Discover

News

Highlights

Bastien

Manager
SHS Master
Posts: 26170

Bastien

Bastien @ 2019-03-07 15:36:22 UTC

A website devoted to music with people discussing about music... let's see how it goes! Smile

Hear, hear!

Bastien

Manager
SHS Master
Posts: 26170

Bastien

Bastien @ 2019-03-07 15:39:10 UTC

I do like the idea of highlighting covers, but what we don't need in the future is endless & pointless discussions we have already in this thread.

Unless, I don't get the whole concept, I would like very much that SHS deletes all subjective tags like "more famous than original" & "definitive" for this reason.

Having subjective qualitative criteria is one of the main reason for introducing the tags, so deletion won't happen Smile

If tagging becomes user-specific (like rating currently is), everyone can have his own opinion.

camembert electrique

Editor
SHS Master
Posts: 4632

It must schwing...

camembert electrique @ 2019-03-07 20:21:45 UTC

Having subjective qualitative criteria is one of the main reason for introducing the tags, so deletion won't happen Smile

Shall we learn from this that SHS is saying goodbye to being an objective database built on facts only?

Bastien

Manager
SHS Master
Posts: 26170

Bastien

Bastien @ 2019-03-07 21:13:18 UTC

No

walt

Editor
SHS Master
Posts: 4929

walt @ 2019-03-08 07:05:56 UTC

I do like the idea of highlighting covers, but what we don't need in the future is endless & pointless discussions we have already in this thread.

Unless, I don't get the whole concept, I would like very much that SHS deletes all subjective tags like "more famous than original" & "definitive" for this reason.

Having subjective qualitative criteria is one of the main reason for introducing the tags, so deletion won't happen Smile

If tagging becomes user-specific (like rating currently is), everyone can have his own opinion.


That's what I meant with "unless, I don't get the whole concept". Strangely, we are supposed to comment on a new implentation, but we are left in the dark about its full implication, it's kind of ridiculous.

camembert electrique

Editor
SHS Master
Posts: 4632

It must schwing...

camembert electrique @ 2019-03-08 07:25:57 UTC

No

Aha...(?)...

Logically, introducing subjective criteria' - nice paraphrase for allowing to refrain from any evidence -, no matter if 'qualitative'(?) or quantitative (which it appears designed to increasingly become), means leaving our foundations of being objective (by sticking to given facts only).

Being the one to point this out, but not the only one realizing the conflict: An explaination for that slight and nipping in he bud 'no' would therefore be greatly appreciated.

Thanks a lot in advance!

dudek

Editor
SHS Addict
Posts: 322

I love SHS!

dudek @ 2019-03-08 10:24:43 UTC

camembert electrique: I don't think it's "leaving our foundations of being objective". It's just adding something more, besides all the thoroughly gathered facts. Just like the rating option.


Your opinion sounds to me like "we have to avoid all elements of subjectivity from the site". However, these elements don't cause any damage to the "facts-based foundations", do they?

Bastien

Manager
SHS Master
Posts: 26170

Bastien

Bastien @ 2019-03-08 13:27:50 UTC

I don't think it's "leaving our foundations of being objective". It's just adding something more, besides all the thoroughly gathered facts. Just like the rating option.

Your opinion sounds to me like "we have to avoid all elements of subjectivity from the site". However, these elements don't cause any damage to the "facts-based foundations", do they?

You read my mind :-)

artsinspired

Editor
SHS Master
Posts: 764

Fiction writer and avid music lover.

artsinspired @ 2019-03-09 11:57:51 UTC

I agree with what Dudek wrote. I also think it's a fallacy that SHS was completely objective and built on facts before the introduction of tags. The pictures chosen for artists, as well as the descriptions written about them, involved some level of subjectivity regarding how they were presented. Most likely a minimal level, but still it existed.


Users are savvy. They will be able to tell the difference between what is presented as fact (release dates, for instance) and opinion (editor's pick and other subjective tags).

walt

Editor
SHS Master
Posts: 4929

walt @ 2019-03-09 14:45:38 UTC

Users are savvy. They will be able to tell the difference between what is presented as fact (release dates, for instance) and opinion (editor's pick and other subjective tags).


Not so sure about that. To be on the safe side, we should make that difference in the tagging very clear - with different colors or something - otherwise we will be facing a flood of pointless discussions.

David King

New Editor
SHS Master
Posts: 587

Someone who has the odd habit of collecting non-English covers of English language songs.

David King @ 2019-03-09 21:15:58 UTC

I also think it's a fallacy that SHS was completely objective and built on facts before the introduction of tags. The pictures chosen for artists, as well as the descriptions written about them, involved some level of subjectivity regarding how they were presented. Most likely a minimal level, but still it existed.

It is actually impossible to write anything 100% objective, given that one has to use their judgement in deciding what to write, and what to leave out. You just do the best you can.

walt

Editor
SHS Master
Posts: 4929

walt @ 2019-03-11 08:52:34 UTC

A CC tags "The Lady Is a Tramp" by Teddy Lynch with Fairchild and Carroll and Their Orchestra as definitive, while it is in fact the earliest, very obscure recording ...


