"Edits for Your Subscribed Entities" is expanding?

I seem to have started getting notified about related edits.
And it can get pretty hectic when dealing with classical/orchestra music.

For example:
I subscribe to an artist. She did a recording of a ‘showtune’, as has many others. And now, I am being notified because someone else did a recording of the same song.
I subscribe to a conductor who was involved with the recording of a Vivaldi piece. Now, I am being notified because someone else did a recording of the same piece.

The only reason I know which of my subscribed entries these belong to is because the email I got overnight told me which artist they were for. But in “real time” here on the site, I just look and wonder “how am I involved with this edit”.


This has just started. Is this the new normal or a temporary bug?
And if it is going to happen from here on out, can it be put in a separate section? Like maybe creating “Edits for Your Expanded Subscribed Entities”.

I mean, I am not complaining about the number of edits that typically appear on my list, but my list tripled in one day due solely to the expanded list. This still isn’t a lot, but you can see the issue one may have, particularly if they are involved in certain types of entities such as Classical/Broadway which feature lots of recording artists.

1 Like

It’s a new feature of the most recent release and you are not the only who got caught by surprise.

I for one enjoy seeing that many votes :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Considering that:

  1. my list items stay for 10 days, and it tripled in one day - who knows how many 10 days will bring
  2. the number per page has been upped to 100 - which can make reviewing ‘per page’ a little more blinding

I can see myself turning off a couple subscriptions, which may be counterproductive to the intent.

1 Like

That would be MBS-8412

Yes so they are both requests I made long time ago… :thinking:

The aim of MBS-6532 was to enable reviewing of work edits when I am subscribed to my releases.
But I mostly thought of credit edits, I didn’t think of work-recording relationship edits. Maybe these should not be included (when they are not on my releases’ recordings)?

The aim of MBS-8412 was to align edits per page in various edit list pages (some were 25, some were 50).
I also think that 100 makes reviewing little bit cumbersome.
Maybe we should align them all to 50?

1 Like

If I am understanding you correctly, this would be my issue as well.
If I want to subscribe to a work (which means the writer), I can do so. Then I should see everyone who has recorded it appear on my list because it directly involves my subscription.
But I don’t see why, if, as example, 100 people have recorded “Work X”, but I am only subscribed to 1 recording artist, why I would be seeing the other 99 recordings of that work on my list.

*Note: technically, I wouldn’t see them if they already existed, I would only see new recordings. but you understand the point I was making.


either way, at least now I know that it is “the new normal”.

2 Likes

I was also surprised by this one, and I also think that new work-recording relationships should not show up as edits for other artists who’ve recorded the same work.

1 Like

But it may be difficult to do because it’s about what edits are part of what entity edit histories.

If you are subscribed to a work series, you should certainly see all work-recording relationship edits.

If all I subscribed to a release through a series, I wanted to see work credit edits because I have the booklet in hands so I can review it and be warned of changes.

But indeed it means that all work edits are now part of release edit history? Not only credits (artist/label - work)…

I will see in some weeks of it’s okay in practice because ATM I did not see that change yet in my release collection edits.

Here’s an example of what I’m talking about: Edits for Louis Armstrong now shows edits/adds of work-recording relationships where the only connection to Armstrong is that he also recorded the same work. For Armstrong, or any other artist who recorded a lot of standards, that makes for a very spammy edit history.

1 Like

And he is just a performer, not one of the writers.

And the Sarah Vaughan recording example also appears on this Louis Armstrong Just a Gigolo track release edit history. https://musicbrainz.org/release/0e3eb6dd-59fe-469c-ac49-9f327b92ac85/edits

We should try to find a fix, @reosarevok, to not include all work edit types, only appropriate types in context.

2 Likes

Some were 25 and some were 100 (not 50) :slight_smile: That’s why I made them 100.

Added MBS-10908 for the work thing, I’ll see if it’s reasonably easy to filter these edits out.

2 Likes

I think I have a fix that will still show other work edits on the releases / recordings, but not unrelated “recording of” relationships :slight_smile: Code up for review, if it seems fine we’ll have it out in not too awfully long.

By the way, the edits being shown on artists was actually unintentional, but - should they be at all? Obviously not unrelated “recording of” relationships, but, say, should changing the composer on a work show under artists who performed that work, or is enough to limit ourselves to what MBS-6532 asked and show it under the specific releases where the work is included?

3 Likes

I’ve usually got some positive level of competence for the subscribed entities. Or some positive interest.
So when I get notification of a change directly in them I usually check on what is happening.

Expanding from that set of notifications risks dulling my interest and reducing my responsiveness.

Changing a composer would seem a fairly rare event - however having Works and Composers/Writers being related to Recordings would seem fairly frequent.
The first of these would present low risk, whereas the second would seem to be likely to have me reduce my number of subscriptions, or have me stop checking on changes.

I’m looking through my notifications for today and finding too many to be not of interest.

I hope it’s rare! It shouldn’t even happen.
And I want to make sure credits don’t change badly on my releases. :wink:

When complete and accurate, it shouldn’t happen.
But there are times that not all writers are on a jacket or sleeve, therefore they don’t get credited elsewhere until later.

1 Like

It’s why I’m interested in my release (collection) subscription.
But I don’t think it makes sense in the performers subscriptions (even if I don’t really use artist subscriptions anyway).

It’s happened.

I opened the first of my Subcription notifications for today, saw nothing of interest and left the rest of the Subscription notifications unexamined.

The next step would be to turn off the email notifications when the emails become “just more junk in my inbox”. That’ll probably take a month to happen.

Has this been fixed? I’m still seeing edits on work-recording relationship edits on unrelated recordings.

https://beta.musicbrainz.org/recording/6b11cd17-d3fb-4e00-8ecc-e8aaeee44b05/edits

I ask because mmirG made it sound like it got fixed, but maybe it’s a coincidence he didn’t experience any work edits.

He was referring to “it happened”, as in, he ignored his notifications because they weren’t relevant to his subscriptions and the next step is to unsubscribe altogether.

5 Likes