Not "strictly the best" editing

In case anyone has some (a lot) of spare time and wants to do some cleanup, there’s a pretty huge (and growing) mess under the “Strictly The Best” artist: Strictly The Best - MusicBrainz

Somehow all of this got added in the last two days (starting with Edit #154203535 - MusicBrainz), but there are tons of issues just from glancing at it:

  • These are almost all compilations and should be credited to Various Artists.
  • The release dates for these digital media releases are completely bogus; plenty are listed as 1990s and some are even 1900 (probably typos).
  • The language guidelines aren’t followed at all; everything’s just being bulk-imported from Spotify.
  • Plenty of featured artists listed in track titles, e.g. here.
3 Likes

I can see them all over Discogs as CD and LP releases. All as Various.

I’d strip all the dates before 2011. Even the newer ones I’d doubt are legit and expect this was just dropped on the streaming platforms in the past year or so if there is no other traces of this series.

Really I’d just delete all dates as unprovable, but that would upset someone.

This is one of those places we need editors skilled in writing scripts to respond to this kind of hidden script abuse. The Script Automation Service (SAS) we can call on for clean ups…

1 Like

“Let’s do a release to contribute”

Famous last words.
The releases are duplicated now. Can auto editor save us?

1 Like

Yikes! Also most, if not all of these should already have a release group on MB, these are not obscure compilations…

1 Like

FIne, I’ll do it for the later dates.

Here’s a series of the existing release groups: https://musicbrainz.org/series/6312c315-0bf3-49eb-9a50-64887549f7a7

I have merged the recordings and release groups for 22 and 23.

2 Likes

Nice. I’d like to help out with the tidy up (and listen to some of these)

Once the recordings have been merged, is the next step going into the digital one and selecting the original release group? (checking there’s not already a digital)
If so, would that automatically delete the now empty spurious release group?
Thanks.

1 Like

Technical answer is - Yes. Assuming nothing is linked to that other release group, it would self destruct.

You will get told by other editors that you should merge it… but I guess that editor will not be working on fixing this heap of bogus additions. So use the above knowledge as you require.

1 Like

OK thanks! I’ve been caught out before by orphan recordings in the past :man_facepalming: so I might play it safe and merge…

1 Like

You get Orphan Recordings when you delete a Release and some of the recordings in that Release had Works or AcoustIDs attached.

The tip when deleting a Release is before you hit Remove look at the edit history of the Release and find the original edit that added the Medium. Stash a link to that edit in your Remove edit note and you can then come back and clean up afterwards. After the Release has been deleted all the Orphans will show up to allow a cleanup

1 Like

Looks like same editor also made/populated Reggae Gold and Soca Gold, along with some others edits

1 Like

Before I saw this thread I’ve submitted an edit to merge this into V/A, the singles attached have been handled by someone else so it’s just the V/As remaining on the profile

Some of which are also duplicate release groups and recordings, see e.g. Release “Soca Gold 2023” by Various Artists - MusicBrainz

Reggae Gold - MusicBrainz is a series of existing Reggae Gold release groups. I merged Reggae Gold 2006, but am sure there are more.

Not acoustIDs, but yes to any relationships (works or otherwise)

Thanks for all the help cleaning this up, everyone!

This is a pattern that I’ve seen before, where a streaming service credits an album to some label’s name instead of to “Various Artists”, so an editor creates a new bogus artist for the label and bulk-imports a bunch of (often-duplicate) releases there. This seems pretty common (although sometimes neither artist is VA, like in the case of a cover album):

I wonder if there’s anything the MBS could do to warn people who are doing this. I’m not sure how expensive it’d be to make the release editor look for releases with similar titles and tracklists whenever someone seeds a release…

1 Like

That’s what Discogs does.

Hello, another query about this!

In doing a deep dive into Gregory Peck I discovered a 3rd release of Strictly the Best vol. 1!

It is in an RG with a completely unrelated album so needs to be fixed - completely different artists, I guess it was a mistake.

Release Group: Release group “VP Records Reggae Sampler” by Various Artists - MusicBrainz

VP Records Reggae Sampler release (presumably what this is intended to represent) Release “VP Records Reggae Sampler” by Various Artists - MusicBrainz

Reggae Dancehall, Strictly The Best, Volume 1 release Release “Reggae Dancehall: Strictly The Best, Volume 1” by Various Artists - MusicBrainz

(note the “Reggae Dancehall” prefix which comes from the art shared across all versions of vol. 1)

This Strictly The Best looks like the US CD as oppose to the UK version, so I guess it should be added to this release group, right?

2 questions:

  1. what should the title of the release be? “Strictly…” or “Reggae Dancehall: Strictly…”

Personally, I would say that “Reggae Dancehall” is just a description of the music rather than part of the title…

  1. How do you transfer a release from one release group to another? It’s not a merge and the “remove” option seems to delete it.

Thanks.

1 Like

Agreed.

Agreed.

Open the release edit page (Sign in - MetaBrainz Foundation) and paste Release group “Strictly the Best, Vol. 1” by Various Artists - MusicBrainz into the “Release group” box.

image

Also: consider merging the recordings.

1 Like

Many thanks! This makes perfect sense.

Yes, I’ll merge the recordings!