[mb-users] "The need for free and open music metadata", but MB not good enough

[Jim DeLaHunt]

Creap wrote:
> 
> I kindof agree that MusicBrainz is a bit too complicated for "anyone" to
> get
> involved with when it comes to editing, but
>  1) Is this necessarily a bad thing? ...
> 
If it's more complicated than it needs to be to get the job done, then yes,
it's a bad thing.


Creap wrote:
> 
>  2) It's mainly an interface & design issue.
> 

I agree it's mainly an interface and design issue, though I think some
documentation problems are pretty significant too.  And there are some
social norm imperfections here.

I think a big difference in responsiveness between Musicbrainz and other
communally-edited content is the deferred gratification.  In most projects,
when you make an edit, the system applies it immediately, and you get
immediate gratification. If the edit was bad, others reverse it.  By
contrast, at MusicBrainz if you make an edit (to an existing item) the edit
disappears for a week while a vote takes place.  You have to wait a week for
your gratification.

It seems it would be an improvement if edits by reasonably trusted
contributers were accepted by default while the vote goes forward. If others
determine the edit to be bad, then it gets reversed.  

Also, I think it would be improvement if multiple edits could take place in
quick succession. Person A cleans up a track title but goofs on some
details. Person B immediately corrects the details.  Both edits become live
immediately unless revoked by someone else.

Has this concept been discussed before?  If so, where could I read up on the
discussion?

-----
     -- http://jdlh.com/ Jim DeLaHunt , Vancouver, Canada  • 
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/JimDeLaHunt

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/%22The-need-for-free-and-open-music-metadata%22%2C-but-MB-not-good-enough-tp16910670s2885p16945991.html
Sent from the Musicbrainz - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.