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. 
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.
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 
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.
I don’t judge anything, don’t worry. 
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!
highstrung,
Just look up Bob Wills and Hank Williams singles I have edited!
That’s great and I love that. I’ve done that myself for a while and it’s really time consuming.
The only problem is: without a short note: “Durations taken from ripped mp3” or something similar, no future editor can see where the durations are taken from.
Compared to the time it takes to rip the vinyl/shellac a short note is really nothing
Maybe I can expand a bit on the ‘social etiquette’ aspect that MB has.
You are absolutely correct that the onus being on someone to disprove the existence of something is extremely troublesome, generally impossible in practice. But, that’s not really what’s happening here. What other users are asking for isn’t evidence, but an inkling that it could be incorrect.
Why do editors ask for this inkling? Two things imo:
Overall I share the reaction of a lot of others - if we follow this precedent and remove everything that has no edit note, the database would become worse, not better.
IvanDobsky is more diligent than most so his background check is gold standard. The minimum for me would be leaving a note/the opportunity for the original editor to reply, as jesus did.
Or, if you presented some other inkling that it could be wrong, like ‘i know there are multiple recordings of this and this could be any of them’, the edit would also be more likely to go through without raising eyebrows.
Anyway, I’d be surprised if you didn’t get pushback on this edit and hopefully that helps shed some light on why .
If you are confident that the data is egregiously wrong and needs to be fixed, you could also consider changing the data quality from Normal to Low. This makes it obvious to all users that the release needs to be fixed. Not sure vinyl times would fit this criteria in most cases though.
Good examples there, such as this edit. As @indy133 notes, it would be better with an edit note, but the database would not be improved by removing those timings.
Having edited here for a few years now, I have even come across a few of my own early edits which I wish I had documented better. Good edit notes are a benefit to future editors, which may possibly include yourself!
Yes, and that was a right decision. It’s bad for data quality when incorrect durations are added, but it’s worse when data is removed by guessing. You should add an annotation explaining that it’s unverified instead.
However, track lengths for LPs are generally a problem. I have to admit, I don’t measure the exact durations either and mostly leave it at the printed track lengths. These are mostly net playing times and can at least be looked up later. The lengths of the ripped files are completely subjective and could even lead to false assumptions. But these net lengths don’t contain the silence surrounding the song (like CD TOCs do). And often they are not really exact.
That’s why I always judge track length information on LPs with caution and take that into account when it comes to merging recordings.
EDIT: (Now I forgot to add what I actually wanted to say)
There should be guidelines for vinyl like:
I see the inconvenience of keeping unverified times from this 1 week editor, as explained, as it gives too much fictitious credit to something that is completely unknown.
But I really don’t see what is the added value of keeping these times that we know we will never have any confirmation of (editor was only active between Monday 2015-08-24 to the following Sunday).
… of course, there are cases when I would vote yes, but I don’t think, it would be this particular case. I would write annotations.