Rate your first edit/s

Your mission is to go to this url:


And review the page of edits!

I’ll start. I have to be careful because that guy doesn’t take feedback well :joy:

Hmm, manually entering track times… not very efficient! But a good way to dip the toes in. He’d be interested to know that he still hasn’t tidied up the Resident Evil soundtracks 10 years later, and that’s not without a lacklustre attempt every few years.

The releases he added were pretty crap to be honest, lots missing, but nothing wrong. Edit notes, not bad! The occasional one missing but generally speaking better than what he leaves now!!

A solid 7/10 I reckon! Not particularly helpful or a huge effort, but not breaking anything, and that’s the main thing right :innocent:
Keep it up pal

p.s. this started on the unofficial MB Discord


first page is pretty great, added a release with track times, barcode and everything! (this joke didn’t age at all, since I’ve put in some edits while writing this post) :sweat_smile:

(since my first page is just one edit right now, I guess I’ll do the second page too… :joy:)

wow, what a weeb… adding all these Hatsune Miku and anime releases…
using Amazon and wikis as sources too? interesting…
manually editing recording artists? haven’t you heard of “Update the recording artist credit to match the track artist credit.”?
too bad he doesn’t even tell you he’s got the release in question…
ooh, adding barcodes and packaging! exciting stuff~
it’s a bit nice that he most always includes links!
doesn’t add any cover art or relationships though… too bad…

all in all, I’d probably give this guy a good 6.8/10. enough detail to get some basic tagging, but could use some improvement… also deducted a point for using Amazon as a source. :wink:

(also because I couldn’t bring myself to give me a higher score than aerozol… lol)

I also didn’t realize both of us started editing in the summer of 2009 (or I guess winter for them)… :thinking:


Okay I’m definitely not as seasoned as either of you folks, but it looks like I’m a month past my first year anniversary so this was a fun little annual-in-review!

My First Page™

  • 1st edit: Correcting spelling on a recording. Of course lol. I will die a pedantic little hellion. Put it on my tombstone - but make sure the spelling is correct :stuck_out_tongue:

  • 2nd/3rd edit: Ooh, a cheeky little featured artist credit add to an existing recording. We love to see it.

  • 4th edit: Adding a relatively obscure featured artist - niiiice.

FINAL SCORE: Past me could use some tertiary sources. 7/10.


Good idea @aerozol to review these beginner editors!

If you want a full first page, use this generic oldest edit search.


What, straight into featured/complicated artist credits!?!




Well, my first edit was voted down, and edit notes are rare. 4/10


Haha - 4083 pages back in time to 2017. Interesting. And kinda cyclic. First releases are two Lazy Habits CDs because so much was missing for this small band. Last week, 200,000 edits later, I added their latest release (on a USB stick).

Already those early CDs dragged my detailed side out - loads of feats, cat nos, barcodes, images. Just hit the error of copying a tracklist before reading it. :rofl:

I got the hang of edit notes early, mainly because all these were unusual CDs from my collection and I had a fear of being distrusted. Hence the images. So if some of the above examples are 7/10, then this page is a 8/10 as I can’t see much I missed out. (Dropped a point as it took a whole month to get the real scans uploaded… :rofl:)

What is nice looking back at this is how I have used Lazy Habits to learn how to work in the database. Having a small artist means you can make mistakes where no one sees. Since that day LH now have a complete back catalogue, Bandcamp and Digital links, performers, engineers, copyrights, heaps of artwork, a complete overkill of details.

The funny one is on page two and my first style lesson with rossetyler who votes No on a recording name change, that sends me down my first “chase the details” rabbit hole as I read every cover I can to show that “Capital Radio” is the correct name of the Clash song and not the US typo. After a wall of evidence they swap to “approved”. So my first No changed to Approved in the same edit. (And the debate was less heated than I remembered)

Haha - gotta stop reading these now… Another long converstaion about the spelling of a track name. But this is the beauty of this database, I learnt so much about Sonic Youth that week. Before MB editing, that CD had sat on my shelf literally never played. MB editing has let me find so much more inside my music collection.


