Hi @Deleted_Editor_2265540 , I’ve been going through the bookogs dump lately, and found bookogs has many more sub-categories as compared to BB. It’d be great if I could get any suggestions on how to group the related sub-categories into one, but at the same time it’s a dilemma that we’d be losing out on those sub-catagories.
There was a comment that anything with a frequency count less than 1000 could be dispensed with and I agree. I would consolidate all of the editorial type roles into a single role, and ditto for copyright. But then again I’m pretty ruthless.
There is a fundamental question that I have never asked in the Forum: what is BB trying to achieve? There are a number of book sites on the internet, some are basic and others allow more detail.
The main point of difference that Bookogs offered was the high level of detail.
Is it worth trying to preserve the high level of detail many of the Bookogs submissions contained or simply go for the basics? Will BB ever utilise the data?
MetaBrainz is famously disinterested in this aspect - but obviously attracting more people helps the altruistic mission.
I would say we tend to aim for the highest level of detail that is practical, and achievable. In the past this has been to the detriment of the UI etc, but quite frankly there’s no reason why that needs to be the case.
Ideally we would be able to add all the granular relationships from Bookogs, but address why you thought it was crappy over there
I think a good way to do it is to have types and the sub-types, so if anyone’s not sure they can just pick the parent, and scripts can be used to pick what level of detailed is wanted. Not sure if this would address your issues with having heaps of under-used relationships…
I know that sort of language is complete anathema to some people, but the site has to be relevant, otherwise it will just languish despite all the great work done by @indy133. Long may he live.
Crappy is a subjective term💩 I thought some of the roles were a bit arcane (which could be an indication why some were rarely used) and searching for a particular role was sometimes tedious. Wading through the editor roles required a cut lunch (Australian term meaning a light meal put in a container). However, there were constant requests from users for more and more.
You should see my wishlist for MusicBrainz attributes
Wading through roles/searching being tedious does sound like a UI problem, that maybe could be fixed by a search box/filter box that narrows down results as you type, and maybe a paste/repeat relationships function?
Now, I’m not saying this would all be implemented any time soon, but MusicBrainz philosophy has definitely been to enter information as granularly as possible, and not let current UI, end user needs etc, get in the way. Data first, all the way.
Bookogs had all of those features. The problem was that there were, for example, so many editor roles that unless you knew the exact title and could type it, you would have to negotiate a menu of 61 possibilities. I’m guessing some people didn’t bother and simply chose Editor regardless of what the submission article credited.
Add to that, language misunderstandings and the situation got messy. I know French and Italian users frequently used “Editor” for the role of “Publisher” on Bookogs.
Is this a problem? It’s what I expect users to do in MB, and if someone knows better they can improve the specificity later.
Language issues happens on MB as well… particularly different names for cover art I’ve noticed. A lot of French users set stuff as ‘liner’ for some reason? Apart from improving the translations and then hope people use the site in their language I’m not sure if there’s a solution : (
These problems can’t be solved, we have to live with it. The German role “Herausgeber” can be translated as publisher AND as editor. So you have to chose. Sometimes it’s obvious, sometimes it’s difficult. This applies to all languages, of course.