How is "compilations" a reason to merge?

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007f75690e8298> #<Tag:0x00007f75690e81d0> #<Tag:0x00007f75690e8108>

Somewhere between 2% and 10% of all recording merges have variations of “compilations” as the sole explanation in the edit note.
I have asked multiple times why the editors think this justifies a merge, but never got a response. Apparently many people don’t think questions in edit note discussions have to be answered if the person asking didn’t vote “no”.
So now I’m asking here if anybody has an answer for me.

To me “compilations” as an edit note means you found two tracks of the same song on two releases that are as unrelated as they can be and you haven’t found anything else that relates the two recordings either, otherwise you’d have written it in the edit note.


I imagine in most cases that means “I’m merging appearances in compilations into an appearance in an album/single”, or something like that. In most cases, non-mixed compilations will have the same recording as the original album/single, and in most cases, two compilations will have the same recording, since it’s pretty rare someone re-records anything for a compilation.

That of course doesn’t help at all when the artist does have several recordings of the same piece outside compilations, since it could be any of those in the comp. In most cases I don’t merge only based on “this is a compilation”, unless I have at least an acoustID match, or know this comp is a sampler for the label the album is in, or something like that, but sometimes (especially for Estonian stuff I know hasn’t been re-recorded), I’ll just automatically merge compilation appearances with album ones.


Exactly. So in any case the edit note shouldn’t be “compilations”, but at least something like:

  • no different versions, edits, or mixes known
  • same (unique) acoustID + link
  • artist compilations
  • label compilations
  • compilation into album/single/ep where the track is from according to comp’s liner notes

Some editor also only says “Same recordings” to most of their merges (and no edit notes at all, whenever possible).
I told them many times that there could be single and album versions, that there could be live versions with same length, etc.
But still “Same recordings” on and on.


Agree with Jesus2099 on “same Recordings”. Disagree on “Compilations”. See my comment on edit

1 Like

congratulations @paulakreuzer: As I said elsewhere: “The current hype to ask for 100% proof edit notes is IMO counterproductive and demotivating”

1 Like

The hype here is the suggestion that Paula ever asked for 100% proof. That’s not true. If an editor is going to go off in a huff because they are asked for something or anything beyond “they are the same because I say so”, they need to take a deep breath and think a bit beyond their own ego.


It’s not really a current hype, I asked for this in old forums and old mailing list in 2011.

Paradoxically, I made a tool that eases recording merges.

Because there was and there are many cases where I needed MBS-2425 / MBS-3136 to merge back to back two editions of same album, track by track. And without MASS MERGE it’s a NO GO.

So it’s not really the same case.
I was against so called blind merges, that are (or apparently are, in the lack of educated edit notes resulting from research or ear check) made without any context (unlike two editions of same album for which I wrote MASS MERGE).


4 posts were merged into an existing topic: Merge duplicate recordings between two editions of the same album with “mb. MASS MERGE RECORDINGS”

While I value explanatory edit notes highly, and try to provide them, I can also see the “demotivating” aspect.

The loss of “flow” when trying to remember just what matches 3 seperate external links have with an Artist is unpleasant.

The following ideas might make things easier.

Auto-provided tick boxes in the Edit Note that can capture the supporting reasons quickly.

I don’t necessarily understand your example but I think it’s important and the least we should do, remembering why and being able to explain when we are doing a destructive edit. :wink:


I agree that destructive edits warrant effective inspection.

And that the destroying Editor is best placed to do the work of writing down, for others to see, what makes the destruction valuable.

P. S. Thanks for getting me back on-topic.