Unverified Covers - A serious blocking risk?

Quote from JeffC

Thus, the best we mere submitters can do is provide whoever that editor is with any information that will make his/her job easier.

Exactly this JeffC , plus of course joining the editorial team, as you did (temporarily) back in 2016.

Last edit: 2023-08-30 09:20:54 UTC by sebcat

I would say that Tunesmith is not all that concerned about the backlog in general (which is a dead issue), but rather collateral effects, including blocked vid use, credit for proper submissions, and contributor stats, This means that mitigating the effects should be the goal.

a) Should a vid used in a web cover be blocked from use elsewhere? Seems to me that the block is a prompt that something is wrong and some error report is likely needed rather than a submission.

b) Long time contributors have been improving old or poorly supported submissions for years, as JC mentioned. That the original submitter gets the "credit" is either something one can live with or not.

c) If a contributor is heavily concerned with credit and stats, the nature of this project will be a source of frustration.

d) Credit concerns could be mitigated by changing the policy on officially released web covers and the editors paying attention when rating submissions. If there is a clear joint effort by multiple contributors to track down the info for a complete submission, rate accordingly. If another contributor just added some missing info on a poor submission, rate based on the original post.

Limbabwe

Here are two others to reduce the backlog:

"San Francisco (Be sure to wear some flowers in your hair)" by The Jordans in 1968

and

"Sand in my shoes" by Miss Toni Arden in 1958

are duplicated

Last edit: 2022-09-19 09:29:27 UTC by Tunesmith

Quote from Tunesmith

"San Francisco (Be sure to wear some flowers in your hair)" by The Jordans in 1968

and

"Sand in my shoes" by Miss Toni Arden in 1958

are duplicated

Solved both

I found some more, but didn't communicate them because no action had been taken and I don't like to impose.

Is it an accepted practise to reveal this cases here to contribute to cut the backlog?

Tunesmith

What I have done is file an error report on the later version noting the duplication and identifying the earlier release (since the usual SHS rule is that only the earliest release is cataloged).

Quote from JeffC

What I have done is file an error report on the later version noting the duplication and identifying the earlier release (since the usual SHS rule is that only the earliest release is cataloged).

Yes this is the best way to handle JeffC Tunesmith

Last edit: 2023-08-30 09:20:54 UTC by sebcat

And, as in the present case, there is no case of first release, as they're total duplications. And if they're both unverified covers no error reports are admissable.

Last edit: 2022-09-24 13:07:24 UTC by Tunesmith

Tunesmith

Here's the point: SHS is set up so that (with some exceptions not pertinent here) only one cover per artist per song is cataloged, and that's the earliest release by that artist performing that work. If you see a later performance/release in the database, then it's almost certainly an error. You can point this out either by filing an error report, or by adding a new comment to that effect if the later release occurs in a submission that's not yet verified.

It need not be a "duplication," btw: You may discover an earlier release that's not in the database. In that event, the procedure is the same: either an error report noting the earlier release at the entry of the later release, or a comment noting the earlier release if the later release occurs in a submission that's not yet verified.

Jeff, Your approach is very 'classic' but only postpones the solution. Thanks to Limbabwe and Walt the cases I brought here were immediatly written off.

Quote from JeffC

It need not be a "duplication," btw: You may discover an earlier release that's not in the database. In that event, the procedure is the same: either an error report noting the earlier release at the entry of the later release, or a comment noting the earlier release if the later release occurs in a submission that's not yet verified.

Very nicely described JeffC . This is exactly the approach that Tunesmith should take.

Last edit: 2023-08-30 09:20:54 UTC by sebcat

Quote from Tunesmith

Jeff, Your approach is very 'classic' but only postpones the solution. Thanks to Limbabwe and Walt the cases I brought here were immediatly written off.

SHS tells me that there are currently 1833 open error reports and another 240 in "Needs Info". Is there some reason that some reports or matters should be treated special?