User talk:Jeroen: Difference between revisions
From MusicBrainz Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(New page: ==A few comments on the method== ~~~~ * Please create a specific user for all the automated edits, that will then be given a bot status. See e.g. Editor:ffimon_bot * Please limit the n...) |
(Added answers.) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==A few comments on the method== |
==A few comments on the method== |
||
[[User:Murdos|Murdos]] 15:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC) |
[[User:Murdos|Murdos]] 15:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
* Please create a specific user for all the automated edits, that will then be given a bot status. See e.g. [[Editor:ffimon_bot]] |
* Please create a specific user for all the automated edits, that will then be given a bot status. See e.g. [[Editor:ffimon_bot]] - [[User:Jeroen|Jeroen]] 16:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC) - Ah, I checked for something like this, but could not find anything in the docs. I created [[Editor:JeroenBot]]. |
||
* Please limit the number of open edits. You saying that your scripts/reports are error prone and that you're ready to react (cancel edit, fix script) each time someone finds a mistake. However if you're flooding the open edits queue, nobody will ever be able to review your edits and the errors will just silently pass. |
* Please limit the number of open edits. You saying that your scripts/reports are error prone and that you're ready to react (cancel edit, fix script) each time someone finds a mistake. However if you're flooding the open edits queue, nobody will ever be able to review your edits and the errors will just silently pass. - [[User:Jeroen|Jeroen]] 16:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC) - What would you propose? |
||
* Do you plan to open the source of your scripts? I'm not interested in running them, but if I'm able to check how you're doing your business, I may be able to spot errors at the source. And I'm not really inclined to trust a black box machine. |
* Do you plan to open the source of your scripts? I'm not interested in running them, but if I'm able to check how you're doing your business, I may be able to spot errors at the source. And I'm not really inclined to trust a black box machine. - [[User:Jeroen|Jeroen]] 16:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC) - Sure, if it helps. Do you have a proposed way of doing that? |
||
* Do you really 100% trust Discogs? - [[User:Jeroen|Jeroen]] 16:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC) - No, of course not, just like I don't 100% trust MusicBrainz. But I make sure that the tools will never repeat the same edit, so if there's a fix, it won't be re-added. It helps that editors are watching the artists they know. By the way, I'm not focusing on Discogs in particular. I think the next data source on my roadmap are the structured infoboxes on Wikipedia. |
|||
* Do you really 100% trust Discogs? |
|||
==Spotter errors. Are they fixed?== |
==Spotter errors. Are they fixed?== |
||
[[User:Murdos|Murdos]] 15:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC) |
[[User:Murdos|Murdos]] 15:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
* [[Edit:12582655]] Two different artists added for only one performance credit |
* [[Edit:12582655]] Two different artists added for only one performance credit - [[User:Jeroen|Jeroen]] 16:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC) - Will do that. Nothing is running now, but before I restart I will add a check for common 'ancestors' in the equivalence map. |
Revision as of 16:11, 27 May 2010
A few comments on the method
Murdos 15:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Please create a specific user for all the automated edits, that will then be given a bot status. See e.g. Editor:ffimon_bot - Jeroen 16:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC) - Ah, I checked for something like this, but could not find anything in the docs. I created Editor:JeroenBot.
- Please limit the number of open edits. You saying that your scripts/reports are error prone and that you're ready to react (cancel edit, fix script) each time someone finds a mistake. However if you're flooding the open edits queue, nobody will ever be able to review your edits and the errors will just silently pass. - Jeroen 16:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC) - What would you propose?
- Do you plan to open the source of your scripts? I'm not interested in running them, but if I'm able to check how you're doing your business, I may be able to spot errors at the source. And I'm not really inclined to trust a black box machine. - Jeroen 16:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC) - Sure, if it helps. Do you have a proposed way of doing that?
- Do you really 100% trust Discogs? - Jeroen 16:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC) - No, of course not, just like I don't 100% trust MusicBrainz. But I make sure that the tools will never repeat the same edit, so if there's a fix, it won't be re-added. It helps that editors are watching the artists they know. By the way, I'm not focusing on Discogs in particular. I think the next data source on my roadmap are the structured infoboxes on Wikipedia.
Spotter errors. Are they fixed?
Murdos 15:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Edit:12582655 Two different artists added for only one performance credit - Jeroen 16:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC) - Will do that. Nothing is running now, but before I restart I will add a check for common 'ancestors' in the equivalence map.