you discard. The shrinkwarp\barcode is only kept by the completists whereas everyone else just dives in to enjoy the music.
Especially interesting when the sticker on the wrap has a barcode that differs from the one under it, on the back cover. Seen that way too often. A lot on imports.
It is an intensity of focus. We see the details that are important to us, but miss the glaringly obvious like a CD in the wrong box. Many people on a website like this will recognise this. We are detail people otherwise we would not be here.
It is fascinating to realise how much most people don’t actually see when the look at something.
Yeah, I have seen it on the imports. And on some special editions. And signed editions. That other classic is how a “box set” will really just be one bit of card around three release CDs all with their own barcode.
Barcodes are for cataloguing and it is a details that interests some. Just like others are interested by copyright details. Or ISRCs. MB becomes a repository for all that data to gather together for detail freaks.
It is in the metadata though, it just isn’t part of what’s stored in the (downloaded) files’ tags. E.g., similar to how you have to provide ISRCs (and UPCs) when you upload tracks to Bandcamp, but Bandcamp claims that “it isn’t possible to embed codes directly in files” (which I think most people here know is just false (I have informed them of this too, but… 
)).
Unlike the barcodes in physical stores that are added on with stickers (on shrink wrap or (ew!) directly on the jewel case) by the store itself, the barcodes on digital releases are most often not store specific but actually provided by the artist/label/distributor/… to the service(s) in question, which is also why it is not uncommon to find that a given release on Deezer, Spotify, Bandcamp, … have the same UPC/barcode. If Walmart and most other prominent stores use the same UPC supplied from the distributor, even if the release’s cover art doesn’t have the code… then yes, I do think that that should be added to the MusicBrainz Release too (with an annotation explaining this, since it isn’t common).
The brain works differently from a computer. It doesn’t store information bit by bit. I creates a web of relationships. If you’ve done/seen something in a somehow similar case, it can easily be confused. And if you focus on specific features your brain registers everything else as similar/the same. (and if you do a lot of edits, it’s hard to keep everything in mind anyway… 
)
If the sticker barcode is different, I would still use the cover barcode. The other should be noted as annotation. Stickers are optional. (and not kept by many)
This is an interesting topic. I am not sure I have an opinion on this, although I believe I default to what you have stated. This is because, as you stated, the release may no longer have any reference to the sticker. This is similar to the digital release in file form, where without the store, there is no reference to the barcode (in the cases this applies to, not all).
Sure, you bring ISRCs into this. LOL!
The barcode here is strange. Technically, the barcode is not a valid MP3 tag… for example. So depending on the context and intent, their statement might be correct. This does not mean you cannot just create a custom MP3 tag (and annoy people like me) 
That is back to front. The sticker on the outside is the one used for sales and identification purposes. The other barcodes should only be listed in the annotation.
I can pull out plenty of examples of this for you. Especially relevant to a signed edition. Sold as a separate item by the artist with a separate barcode. Just because the sticker has been thrown away does not mean it is not important.
But a sticker usually doesn’t make a separate release.
I’ve got only one such edition and the sticker is directly attached on the cover, making the original barcode unreadable. I’m not sure if I would create a separate release if it was attached on the packaging foil. You have to consider that second-hand CD owners would possibly not know about any stickers.
A Barcode makes a separate release, so yes the sticker would make a new release. For example it may be a territory thing. As well as those signed editions being sold as separate items by the artist.
Why should we? We don’t allow for those who get CDs mixed up in different packs. Or loose booklets, change inner sleeves. I can point to a few albums where the barcode was a peel off sticker - but MB will correctly file them together.
It is exactly the same as this digital issue here. The barcode data is in a different location - online or on a sticker. It is still part of that original sale. The item as purchased. No matter what happens once the person has it in their possession.
I don’t think a sticker is the same quality as booklet and sleeves. Even a replaced standard jewel case is mostly not considered to be a missing part of a release. And if it’s an “import sticker” it clearly marks it was imported and was originally released elsewhere.
In MB guidelines new barcodes mean new Releases. In this digital discussion a barcode that changes on a website separate to the digital files causes a new release to be added. So a separate barcode on a release package is similar.
I agree that stickers are not really that important, but to some they are. I am not talking about shop stickers like “import” or “buy 2, get one free”. I am talking about barcode stickers from the supplier.
Pink Floyd has different companies handling rights in different territories, so this leads to the necessity of different barcodes.
This release has a barcode: https://musicbrainz.org/release/e77d6292-811d-4f82-b9e9-27125de1a47a/cover-art but for artistic reasons, and ability to sell in other territories, that barcode was peelable. Different sticker in different territories. This was never sold without a barcode. Yet there are many copies listed in MB with incomplete data as the sticker was discarded long ago and is now not known.
Editors who use ATisket to grab barcodes for digital releases know that this data will not always be there. So they grab it now.