Missing Bios

Requesting some consistency:

Artist bios aren't that important to me personally, but will include in a submission if found during the process. These bios aren't that material to SHS either from personal experience. Often I will run across missing bio info during my own research and used to provide to the editors via an error report. Rather than update the artist, these reports started to be rejected, so I no longer file such reports.

Now some editors, sebcat especially, are bouncing submissions due to missing artist bios while most do not. Example: Submission #72987

Seems like some consistency is needed here. Why risk a "needs info" lingering forever for an obscure artist?

When I see this, I'm not surprised your submission went to needinfo.

Quote from Bastien

When I see this, I'm not surprised your submission went to needinfo.

You didn't answer the question asked in the original comment.

Do I read this correctly, that an artist bio is necessary for submissions to become entries?

Bastien

sebcat

Last edit: 2024-03-20 20:40:22 UTC by JeffC

Quote from JeffC

Do I read this correctly, that an artist bio is necessary for submissions to become entries?

Bastien

sebcat

Maybe editors have discretion regarding this question, but that results in an inconsistent contributor experience. My experiences range from editors refusing to update a bio with a provided (e.g.) Wiki page to some now putting submissions in "need info" indefinitely without a bio.

If this situation is acceptable to SHS, then I and others can adjust expectations and just press on.

Last edit: 2025-04-01 17:23:11 UTC by Tar Heel

Bastien sebcat

Is there something wrong with my question?

Quote from JeffC

Bastien sebcat

Is there something wrong with my question?

In my view and in general, we need some basic information about the performer to verify the version is unique and not a re-recording or a repackage - or whether the song has been released by an artist with the same name as another in the database or under a pseudonym. That doesn't need to be a full bio, obviously. If Bowie had re-recorded You've Got a Habit of Leaving for example, it wouldn't qualify for the database.

And of course, for anonymous studio performers, we are developing a new approach. If you are interested in exploring this topic further, the discussion about MFP Studio Artists picks up several of these issues.

As an editor, you will of course take your own view on whether there is enough information to process a particular case or whether it should be marked as "missing information" so others can research it further. I'd be surprised if you could come up with an approach that doesn't require some interpretation and judgment by editors given the diversity of covers that we house in the database. But you are of course free to propose an alternative approach to the editorial team.

Quote from sebcat

Quote from JeffC

Bastien sebcat

Is there something wrong with my question?

In my view and in general, we need some basic information about the performer to verify the version is unique and not a re-recording or a repackage - or whether the song has been released by an artist with the same name as another in the database or under a pseudonym.

a) It's usually relatively obvious if the artist in question is just hard to bio vs. a soundalike, etc.

b) This doesn't explain some editors electing to not bother updating bios of artists already on site.

Quote from Tar Heel

b) This doesn't explain some editors electing to not bother updating bios of artists already on site.

Agree. All editors and certified contributors can update blank fields in bios. However, only editors with full editing powers will be able to edit existing entries.

sebcat

I don't quite agree with the way you've put it. Your formulation essentially presumes that a performance does not qualify for the database unless there is an artist bio; this seems to me to be what you said at Submission #72987 But there are many entries in the database about which we have no, or virtually no, biographical information about the performer and that didn't (and doesn't) seem to create much (or any) question of the appropriateness of the entry.

Information "about the performer" (your phrase) may provide some evidentiary information about whether the performance in question is appropriate for inclusion in the data base (or not), but surely that's all. Just because we know a lot about a performer does not assure the "entry-ability" of any given performance. And just because we don't know anything -- or much -- about a performer may not tell us much -- if anything -- about whether a particular performance is eligible for inclusion in the DB.

So are artists on site sans a bio (or a sufficient bio) now an error?

I have added quite a few artists with no bio, bios were simply impossible to find for them.

sebcat As I've mentioned earlier, while I generally ignore errors these days, I have reported earlier releases on your entries as a courtesy since you're rather hard core on that question. As a similar courtesy, I will do the same for missing or insufficient bios.

