Why I don't add more releases

The main thing that deters me from adding classical releases is that there are inevitable alterations that need to be made after the original entry (e.g. add performers to recordings) and, because of the complexity, I almost always end up having to correct typos or wrong work relationships etc. It’s pretty impossible to get it right first time. Also, the time required may mean that adding the release takes place over a period of time and not all at once.
As a consequence, I often end up with a load of open edits which will take a week to take effect - very demoralizing.
For example, see my recent attempt : https://musicbrainz.org/release/722976fe-ee22-4cb6-a841-134026ab0854
I seem to remember reading somewhere about a “grace period” when adding new releases, but I don’t see much evidence of it, particularly when it comes to correcting relationships.
What would be really useful (and encouraging for people otherwise daunted by adding classical releases) would be for the originator of a new release entity to be permitted to make any changes to its contents and relationships within a reasonable time window (days not minutes!).


if you add as much info as you can when you first make it and then add the album art you can always put it in here here and ask for help to add the rest. there are people who will help if they can.

I try and work on a list of items at a time. That way I can rotate between items on different days distracting me from the waits.

The one that catches me out the most is when I add something in like a link, which auto-edits straight into place, then realise I have a typo. Attempting to delete my own edit I added minutes earlier is now locked in a seven day wait.

If we could remove and\or fix our own edits in say a 28 day window it would be helpful.


The change you suggest would not seem to require any significant change in the development priorities/pathway for Musicbrainz, and would allow for more of a feeling of “winning” when doing classical editing.

I’m not sure about how much work on UE is currently prioritized but there are many things that could be done to make editing more attractive. My current wish is for sort-order of Releases to be changeable by clicking the relevant column.

1 Like

Just looked at that list of open edits - yep, exactly the thing that is frustrating after doing the hard work on a new release.

If an item is created by an editor, and the exact same editor returns in a few days to correct that data, that should also be automatically accepted.

Correction of typos is common and the current system just leaves an embarrassing list of spelling errors. Something must already be there close to this as corrections of apostrophe’s go straight through.

Before the complex ranking system and other wish list items are discussed, it would be nice to keep this thread focused on the original question. IMHO that is a straight forward improvement that should not cause huge coding resources.


Thankfully, someone (@Freso?) approved most of the edits. Only one open edit is left showing for the release. A slight issue is that the open edit to delete a work relationship does not show in the list of open edits for the release.
So, thanks for the help, but I think there seems to be general agreement that the process could be so much simpler - with a payoff in terms of more releases being added.

Yeah, I looked over some of your recent edits (and voted/approved along the way) inspired by this conversation. I do agree that getting an AE to sweep in every time is not a sustainable solution though (and isn’t why I did it :slight_smile:).

The current time frame for entering edits is currently “1 day” (source). Do you think it should be even longer than 24 hours? If so, I made a ticket—please chime in:

There’s also a separate issue for allowing edits to recordings related to newly added releases (which might actually be the one you’re facing more than the time frame issue?):



Have added a comment there - “I would think 48 hours is better. Classical releases can be time consuming, so you may start one one evening and not be able to finish it until the following evening, which might be outside the 24 hour window.”

Correct, but it crucially also applies to relationship edits. I have added a comment on that ticket also.

More happily, I just added another release - https://musicbrainz.org/release/2f8b40e3-0038-4e5e-a364-dea2b3bcbce3 - and I hope got it correct throughout. The recording artist edits will of course be pending as these always have to be done as a “2nd fix”, but they are not crucial. The result looks nice anyway, although I didn’t chance my arm by adding work parts to the last work:


I mean the penultimate work. BTW, my point here is that I don’t like creating new works at the same time as adding the release - there’s enough going on anyway (I did have to add a new artist). But of course, now that I have linked the those tracks to the top-level work, if I then create the parts and link those, I can’t delete the original relationship immediately.

I think a longer period (48hr.) would be better.
And with that comes the increased likelihood of another editor wandering in and making edits that later conflict.
The way around that would seem to be for editors to routinely check the editing history for what they are looking at editing.
(I should probably be doing this already but I don’t.)
This checking would be yet another step in the already cliff-like learning curve for new editors.
But, in this case, I think it would be worth it.

1 Like

One of my first steps when editing a release is to add it my collection. That way any edits show up in my subscribed list.


If you are still working on a release and want to get back at it some later time, it’s better to say so in the annotation. After all, everyone seeing the release will also see the annotation, while only some will delve into the edit history (of course it’s a good practice to say this in an edit note as well).

Just don’t forget to remove the annotation when you’re done with the release/entity. :slight_smile: