(I know it must exist but) None of the incorrect edits that came across in my collection was intentional, malicious, sabotage.
It was just that these editors didnāt care at all, they just want a generic square image to tag their rips with MusicBrainz Picard Tagger.
They should use some other websites that are meant for that (I forgot the name, fanpixs something).
But all these editors are at the same time not the kind of editors who will read our edit notes, or at least they donāt often answer.
So for these (not rare edits), the voting period is good to stop an hemorrhage.
Even if, most of the time, I will spot the errors long time after the voting period has ended.
All that will happen if itās an auto-edit is that less people will see it and check if itās a thumbnail when itās very easy to get the full artwork. I constantly replace thumbnail-sized covers for digital releases and vote no on open edits that add them when I spot them.
I have a 12:1 ratio for adding cover art and voting no on adds/removing bad covers. Itās very common and I donāt even go out of my way to look for bad covers.
If the release had no artwork before, and the thumbnail-sized image is correct for that release, then it seems to me the addition makes the data better and should not be voted against.
Thatās what I meant for ācorrect for that releaseā. That is, if the only thing wrong with an image is that itās smaller than other versions available on the net, thatās not a reason to vote No.
Voting yes on a 300px thumbnail from a digital service and then waiting until the edit passes and then removing it with a non-auto edit isnāt a very effective way to go about things. Itās more effective to upload the full resolution and then vote no on the bad version.
Iām one of those who feel itās wrong voting no on anything that isnāt wrong. So I just leave a tab open for the release and come back when the 7 day period is over and add a better version then
Comments to let inexperienced users know about higher quality sources to prevent future low quality images Iām all for though. That way no need to fix at all! And more encouraging so people keep editing in the future
And as for the auto-edits, I donāt really feel strongly any way about it. Positives and negatives for all options.
Steps for removing an incorrectly added cover art entry:
Click āRemoveā
Give reason for removal
Confirm edit
Steps for voting against a cover art edit:
Click āNoā radio button
Explain reason for vote in edit note, without demotivating or scaring away new contributors
Confirm edit
The inconveniences of them not being auto edits:
Itās inconsistent with all other edit types that just add information
It makes the orange āthis entity has pending editsā marker nearly useless
It potentially leads to frustration for new editors when they receive āNoā votes with edit notes that are not worded carefully (or even entirely without explanation)
Most non-autoedit add types are like this and itās better like this, that we can directly see it before the end of the vote period.
It means we think most edits are good by default.
When comparing no votes vs remove edits:
I prefer that the editor is told that this kind of cover is wrong so that maybe the editor will improve.
If you silently remove all their cover arts, they will never know and will ever continue.
That will pile up more and more work for everybody and will likely end up in even much much more incorrect cover arts.
