Currently editors can edit Works from the Release Relationships page.
Examples of this are the removal of the apparently wrong derivative Works (such as other versions) from a Release’s Work entry, and also adding an Arranger to the Work.
These edits produce erroneous global changes in the Work.
This set-up allows errors which waste time, may increase errors in the db, add to the learning curve and reduce Editor satisfaction.
However maybe there are real benefits to the current set-up.
If there are benefits then what are they?
How much benefit do you see as coming from the current set-up?
If most advanced Editors are using scripts then could the current benefits, if any, better be reserved for Editors running scripts?
The benefit is that if you’re adding new works you can go ahead and add composers, lyricists, etc at the same time. Otherwise many of those would never be added.
If it were possible to do that while creating the work (within the relationship editor) then maybe it wouldn’t be needed directly in the relationship editor. Or maybe the types of relationships available in the relationship editor could be restricted?
Firstly, I apologise. I don’t do classical. I’m more Rock / Punk / Pop music from mainly CDs. So I see this from a different angle to the classical editors.
When I have a CD and its booklet in hand I find the Edit Relationships page valuable for the way it is all drawn together. That page neatly fits the way the booklet works. It makes it very efficient to add all the relevant works. Bulk editing of adding writers, recording dates, and so forth.
Many people are here who just add their CDs. If you removed that nicely integrated interface then you’d loose a lot of data input.
Many of us find the page and slowly expand as to how much data we realise we can supply from one simple booklet. Split that all away into editing works one by one again and you will loose too much.
And remember - not everyone uses scripts. Allow those non-script users to still be able to work from their CD booklets and update data.
I am sure more is gained by that one Edit Relationships page that is lost by the odd mistake made there.
-=-=-
Edited to add: the other advantage of that page is it allows someone who only understands their CD booklet and the music to add to this database without having to understand how the database operates. Many contributors will not have a clue what a “work” is, but that page allows them to supply a lot of detail that they do understand.
The benefit is that I usually input things in MB from a particular CD I have at home, so release editor + release relationships editor (that allows editing works and release group relationships at the same time) allow me to set everything I see in the booklet in two steps, only.
Having to go through all works one by one to manually set authors and composers, one by one, would be extremely super annoying.
It is possible (inline search, new work), but it’s usually even better to use the relationship editor’s check boxes to set multiple same relationships at once on works (and also possible on recordings, by the way).
I don’t really understand this sentence but I prefer edits from booklet than edits done without release context, I find them way better sourced and valuable, therefore less prone to errors.
One possibility, if a system modifiable UI ever arrives, would be for new users to be warned of what they are doing if they try removing (global) information from a pre-existing Work using the EditReleaseRelationships page.
@mmirG - if anything I find the Edit Relationships page the clearest place of all to spot errors with Works. Especially post merge when you often get the doubling up of (live) and (not live) works.
How often are you seeing issues? I rarely see anything like that coming up on my subscriptions. What type of Works are you finding getting damaged?
Personally I find that Edit Relationships page one of the best designed and usable pages in the database. It fits so naturally with the paperwork to hand without a user having to be a database genius to understand it.
I’ve distant memories of removing versions from a Work or two myself. And saw this happening recently but memory isn’t giving specifis. And more recently I added global Arrangers to parent Works.
Clearly the current set-up is working well for most people.
Though I’d like to have a warning for new users pop up about exactly what is being done.
Have it as something they can switch off but not too easily.