Love this idea!

So, let’s see what we got here.

First edit he created a release for an official concert bootleg sold on site, including track lengths, work relationships and an edit note. That’s pretty solid! Could’ve linked some external sources maybe.
All in all I’d rate this 7/10.

Second set of edits was for a newly released digital single. Data looks quite complete, but again, only few source links. Also he skipped the edit notes in most edits. Probably fine, but could’ve mentioned where the data was from in there. At least we can guess the source due to the added purchase links. Another 6-7/10 I’d say.


These first 50 edits contain many newbie mistakes and 32 cancelled edits!

  • Because Jesus didn’t know how to add edit note once the edit is queued (first edit is a cancelled edit!), what a lamer!
  • Then Jesus didn’t know that release language is for tracklist text, not for song lyrics (one of the most infamous newbie mistake edits) — Such a lame mass edit! that shamefully went without notice, and was only later slowly fixed by several good editors (including @Kerensky97 who introduced MB to Jesus on Last.fm)
  • Then Jesus didn’t understand that some releases could be pseudo-releases (in this case Latin transcriptions) — @0moikane nicely explained!

Then an interesting edit you see on page 2, or when filtering out cancelled edits:

This time it’s a bold Merge releases edit that looks weird by today’s standards.
It was perfectly correct at the time (and expected) to merge all releases with same tracklists (pre-NGS, releases only had: 1 medium max; tracks but no recordings; multiple release events = multiple editions with various catalogue numbers and barcode, together).
But nowadays, post-NGS, it’s why we have some old releases with the same common set of many disc ID.

I give Jesus 5/10, because of that mass mistake Release Language edit that went unnoticed and that needed several editors fixing them along the time.
After 100 edits (page 3), Jesus seemed to begin making progress, though. :slight_smile:

Update: :scream: WHAT?! :scream: 2006?! :sob:


ooh, my turn! great idea aerozol!

  • first edits are manual release adds from bandcamp and deezer. added mostly correctly, though missing country, barcode, script, relationships…
  • at least he linked sources, which is nice!
  • unsurprisingly his entire first page is $WAGGOT edits. if only he knew how much work this would actually be!
  • the only weird thing is a couple cancelled coverart uploads because he didn’t like the way they looked when compressed, i guess?
  • but i’ll give it to him that all of the coverart on this page is all high-res!

overall i’ll say 7/10. pretty good, pretty helpful, just a little inefficient. i’d drop to 5 if i had to look at the next page and see all the 500x500 postage stamp coverart he added :wink:


A tentative 2 or 3 edits, adding a cover image, barcode, and label to a classical album. I remember looking at the “Getting Started” page before starting. I had been using Plex for a couple of years, and was frustrated by the horrible state of the online databases they were depending on at the time (not MB). I was (am) a QA tester by profession, so I was highly motivated to make sure I did it right.

Then not another edit for 4 years. I had wanted to find some way to organize my music collection, and was not satisfied with the options available in installable apps. So I finally settled on MB. I guess the most notable thing about my early history is how it accelerated. Four years from my first activity, a few edits on a couple of releases, then 4 months with no activity, then a few more… then I fell into the wormhole, and here we are.



It was not a catastrophic start. Their first edits were some releases and RGs for widely unknown artists, sparse additional information, undisputed (unnoticed) and untouched ever since.

Further down there was one down voted, mainly because ernstlx “Understood” (that an artist main website link is not a stand-alone website for a release) but didn’t know that it’s possible to cancel an edit…

The first major error occurred on page 3 when a new RG was created for an artist, credited as a band, instead of adding to the band’s RG.

