[mb-users] bad puid

[Mika Heiska]

Jan van Thiel wrote:
> On 10/6/06, Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com> wrote:
>> But I continued my investigations and I checked the second track's PUIDs.
>> Now I am quite confused (and/or worried!) There seem to be a lot of
>> collisions in the PUIDs (or did I accidentally stumble on a 
>> coincidence?) Is
>> this expected? If so, shouldn't Picard use PUID+duration instead of PUID
>> alone?
> 
> A lot of people don't bother to check the track listing of a release,
> they'll just select the first  one with the name they're looking for.
> This happens quite a lot, no need to be worried, we just have to
> cleanup using 
> http://www.mb.inhouse.co.uk/reports/generated/DuplicatePUIDsPerAlbum/
> .
> 
> I've checked and cleaned up (where necessary) all PUIDs for the 3 OVO
> releases in the database.
> 
> Jan

Interesting. I had no idea there was a report like this (and those other 
reports in couple later emails). Here's a question. How would a regular 
guy such as I go about proving something like this? I mean, I can do 
puid scans on my huge collection and remove some of the incorrect ones, 
but there is no real way to prove that I am right is there? (I actually 
did enter a few remove edits already).

I'm assuming that whoever has been cleaning this earlier is an automod 
and uses those powers not to clutter the already huge edit list with these.

Anyway, just curious. I'm not even sure what exactly I'm asking here. :D

~Kilu