How to deal with durations added to vinyl releases without durations when no sources or notes are provided?

I’m having a discussion going on for a few days now:

A user added durations to a 7’’ that has no durations printed on the release. I looked into the edit history: no comment, no source. So I removed the durations, since they are most likely copied from another release.
The edit was voted “No” with the reason, that the added data MIGHT be correct.
It seems obvious to me that the way the user added the data was incorrect and it should not be my duty to prove that the data is wrong.
I have never seen a db where it’s allowed to add data from other sources than the release without a source or comment.
Do we really have to prove that this data is wrong to remove it?

1 Like

Why would the length be different to the CD tracks? It seems likely that these track times are correct, or extremely close.

But we probably need a guideline because this seems like it could be a back and forth forever (re. what we consider to be an acceptable method of setting vinyl times)

It would be the right move to at least ask on the initial edit adding the times, so they can reply, imo. Even if it’s likely they got it from a different source.

I’ve edited thousands of vinyls and the durations often differ significantly. Even from 7’’ to 7’’
Release “Left to My Own Devices” by Pet Shop Boys - MusicBrainz (Europe)
Release “Left to My Own Devices” by Pet Shop Boys - MusicBrainz (UK)

If you don’t hand stop the durations you can’t add the correct durations. It just will create wrong data.
I know, releases without durations are annoying, but since this is a database we can’t just guess and copy and paste durations from other releases (which do you chose and why?) to a release with unknown durations.

You might notice that I’m quite irritated by this practice :wink:
This is a CD database, I guess.


I would also vote no to removing the track times. You can’t assume every edit is wrong without some kind of cross check.

You are guessing that the editor copied values from another release. They could just have easily taken them from their own copy.

1 Like

BTW - those two example Pet Shop Boy releases also have no edit notes to explain the track times. Following your logic they should also be removed. :slightly_smiling_face:

They are a good example of how an editor is working on a bit too much trust when adding a release.

You mean, hand stopped? And then added without a comment. And exactly the length of the compilation tracks?
I understand, you want me to believe that any user will do his best to add correct data, and I have to prove him wrong, when I have the audacity to doubt the correctness.
So a user can add anything he likes at the end, without any source or comment, is this correct? And I have to spend lots of time to find out, if he does it correctly.
Okay, nice to know :wink:


Sorry, but the durations are printed on the releases. We are talking about releases WITHOUT durations printed on the physical item :wink:

1 Like

I am just asking how you know they are wrong? Look at their edit history and they are adding many releases with track times. That looks to me like they have source files they are working from.

I don’t see why these tracks can’t be the same length as other versions? It is very common for a single edit to end up on a compilation. The compilation you found in Discogs with these tracks show they are sourced from that 7" so will have the same length.

Look at their edit history. They have many releases added, all with times. And no complaints at errors. There are releases like this one: Edit #34756367 - MusicBrainz where there is nothing he can have copied from in this database or discogs. I don’t see why not to trust them.

You yourself in the Pet Shop Boys edits added releases without any comment about where you got the times or how they were checked. This is what I mean about trust.

No they are not. Just checked the linked art on those two.

The 5:13 edit of “Sound of an Atom Splitting” appears on a number of compilations with the same length. This is common. I don’t see why we have to distrust the 7" in this example just because the tracks appear with the same lengths on compilations. This is common occurrence.

(I like a bit of detective work and you got me interested :slight_smile: )

1 Like

I didn’t check the UK release and I didn’r edit it. It was just an example to show that you jus’t cant easily copy and paste durations from one to another release.

But I see, this db is satisfied with good (or maybe not so good) guesses.
I, personally, don’t want to search an editors history to find out, if he might be trusted or not.
I want to know where the data is taken from, when it’s not from the release itself and I don’t want to investigate myself. That’s all. Is that too much?

I agree with you that good edit notes are important. But like the example Pet Shop Boys singles you found - not everyone leaves clear notes. :slightly_smiling_face: So unless we have some good proof they really are wrong, we should trust them.

In that thread you actually found some pretty good proof that they are likely accurate times by spotting the Compilation the 7" also appears on. This compilation is also in MB and the times are from a CD - where they round up a second. It all gives me a good feel about the quality of that edit and I trust the editor to be correct. Just like I trust you on your Pet Shop Boys edits.

1 Like

OK, I see, got it. I’m just used to the discogs rules, where these kind of edits are immediately deleted. And I always thought this to be the only effectice and correct method.
The amount of users he is significantly smaller so the “trust” way might be okay.
I’m just shivering when I think of the next encounter with an edit of the third kind. I’m not young any more so I have only a few decades left :wink:

Discogs rules can be weird. And seem to be enforced by a small selection of bully boys in the forums who have little interest in music. You must follow the rule, no bending.

MB treats you a bit more like a real person (usually). It is why they are called “Guidelines” here. You don’t tend to get beaten to a pulp with a mistake. And everyone gets an equal say in any debate. No such thing as “voting privileges”.

I find MB a bit more trusting in general. Bit more common sense allowed.

I can see how on Discogs this would be “Rules say delete all this useful data”. Whereas here at MB someone just say “Why?” as MB is more interested in the musical data than trying to identify an item for sale. MB is a musical database. Over there is a shop where everything has a value.


You are right of course. I always loved the ones who just “earned” the voting rights and immediately started to spread EI votes all over the places.
But you must admit, that it’s also not fair to shift the weight of (controlling) work from the first editor to future editors. That’s what happens when you reverse the burden of proof.
I can live with that but it doesn’t feel correct to be honest.

I agree with @indy133.
Data copied from other releases is not only useless, it’s detrimental, it makes these unverified data look like they no longer need to be verified.

And we then keep that info for granted to back up other mistakes in chain.


@jesus2099 - where does it show this data was copied? See my notes above. Look at the editor and they seem to be a good editor. Just lacks notes. Plenty of releases added with times that they had no where to copy from. It looks like a good editor.

Totally agree people should not guess or copy data from another release. I just really don’t believe that is what was happening here.

1 Like

I don’t judge anything, don’t worry. :grin:
I have asked the question in the original edit.


I’m concerned about precedent. MB has a LOT of unsourced data, most of it probably accurate. Saying that anything unsourced should be removed is inviting mass deletion.


I only edit releases I come across.
But it’s always better to remove unverified data when you come across some.
And I always leave an edit note in the original edit to ask for review in my revert edits.

Can you explain this with an example?

I add track times for 78 singles released in the 1920s-40s. No timings were posted on the labels back then. I am always careful to identify the correct timings for different releases, since many re-recordings and alternate takes may circulate. I often get the timings from digitized tracks in my own collection, many of which I have sourced. I check discogs, wikipedia, auction sites and anywhere else I can find info, so I confidently merge, label and date. I consider this a major responsibility as an editor, not to mislead others. BTW, I do this so often I omit notes, which I am not proud of nor recommend.

If you remove my timings, I will add them back with extensive notes!