[mb-users] Feedback/testing: track merging

[Philip Jägenstedt]

I'm curious about how the track-track "is the first release of" AR
will be affected by this. It seems to me that it becomes very
redundant and should be automatically removed when the two tracks are
merged.

Philip

On 3/17/08, Olivier <viapanda at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/3/17, Lukáš Lalinský <lalinsky at gmail.com>:
>
> >
>  > I meant it more UI-wise. For example can't
>  >  http://test.musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=859 see the release title,
>  >  like you can on the live server (but on the other hand it has 5 attached
>  >  releases on the test server).
>
>
> Could the following be used?
>  - if the track is attached to one release only, use the current (live
>  server) display
>  - if the track is attached to more than one, display a message
>  accordingly, and if the user wants the full list he clicks through the
>  track page (http://test.musicbrainz.org/show/track/?trackid=2999862)
>
>
>  > I don't agree with track times here. If they differ (+/- 5 seconds, like
>  >  we currently do for release merges) the tracks shouldn't be merged.
>  >  Merging makes only sense if they have exact the same audio.
>
>
> Sure.
>  For the rest, see down below.
>
>
>  > The problem is, if somebody enters a wrong track listing, how to fix it
>  >  in a way that might add data duplication, but never causes even more
>  >  incorrect data (e.g. release track "Foo" attached to completely
>  >  different master track "Bar").
>  >
>
>
> Ok... so the default behavior could indeed be: separate and create a
>  different master - but could this behavior be overridden by
>  (un)ticking a checkbox?
>
>
>  >  > > Significant change to track title will automatically detach the track from the current master (if more than one track is attached to it)
>  >  >
>  >  > How much "significant"? soundex? Levenshtein?
>  >  > I don't think this is that much a good idea...
>  >
>  >
>  > That's the trick, I somehow feel it's necessary to prevent incorrect
>  >  track merges caused by editing only release track titles, but I'm not
>  >  sure what would be the right solution.
>  >
>
>
> I see.
>
>  Then yes, something on Levenshtein might be enough.
>  Just like above, I concur to the idea that things should be done in a
>  way that maximize the chances to prevent newbies from shooting
>  themselves (eg: auto-detach the track from the master in given
>  circumstance), but I would like to have, for all these, a way to
>  override that default behavior (maybe through a discrete checkbox like
>  above?)
>
>
>  >  > > Durations are attached to masters, not tracks.
>  >  >
>  >  > Not sure I like that...
>  >
>  >
>  > I personally do, since they are properties of the audio data (like
>  >  PUIDs) and tracks shouldn't me merged if the audio differ.
>
>
> Well... an additional 2 seconds gap on a discid still doesn't make
>  different audio.
>  So, the question boils down to: from what source (eg: what discid of
>  what release) do you determine which is the "correct" time for the
>  master? And how do we handle the possible "contradiction" (yes, people
>  can make an edit war out of a 2 seconds difference :-]) between the
>  master time and the time as from a given discid?
>
>  Note that personally I don't care, and that after all, this is not
>  different from what we already have today (a given release may have
>  multiple (slightly) different discids). Though, ojnkpjg will have to
>  update his bot :-]
>
>
>
>  > Explicit title for the master track with optional disambiguation comment is probably
>  the best solution.
>
>
> Definitely agree on that.
>
>
>
>
>  It sure sounds good to see this feature coming :-)
>
>
>  - Olivier
>  _______________________________________________
>  MusicBrainz-users mailing list
>  MusicBrainz-users at lists.musicbrainz.org
>  http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users