Keep ID after takeover?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Keep ID after takeover?

Per Starbäck
How important do you think it is that we keep the original MBIDs when
there has been a mixup?
I created an artist last year that recently was taken over by another
editor who changed the name (slightly),
removed the birthdate and wikipedia link to make it be about another
person instead.

Of course that shouldn't have been done, but now, when he has made
more edits about this artist
than I had, it would be less work to clean up by letting go and making
a new entry for the original artist.
Would that be OK?

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Keep ID after takeover?

Philip Jägenstedt
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Per Starbäck <[hidden email]> wrote:

> How important do you think it is that we keep the original MBIDs when
> there has been a mixup?
> I created an artist last year that recently was taken over by another
> editor who changed the name (slightly),
> removed the birthdate and wikipedia link to make it be about another
> person instead.
>
> Of course that shouldn't have been done, but now, when he has made
> more edits about this artist
> than I had, it would be less work to clean up by letting go and making
> a new entry for the original artist.
> Would that be OK?

I've been in this situation and I usually go with the fix that
requires fewer edits, regardless of what the artist/label/etc
originally was or who made a mess of it.

--
Philip Jägenstedt

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Keep ID after takeover?

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Per Starbäck <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> How important do you think it is that we keep the original MBIDs when
>> there has been a mixup?
>> I created an artist last year that recently was taken over by another
>> editor who changed the name (slightly),
>> removed the birthdate and wikipedia link to make it be about another
>> person instead.
>>
>> Of course that shouldn't have been done, but now, when he has made
>> more edits about this artist
>> than I had, it would be less work to clean up by letting go and making
>> a new entry for the original artist.
>> Would that be OK?
>
> I've been in this situation and I usually go with the fix that
> requires fewer edits, regardless of what the artist/label/etc
> originally was or who made a mess of it.
>
> --
> Philip Jägenstedt
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users

Ideally we would like the same ID to always apply to the same
artist... but when the second artist has been there for a long time
and has more stuff, you could say the ID belongs to it as well by
now...

--
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Keep ID after takeover?

Per Starbäck
> Ideally we would like the same ID to always apply to the same
> artist... but when the second artist has been there for a long time
> and has more stuff, you could say the ID belongs to it as well by
> now...

It's not a long time -- the takeover began August 4. But since there
were only six edits about
the original person, and already 159 about the new person it's
certainly easier to start over.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Keep ID after takeover?

Mihkel Tõnnov
In reply to this post by Per Starbäck
2012/8/9 Per Starbäck <[hidden email]>
How important do you think it is that we keep the original MBIDs when
there has been a mixup?
I created an artist last year that recently was taken over by another
editor who changed the name (slightly),
removed the birthdate and wikipedia link to make it be about another
person instead.

I don't understand why would anyone do something like that?! I mean, with a Wikipedia link and everything...

Of course that shouldn't have been done, but now, when he has made
more edits about this artist
than I had, it would be less work to clean up by letting go and making
a new entry for the original artist.
Would that be OK?

I'd do it like that as well, but I'd also lecture the other editor a bit about such practices :S

Regards,
Mihkel / mihhkel

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Keep ID after takeover?

Per Starbäck
> I don't understand why would anyone do something like that?! I mean, with a
> Wikipedia link and everything...

I don't know. I asked and didn't get a reply, and it was an autoeditor
so I had no possibility to stop it.
I guess it was an honest mistake at first, and that he thought it was
easier to continue than to revert when
he realized that it was a mistake.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
jw
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Keep ID after takeover?

jw
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 01:46:09AM +0200, Per Starbäck wrote:
> > I don't understand why would anyone do something like that?! I mean, with a
> > Wikipedia link and everything...
>
> I don't know. I asked and didn't get a reply, and it was an autoeditor
> so I had no possibility to stop it.
> I guess it was an honest mistake at first, and that he thought it was
> easier to continue than to revert when
> he realized that it was a mistake.

Wow, that should not happen... at least he should reply to your
questions (in at most three weeks I think if otherwise not active),
otherwise he should probably not be an auto-editor anymore.

Since the takeover happened so soon ago (not like 5 years ago, in such
cases it is most often best to accept the takeover), I would be in favor
of requiring the auto-editor to change all added relationships/releases
(it is not hard anymore to do this, because recordings can be changed
together with the tracklist).

Johannes

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Keep ID after takeover?

Brian Schweitzer
Per didn't identify me, but I am the autoeditor he's referring to.  In all honesty, this thread seems a bit out of proportion to what is actually a pretty common thing to happen.  The "takeover" language in particular is overly strong, imho.  In general, I agree with what Philip said; do whatever requires fewer edits, and less time, to accomplish splitting the two artists.

Except in the case of a few SPAs, I don't think it's important to preserve MBIDs at all.  I think it especially unimportant for artists that have only a handful of performer ARs, without releases, recordings, RGs, or works.  An MBID identifies a unique entity at MusicBrainz at a specific time that you look at that unique entity.  Any given MBID does not, however, identify a predetermined unique entity across time in such a way that that MBID, and only that MBID, always has, and always will, refer to specifically the one unique entity, given that entities can me removed, merged, split, or otherwise manipulated to change the unique entity identified by any given MBID.

The artist in question is Erik Ekholm, vs Eric Ekholm.  

