http://www.metal-archives.com/history/v ... /id/494164
2016-01-04 21:04:41

This update confuses me, partly because it was done by a moderator. Adding "All songs written by Ungod", when the album is called Ungod, the band Morgoth and the only person credited with songwriting is Marc Grewe who neither is credited with all songs nor seem to ever have had the nickname Ungod. And the lyric writers are also specified in the line-up. And even if the intended update was "All songs written by Morgoth", wouldn't that have been a unnecessary update since it's assumed that the band writes their songs unless something else is stated?

Help, someone, anyone............. my computer started acting up, and what was supposed to be one entering of http://www.metal-archives.com/albums/He ... 4rd/647038, it was accidently entered in 3 times.......... only needs to be in there once. Had just got through talking with Wolfspell Records and was given the go ahead on submitting Hermóðr's new album. I cannot seem to delete the additional 2 unnecessary "Hädanfärd" albums; can someone please help me? It was an honest accident.. (Unsure if I'm writing this in the correct area, but I didn't want to come across as a point whore, or a wrongdoer.. so, I was hoping that this was o.k. to write this here? Just got a bit freaked out when I saw the album 3 times on Hermóðr's main page, I was like what?!)

Fixed - mistakes happen, and this was honest. Thank you for letting us know, and don't beat yourself up over it. I won't be docking any points.

You're welcome, and thank you for doing that for me! I do appreciate that so very much!

Not an issue. You tried to improve the database, and mistakes happen, I've done it myself! Please keep up your efforts.

I have a question regarding banned users. Occasionally when I'm working the reports queue I'll see banned users that made reports from just minutes before I got to them, like this one:

http://www.metal-archives.com/report/vi ... 0/show/all


When someone is banned, are they still able to log in and make reports or did this guy get banned within the 30 minutes between when the report was made and when I saw it?

I believe they can report but not add or edit data. Confirmation requested.

Well he made another report while I was writing my question so I'd guess you're right:

http://www.metal-archives.com/report/vi ... 8/show/all

I tend to approach reports from banned users very carefully. If you have any doubt at all, closing it isn't a bad idea.

Gotcha. These two were both just updated links though and nothing seemed ot of place.

This is part of the fun. 80% of the time or so, a report from a banned user will be perfectly legit and acceptable. Feel free to PM me to talk about this further.

http://www.metal-archives.com/users/FRANKSTONE

Adds other versions that are exactly the same as the parent entry.

gorilla1969 is no menace, tahu. He can be trusted. Be wary of others, though, as EC suggested.

Good to know, and I wasn't trying to rag on him in particular. I was just curious about what a ban actually means and his report was what made me wonder.

http://www.metal-archives.com/history/v ... /type/band
2017-02-22 00:22:21
Seems wrong to add "One of Demolition Hammer's final gigs Milwaukee Metalfest in 1995" in 2017 when the band got back together and have done new gigs since 2016 and are still active.

http://www.metal-archives.com/users/Hellborn%20Soul

Looks like TheFallenSoul is back, and is still adding guess work line-ups.

Example: http://www.metal-archives.com/history/v ... ter/lineup

Will be banned shortly. Undo all suspicious/verified incorrect edits.

http://www.metal-archives.com/users/Revzail
I think this guy should go play somewhere else. Guesswork, guess line-ups, changing release formats, etc.

Not his first rodeo. Points wiped and final warning sent. Keep an eye on him, I'm sure he will slip up again and we can just ban.

http://www.metal-archives.com/users/alemsahim added many duplicate other versions.

Actually, this guy is a fuckwit and refuses to follow any of my orders. I simply close his reports.

...which got him banned, Dia, along with other misdemeanours. However, the content of his reports has always been verifiable and well-sourced... The ones I handled at least. You know better, dude; I stand corrected.

Might be a good idea to ban, or at least warn, Tyler_The_Terrible who has vandalized Tyler Johnson's artist page, as you can see from his modification history.
http://www.metal-archives.com/users/Tyler_The_Terrible

Also I should mention the mass reporting I've been doing to artists that aren't credited to metal bands. I'm sorry for there being so many reports, but god damn, Yung Static adds a lot of artists, many of whom have been staying here for a while. I hope you all understand.

http://www.metal-archives.com/users/gothic_metal
Changes track duration regarding a few seconds.

Some labels will add or subtract a few seconds of silence between tracks for their own CD releases resulting in very slightly different playtimes from the original/parent release. It's possible that this is the case here and she's making these edits based on her personal CD rips.

http://www.metal-archives.com/users/NATHICANADEGE

Adding a bunch of pointless bandcamp links to specific albums even if the page has a bandcamp link already.

I know that and I assume that's the case here too. But it's a well-established example of wrongdoing which moderators have warned/notified many people for.

We're not supposed to change a few seconds since even different rip programs, players, etc. may show slightly different durations for even the one and same version of a release.

Not the first time in this thread I'm linking to this unanimous moderator view that track lengths should not be edited to change a few seconds: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=90909

Dembo, dude, the user's revamping the whole entry (image, additional notes, track-lengths) in one click. Some track-lengths are significantly different ~20 seconds. Didn't check many, though, to be honest.

Different masterings for the same release may result in sightly different track lenghts and specially between analog (vynil) to digital versions.
This is a FACT, and it isn't necessarily associated with CD-rips. The total lenght for a bandcamp release may differ in minutes with the parent version and it's FINE.

And by taking a quick look at the end of the thread, I totally agree with the mods.
There are better things to worry about in this site. Besides, gothic_metal is not a newcomer.

Read above, everything you say of relevance have been dealt with. And the end-comment I interpret to be rather about people editing those track lengths, at least if going by the talk previously in that thread.


The ones I looked at were 1-5 seconds. And I'm not saying that this is point-whoring or any serious thing, but the thread is for all sorts of wrong-doing. And it may be good to notify the person to not bother with few-second-edits of track lengths, since it's possible that people who do them also do them when not updating anything else at the same time. At a minimum, such a notification would save those people from wasting time editing something that moderators don't want people to bother with, as evident by my link and previous cases where people have been warned/notified for doing those type of edits.

We can't force users to contribute in any one specific way. God knows I wish people would focus on more important edits instead of making pedantic changes like this, but it's out of our grasp as long as there are no overt misdoings.

Two things are very interesting here.
1. The amount of words put in my mouth by several people. For example, I've not said that the person is a newcomer or that the site can force anyone to contribute in any way. Rather I'm pointing out that moderators have a history of expressing that such an edit is not contributing at all. And what's a wrongdoing if not a non-contributing edit?
2. The difference in reaction from time to time regarding the exact same thing.

Here a person was notified for doing what I reported above:
viewtopic.php?p=2561890#p2561890

And it was done after I reminded people about the unanimous moderator view in the same thread I linked to above:
viewtopic.php?p=2561742#p2561742

Purely from a policy-perspective, inconsistency is highly problematic.
Going by what some have said above, are we encouraged to report this wrongdoing only if it's by a person who's new to the site? Or also veterans but who do no other update while doing that type of edit? Then what about newcomers who do that edit while doing other edits? Or is it a wrongdoing no matter who do it and in what circumstance?

This is about saving the time and effort of both people doing those edits and people reporting it here.

The site hardly need more vagueness in its policies to be honest. And since I've never see a notification like "hey [user], don't bother editing track lengths to change a few seconds, as different players will display different lengths for one and the same version of a release and others will just edit them back due to their players showing slightly different lengths" as something serious, I really don't see why this need to have several posts this time despite the history of mods telling people not to bother doing those type of edits.

Sometimes this place is like a tombola regarding the different reactions essentially the same post will get from one time to another. That's problematic for any project with policies.

EDIT:
A completely different thing I stumbled upon when linking.


Is Prog Archives in the same category as Last.fm, Wikipedia, and such? From my experience, Prog Archives have tons of info like extensive bio, detailed discography with tons of ratings and reviews, links to forum discussions about the band in question, links to Amazon products of the band, streaming of music, tour updates... And I believe I've added a couple of such links myself. Example: http://progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=378

By "category" I mean that it's most often useless, not category as "unofficial", since it's clearly belong in the unofficial section if belonging here at all.

I'll concede that certain parts of the guidelines are in sore need of being updated, especially regarding versions and the links tab. This is out my capacity in any event.

Please notify larsen to immediately stop whatever he's doing and
1. read the rules
2. consult the "other versions" thread
It's quite urgent.
http://www.metal-archives.com/users/larsen

EDIT: I've cleaned all of today's edits. The guy's too ignorant for a veteran. Must've been dormant for a while.

http://www.metal-archives.com/users/alemsahim

Has added a bunch of other versions that are the same as the parent entry.

^I already sent him a reminder.

Still adding lyrics and track lengths 1 by 1.

Gone.

RE: Dembo, gothic_metal, and the whole track-lengths debacle.