Should we be worried?

VirileVagabond

Certified Contributor
SHS Master
Posts: 3735

VirileVagabond @ 2019-03-11 09:24:08 UTC

A CC tags "The Lady Is a Tramp" by Teddy Lynch with Fairchild and Carroll and Their Orchestra as definitive, while it is in fact the earliest, very obscure recording ...


Should we be worried?


Assuming it wasn't a mis-click, we should be worried about that person being a CC. Tags should be able to be changed/removed by all editors and the CC who added it.


As a counter example, while looking over Without You …, I was tempted to tag the Harry Nilsson performance, but deferred due to others maybe thinking Mariah Carey ….

Last edit: 2019-03-11 09:33:49 UTC by VirileVagabond

walt

Editor
SHS Master
Posts: 4929

walt @ 2019-03-11 10:25:52 UTC

A CC tags "The Lady Is a Tramp" by Teddy Lynch with Fairchild and Carroll and Their Orchestra as definitive, while it is in fact the earliest, very obscure recording ...


Should we be worried?


Assuming it wasn't a mis-click, we should be worried about that person being a CC. Tags should be able to be changed/removed by all editors and the CC who added it.


I totally disagree. We have "editor's pick", we could introduce "user's pick" or whatever, but that would be the end of the story of subjective highlighting. It's that simple. Some of the tags are NO GOOD. We're not discussing the quality of the covers at all, but the definition of the tags.


I don't understand why management is letting a good thing go to waste.

Last edit: 2019-03-11 10:37:21 UTC by walt

Guesswho

Certified Contributor
SHS Master
Posts: 906

Guesswho @ 2019-03-11 10:41:49 UTC

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.

Priorities are completely flawed here. A holey foundation, but you're discussing if the color of the bathroom tiles should be mint green or rather basil. Adding the knowledge about the existance of a cover should be allowed under all circumstances, no strings should be attached to this as everything else is secondary and can be added at a later point in time once it becomes known. For some info that might mean it will stay unknown forever but at least the existance is documented. That does not mean it should be the default, but it should be possible.

...but it seems there are more important issues than setting the database onto the best possible ground, like if someone believes a cover is 'definitve' or not. Being a researcher by education and profession the only reaction to this is a big double facepalm. I am not talking mass over quality as some might think. However, denying to acknowledge the existance of something is not adding quality, in contrary, it lowers the quality and validity of the end result as not all available information is taken into account.

VirileVagabond

Certified Contributor
SHS Master
Posts: 3735

VirileVagabond @ 2019-03-11 10:56:40 UTC

A CC tags "The Lady Is a Tramp" by Teddy Lynch with Fairchild and Carroll and Their Orchestra as definitive ….


Assuming it wasn't a mis-click, we should be worried about that person being a CC. Tags should be able to be changed/removed by all editors and the CC who added it.


I totally disagree. We have "editor's pick", we could introduce "user's pick" or whatever, but that would be the end of the story of subjective highlighting. It's that simple. Some of the tags are NO GOOD. We're not discussing the quality of the covers at all, but the definition of the tags.


I don't understand why management is letting a good thing go to waste.


Should we really be concerned about users who can't tell that a pick is a subjective suggestion?


As for "definitive", my concept isn't as subjective to me as you seem to think. Moreover, subjective calls do affect claimed objective SHS entries. For instance, I just looked at the releases under Forcefield …. To me their 2nd thru 4th releases are clearly titled "Forcefield II", "Forcefield Three" and "Forcefield IV" (some/all with sub-titles), but the editors seemed to have made a subjective determination otherwise:

https://www.discogs.com/artist/2552258-Forcefield-8


Perhaps "definitive" as I have conceived it isn't understood well enough to be feasible....

VirileVagabond

Certified Contributor
SHS Master
Posts: 3735

VirileVagabond @ 2019-03-11 11:04:48 UTC

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.


GW... You're preaching to the choir, and this has been a constant battle for me. Some editors have decided that reducing the number of open submissions by clearing these via rejections is more important than documenting their existence on site. I can appreciate the value of an easier way to clear some of the slate, but the costs are fewer covers for users to see and the very real risk (low to near certainty) of resubmissions (resulting in duplicate efforts and perhaps lost info found earlier).

David King

New Editor
SHS Master
Posts: 587

Someone who has the odd habit of collecting non-English covers of English language songs.

David King @ 2019-03-11 12:24:53 UTC

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.

I believe the capability to add a release missing a Cat# was just added recently. There is a checkbox on the release creation page that states "I certify that this release doesn't feature a catalog number nor a EAN/UPC code.". And we can enter an estimated release year (I think that is just for 78s, though, IIRC).

Guesswho

Certified Contributor
SHS Master
Posts: 906

Guesswho @ 2019-03-11 16:34:23 UTC

Some editors have decided that reducing the number of open submissions by clearing these via rejections is more important than documenting their existence on site.

...which I definitively consider damaging and not beneficial. What does it cost to have it sitting there as a submission? It still adds value.