Does the data given by the tool for the edit that sparked this actually report where a release was released? I suspect it’s only where Spotify has been given a license for it, which doesn’t necessarily have to be every country on Earth (e.g. countries sanctioned by the US will not appear there, like Iran or Syria, not necessarily because it wasn’t released there but because Spotify is not allowed to do business with them).
4 Likes
Not allowed to make business with, which means not sold to, which means not released at.
So even if it is only where Spotify has been given a licence for it, it corresponds to release countries.
3 Likes
@jesus2099 there is actually this level of overstated Nonsensical data which is of no benefit to anyone and based on a digital release has dangerous precedent for the entire community and undermines the stability and maintenance of this database in its current format so two options either remove it for stability or fix the layout And require this level of citation for digital releases in all entries Look at the edit not as a contributor but as a user reading it thank you @elomatreb I think you kinda see my view
2 Likes
Licensed territories can change at any time. Also licensing happens at track level. I’ve seen releases on Spotify of which only a handful are available at my location.
11 Likes
I do agree that we should accurately represent the data. I also agree that we shouldn’t compromise the data in order to fit it into the layout, instead we should try to fix the layout to better display the data.
However, I think there might be an issue in regards to worldwide digital media releases and how iTunes/Spotify licensing to territories works.
Let’s take this example: A label is releasing stuff worldwide. Their releases also have links to iTunes/Spotify (the label lists all the stores, etc. on their page for each release) and they share the same barcode with iTunes/Spotify. I am pretty sure iTunes/Spotify doesn’t license these releases to all territories on the planet. So let’s say a label like this has 1500 worldwide releases. I think it would be ridiculous to create another 1500 releases just for iTunes and another 1500 releases just for Spotify because they aren’t “true worldwide” and don’t license to all territories.
5 Likes
Exactly @culinko all I am trying to express there is a fine line between necessary accurate information and whats logical and common sense the current iteration of the base was not built for this mass entry of non hard copy entries that won’t change overnight and yes visually its unappealing
so we need a community agreed compromise bur i think this is also of note
would you not also need to be careful with some digital albums as some of them especially the old ones
may have never released online. some are just rips from the original master recording for the cd/ tape / record. or a rip the medium it’s self (unless you class that as being released online). so if thats the case that they are not new releases you could not really say it is world wide if medium was never released world wide could you?
@st3v3p that’s my point this really is a can of worms we need to be very careful what we do it sets a precedent now that this is happening it needs addressing whatever decision is made the layout need adapting because now this release looks like visual vomit right now
1 Like
In these cases, we should not have an MB digital release at all in the first place.
It should be the actual release you mention as cd / tape / record that should be in MB, not its rip.
If you know such examples, please edit them to fit the actual releases instead of a random rip.
2 Likes
see as i said this is not a black and white thing
2 Likes
So if I understood, this is the point why we should avoid to add valuable and real data? Not breaking the aesthetic! MB is a DB, the purpose is to “collect music metadata”, we have a tool that permits us to receive all that release information! Why didn’t use it when we have and know the information? From my side I’m not annoyed by this layout problem, otherwise, I think I would have proposed a solution to solve it. Maybe a filter like we already have to show only official release groups instead without bootleg for example.
If we follow this tasteful reasoning, shouldn’t we stop duplicating recording that makes Recording so long for a band like Metallica, remove the external links that force us to scrolls for consulting the Appearances section? Et cetera… No, because it’s valuable data, not a pile of waste.
1 Like
We’re tracking release events of releases, not their geographical or temporal availability. Release dates only indicate when the release is first available for public consumption in a given area. It doesn’t indicate whether it will continue to be available. A physical album may not be printed anymore after its stocks have been exhausted after its first pressing. We don’t track when they get sold out. Similarly, we don’t track when digital releases or tracks stop being available. So I don’t see this as a problem.
8 Likes
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the label release, the iTunes release and the Spotify release should be three separate MB releases. Grouping these three together doesn’t compromise data accuracy, because they have the same barcode, same tracklist, etc. It’s irrelevant whether iTunes or Spotify is available in country X if the label release is available in country X. We only need data on where a release is released, not through which stores. So, if the album in your example is truly released worldwide by the label, then the only release event it has is the one that describes its worldwide release.
Of course, if Spotify, for example, releases the album in Canada before the label releases it worldwide, then the MB release should list the Canadian release event separately from those of other countries on Earth. Consequently, you can’t use [worldwide] since it includes Canada ( unless, as previous forum discussions have suggested, [worldwide] is taken to mean “approximately worldwide”).
7 Likes
yes this is a database However you can have the greatest most accurate level of information possible but if it’s a terrible mess no one will care people come here to llogically interpret and use this information If this information along with this website cannot be navigated properly or Is broken due to an over saturation of information then it becomes unuseable for the end-user in my mind accuracy will never trump usability I would rather have a slightly less accurate database that’s either easily navigated by news there’s been a overly accurate one that can’t be navigated it and is broken
You’re right that information on the release group page is not well organized, but the solution isn’t to compromise the data for the user interface. It should be the other way round. The release group page is actually being redesigned (see https://tickets.metabrainz.org/browse/MBS-9652). You’re encouraged to join in and comment on the beautiful mock-ups there.
PS: you might want to add some punctuation to your posts, as not everyone here speaks English natively. It might be difficult for some to read your replies.
9 Likes
Even though I have called the saturation of information nonsensical at points in this discussion my argument has never been truly against its inclusion but the database in its current form breaks layout which again I will say usability organization function should always come first.
To understand me a little I spent 7 years a QA specialist in the gaming industry
I volunteer test for Vivaldi Web browser and I am the CRM for a web service firm that designs hosts and markets web sites for many important clients and never have I ever heard anything like ok this will break something because we feel this needs to happen at all costs.
the redesign looks great and I fully support it thank you for the insight but I also see it is no where near roll out so im saying that even though its valid information we also can not allow release groups to break so we need to do something in the intern.
Anyway everybody agrees that MB ergonomy needs improvements.
But frankly this little issue (many country flag rows) is not heavily hindering my eyes.
I would prioritise many other issues we have in our backlog, like mobile browser compatibility or even more drastically heavily needed so badly hard collection highlighter.
4 Likes
I was going to comment on this before I went away for the weekend. (Music is always better live 
). Nice to see how the discussion has flowed.
The accuracy here is great. Love it. Okay, so the GUI needs to catch up. Interfaces always evolve. We should not avoid adding data just because it breaks the pretty looks of the website.
No doubt someone could knock up a script that can tidy up the list.
I have other questions though about the exact data and its source.
Why such a short limited list of countries? I see so many missing. Are these just where Spotify\iTunes\etc have registered offices?
- Is this list specific to this release?
- Or is this release where Spotify are trading today (2019)?
- Or is it a correctly historic list for 2017 the week when that track was released?
- Or is it a list that came from record company on release day saying “available in these markets today”?
Personally I think it needs some kind of special handling for the Digital Releases like this.
I also would like to see some actual proof uploaded. Just like when we point to a cover of a CD as reference. All I’ve seen so far is a link to a track for sale on one of the sites and no details of how to tell which markets were there in the original release day.
And also mentioned above, what happens with a Digital Release that is released to Spotify, Amazon, iTunes and the bands own website? All going to cover different geographic areas.
One suggestion I’d use is to turn Spotify \ Amazon \ iTunes into areas that can be selected on the countries list. So instead of “Worldwide” or “Canada” it is “iTunes” or “Spotify” that is selected as the release location.
9 Likes
I think this suggestion right here would solve every concern I have because the current iteration of the database is very much music built around traditional physical media data entry. What needs to happen is both physical media and digital data need entirely separate methods of handling each respected for what they are but also seamlessly woven into a clean modern database. The question is how do we get there? I think people thought at first thought my issue issue was the data infact not at all its the absolute mess that data makes of the current layout as I said I am a former QA specialist from the game industry who works for a all in one web service company so my entire job have always been about a flawless user and functional experiences ;
My problem with this is that it’s not useful. Being released on Spotify for one release has a different meaning to another. For example, a Spotify album released in the US and Mexico and another Spotify album released in Liberia will be classified as the same (ie, sold on Spotify) but the areas of actual distribution are different. It’s also important that we treat data consistently. We don’t document where a physical release can be bought (we don’t have an area called “HMV” or “Barnes & Noble”), because how we have chosen to define a “release” mainly centers around the actual content, manufacturing process and appearance of the release, not its distribution method.
1 Like