[mb-users] Re: what's with the crusade against adding legit NATs?

[Chris Bransden]

On 28/08/06, joan WHITTAKER <joan at whittaker1966.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Maybe an oversimplistic question - but why would anyone want to add  a NAT
> for a track that will be coming out in four weeks anyway.
>
> Could it be because somebody wants to tag their downloaded copy just in case
> the version on the released album does vary?
>
> I can understand the reasoning behind this, but what concerns me is that
> whilst I am sure Brian would go back and delete the NAT if the track turned
> out to be identical, I am very sure that very many others would not and it
> would take someone who was on a mission to clean up a particular artist to
> finally remove it.

exactly. i don't think there's a real need for such 'temporary' NATs.
infact, i believe there should be a rule (and i think this is practice
already) that such NATs should be ignored by MBz. yes someone could be
adamant that they would delete it should the time come of a full
release, but really, why jump through hoops? firstly the tagging data
of "[non-album track]" is probably non-intuitive for those expecting
to see the (as yet unreleased) album name, and is probably not an
inprovement of the tagging data on the original track, and b) it's one
track! surely the effort of adding it, then deleting it when the album
comes out, is less than just tagging it manually for the time being.

but i suppose if people feel strongly enough to allow them in, then go
ahead. just seems a but pointless to me.