Editor Inconsistency: Earliest Release

Per my understanding of site rules a performance is required to be indexed to the earliest (possibly earliest known) release, with discretion to index to additional other releases (e.g. the related album, compilation).

Some personal experience history:

While I do exert reasonable efforts to find the earliest release for submission, sometimes the fresh eyes of editors find an earlier one. When one is found, some editors process without downgrading the submission's quality, others do downgrade. When my fresh eyes come across an earlier release for an existing SHS entry, I will usually/often (but not always) file an error report to document my findings. Certainly something star-worthy is error-worthy.

As stated above, I have had editors downgrade a submission based on their finding an earlier single or compilation. Hard to believe, but I have had an editor downgrade when they preferred a different compilation over the one submitted even when released on the exact same day. As stated in other threads, I have had an editor reject a submission just because they had a "hunch" that there was an earlier release.

Recently I posted related error reports with evidence that some relevant digital "teaser" singles were released a bit earlier than the album on site. In this case the report was met with hostility. (This from an editor who has materially downgraded submissions for not finding a Discogs entry that did not exist at the date of submission.)

In summary, I'm facing editors who get uppity when I don't find the earliest release and others that get uppity when I find a release earlier than they did. Granted, no one can expect, much less demand, uniform personalities, but consistent rules, guidelines, and submission expectations are a necessity for this type of database and contributor activity.

I suppose I am looking for confirmation of the applicable guidelines and rules, but also this is a request for the editors to develop some consistency in regards to this and other matters.

I'm 2 lazy to try to dig around and look up any rules if they exist, but it is my

understanding that the star system was set up to guide and search for potential new editors.

And we all know that you and Jeff don't want to be editors.

It's not to punish people if they miss an earlier release.

That's just childish, especially to do it to you guys.

Notwithstanding the primary purpose of the star system, I use it as a signal as to what is important to SHS. As a contributor, especially a CC, I should be expected to know what is important info for SHS and make reasonable efforts to provide. No contributor should be expected to know what any particular editor thinks important.

Anyway, I didn't expect any real response. From experience when I bring stuff like this to the attention of SHS, the editors close ranks no matter how much in-fighting is done among themselves. When I'm wrong or otherwise mistaken or confused, a correction is surely and quickly forthcoming. When I'm correct, silence. A phenom not so uncommon (e.g. police officers).

The best I can expect is to trigger some internal discussion behind the scenes.

Came back across this.., and almost a year with no thoughts from any editor or heavy contributor other than DB. This is no way to deal with concerns of the community....

You won't get any complaint from me in either instance. I'd like to think that we all do our best here, but nobody is perfect. Mistakes happen sometimes. In fact, I'm happy when someone catches a mistake on my behalf.

Our CCs have varied reasons to be here, and I value their contributions. I don't expect perfection from them, as long as they make a good effort.