Fixing an old compounded mistake: untangling Open Edits for 裕 - MusicBrainz and Open Edits for 裕 - MusicBrainz
Change the voting algorithm so that
- 3 beginner votes don’t count, make them wait extra 7 days
- 2 beginner votes need a more experienced one
1 Like
maybe the more they submit each day, the longer they have to wait… maybe harsh, but it will throttle them back
Here we go again. Weekly beginner account sockpuppet voting:
Not only is it a SEO spammer but if you listen to some of the music you’ll quickly come to notice it’s blatant copyright infringement too.
https://soundcloud.com/tommyjsinaga/asc-a5-3 ↔
https://open.spotify.com/track/2NLh6A1IvY0HQ1X1jBiWrt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfK1A9c0bHE ↔
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkfR9WKJYx0
4 Likes
Maybe we should put in place some drastic barriers like on stack overflow.
Those barriers are so frustrating, I couldn’t do much there, for years but, here it seems this problem is ever growing.
Maybe just a feeling.
3 Likes
I don’t think there is much downside to limiting voting ability till users have built up a fair amount of edits. Even if their intentions are pure, they might not understand how things work on this site yet. They could still comment to provide their opinion. I would even say limit the ability to vote for accounts who haven’t made edits in like the last year, so people can’t make spam accounts now and use them in the future. It’s sus if an inactive account suddenly votes on edits.
Very lucky there are people like chaban looking out for these things! Keep up the amazing work!
9 Likes
We used to block edit notes and votes for new editors, but that seemed unfair for people who couldn’t reply or vote on any changes to, for example, edits changing the stuff they themselves added. That said, if we keep seeing people creating sockpuppets to vote we might need to consider restricting it again, at least so that you can’t vote on the first day or two so it’s not as trivial to flood the vote.
6 Likes
We could block votes but not notes.
Or I don’t know how difficult it would be to detect bunch of beginner accounts created by same IP address that all vote yes on same editor…
Then all voters could be removed and editor could be marked and completely blocked until manually reviewed.
That was the original idea of MBS-10614. Allow notes by beginners on any edit, not only their own. Allowing them to immediately vote wasn’t the idea.
It should’ve been expected if every new account can vote it would be abused sooner rather than later.
(Remember when it was possible to rate and tag without an email? It was abused a thousand times)
That probably won’t work except on technologically illiterate. Or it’s obvious for other reasons.
I’m wondering, how many genuine beginner voters there are compared to sockpuppets? Since it’s still not possible to search specifically for beginner votes or notes it’s a bit hard to tell.
4 Likes
Hi, please could I get some votes on the below edits, I’ve just taken the extra artist out of the title and moved them into artists where they belong, thank you!
1 Like
Seeking input on edits to remove “(2020 remaster)” from track titles. I had voted no on the original edits and the editor has retried. My concern is losing the track info that it’s a 2020 remaster, but perhaps an annotation on the release would be OK.
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/98289892
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/98289893
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/98289894
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/98289895
I could do with some more eyes on edits like these.
Basically, there’s 3 options for recordings when adding a various artist compilation:
- Pick recordings based on ISRC, AcoustID, liner notes saying what album it’s originally from, etc
- Create new recordings
- Pick the first recording that comes up from search
Option 1 is the best choice, but requires a lot of work to find matching recordings. Option 2 is easier, but creates lots of duplicate recordings. Option 3 is the worst choice as the editor might as well just be picking recordings at random.
Consider a scenario where there’s two separate recordings, one on Release 1 and the other on Release 2. An editor adds Release 3 and uses the recording from Release 1 because it was the first search result. The track on Release 3 might not actually be the same as the track on Release 1, but matching details are now added to the recording from Release 3 and it gets merged into the one from Release 2. Then it turns out the tracks on Release 1 and Release 3 aren’t the same and the recording needs to be unmerged. I’m trying to minimise scenarios like this with the above edits, since it’s easier to merge duplicate recordings than unmerge them.
At the very least, I’ve been using the remastered tag on the release for cases like this.
6 Likes
guys, can we see some potentially damaging edits that have been made without any notes:
https://beta.musicbrainz.org/user/TBur/edits/open
I’ve put Abstain on a lot of these, asking the editor to post their thoughts on # 98466500, and some other editors have already commented.
2 Likes
Requesting votes to fix releases added to the wrong artists:
- the risky rush by Baroness (no, not the metal group from Savannah)
- Affections by Covet (no, not the one from San Jose)
Edit: Approved. Thanks!
This is also a plea to stop trusting data from Amazon/Apple/Deezer/etc., as their logic for attributing releases doesn’t seem much more advanced than “are the artist names spelled the same way?”
3 Likes
Stick a note in the annotations of these artists. The more obscure an artist is, the more this happens. I also find that the Digital Shops will often disagree.
3 Likes
Can I get votes or approval on https://musicbrainz.org/edit/98926278 ? It’s creating new recordings which will need some cleanup once they exist.
For those with opinions about whether release edition info should be entered as a disambiguation comment vs. ETI in the release name, https://musicbrainz.org/edit/98920746 awaits your vote.
This comes up frequently, and I’ve seen the style guidelines used for arguing that either way is correct. If someone (@reosarevok?) gives an official ruling, I’m happy to try to draft something for the docs to make it more likely that I’ll never see protracted edit wars about this again. 
1 Like
Requesting votes/approvals for some edits to merge two artists:
Per DJ Girl and Nondi_ are Planet Mu’s Next Generation | Bandcamp Daily and Planet Mu to release new album from Pennsylvania artist, Nondi_ | DJMag.com, Nondi_ formerly performed as Yakui. Yakui - MusicBrainz is older and has more releases, so I’m merging Nondi_ - MusicBrainz into it and renaming it to use the new name. I’ve already added an ended “Yakui” artist alias to the destination artist.
I’m always a bit fuzzy about using separate vs. multiple artists for a single person, but in this case, it seems to me like she just switched the name she performs as rather than treating these as two distinct projects.
Use a placeholder artist, or guess at a more specific artist? Which is more eeevil?
Weigh in here, votes are 50/50 right now, edit open for one more day: Edit #98860259 - MusicBrainz