I don’t agree it would be useless. If they write obvious nonsense, we can just kill the edit with no hesitation.
It is not useless because then the reviewer has at least some lead to determine if the image is correct or not.
b) I agree, that would be very good.
[quote=“Yvanz, post:19, topic:103322, full:true”]
It is currently not possible, there is an improvement request to search in edit notes.[/quote]
Ok, but I didn’t mean necessarily searching. Just that it would be useful of itself if, when encountring such edits, we can just vote no and keep going.
Yeah, but entering “…” as edit notes isn’t currently grounds for ending up on this list, is it?
Hey,
I’m currently creating releases in Discogs and importing them to MusicBrainz
More discussion here https://github.com/murdos/musicbrainz-userscripts/issues/50#issuecomment-219635547
Would be interested to hear pros/cons?
Hope this is useful
Regards
I can feel for that. Why not institute some advice that the first hit on a web search is not generally a good source for cover art…
I would have finished the previous sentence with „… in the Cover Art Style Guide“, but we appear to lack something of that sort.
The main problem is that many people want to have some cover art image for their metadata and don’t care about the exact release. This won’t be resolved by forcing them to leave a note or by making the voting procedure more restrictive, they will find a way around. And as commented, if random images from the web are submitted as “own scan”, things will be much worse.
I think the only working solution will be to accept this as a legitimate motivation and make the best out of it. In the end, having at least some related artwork is better than having none. The only thing we have to make sure is that this random artwork won’t be used by anyone for the identification of the exact release.
I support the idea of derobert: When uploading artwork, a box “exemplary artwork” (please improve the formulation) is checked by default. Up to some editor-level, unchecking the box should result in a big warning like “only do this if you are absolutely sure that the image belongs to this exact release”.
If this is the main motivation for uploading bad cover art, I think the best solution would be to allow tagging and website display of the Release Group cover art, if no release-specific artwork is present.
Using the release group artwork as a substitute sounds like a good idea! If things won’t improve significantly, the checkbox could still be an option.
Picard does support exactly this 
So far as I know, all cover are must be uploaded to a specific release; it’s not possible to upload cover art to the release group.
(And Picard can already grab the front cover from the release group’s front cover if the particular release doesn’t have one—it’s under settings→cover art)
Maybe if this option was on by default, we could avoid some of the people who then register MB just to upload some random cover. But I don’t know if we have that many.
I see that from time to time. Users that register, add one or a couple of (unfortunately frequently wrong) covers, and then disappear.
Adjusting that default setting in Picard seems like a great idea!
+1 to adjusting the default Picard settings - They really should cater to the kind of user who wants the most basic tags, and isn’t going to dig around in the settings.
The kind of user who wants the exact cover art for their tags, and takes the time to change the setting, is also the kind of user we want adding art to the site! Not the other way round…