User:Nikki/Release quality

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
  • Some things are required to move to the next level. Without these, the system won't let the editor increase the quality.
  • Some things are optional and generate a warning (Discogs-style). The editor would be expected to explain why those things aren't present (e.g. the release has no barcode, tracks 10-20 are [silence]). The warnings would also be visible to the voters.

Contents

Levels

I'd probably have a bunch of levels like low, incomplete, default, good, complete, protected.

0

low/incorrect, has errors that need fixing?

roughly equivalent to our current low level?

Editing:

  • Normal edits are auto-edits

Criteria to move to next level:

1 (Green / "Unchecked" / Default)

Editing:

  • Normal edits need... 0 votes? 1 vote? Perhaps auto-edits for the original adder?

Criteria to move to next level:

  • Has been verified as existing
  • Existing data is correct

2 (Bronze / "Checked" / Checked by a human)

"verified that it exists and the existing data looks ok", roughly equivalent to our current default level

Editing:

  • Normal edits need 2 votes

Criteria to move to next level:

  • Required: Release has a subscriber (when we can subscribe to releases)
  • Required: Year, country, label, format, status
  • Optional: Month, day, catalogue number, barcode
  • Optional: Track times
  • Optional: All recordings are linked to a work
  • Optional: Cover art

3 (Silver / "Filled" / Has a Watcher and has all important info filled in)

"reasonably complete, has at least x, y and z"

What to do with releases where, for example, the liner does not include the tracks to which something apply? I think for things like composers I'd probably say only level 3 if it's on the release rather than the works, since it's entirely possible that the info will be available in a works database somewhere, and for performers people with good ears could maybe figure it out

Editing:

  • Capitalisation changes are no longer auto-edits
  • Normal edits need... 3 votes?

Criteria to move to next level:

  • Required: Packaging
  • Has liner scans (once we have a way to store them)
  • All info from the liner has been entered
  • All works linked to the recordings have composition relationships
  • All composition relationships are on works?
  • All performance relationships are on the recordings?
  • Has been verified against the liner (so not just copied from Discogs)

4 (Gold / "Perfect" / Has been Certified and has all possible info filled in)

"I've combed the liner notes for every last scrap of detail and can't think of a single thing I could possibly add"

roughly equivalent to our current high level?

but things like mixing and mastering are a lot harder to find out if it doesn't say which tracks, so I think those would be ok even for level 4

Editing:

  • Normal edits need... 3 votes? 4 votes?

5

 ? (Violet / "Code-Purple" / Special case)

needs love?

this horrible release makes me think that release quality proposal would need another level: "checked and unable to verify"

A release with no Release Events should probably be limited to "incomplete" and "low quality"

Useful links

Personal tools