How one can complain about a subjective tag while this database suffers much bigger issues (like the fact not being able to even document the EXISTANCE of a cover just because the release year or a cat# is missing) goes beyond common sense.
Hi Jens, that takes us a little/completely off-topic
Should there be an according new thread, I'll be more than happy to transfer this comment over there...
I agree that there are more relevant issues than constantly adding new features probably not beneficial to the database as such. Concentrating on improving database functionalities, instead, may make more sense.
Nobody denies the existance of a cover version because of a missing release date or lacking cat. no. But, to keep up high qualitiy and credibility of the database, sticking to core data is mandatory - and, as known, there are mostly parameters one can use without falsifying (f. ex., release years can often be derived from cat. #s etc.).
Without such data, cover versions, if at all, could only be listed - but not documented based on evidence or hard facts. Understanding this may indeed simply be a matter of being rational. Even much more simplified sites like https://cover.info seem to comprehend this to quite an extend.