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

[Chris Bransden]

On 28/08/06, Lauri Watts <krazykiwi at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/28/06, Chris Bransden <chris at whenironsattack.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> This is, clearly, neither practise nor the guideline, nor has it been
> the guideline for some years.

i would say it's only become a 'problem' recently, what with myspace
and the like allowing artists to 'promo' album tracks in a controlled
way (rather than allowing an MP3 download URL to propogated anywhere,
without the downloaders reading the promo gumf, or whatever).

i would also say that i say it's 'practice' as i've seen a not
insignificant number of these voted down with little/no discussion.
obviously i don't watch the entire DB...does anyone?

> Taking this out of the NAT arena specifically, this can be boiled down
> to "Do we want to allow or disallow factually correct, guideline
> abiding data, if we know it will need to be removed in the future".
> Indeed, it might pay to ignore this particular edit while you think
> about this question.
>
> Additionally "Do we perhaps want to extend the definition of single to
> include certain of these net-released tracks?"  Obviously this would
> require actually defining the criteria.

would they be 'promo' then? as i don't think it's great to lump these
together with other 'true' net-released singles (with b-sides, and/or
a track that's not featured on any album) as i think it 'demeans'
them.

> And finally, the major lesson we have learned here, no matter how
> right you feel (or indeed, how right you may be), changing a guideline
> to support your position while a contentious edit is open, is a really
> bad idea, and likely to backfire.  You're better to let that edit
> pass, for good or worse, and bring it up on the mailing list, and
> _discuss_ it.

i agree. i'm not sure if this was aimed at me or not, as i didn't
change the wiki, vote on the edit (though i did see it when it was
open, but decided i didn't feel strongly about it to vote)

> > adamant that they would delete it should the time come of a full
> > release, but really, why jump through hoops? firstly the tagging data
>
> Is it jumping through hoops, if an editor is willing to do it, the
> artist has a bunch of subscribers, and it complies with the current
> guidelines as stated?

well, it's perhaps wise not to consider the edit in question :) i
realise that the NAT in question will be sorted out fine when it comes
to release time, but generally i wouldn't think it would happen, and
the voting system is such that there's no real way of 'forcing' it to
be fixed. perhaps if you could give NATs an 'expiry' time when you
added them? at which point they would be deleted (either
automatically, or via an automated removal edit by ModBot).

> If it is, then we need to change the guideline
> so it doesn't happen.  How do you propose we reword the guideline that
> currently very clearly states these are acceptable (in fact, they're
> the very first thing on the list).

i would ask whoever added that rule, because i don't remember it being
there before...

> > 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.
>
> We have not, as yet, been provided with evidence this is definitely on
> any album.  What if it's not? Isn't it better to allow the track,
> which is unarguably widely available (it's got it's own domain name!),
> than to never allow it, because it might turn up on an album, some
> time.  Under those rules ("these might show up on an album, sometime")
> then pretty much all NAT's are going to be outlawed.

well, i think there's a difference between "sometime" and "will be
available on forthcoming album [on forthcoming date]". obviously any
NAT 'might' be on a future album, but i don't think these are what we
are discussing here.

> > but i suppose if people feel strongly enough to allow them in, then go
> > ahead. just seems a but pointless to me.
>
> Luckily you are entirely free to abstain on such edits.

yes. indeed i 'abstain' from any strong view on this discussion, but
felt i might as well give my comments as i believe others may use
similar views to vote 'no' on the proposal :)