Editor Missed Submissions (aka "Now A Duplicate")

Recently I have experienced an editor missing two submissions that pre-existed their own entries and then subsequently rejected these pre-existing submissions as duplicates. Some history as I understand things:

Some years ago when faced with this situation, an editor had to either reject the submission (hopefully with an apology) or deleting their own entry and processing the submission. (It is my understanding these are the same/similar options today when a later submission is processed over an earlier submission.)

Currently, editors have an additional option to process the earlier submission and "attach" (my word) it to the now existing entry. I suspect that this is more work by the editor, but the advantage is a better contributor experience (not to mention it was the editor's oversight).

Are editors required to salvage submissions when possible (i.e. a rule), is it just expected as a best practice (i.e. a suggestion), or is salvaging the exception rather than the norm?

I'm not sure what the actual requirement is off the top of my head, but it doesn't make any sense to me to reject an older submission as duplicate when the editor was the one who added the relevant performance to begin with. If the relevant performance was instead created by processing another submission, there's not a lot we can do (the trick to attach an existing performance to a submission doesn't work if it's already attached to a different submission), but that doesn't seem to happen too often.

It's really not that much work to attach a performance to a submission though.

I'm guessing that editor doesn't know how to do the procedure

to add it. All they would have to do now is reopen the submission and then add it with that

procedure.

You can ask them to do it in a private message, if they refuse, I can do it for ya. I

already figured which ones they are.

Quote from DashBoardDJ856

I'm guessing that editor doesn't know how to do the procedure to add it. All they would have to do now is reopen the submission and then add it with that procedure.

You can ask them to do it in a private message, if they refuse, I can do it for ya. I

already figured which ones they are.

I did first attempt the resolve the matter via private message, but the response was unsatisfactory in my view. As a result, I tried to handle the matter publicly in a more general discussion....

I can imagine that it may not be time efficient to search for existing submissions prior to an editor adding a string of entries, but I do expect that when a duplicate is subsequently discovered that it be processed rather than rejected....

I think I took care of the 2 you were talking about, hit me up if it happens again.

Is this like "added in the meantime?"

(And while we're on the subject, can someone tell me what "out of scope" means?)

Quote from Jeff Chamberlain

Is this like "added in the meantime?"

(And while we're on the subject, can someone tell me what "out of scope" means?)

As far as "out of scope" goes:

Quote from Bastien

• Out of scope due to SHS scope defintiion (OUT OF SCOPE)
• There is already an earlier version by same artist in the database: rerecordings, live versions
• Unreleased: bootlegs, promos
• Remixes

Thanks, Michael. I'd not seen that earlier thread, which seems pretty peculiar (and just a bit wrong) to me in a couple of aspects.

Seems like the only proper uses of "added in the meantime" are a) a cover listed in a legacy generic submission that includes lots of suggestions for the site and b) a legacy original/cover submission. The later should still be closed as processed if it predates the later entry.

"Out Of Scope" needs some work if I understand it. Is there is already an earlier released version on site, the submission is a duplicate and should be rejected. If the submission is of an earlier released version than that already on site, it should be converted to an error report.

The rest would be better labeled as "ineligible".

A pre-existing submission does not become "out of scope" upon an editor later adding the same cover....