The annotation is the better place to hold such additional metadata. The annotation is always visible and editors can use those to move the information into the relationships. Edit notes should not hold metadata but describe the edit itself and provide sources.
7 Likes
But I don’t like seeing all those annotations, that should have been added as relationships by the lazy importer editors.
It takes more time to fix than when it’s in edit notes.
It’s really kind of forcing the OCD editors to fix the release for the original editor.
3 Likes
I don’t get this. How does hiding the liner notes in the edits make entering the relationships faster?
3 Likes
Guilty, sorry: but I’m not sure I know how to assign the relationships correctly (given lots of disambiguation comments about what’s a company and what’s a label) so it seems safer to leave it to someone who knows what they’re doing.
3 Likes
It is pretty simple. Usually the Limited \ Ltd \ LLP is the one holding the copyright. And normally a simple copy\paste edit to add it to the release and set the year. The disambigs usually help the clarity on those rare occasions there is a choice.
As you can see earlier up this thread I also suffer this same “argh!” OCD effect when I see a hit and run edit like this. 
1 Like
OK, thanks. 
I will try to remember!
What you have is what comes from Harmony, for example:
©&℗2025 Mega Corp, ltd.
You just add dated (from 2025 to 2025) © copyright link at release level and dated ℗ phonographic copyright by selecting all recordings.
For the label, you link the exact match “Mega Corp, ltd.”
If you don’t find it but it is just slightly different spelling for the same label, you select the approaching label and use credited as:
“Megacorp Limited” credited as “Mega Corp, ltd.”
If you don’t find approaching label, you just create the new “Mega Corp, ltd.” label and link it.
2 Likes
Thanks! It was selecting the correct label that I was worried about, but I suppose the occasional mistake is probably still better than just leaving everything in the annotation.
2 Likes
I agree it does take more time (at least if you remove the annotation), but it makes it more obvious to editors who come along later when looking at the release. with that and annotations being easily searchable (almost as easy as edit note searches), I think the annotation is the best temporary place for this (at least until we get relationship seeding)
on the other hand, if it’s just in the edit notes, it will show up for editors in their subscriptions, but for editors coming along weeks or months later, it’s hidden in the edit notes (possibly even a page or two down, depending on how many edits have gone in for the release and recordings), meaning likely fewer editors will notice the data is missing
6 Likes
A lot of the time you see the mistake the other way round. The auto-seeding of Atisket\Harmony takes the data of the online store. And that data often has popped the copyright into the label field in error. Not a fault of the tool, a fault of the limited data quality of the stores.
It is the copyright that seems most consistently visible on the store page. So you’re pretty safe with a copy\paste.
3 Likes
We also all have limited time and in my personal opinion it is better to have the data in the annotation than not at all
I see you have already found it, but for anyone else - if you use Harmony or another importer, you might be better off importing the (c) to the annotation first anyway. And then using kellnerd’s copyright parser script (MusicBrainz: Parse Copyright Notice), which will fill out the (c) fields using that, and iirc cleanly removes the relevant text from the annotation again as well.
4 Likes
I’ve been using Harmony to fill in the data to existing releases.
There are sometimes GTIN clashes from Bandcamp versus other stores, which prevent going to the add links page.
Providers have returned multiple different GTIN: 4066218539158 (MusicBrainz, Spotify, Deezer), 6430015110441 (Bandcamp)
Usually on Bandcamp, the provided GTIN is for the physical release, and should be then ignored.
I’d like to have a feature to go further anyway, acknowledging the mismatch.
1 Like
That would be Graceful release merging · Issue #98 · kellnerd/harmony · GitHub. The ticket mentions a manual workaround which is required for now.
I really want to get this implemented soon, but the merge algorithm is probably the most complex piece of code in Harmony which has absolutely no test coverage so far. So I really have to write some tests first to reduce the chance of unintentionally breaking it during the refactoring that is necessary to bypass the merge checks for some scenarios.
4 Likes
Doesn’t solve the UI issue, but btw in those cases I uncheck the Bandcamp (or whatever service has the mismatch) box in Harmony, and then re-run Harmony, so I can proceed.
It’s a good reminder to check that Bandcamp/the service really is a match.
P.S. Whaaaaaatt 
1 Like
You should add the button in the release actions too. It’s a bit less hidden like that, and my userscript only point to release actions
I think release actions only looks at what’s already there, and doesn’t perform a new lookup, so it wouldn’t add any new links from there
1 Like
Well if there’s something already in the cache, then it’s fine to add it
Super helpful, thanks. Now to work back through my recent Harmony imports… 
2 Likes
How does Harmony’s recording relationship lookup work, anyhow?
I ask because there are a handful of (currently) unsupported providers I routinely check for links, and I need to know if access to each provider’s API is required before I submit a request on Github.
1 Like