[mb-users] Guess I'll boycott adding release events

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 9:30 PM, Frederik 'Freso' S. Olesen
<freso.dk at gmail.com> wrote:
> (Please edit out the sections you're no longer replying to. It will make the
> messages far easier to navigate.)

ok :-)


> Frederic Da Vitoria skrev:
>>> Where/when are are the comments lost? AFAICT, the comments I entered
>>> during
>>> my last release event addition are still to be found:
>>>
>>> http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?object_type=album&orderby=desc&object_id=665858
>>
>> Almost unusable.
>
> Why?

Because references can be lost among all the Release's history. IMO,
Release Event sources should be accessible directly from each Release
event. Can you imagine what MB is doing currently on a book? You are
reading this book and you wonder if there is a reference for this
sentence; you must go to a rerference index, seaarch for the page
number you were in. Definitely not user-friendly. Actually, I am
convinced must user aren't even aware the edit notes are still there..


>> are very difficult to find. Furthermore, if I want to add another
>> source to an existing release event, how can I?
>
> All edits have an "Add note" link. Using that, you can add a note (for
> example, citing the source).

Good, I did not know this. But still completely counterintuitive. I
was trying to click on "Edit release events" which seemed more logical
to me. After all, when I want to add a reference to a release event,
the first concept that comes to my mind is "release event", not
"release edit". But maybe I am the only one. IMO, this is typical: The
interface is too close to the database design. And I know what I am
talking about, I am a software designer, mainly in databases, and I do
this same mistake all the time :-D


>> I suppose you now understand what I meant :-)
>
> I think so, but I'm not sure you're getting what I meant. (Possibly because
> you've had/got the terminology confused.)

Quite possible :-)


> Edits themselves aren't editable, but it's very possibly to add new edit
> notes – noting that previously mentioned sources were wrong, are no more,
> etc., as well as mentioning new(ly discovered) sources.
>
> This edit and edit note system is one the most fundamental parts of
> MusicBrainz data contributing, so if one is not able to find this... it
> needs to be better documented. I'm also not arguing that edits can still be
> hard to find. (E.g., "various artist" album edits and artist-artist
> relations. But these are already acknowledged bugs, and prone to be fixed at
> some point.)


-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria