Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 



Reply to topic  
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
oneyoudontknow
Cum insantientibus furere necesse est.

Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 6:25 pm
Posts: 5258
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2011 9:54 am 
 

One aspect that is still difficult to deal with is the verification of the information on a site.

An example:
http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Asv ... 3540329918

I added the release and the line-up of the release. This was later changed by another used and 'corrected', which would mean in this respect to the worse. My information was taken from the booklet of the release, provided by the label, while the source of the other user is unknown.

I just checked it again and there are only two members involved and not three; like it is currently stated on the site.

Therefore, how to prevent an edit war? I can change the information but how can I prevent that the wrong stuff appears there again?
Source:
Attachment:
Unbenannt.png
_________________

September 2013:
the 23rd edition of my magazine has been released:
https://archive.org/details/ADeadSpotOfLightNumber23

Analysis of band names:
http://www.metal-archives.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=103987

Top
 Profile  
Azmodes
Ultranaut

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:44 am
Posts: 5587
Location: Gradec, Austria
PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2011 10:04 am 
 

Have you tried sending uglur a message about that? To me it seems like he just overwrote your input with the current default lineup of the band, so that's his "source". Seems like a simple misunderstanding. I changed it back.

In general, there is not much one can do (apart from locking discographies or banning users for extreme and virulent cases) other than being vigilant and/or contacting the editors of presumably false information.

EDIT: There's also the possibility of adding a warning message, but in this particular case that would be excessive, I think.
_________________
theunrelentingattack wrote:
i've whitelisted Whores

Last.fm | Collection

Top
 Profile  
Alhadis
Madder Max

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:35 am
Posts: 3553
Location: Melbourne, Australia
PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2011 7:59 pm 
 

Couldn't we have warning messages for specific albums, too? That'd allow us to disambiguate certain things without the overkill of having a warning message appear for every one of an artist's pages.

For example, on Judas Priest's page, it seems a bit silly to have a warning message about adding certain releases if you're editing an album's additional notes or whatever...

... eh, this should probably be opened up in the bug tracker. :scratch:
_________________
J_Ason wrote:
grinder12345 wrote:
And you says that metal is about the riffs, that is bollocks, cause then black and death bands wouldn't get accepted, cause the play termolo-riffs.

they payl termolo! not real riff!

Top
 Profile  
Evenfiel
Heavy Metal Hunter

Joined: Tue May 27, 2003 9:50 am
Posts: 6144
Location: Brazil
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 5:27 am 
 

Alhadis wrote:
... eh, this should probably be opened up in the bug tracker. :scratch:

Done.

Top
 Profile  
oneyoudontknow
Cum insantientibus furere necesse est.

Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 6:25 pm
Posts: 5258
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 10:10 am 
 

Azmodes wrote:
Have you tried sending uglur a message about that? To me it seems like he just overwrote your input with the current default lineup of the band, so that's his "source". Seems like a simple misunderstanding. I changed it back.

In general, there is not much one can do (apart from locking discographies or banning users for extreme and virulent cases) other than being vigilant and/or contacting the editors of presumably false information.

EDIT: There's also the possibility of adding a warning message, but in this particular case that would be excessive, I think.

It is impossible to keep track of every edit you did, every release you entered and every band you have ever submitted. At a certain point the sheer amount of information becomes overwhelming and it is hard to keep track. The edit history thing is nice and it helps a lot, but it does not prevent such stuff from happening in the first place. Maybe I want to have too much?

The thing with the warning message seems a bit too extreme, because would it be used over excess, then it might confuse the users unnecessarily.

Thanks for fixing the stuff, though.
_________________

September 2013:
the 23rd edition of my magazine has been released:
https://archive.org/details/ADeadSpotOfLightNumber23

Analysis of band names:
http://www.metal-archives.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=103987

Top
 Profile  
Alhadis
Madder Max

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:35 am
Posts: 3553
Location: Melbourne, Australia
PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:52 am 
 

oneyoudontknow wrote:
Maybe I want to have too much?

No, I think you're right on this. There's definitely far too many records to keep a track of.

My proposed suggestion would be to simply "lock" album line-ups that've been verified by several different sources, and only a "trusted" user is able to modify them (the same way 'regular' users can't edit locked discographies, for example.) If there's any errors with previously locked line-ups, members can simply file reports in the normal fashion. =)
_________________
J_Ason wrote:
grinder12345 wrote:
And you says that metal is about the riffs, that is bollocks, cause then black and death bands wouldn't get accepted, cause the play termolo-riffs.

they payl termolo! not real riff!

Top
 Profile  
Azmodes
Ultranaut

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:44 am
Posts: 5587
Location: Gradec, Austria
PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 12:35 pm 
 

oneyoudontknow wrote:
It is impossible to keep track of every edit you did, every release you entered and every band you have ever submitted. At a certain point the sheer amount of information becomes overwhelming and it is hard to keep track. The edit history thing is nice and it helps a lot, but it does not prevent such stuff from happening in the first place.

Well, I didn't say that you have to try to watch over every single edit, just that there's sometimes not much else you can do. Complete awareness of every single modification is of course wishful thinking.
_________________
theunrelentingattack wrote:
i've whitelisted Whores

Last.fm | Collection

Top
 Profile  
oneyoudontknow
Cum insantientibus furere necesse est.

Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 6:25 pm
Posts: 5258
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:12 pm 
 

Alhadis wrote:
My proposed suggestion would be to simply "lock" album line-ups that've been verified by several different sources, and only a "trusted" user is able to modify them (the same way 'regular' users can't edit locked discographies, for example.) If there's any errors with previously locked line-ups, members can simply file reports in the normal fashion. =)

Discogs has this colour-scheme, maybe something similar can be implemented here as well.
_________________

September 2013:
the 23rd edition of my magazine has been released:
https://archive.org/details/ADeadSpotOfLightNumber23

Analysis of band names:
http://www.metal-archives.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=103987

Top
 Profile  
Azmodes
Ultranaut

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:44 am
Posts: 5587
Location: Gradec, Austria
PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:25 pm 
 

Some general warning message like "don't add an album lineup until it's confirmed by a credible source and/or the booklet" was suggested somewhere else and will possibly be added in the future. As for locking albums the way Alhadis suggested, I don't know. That's probably for the upper echelons to decide. Although users with the rank of Metalhead can add lineups if the field is blank, only Veterans can change it after that (not 100% sure there, to be honest, I'm not too familiar with the rank system apart from what trusted users can do), so there are already certain restrictions there.

The user who committed the "transgression" in oneyoudontknow's particular case is in fact a trusted one, so that wouldn't have mattered there. As I see it, lots of people are watching the list of freshly added bands to add lineups to albums in order to gain points and many of them already have a higher rank in any case. I'm not saying they are acting maliciously and completely without any altruism here, but I assume for them it's a very mechanical, routine thing. Maybe increasing the level when album editing privileges come into effect can have a positive effect, but I'm not so sure if it will be that noticeable when compared with the status quo or a simple warning message.
_________________
theunrelentingattack wrote:
i've whitelisted Whores

Last.fm | Collection

Top
 Profile  
oneyoudontknow
Cum insantientibus furere necesse est.

Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 6:25 pm
Posts: 5258
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:09 pm 
 

Quote:
The user who committed the "transgression" in oneyoudontknow's particular case is in fact a trusted one, so that wouldn't have mattered there. As I see it, lots of people are watching the list of freshly added bands to add lineups to albums in order to gain points and many of them already have a higher rank in any case. I'm not saying they are acting maliciously and completely without any altruism here, but I assume for them it's a very mechanical, routine thing. Maybe increasing the level when album editing privileges come into effect can have a positive effect, but I'm not so sure if it will be that noticeable when compared with the status quo or a simple warning message.

The core issue might be that whatever you edit on a page, you will never have to name a source. Unless it is a well-known band and it is still possible to obtain a reference of some sort, you are free to do what you like. I can change the data on band X or on person Ψ without anyone noticing this error or even being aware of this. Maybe this is a minor issue and I am exaggerating over excess, but it tends to bother me nonetheless. Even discogs is not able to solve this problem. There you have discussion pages for every release, but unless someone marks your edits as correct as well, then nothing will happen there; my last edits still wait to be accepted and the sites are still marked so to speak.

For instance, I have a magazine here in which a release is presented in a review. Fine you might think and the chances to get the band in would be 95% if not higher; when I make a scan and add this to the submission. Would you agree? Well, I did some research and this thing is tricky. Judging from what I have found out since, the release never made it beyond the state of having spread around in a very very very tiny circle and an official release by the label never saw the light of day; I checked it via the Wayback Machine.

Another example is a spit that I added once. I contacted the band over a different issue and it took them a year to respond, but it turned out that the split was never releases; it appeared on several sites.

There are so many music sites in the Internet, from which you can take information, but you never know how trustworthy the stuff actually is. How do you deal with this? Personally, I would like to see some sort of Wikipedia-like site for each band, but I am aware that 80k entries is not only a load of additional sites that would bloat the database, but are also something that need management. When you take at the report queue and the backlog if it, then it should be obvious that with the current resources such would be impossible to deal with.
_________________

September 2013:
the 23rd edition of my magazine has been released:
https://archive.org/details/ADeadSpotOfLightNumber23

Analysis of band names:
http://www.metal-archives.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=103987

Top
 Profile  
Evenfiel
Heavy Metal Hunter

Joined: Tue May 27, 2003 9:50 am
Posts: 6144
Location: Brazil
PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 7:05 pm 
 

As Azmodes mentioned, the best thing you can do at the moment is to get in touch with the user in question. We're not going to implement any sort of feature to deal with that anytime soon.

Just to let you know, at the moment there are 114 open issues in our bug tracker. That includes bugs, enhancements / improvements and feature requests. It'll take a while for Morri and Hellblazer to go over them.

Top
 Profile  
uglur
Metal newbie

Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 3:42 pm
Posts: 173
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:24 pm 
 

i know this topic was posted months ago.
but i accidently stumbled upon this some days ago.
actually my source is the band itself, as i'm in contact with "C.A.F.P.C. aka A.N.Y.S.K. M.S.D.W." the man behind asvendark
the line up i added was correct and i will edit it again.
just that you know i'm not adding shit!

Top
 Profile  
GraveWish
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:49 am
Posts: 950
Location: France
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:29 am 
 

I just wan't to add that the information added on the booklet of a release are not necessarily correct. In fact sometimes bands tend to add the last known line-up or the current line-up on the booklet of the release and not the line-up who initially recorded the music. I had some similar cases that I corrected based on direct information from members of the bands.
_________________
Quote:
As their material is being released in quantities more than 20 home dubbed tapes, the band has been removed from the Metal-Archives.

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group