Search

News

Completeness score: Missing fields

SlimD

Editor
Posts: 1207

SlimD @ 2020-06-01 04:43:59 UTC

Read

Bastien

Manager
Posts: 29978

Bastien @ 2020-06-01 06:52:04 UTC

Read. I think the feature is good, giving me a quick view on how complete my submission is. But also knowing that a submission can be good even when not reaching 100% though.

Thank you for your feedback Smile

Wikke

Certified Contributor II
Posts: 204

Wikke @ 2020-06-01 07:22:37 UTC

read

Canary

Editor
Posts: 6816

Canary @ 2020-06-01 08:55:12 UTC

Read.

______
Canary

Scousedave

Certified Contributor II
Posts: 160

Scousedave @ 2020-06-01 11:19:17 UTC

Read.


Slightly irritating to be asked for the birth date of a group.


Scouser

dudek

Editor
Posts: 452

dudek @ 2020-06-01 11:25:36 UTC

Read.

VirileVagabond

Member
Posts: 5276

VirileVagabond @ 2020-06-01 11:51:50 UTC

Slightly irritating to be asked for the birth date of a group.


I generally don't bother with bio info when submitting new artists (I've even been advised that some artists don't want birth dates public), but a drop down for group vs. natural person in the submission would be nice.

Scousedave

Certified Contributor II
Posts: 160

Scousedave @ 2020-06-01 12:01:59 UTC

There is an option to say whether the artist is a group or not - but if you tick group and the birth date question disappears, it still shows as missing information in the completeness score once the submission has been sent.

VirileVagabond

Member
Posts: 5276

VirileVagabond @ 2020-06-01 12:19:03 UTC

There is an option to say whether the artist is a group or not - but if you tick group and the birth date question disappears, it still shows as missing information in the completeness score once the submission has been sent.


Wow, never noticed that tick box. Evidences how much I worry about that.


Since I'm now looking and thinking about this, some thoughts:

a) I will likely never worry about an artist image. Experience has only resulted in editors preferring a different image or crop, resulting in wasted efforts. I suppose one could game the system by creating a stock image that reads "Deferring to Editors";

b) As a matter of policy, perhaps birth dates should be hidden until after death. Fields could be populated for the record, and the birth date would auto-show once the death date field is populated; and

c) I also don't often worry about home country either. Born in Greece but currently lives and performs in Germany. I just provide sources for bio if readily found and defer to editor preferences.

rbrnb

Certified Contributor
Posts: 636

rbrnb @ 2020-06-01 12:27:37 UTC

Read

djFLWB

Certified Contributor II
Posts: 234

djFLWB @ 2020-06-01 18:07:06 UTC

Read

______
djFLWB

"Without music life would be a mistake"
Friedrich Nietzsche

camembert electrique

Editor
Posts: 5660

camembert electrique @ 2020-06-01 18:40:15 UTC

That's a nice and useful feature. Thank you, Mathieu!

Just three points:

1) Best demonstrated by this example. The bar shows 50 % completeness and six missing criteria. Three of those are listed in the Addtional Comments, though (album title, label and release date). Is that a 'user education' thing or how to handle this?

2) A main issue with quite some submissions is their missing evidential sources and/or links to sources used. Just, if at all, saying "ITunes" (or whatever) is not really helpful. If the release can neither be found on the artist's nor on the label's sites, things get even more difficult. What can be done about this?

3) Often enough, there are only references to online portals in spite of releases being marked as (f.ex.) CDs. Would it be possible to only let submissions go through if links to evidence for physical releases are added?

Jeff Chamberlain

Certified Contributor II
Posts: 1428

Jeff Chamberlain @ 2020-06-01 19:16:13 UTC

C.E.,

It looks to me like the submitter in the example did in fact include release date, label and album title -- but apparently not on the submission form itself. Thus, in this case, at least some of the "incompleteness" is rather that the submitter didn't use the form. (I am aware that this is inevitable given the automatic nature of the completeness determinations. That, to me, just demonstrates further the limitations of the whole idea.)


