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

[Chris Bransden]

On 29/08/06, Lauri Watts <krazykiwi at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/29/06, Chris Bransden <chris at whenironsattack.com> wrote:
> > besides, the fact that people don't remove/look after NATs is why the
> > rules behind them have been typically stricter than most. i think NATs
> > get voted down more than any edit (mostly because no reason given for
> > addition, or random live track where full bootleg almost certainly
> > exists)
>
> Except those rules haven't been any stricter.  The guidelines have in
> fact been the same for a very long time. Nothing has suddenly changed,
> and these releases have always been accepted (whether they all get
> voted through, doesn't change what the guideline says)

well, yeah. that wasn't what i responding to, but rather the fact that
NATs typically have a lower threshold for deletion.

> > well, no. but try going to a random artists page and cleaning out the
> > NATs - it's very hard to tell what are legit and what are not unless
> > you are very familiar with the artist. i suppose the NATs don't 'need'
> > to be cleaned up, but i'm not sure that is a great cornerstone here.
>
> Why would you be cleaning up NAT's if you aren't familiar with the
> artist? It's obvious that  blindly editing artists you don't know well
> is a dangerous thing to do, and that has always been discouraged in
> general.

of course, but since there is no way to force the original editor to
fix it after, that's a very real possibility. it's the same reason
people ask editors to include venue/date information with live NATs -
so anyone can go check that info, see if a corresponding bootleg
exists, and delete if neccesary.

> Besides, it's not that hard, if it's the same as a track on
> an album, it's not a NAT (anymore).

that's actually quite hard to establish via the current search engine.

> And really, why do the NAT's need to be cleaned up?  We don't remove
> singles that are out of print.  Or albums that only had a 200 copy
> pressing.  Or tracks that were available to download on an artists
> site, but aren't anymore.  People out there (our users) still have
> these tracks, after all. Sure it's a bad thing if there are duplicate
> copies of an identical track that confuse people tagging, but as has
> been pointed out, how is that different from this track ending up on a
> random compilation of "hilarious parodies of 2006"?

of course. i was just saying how i wouldn't personally bother going to
the effort when i personally would be retagging the track as soon as i
knew the album name (if i didn't already).

> > BTW, as it was billed as a "single" i think it shouldn't be a NAT in
> > the first place, but a single (though whether it should be promo or
>
> And very often the single version of a track is substantially
> different from the album version.  We still have no proof that this
> track, unchanged, will be on this album.

i'm saying it should be a single. whether or not it is on any future
albums is irrelevant to that.

> > official i'm not sure, as the download was free, but from the wording
>
> That was already voted down before the NAT was added.  I expect after
> this discussion, it would have been voted through, but that's neither
> here nor there.
>
> > {and the fact that a video exists} i presume that the full single will
> > be released at a later date)
>
> Presuming doesn't make it fact.

either way, it's still a single, not a NAT.