Search

Feedback

Tiebreakers (Release Date)

Tar Heel

Member
Posts: 5777

Tar Heel @ 2020-08-21 14:10:29 UTC

Are there guidelines regarding conflicting information on release dates?

Is it editor preference?

What makes an editor's preference better than a contributor's?


The submission and release that triggered this inquiry:

https://secondhandsongs.com/submission/75544

The Album


Looking back at this submission and knowing my typical processes and tiebreakers, I would have gone with 1997 because a) the artist is American, b) the American release is 1997, and c) all of the releases on Discogs have 1997 except Brazil:

https://www.discogs.com/Angelina-The-Album/master/193241


It seems to me that the processing editor went with 1996 based solely on the back cover art (likely from the Brazilian release).


Noting that physical releases can be created/printed in 1996 but not released until 1997, what makes the editor's 1996 any more accurate or supported than my 1997? I'm not claiming that the editor's preference or tiebreaker is wrong, I am claiming that this doesn't make me wrong.


Why this specific case irritates me is that this change from 1997 to 1996 is the only reason I can see that dropped a 4 star submission to a 3 star. To contrast and reverse the history, if I was reviewing this release on site and decided 1997, I wouldn't file an error report due to there being some evidence for 1996. This type of thing encourages me to hit the dreaded button even more than I do.


On a related note, the best practice would have been for the editor to note the conflicting release date sources in the comments or e-notes, especially if an experienced contributor made the submission. If I was reviewing an existing release with material conflicting sources not documented on site, this would be a good use for the "Discuss" feature proposed below:

https://secondhandsongs.com/topic/76000


Anyway, if I had attempted to determine a release date but had to leave that field blank, and a processing editor had found it (whether from then existing sources or sources that became available post submission), I wouldn't like a ding but it would be far more tolerable.

jojo

New Editor
Posts: 1766

jojo @ 2020-08-21 15:01:08 UTC

VV I understand why you post this comment.

The editor concerned could have provided you with an explanation of his rejection.


It seems the album was released on October 29, 1996.


http://musicrareobscure.blogspot.com/2011/01/angelina.html


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelina_(singer)


The confusion probably comes from the fact the album entered the Heatseekers chart only in May 1997.


https://books.google.nl/books?id=IQ8EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA18&dq=angelina+billboard+1996…=onepage&q=angelina%20billboard%201996%20album%20upstairs%20heatseekers&f=false


JoJo greets

Tar Heel

Member
Posts: 5777

Tar Heel @ 2020-08-21 16:57:41 UTC

JJ... First, thanks for the response and your strong analysis.


Second, I can accept all of the sources you provided and I admittedly don't dig that deep; however, none of those are currently attached to the release (or at least weren't). If the editor had found those sources and included those in the e-notes, etc., I would not have started this thread or had any negative reaction.


Explaining another way, if an editor digs deeper than I can or am willing to do and finds different and more accurate information, I am more than willing to be corrected and "suffer" appropriate consequences; however, if it just comes down to preferences and subjective tiebreakers.....