History:Edit Rating

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Status: This page describes a failed proposal. It is not official, and should only be used, if at all, as the basis for a new proposal.

Proposal number: RFC-Unassigned
Champion: None
Status: Failed, due to Unknown
This proposal was not tracked in Trac.

As MusicBrainz grows more popular, the size of the open edit queue is also growing. This is in a way a sign of success, but makes it harder to find bad edits in need of checking. Simply encouraging users to vote more helps, but there are also technical suggestions such as EditorRating. EditRating can be seen as an alternative approach to a user privilege sytem, which ranks individual edits instead of editors.

The basic idea is that by performing automatic "sanity checks" on each edit, edits in greater need of voter attention can be rated higher. By sorting the open edit queue by rating, review and voting can be done where it is most needed.


For the sake of discussion, assume a default edit rating of 0. Edits in greater need of checking are given a higher rating.

Missing Information

Increase the rating if

  • an artist is added without type (person/group) set.
  • a release is added without track times, language/script, release type, release events or discid.

Suspicous Information

Increase the rating if

  • the captialization doesn't match the guessed case. Bigger difference implies higher rating.
  • the script of a release is incorrect. Titles which are completely in the Unicode Latin blocks must be Latin, titles which are completely within the Unicode Latin+CJK blocks are highly likely Chinese or Japanese, and so on...
  • a Wikipedia link leads to an article which is non-existant, redirected or has a very different name from the artist.
  • an Amazon link leads to a product without a track listing or a track listing with relatively different track names.

Editor Information

Increase the rating if

  • the user has been a member for less than 1 month or made less than 100 edits.
  • the user has a high ratio of failed edits.
  • the user has not left an edit note.

By making the editors history part of the edit rating, EditRating can be seen as a superset of EditorRating. If needed, the part of the EditRating which has only to do with the editor can be called EditorRating and used for bragging rights.


Increase the rating if

  • there are no-votes but no comments from any no-voter.
  • an AutoEditor has turned off auto edit (usually done when something needs checking).

Potential Problems

The burden of the server would increase a fair bit, since there are many checks to do for each edit. On the other hand, people shouldn't wast time doing things that can be done in a millisecond by a computer. Perhaps ModBot could do part of this job, automatically adding edit notes pointing out potential problems (annoying if it was intentional though).

If new and inexperienced users are automatically thrown to the front of the voting queue and voted to death they may not feel very welcome or even "stalked". Regular voters would have to make an even greater effort to be polite.