Edit help - Amazon reference issue

RE: Release “Greatest Hits” by Do or Die - MusicBrainz

I was editing this release and pulled the cover art from the Amazon reference, after confirming that the page matched the release. After which, I noticed that the listing on Amazon does not match the cover art, nor does it match the release.

Who should this release be completed? On one hand I can see matching the verbiage on the reference, but in this case, it appears that the verbiage is incorrect, making it not match the actual release. Do I:

  1. Leave the track listing as Amazon states it (on page not cover art) and call it a “release” as it does have a reference.
  2. Correct the track listing to match the artwork and the actual release, merge with the other release and add the Amazon error in the annotations.
1 Like

Amazon cover art (aka scans) are wrong. Amazon groups multiple different products onto the same page for a variety of reasons, including when different products share a barcode.

The consequence of Amazon’s practice is that Amazon.com (USA) images will never match MusicBrainz USA releases, because the people at Amazon who scan music are located in Europe, where the same barcode is used on a different release.

1 Like

I am understanding this. In this case however, I am not able to show the 15 track release as outlined on the site actually exists. The cover art however, does is exist and is the only version of the release I am able to locate.

I have also verified that the ASIN converts to the UPS shown on the artwork, further supporting the artwork over the text on the page.

You should ask the original editor - https://musicbrainz.org/edit/3957897 - though it doesn’t look like they stuck around.

1 Like

So maybe I should just revert the edits I did to that release? The Amazon ASIN does point to the UPC on the artwotk it provides, but the printed track list on the page does not see to exist, at last on an official level, which I Assume if it is sold vs being a bootleg.

The only issue I have with reverting and leaving as it was is that is contradicts itself. The Amazon page should a track listing that differs from the product that the ASIN points to. I Am not sure simply reverting my edits is the right decision with it.

1 Like

I’d go track it down elsewhere. Like the Discogs link. Amazon links were often added by a bot, and you are looking at something added decades back by a beginner. Better to repair it and make it a real release than leave it in a mess like that.

1 Like

I am happy to do that option. From what I see and can find, it would be a fixing of the track listing, adding two tracks, then a merge to the other release there. This group if you look did not ever have a variety of versions of releases, minimal at most. Given Amazon, I assume official as the type, so that removes the more obscure bootleg and download options. Given that criteria, there is only one version of this release I can find.

Combining that with the rest, such as the ASIN matching the barcode and the artwork, I believe that is the best route… however… I also admit it is a destructive edit that includes some assumption. I would lean the other way if the only reference to the 15 tracks was not an Amazon link that contradicts itself. There is nothing of any quality.

That said, there is another issue with this same group, also an Amazon link and identical scenario… but no artwork on Amazon for the other.


I also look at the history of the editor who added this. They did five edits and left. We all made errors in our early edits.

If every location you look for the album you see 17 tracks, then it is safe in this case to assume an error. (another reference located: Do or Die Greatest Hits Album Reviews, Songs & More | AllMusic )

I’ve cleaned up a few like this for smaller artists.


Absolutely. I noticed this when checking, and fond the general no notes, sources, etc. As you stated, I did the same and I am sure all others have, and still do at times today.

I did two merges for this artist one releases that were more clearly duplicates. I appreciate the thoughts on how to handle these. The last thing I want to do is destroy valid history.

1 Like

It is the useful side of Edit Histories. If something looks odd, you can check how may other edits that editor did. And trace a wider picture. Cross referencing other databases is always handy as any mis-prints would not appear only in MB. And if it did, there would be more comments about the missing tracks.


Sounds good. I think I will proceed and make the edits for this release. You statements have likes from others and no one has really stated not to proceed with the changes.

I agree on the comments here and on other recent threads on the reliability of Amazon references. I think the Amazon reference is more of a release group reference than a release reference. I have also took some time read the reviews on some CDs on Amazon and I have noticed others mention that the Amazon listing did not exactly match what they received.

A question stemming from this question… has there been any discussion on limiting/restricting/etc Amazon references? I am think in terms that a reference should support the data I have entered, and if the reference is not reliable, is it even a valid reference? Similar to why I would never use last.fm as a release reference. An example, TMDB does “not allow” Wikipedia as a valid reference of proof.