I give 6/10: ernstlx didn’t know what he was doing, but was lucky not to cause too much damage. :slight_smile:

EDIT: I forgot to mention an error that was only very recently fixed :laughing:
(had no idea that only really matching links are allowed to be attached)


Ok, let’s try that…

It’s 2010, I already have 2 years of discogs experience and I’m an expert (not).
The first release here is a vinyl and a discogs copy but everything was done manually.
Sat down with the records and typed everything etc.
I came back 2 years later and added the front cover.
I had too many questions compared to discogs and it took me another 8 years to fully dive into MB and like it more than the other site :slight_smile:

I give slipmaxim a 5/10, for the basic informations and not messing up the release.



I’m OK with this. A lot of release group merges (were release groups a new thing in 2009? I don’t recall).

One “no” vote that started a crusade for me, ultimately successful.


You guys are all such harsh critics haha. I give a bunch of you 10/10, MB is a confusing place to start out! Edit notes and not actually breaking anything is all I would expect!

Are you saying we put 2-in-1 releases as compilations now?? Have I missed the boat with that

1 Like

apperantly i didn’t check for existing releases, because my first very first edit is a duplicate release :sweat_smile:

and i find it funny that i added my own taylor swift playlist as an ep… i had no idea what the purpose of musicbrainz was, tbh :sob:

looking back, it’s nice to see that i’ve grown a lot, but it’s a bit embarrassing tbh


My original ticket: [STYLE-330] Make 2-on-1 (or generically, M-on-N) release groups "Compilations" - MetaBrainz JIRA

Conversation about it: 2-in-1 release groups and other boxsets (STYLE-330, STYLE-331, STYLE-335) - #49 by tommycrock (last post by reosarevok has the resolution)


My first edit surprises me - it was an add of session violinist Lisa Minghetti. I did note source for birth/death dates, so points for that.

After that, I added a whole bunch of performer rels (including Minghetti) to a Ben Webster release with no edit notes. If I were adding those today, I would note something like “liner notes to Reprise 2-2001”.


Well, since she started doing this not too long ago because of frustration with Plex not matching a lot of current releases for 2nd and 3rd gen K-pop groups, I guess… not too shabby? Could have probably used Naver Vibe for times and titles, but good enough. No barcodes and barely scraping together release labels, though. 6/10 - she can always improve.


Reviewing https://musicbrainz.org/user/derat/edits?page=99999999:

He created his account in 2005 to add a few non-album tracks by a video game composer (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Speaking frankly, these aren’t the best edits: the first few edit notes are just “He hasn’t released any albums, as far as I can tell” without saying where the titles came from, and he inexplicably didn’t include durations for the recordings despite having the MP3s. On the positive side, he did include the artist’s website in some of the edit notes, and he followed the English capitalization rules. It looks like he tried to fix one track’s title right after entering it. I suspect that he was embarrassed when he saw that the correction wouldn’t be auto-applied, so he deleted the track, causing the rename to fail later. Yikes.

Then he took a hiatus for four years (busy with work, probably) before importing Thomas Newman’s score for The Player from FreeDB in 2009.

Still in 2009, he manually added a few online releases (1, 2). The artist’s website used Flash, so it must’ve been time-consuming to enter the track titles and durations! He apparently didn’t know that he should enter release dates, but he amusingly tracked down an archived copy of the website in 2022 and finally added release years then (1, 2). I guess he’s still learning, because he typoed one of the years in 2022 and immediately had to submit a follow-up edit to fix it. (I think that the original edit couldn’t be canceled since it was auto-applied, but then the fix went to a vote – is there some way to avoid this?)

Two weeks later, he added a demoscene artist. This edit doesn’t seem bad: he went to the trouble of adding the artist’s legal name as a disambiguation (despite there only being one artist with this name), included his birthdate, and added a few URL relationships (1, 2, 3). All of this looks like it was done so that he could add more non-album tracks that he’d downloaded (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).

A few months later, he fixed a typo in a recording title and left a decent edit note. Finally, he added an artist but strangely didn’t add any of her releases until two weeks later, when he also added her legal name, (correctly?) as an alias this time instead of as a disambiguation as before.