I absolutely agree that a references that just reads "iTunes" (or similar) is not very helpful. Might this be alleviated with a notation on the submission form requesting an actual reference to the release page at such site(s)?


I'm not 100% sure that I understand your #3. (For example, what's an "online portal" that's not helpful for a CD release? I'm guessing that it's an internet spot that references the performance but not the release?) I also wonder what you mean by not letting submissions "go through" without "evidence for physical releases." (As you know, I typically object to attempts to require submissions to meet predetermined standards of evidentiary support.)

______
JC

VirileVagabond

Member
Posts: 5276

VirileVagabond @ 2020-06-01 19:56:43 UTC

1) Best demonstrated by this example. The bar shows 50 % completeness and six missing criteria. Three of those are listed in the Addtional Comments, though (album title, label and release date). Is that a 'user education' thing or how to handle this?


The first submission by a relatively new contributor. Evidence to me that the completeness features have little to no effect.


2) A main issue with quite some submissions is their missing evidential sources and/or links to sources used. Just, if at all, saying "ITunes" (or whatever) is not really helpful. If the release can neither be found on the artist's nor on the label's sites, things get even more difficult. What can be done about this?


And yet I seem to be seeing contributors who submit like this elevated to CC or even trainee?


The answer (of course) is to educate new contributors by an editor comment or comment+NI flag. Some automated completeness function will likely never do the trick, at least not close to optimally.

camembert electrique

Editor
Posts: 5660

camembert electrique @ 2020-06-01 22:36:46 UTC

It looks to me like the submitter in the example did in fact include release date, label and album title -- but apparently not on the submission form itself. Thus, in this case, at least some of the "incompleteness" is rather that the submitter didn't use the form.

I absolutely agree that a references that just reads "iTunes" (or similar) is not very helpful. Might this be alleviated with a notation on the submission form requesting an actual reference to the release page at such site(s).

I'm not 100% sure that I understand your #3. (For example, what's an "online portal" that's not helpful for a CD release?

In brief:

1) That's what I was referring to and why I asked the according question...

2) That might be a possibility. Another one could be to only let submissions pass if suiting reference links have been filled in.

3) Online portals in this relation is just a general term for sites distributing downloads, streamings etc. of music (including video ones). IMO, submissions for physical releases should be backed by links confirming those. Data provided by digital services too often differs from original physical releases'

camembert electrique

Editor
Posts: 5660

camembert electrique @ 2020-06-02 05:43:41 UTC

And yet I seem to be seeing contributors who submit like this elevated to CC or even trainee?

The answer (of course) is to educate new contributors by an editor comment or comment+NI flag. Some automated completeness function will likely never do the trick, at least not close to optimally.

1 = 2) I reckon you are not the only one...

2 = 1) Editor comment for each case? We seem to need a solution coming to effect at an earlier stage of submissions. Completeness bars won't work entirely, but better to a (yet to be gained) best extent than (as previously) none at all.

VirileVagabond

Member
Posts: 5276

VirileVagabond @ 2020-06-02 06:20:22 UTC

Editor comment for each case? We seem to need a solution coming to effect at an earlier stage of submissions. Completeness bars won't work entirely, but better to a (yet to be gained) best extent than (as previously) none at all.


Yes, an editor comment for each case, but as I see things it's not as bad as you seem to think. To simplify, there are essentially two types of contributors: experienced and new comers, I suspect that for the experienced the completeness features are just a curiosity and won't effect what efforts are exerted and info provided.


This means we are really discussing ways to educate new comers as to what is expected. Some editor interaction with a new comer will be far more effective and convert them closer to the experienced than any automated completeness feature, resulting in reduced need for further education.


New comers seem confused enough about how the site works at a basic level, yet we think they will completely understand how the submission form and completeness score works? I just see all of this as a noble goal but a futile effort.

Jeff Chamberlain

Certified Contributor II
Posts: 1428

Jeff Chamberlain @ 2020-06-02 13:40:54 UTC

I think it's fair to say that new(er) contributors don't find the submission forms/processes as easy to use as more experienced contributors do and, similarly, they may not realize how much we encourage using the forms.

______
JC