As @aerozol said I was telling this for pre-NGS releases (all seen in the same add release edit), where you see a bunch of editions in the same edit and you have the same bunch of disc ID in each post-NGS split releases.
Some disc ID edits will tell for which versions they were made so you can keep them there.
But otherwise, when you have confirmed an edition, remove the bogus disc ID from there and if there is no confirmation for your disc ID on another edition, remove it from there (it will still be attached to your edition).
Wow, yes. That happened to me recently. A brand-new editor appears out of nowhere and as it its very first edit attaches a DiscID to a release that has two already. So I welcome the newcomer to MB and ask to check whether the cover art matches their copy. Later I find three cancelled edits to remove the DiscID and the editor transformed to “Deleted Editor #xxxxx”. Oops. Was it something I said?
Of course, the DiscID is uniquely attached to this release. Remove? Leave it?
If a polite request for confirmation of an edit upset them, then they are in the wrong place. You probably saved them from deeper arguments they would have inevitably walked into.
Remove. Attempt to verify did not get a verification.
Not everyone cares for accuracy or understands. When I first used Picard many years ago I would attach my DiscIDs to the earliest GB releases without doing any checks. Now years later I go into geek knowledge overload. It is easy for a new user to not really understand the subtle differences.
Sometimes this is also why I like leaving one or two releases with those 20 discIDs attached as a magnet for those lazy taggers to get a reply from…
I remember seeing some discussion about disc IDs which reported 2 extra seconds on the final track. Is there a known issue involving all tracks except the last being 2 seconds longer? For example Disc ID “b2B_m88N7PhkWPRgc0NiIOl5.0M-” - MusicBrainz which is attached to multiple releases of London Calling (from pre-NGS days). Comparing it to the 1987 US CD it’s exactly 2 seconds longer on all but the last track. I’ve seen something like it once or twice before. Maybe an indication of a home-burned CD that wasn’t burned in gapless mode?
If all tracks are 2 second longer except the last track.
It looks like this is someone who ripped a commercial CD and then burnt it on a CD-R, drag on dropping ripped wav files into a burning software, without taking much care of a100% identical result at the ripping step (mostly) nor at the burning step.
IMO check the add disc ID edit but I think we could safely remove this disc ID.
I have seen this several times before, and at its worst was 6 seconds longer on each track except the last. I think this is due to sloppy reissuing of a release, not necessarily a home-burned CD (but could be).
I almost always check my added Disc ID against existing ones to insure it is close to the ones already present. I added one that was 6 seconds more per track except the last track (I wonder if I can find it) and it was a official release, a compilation I think, here were existing Disc ID’s that had 2 seconds more track and 4 seconds more per track except the last track. I looked at my rip in Audacity and there was 8 seconds of silence between the tracks except the last track. I this case I am sure it was sloppy reissuing of a release, since you have the CD jut rip it and remaster it with the required/suggested 2 seconds of silence/gap between the tracks. The last track does not get the 2 seconds of silence.
If it was a reissue, then it would have been a new Release? The above example by @highstrung is talking about pre-NGS lists of the same discID attached to multiple old releases.
Your example would create a new release and not get tied up with older Releases.
Very possible that it is a “new release” of an existing release, can you say that for a fact? Some part of what is in the DB is subjective and always be. We could have a rule that a Disc ID of this type is a new release, I think there is enough justification for the rule.
Surely it is a different release if there are four to eight second gaps between the tracks? That is quite a change to the original version.
I’ve seen CDs with a second or two on the reissue, but nothing that large.
I also see many many old pre-NGS edits where they are directly targeting the home burnt CDs and taking things out that have that two second gap added by old CD burners.
Yes it is a mess, not intentional, but without the edit history it can be time consuming and judgmental as to the fix. Unless it is really obvious I just grind my teeth and go on about my business. Slightly off Disc ID’s generally do not harm anything unless the are applied to the release. I find the sub-second editing of a track time to be superfluous since most CDs contain a two second gap that gets counted as part of the track time and the Disc ID, but that is my opinion.
There are actually two such disc IDs attached to (multiple releases of) London Calling. One was added in 2010 by a long-since-departed editor with a total of 105 edits. The other doesn’t even show up in the edit history at all so I guess it’s older than 2004?
Given this is a quite well-known release, on a major label, and that these disc IDs don’t match the times on either the 1987 US CD or the 1999 remaster, I think that possibility is extremely unlikely.
I agree, though, that the presence of a completely spurious disc ID is relatively harmless, unless used to set track times; certainly it’s less harmful than a correct ID attached to the wrong release.
I looked at this and got a headache. The 1:06:35 and 1:06:36 do not look like they belong on this release. When you look and compare the others in frames there appears to be a lot of different pressings of “some sort”. Probably safe to remove those 2 but others would take a more careful look and missing edit history makes that hard.
Thanks all for the feedback. I have removed the two outlier disc IDs from all the releases to which they were attached.
There are two remaining clusters of disc IDs, one set right around 1:05:58 in length and one around 1:05:09. The longer times seem to match the original CD release(s); the 1999 remastering was done at a slightly faster speed and matches the shorter time.
That sounds like a sensible split. I don’t have the album, so can’t add anything constructive. But I know that head spin of reading many pages of edits on stuff like this. Sometimes I wish I knew the Magic Script Codes to block edits about Recordings that appear on a Release history to thin it down a bit when reading.
A quick look at one of those releases and I think the pre-NGS nature of many of those DiscIDs lets you be more decisive on that split. I’d agree with how you are swinging the axe. Edits like this should also help flush out more owners to help confirm\deny that split.
Edits like this should also help flush out more owners to help confirm\deny that split.