Need to write a crazy algorithm that can spot multiple common votes from beginner accounts. No point checking IP Addresses as VPNs are too easy to use. Something needs to trigger when multiple accounts vote in a common pattern. An interesting puzzle…
OR: any “beginner” vote should not count towards a quick close of a vote.
(But then editors will just get old socks… tough puzzle)
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.