I've been asked to give input on this. Before getting into the "meat and bones" of this discussion, there's just a few things I wish to put out there. I want to preface, though, that I'm not putting words in anyone's mouths in putting forward these few preliminary things. I only want these few things to act as background, that might better inform the circumstances of this case.

First, one of the tenets of this site is that we aim to be as accurate as reasonably possible. On the one hand that implies that our goal should be to aim for the most correct information, whenever that information is made known to us. On the other hand, it also implies that we should be reasonable with how far we go with being accurate. This means that we shouldn't host edit wars, or engage in petty fights over the small stuff in our effort to be perfectly accurate. Do what is reasonable, and don't sweat the small stuff... at least, not to the point that it becomes the issue at hand... like it has in this case. There's usually a safe balance between the two, where we should do all we can to be accurate, valid, and credible with the information we have at hand, while at the same time not becoming obsessive about it. It's healthy to be accurate, but it's unhealthy to seek absolute perfection.

Second, while we do try to stick to the "spirit" of our policies, and aim for consistent standards in the way we do things, sometimes those standards can and do change. What was a valid policy perspective years ago may no longer be valid or as valid; that's usually due to changes in the site or due to lived experiences. It's also what makes writing a thorough set of guidelines (as a set of ideals) a daunting task, and I apologize that I am rather slow in my approach to it thus far. Trust me, I already have the ire (and perhaps disappointment) of the rest of the staff already on this point. Consistency is key to what we do, and it is our goal to be as consistent in what we do as possible. That's one reason why we value team decisions and consensus. It's one reason why we value transparency and honesty in what we do.

Lastly, while this thread is for wrongdoers of all shapes and sizes - old and new - there is a certain level of ignorance and/or malevolence tied to being in the wrong here, and that should be distinguished from cases where there's clearly good intentions. By no means does this mean that higher ranked users are excused from being brought up here, and scrutinized for their actions, or that they can't be ignorant in their "good" intentions, but it's worth recognizing that such users are usually doing only what they think is best for the site and for achieving the goal of being as accurate as reasonably possible. This isn't a normal case of a user seeking points for the sake of achieving a higher rank; that's not particularly relevant. It's also not the case of a user knowingly doing something wrong and trying to deceive the rest of us. In almost all these cases, it's a matter of miscommunication and the onus lies with us, the staff, in not doing our best to provide clear communication.

So onto this case.

I can't ignore the elephant in the room. That thread you've linked to Dembo is five years old and predates some significant changes we made to the way we deal with releases on the site. Specifically, since then we have introduced other album versions, which has made obsolete some of what was brought up in that thread. To place that thread in its appropriate context, at the time we only ever had a single version to represent an album's entry in a band's discography. Typically this version was the most well-known, or the most original, but we didn't have any strict rules on that. Nevertheless, this entry was limited to a single track list with a single set of track lengths. This version also didn't distinguish between format, as that was also a later addition to album pages. So, without any way to differentiate between versions and thus formats, you would inevitably have users fight over the single track list and single set of track lengths based upon the different versions available. While you could get significant changes between versions, most differences are minor. The responses that the mods gave recognize the context of that time, and were intended to discourage edit wars over that single set of track lengths.

That's no longer the case now. We do include different album versions now, and so there's no fear of edit wars and petty fights being made over a single version using the track lengths of numerous versions. In principle, and perhaps in practice, there's nothing stopping a user from accurately adjusting album versions based on differences in track lengths between different versions. In fact, it could be argued that doing so is another way of achieving greater accuracy as far as those different versions go. It becomes an issue if users are fighting over a single version, and - if that's the case with gothic_metal - then an intervention is certainly warranted. That's the type of behaviour that the original thread you've linked to was trying to avoid. But, as far as other versions go, if they do have different track lengths there's nothing inherently wrong about making them more accurate. It's not something we would require or actively encourage users to do, but we also wouldn't discourage them either.

That said, sometimes it amazes me the amount of focus users give to some of the minor, small stuff on the site. It's a testament to the site that people care so much about being as accurate as possible, but on a personal level, we shouldn't sweat the small stuff so much. I don't wish to see people fight over or get caught up in arguments over tiny minutiae of the site. Even though I do enjoy picking apart policy situations like this, most of what we do policy-wise can be construed as common sense, with common sense being how a reasonable person might approach the situation. If ever in doubt, that's a good place to start.

wow. that was some diatribe

///

please keep an eye on this very newb: http://www.metal-archives.com/users/jagutheil just added a very guesswork line-up (it's 99% probably accurate, seeing as this is a live album and all, but I don't think the drummer plays flute on it, for.ex). chances are he'll do it again.