Quote from JeffC

Your formulation essentially presumes that a performance does not qualify for the database unless there is an artist bio;

I would be suprised if that's what Sebastian meant.

I'm sure sebcat can speak for himself, but he bounced Submission #72987 solely for "Missing artist info." He later confirmed that "we need some basic information about the performer" to verify submissions (for reasons that raise other questions, at least with me). So Bastien, why don't you think he "meant" that artist information is necessary to qualify a submission for entry?

Quote from JeffC

I'm sure sebcat can speak for himself, but he bounced Submission #72987 solely for "Missing artist info."

Marking as “missing info” isn’t a bounce. The cover stays in the version list, just like unverified cases. But the status makes it clearer to users and editors why the case is not verified, namely because the info provided by the submitter isn’t enough to verify. If another editor like you JeffC wants to process the case as you are confident there’s enough info to do so (or want to do the necessary research), there’s nothing stopping you. Once you have processed your own unverified submissions, then I hope you are able to start processing unverified submissions of others.

Quote from sebcat

Quote from JeffC

I'm sure sebcat can speak for himself, but he bounced Submission #72987 solely for "Missing artist info."

Marking as “missing info” isn’t a bounce. The cover stays in the version list, just like unverified cases. But the status makes it clearer to users and editors why the case is not verified, namely because the info provided by the submitter isn’t enough to verify. If another editor like you JeffC wants to process the case as you are confident there’s enough info to do so (or want to do the necessary research), there’s nothing stopping you. Once you have processed your own unverified submissions, then I hope you are able to start processing unverified submissions of others.

This just confirms drastic differences between editor positions on bios. Variance on confidence levels with available evidence is one thing, such a black/white difference is on a whole other scale. "Needs Info" does not equate to "I'd prefer to see". Putting a submission in "Needs Info" that would be processed by other editors without any additional info just wastes time and energy, but okay.

From my experience, Seb has a tendency to sometimes treat personal preferences as site rules. Hunches with which I disagree don't have the best track record.

Regardless, the purpose of the original comment was to bring the matter to broader attention to see if something should be done. If nothing, I will adjust and carry on. As long at these submissions stay visible, I've done all that can be reasonably expected.

sebcat: We seem to be going around in circles here: "necessary" research can't be an "or."

Quote from sebcat

Marking as “missing info” isn’t a bounce. The cover stays in the version list, just like unverified cases. But the status makes it clearer to users and editors why the case is not verified, namely because the info provided by the submitter isn’t enough to verify. If another editor like you JeffC wants to process the case as you are confident there’s enough info to do so (or want to do the necessary research), there’s nothing stopping you.

I agree with the above.

When some data are missing, it's up to the processing editor's discretion whether to put it in needinfo or not.

Some editors are perfectly fine with filling the gaps left by the submitting users, doing some of the heavy lifting avoided by the latter. Other editors aren't and prefer to request more information. I'm fine with both approaches.

Quote from Bastien

Some editors are perfectly fine with filling the gaps left by the submitting users, doing some of the heavy lifting avoided by the latter. Other editors aren't and prefer to request more information. I'm fine with both approaches.

Not very responsive to the situation in my view:

a) While I can't speak for other contributors, I will provide bios if readily found during the submission process. Upon a later editor review, sometime years later, I expect the editor to research fresh to see if a bio is now available rather than "Needs Info". The chances of my finding anything when the editor couldn't isn't very likely. In that situation, we're back to whether a bio is necessary or not.

b) If an editor can't be bothered with a fresh bio search upon a submission review, well....

c) If whether a bio is necessary or not should be editor specific is the main question here. I suppose "not necessary" editors can easily run up processing numbers by approving submissions only held up due to a missing bio since the other confirmation work has already been done?

None of this explains why you (and perhaps others) reject error reports that contain missing bio info. Such rejections screams not necessary, but whatever.