The reason why podcast series like Fact for example does not follow this is that the date is pretty much irrelevant. The artists send in a mix and then it gets published on a schedule. It’s more or less a direct successor from the promotional mix cassette. Compare it to a recording of a radio show where someone is mixing live (and probably giving shout outs etc) where the broadcast date is very relevant. It’s following the style of regular CD mix series for a reason, since it has way more in common with that than a radio broadcast.
1 Like
I also was not expecting to be tagged as one of “the” podcast editors!
I like the proposed idea of removing the date unless its the only way to disambiguate an episode, and the work-in-progress guidelines seem great so far.
One thing I’d like to be included in the guidelines, unless it has already been answered somewhere else, is what we should do when a podcast re-releases an episode during holidays/breaks etc, a facet of podcasting that I’ve only recently become aware of.
1 Like
This is a tricky question, I know of quite a few podcasts which re-release episodes. If it is the same episode just re-released on the feed, I think it’s probably not very important, but sometimes episodes are re-released with new material included. If the release includes a new episode index, it should probably be added to a new release group. If not, it should probably be added to the existing release and disambiguated. I imagine this could get very confusing though. The problem also exists for broadcast releases which differ between the broadcast and podcast versions.
1 Like
Might be worth a new thread - I wont be addressing it with these updates, since they are almost done.
Keen to hear suggestions for a guideline, and examples, re. dealing with reissues and broadcast + podcast entries of the same show (though tbh I imagine most people will just be adding the podcast version, these days).
Phew, podcast guidelines added/broadcast guidelines updated: Style/Specific types of releases/Broadcast programs - MusicBrainz Wiki
Still pending a final review from @reosarevok before the changes are transcoded to the docs proper.
Going through and changing the example releases linked from the wiki to the new podcast style was like having a weight lifted from my shoulders - it makes much more sense!
The only thing that felt off while updating all the examples is having a comma before the date:
Fresh Air, 2011-09-20, “This Pig Wants to Party"
We don’t have a comma before the episode number:
Am I missing a good reason why it shouldn’t be: “Fresh Air 2011-09-20, “This Pig Wants to Party”"?
I was wondering about this myself, that does seem cleaner.
In terms of the episode index are we assuming ‘Fresh Air 2011-09-20, “This Pig Wants to Party"’ indicates the broadcast date or the podcast release date? I know this podcast is usually released a few months after the broadcast, and sometimes re-release episodes that are over a decade old with updated introduction and interviews.
Per the guidelines (as they are now, my interpretation), the podcast release date. A separate release should be entered for the broadcast if you want to store that.
I guess technically it’s not perfect, but personally I think it would be opening a can of worms if we start mixing broadcast and podcast within the same release/the same title.
Alternatively, the guidelines allow for the release and tracklist to be “Fresh Air 2011-09-20, “This Pig Wants to Party”", and the recording to follow the first release (broadcast) naming standard, e.g. YYYY-MM-DD, [title etc]. This may suit people who track releases via series and broadcast relationships, rather than releases.
I’m wondering what the priority should be for the release group title. One issue about using dates for episode indexing is that they are not always definitive. Episode #30 will always be episode #30, but broadcast and podcast dates can vary depending on the source of the release.
My question is, when using date as an episode index should we be setting the release group title with an index that only applies to one release? Or should we only index the the releases?
For example:
Release Group:
Ideas, “What Psychiatrists Still Don’t Know About Mental Illness”
Releases:
Ideas 2019-10-28, “What Psychiatrists Still Don’t Know About Mental Illness” (broadcast version)
Ideas 2020-08-13, “What Psychiatrists Still Don’t Know About Mental Illness” (podcast version)
Ideas 2024-02-04, “What Psychiatrists Still Don’t Know About Mental Illness” (podcast re-release)
I’m not sure - but I lean towards going with the first release name for the release group, usually the broadcast name.
With the new guidelines the release titles would be:
2019-10-28: Ideas, “What Psychiatrists Still Don’t Know About Mental Illness” (broadcast)
Ideas 2020-08-13, “What Psychiatrists Still Don’t Know About Mental Illness” (podcast)
Ideas 2024-02-04, “What Psychiatrists Still Don’t Know About Mental Illness” (podcast re-release)
In cases where a group is storing broadcasts it still makes some sense to have the number prefix. That first release date is very important for a lot of people, and we don’t capture it in the release date field (unless a broadcast rip came out on the same day, which is unlikely).
I think this would be following the lead of what live bootleg editors do, who have faced the same problem (I don’t edit many bootlegs though, happy to be corrected).
New guidelines look great, bravo! 
It’s usually fairly obvious which style to follow, but the overlap between bootlegs, broadcasts, podcasts, and official releases can get a little complicated. I recently collected this series which doesn’t seem to have much consistency.
