Editor mass-adding new releases incorrectly for years

I have already submitted a report to the admins, but I wanted to see if I’m missing something here. This user has been, for as long as I can see, been adding releases with:

  • track titles not formatted correctly
  • featured artists in track title
  • durations missing
  • no release label

I’ve seen @drsaunde correcting the mistakes and also commenting from time to time. Why hasn’t this user been disabled from creating new releases? It’s better to have missing releases, so editors can add them properly, then to have a release with horrible metadata, that needs more time to clean up.

Not cherry-picking, here’s the last release they added… today: https://musicbrainz.org/edit/73714552

1 Like

I don’t agree, featured artists in track titles are easy to correct, same with capitalization. I’d rather have releases added with missing or incorrectly formatted data than not added at all.

Prior related discussion:

5 Likes

Yeah, if the information is correct, I wouldn’t discourage them from adding it, even if it’s a mess.

2 Likes

Changing the title and adding a new artist for the recording incurs a votable edit with 7-day cooldown time.

Releases added this way sometimes prompt me to simply re-import the album from Bandcamp or any other e-store again to the same release group with correct data. Editing mistakes (especially for a hastily imported new release) is more time consuming then filling in the missing data or adding it anew.
It also locks me out of my own corrections and makes the data unusable for me for a week, because Picard can’t sync pending changes.

7 Likes

I feel you, but unless you’re at death’s door it’s probably better to let swarm intelligence deal with it and give it time. I consider myself a decider - which in a team is often viewed as impatient - but one learns to work within the system. In the end, absolute democracy is absolutely desireable, even if it doesn’t always go in the direction I wish :slight_smile:

2 Likes

In the general sense:

Good data > Bad Data > No Data >> Wrong Data.

So as long as what the editor is inputting isn’t technically incorrect, it’s still better than nothing.

My beef with editors are the ones that don’t make an effort to match up existing recordings.

1 Like

I’d rather say correct data > correct but incorrectly formatted data > no data >> wrong data.

Bad data and wrong data seems like the same thing to me.

1 Like

In the Musicbrainz vernacular, it’d be “Low Data Quality” - agreed that “Bad Data” was probably suboptimal phrasing.