I thought about adding a “what is the difference between podcast and broadcast”, but when I was writing the guidelines I realised that this one part in the podcast description basically does all the heavy lifting:
A podcast is an audio show, often episodic, available for download on the internet.
(now I’m thinking it should probably be “…for streaming or download…”)
We could belabor that point more, but I’m not quite sure how, since it seems pretty simple.
You should be able to apply that to the KEXP releases. Where it is based off a podcast, it should follow podcast style. imo releases based on youtube videos of broadcasts would follow broadcast guidelines (with the youtube video upload date as the release date, but the broadcast date in the title, as per broadcast guidelines).
In general I believe reo avoids adding too many granular specifics to guidelines because the MB editorship can be very detail focussed, and that can include getting very focussed on literal interpretations of guidelines! But maybe it would be useful to add something like the following to the guidelines?
(at the very top of the podcast/broadcast style page, probably in the scope section:)
Whether a release should be entered as a podcast or a broadcast depends on if the show was made available for streaming or download on the internet. If yes, please follow the podcast guidelines, otherwise follow the broadcast guidelines.
In some cases, you may want to add two releases, one for the podcast and one for the broadcast, each following the relevant guidelines. A common case where you may want to do this is if you want to store the original broadcast dates, and the podcast release dates are later. Podcast and broadcast releases of the same show should be in the same release group, and the shared release group and recordings should be titled as per the broadcast guidelines.
Possibly what we need is for someone (eyebrows eyebrows eyebrows) to write a guide, which is more suited to ‘how-to’ information/walk-throughs
1 Like
Did you see my reply above @diskotechjam? Thoughts welcome.
FYI all, with nobody having a preference re. the above (including on dev chat/from reo), I have removed the comma from before podcast dates, e.g.: Program Name YYYY-MM-DD
The only time you will now have commas before a date or episode number is if a series is included in the title, e.g. [, Series 1234, ]
I think this makes sense, It would probably be worth while to mention the broadcast by recording relationships for people who want to add broadcast dates to podcasts as well.
One thing I am unclear about is that the broadcast guideline refers to a release date that is distinct from the broadcast date, which implies to me that it is also available for download or streaming. I know the radio station I worked with would have archive versions of shows available to stream for a limited time. I would say if the show has been modified at all (edited or added commercials), it is definitely a podcast. If not, it is probably a broadcast release. In cases where there is some ambiguity it may just be the editor’s preference.
I’ve been working on something along those lines, these new guidelines are a great opportunity to get it done. 
This refers to the fact that most traditional “broadcast” music files are illegal rips/recorded from the radio. When adding those to MB you would add them with the release date of the rip, or leave it blank if you don’t know. Most people have no interest in storing the date of some torrent, but the MB schema is inflexible on that part. Hence having it in the title.
I don’t agree with this 
If an audio show is released/distributed for streaming or download on the internet, it is a podcast. I don’t think editing matters.
I guess I know what you mean about limited time radio releases, which feels “broadcast-ey”, but personally when I listen to them (my only source of reference is a few BBC shows btw) I still think of them as “podcasts”, I think they call them that too. Sometimes they have artwork and stuff as well. Broadcast is a bit more nebulous imo
I’ve been wondering about that, whether we are assuming most non-podcast releases are unofficial bootlegs. I guess that makes sense for reverting to a bootleg naming style.
BBC does a great job archiving information about all of their broadcasts. I guess if a release page exists for a broadcast that’s pretty good evidence for adding it as a podcast.
Not really. There are pages that detail Broadcast only shows too. BBC has a catchup service called “Sounds” for anything that was Broadcast on the Radio with a separate option for downloading a podcast. Not every radio show can be downloaded. Not every show has a Podcast version. The podcasts can often be a different length with extra material in the Podcast. And just to confuse a little more, sometimes the Podcast is released first followed by an edited version appearing on the radio.
It is worth noting that the “BBC Sounds” service online makes the old “record a bootleg from the radio” easier than using the old tape player of the past. Bootlegging Broadcast shows is easy. Which is why so many get added to MB.
I would suggest if the show has a specific Download version on Sounds (and other platforms), then it can be called a Podcast. But most standard output of the BBC is still Broadcast.
1 Like
I made a tool (with the help of AI) to easily import podcast episodes.
This tool has two presets and a custom title builder as well.
Would love to hear any feedback from those who import podcasts.
Thank you!
1 Like
I’ve tested the tool out on a few episodes of a podcast that I had already made the release groups for previously, and it’s definitely quicker than the (very manual) way I usually add episodes.
I think I’ve found a bug with how the duration on the web page feeds through to the MB submission form. It seems to be pulling through the right amount of minutes, but leaving the seconds at :00.
This is the podcast feed I’ve been testing with, if that helps : How To Make A Science Video
2 Likes
Thank you!
Made a PR to fix the logic behind the duration
Please test. And I will merge.
1 Like