The latter (Eric Ekholm) is the one Per added a year or so back; he had 4 performer ARs, a wikipedia URL AR, a birthdate, a death date, and an "Erik Ekholm" alias.  Nothing else.

The former (Erik Ekholm) is an artist whom I had added in the past.  I'm not sure if he was merged into Eric Ekholm (thus creating the alias), but prior to my split edits described below, both Eric and Erik were resolving to the same artist.  So when I looked up "Erik Ekholm", and found only one, and knew that I had added him previously, I presumed that he was still the same artist I'd used previously.


@Johannes, Per left his note on the 4th of August ( http://musicbrainz.org/edit/18607538 ).   Per sent his original message in this thread on the 9th.  Today is the 13th.  We're not talking a huge delay in response.  I also think you underestimate the effort involved to make such edits when you're dealing with more than, perhaps, only a single small VA release.  I also don't think there's any reason to make such edits; the only difference at the edit, after a good many edits, is in who has what MBID.

@Per, when you say "I asked and didn't get a reply", you left your only note 9 hours after I'd finished editing.  By that point, I'd already noticed that the two artists, Eric and Erik, had been merged together prior to my editing, and had also already split Eric back out.  Because the number of edits to split out Eric was significantly fewer than the number to split out Erik, I split out Eric.  That doesn't seem a "takeover".  The only difference in perspective would be whether you split Erik back out from Eric before, or after, you edit.  Per's assumption in this thread, however, has been that that one MBID only ever identified 'his' "Eric".  Given that 'my' "Erik" was also mixed in there, before any of my recent edits, the presumption that one or the other somehow "owns" that MBID, for whatever reason you'd want them to, just doesn't work.  Before my edits, that MBID identified two different artists.  After my edits, that MBID identified only one artist.  I honestly have no care which artist has what MBID; I only care that both MBIDs now do actually each represent a unique entity.  

Brian

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Johannes Weißl <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 01:46:09AM +0200, Per Starbäck wrote:
> > I don't understand why would anyone do something like that?! I mean, with a
> > Wikipedia link and everything...
>
> I don't know. I asked and didn't get a reply, and it was an autoeditor
> so I had no possibility to stop it.
> I guess it was an honest mistake at first, and that he thought it was
> easier to continue than to revert when
> he realized that it was a mistake.

Wow, that should not happen... at least he should reply to your
questions (in at most three weeks I think if otherwise not active),
otherwise he should probably not be an auto-editor anymore.

Since the takeover happened so soon ago (not like 5 years ago, in such
cases it is most often best to accept the takeover), I would be in favor
of requiring the auto-editor to change all added relationships/releases
(it is not hard anymore to do this, because recordings can be changed
together with the tracklist).

Johannes

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Keep ID after takeover?

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
> Except in the case of a few SPAs, I don't think it's important to preserve
> MBIDs at all.  I think it especially unimportant for artists that have only
> a handful of performer ARs, without releases, recordings, RGs, or works.  An
> MBID identifies a unique entity at MusicBrainz at a specific time that you
> look at that unique entity.  Any given MBID does not, however, identify a
> predetermined unique entity across time in such a way that that MBID, and
> only that MBID, always has, and always will, refer to specifically the one
> unique entity, given that entities can me removed, merged, split, or
> otherwise manipulated to change the unique entity identified by any given
> MBID.

An MBID is supposed to be a *permanent* ID. Which is what allows other
sites (like the BBC) to use them to link to us and inside their own
sites, too. Mistakes that lead to one changing can happen and I have
made some myself, but they should be avoided if at all possible. And
while one entity can certainly have more than one MBID after merges,
*all of them* will still point to it - the only case where one is gone
is if the entity itself is removed.

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Keep ID after takeover?

Philipp Wolfer-3
In reply to this post by Brian Schweitzer
Hi Brian,

2012/8/13 Brian Schweitzer <[hidden email]>
Except in the case of a few SPAs, I don't think it's important to preserve MBIDs at all.  I think it especially unimportant for artists that have only a handful of performer ARs, without releases, recordings, RGs, or works.  An MBID identifies a unique entity at MusicBrainz at a specific time that you look at that unique entity.  Any given MBID does not, however, identify a predetermined unique entity across time in such a way that that MBID, and only that MBID, always has, and always will, refer to specifically the one unique entity, given that entities can me removed, merged, split, or otherwise manipulated to change the unique entity identified by any given MBID.


I agree with you that the debate here was overly heated. Splitting an artist entry is always a bit of a messed, and it seems to be resolved now with distinct entries for the two artists in the database.

But I don't agree with you on the notion, that a MBID is only a temporarily identifier for an entity in the MB database at a specific point in time. I really believe the opposite, that a MBID should be a permanent, stable, unique identifier. Only that way other parties can rely on MBIDs, and that's how I understand http://musicbrainz.org/doc/MusicBrainz_Identifier .

-- 
Philipp

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Keep ID after takeover?

Brian Schweitzer
In reply to this post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that we ought to reassign MBIDs wildly.  What I'm saying is that I view an MBID as only guaranteeing a unique entity, vs a *specific* unique entity.

Yes, in most cases, there is no reason for the MBID to change.   But in some cases, such as an artist split, it is unavoidable.  If 2+ entities are initially at a single MBID, then after a split, only one at most can (should) now have that same MBID.  If not this initial fact, then the 1:1 uniqueness I mentioned above is violated - ie, the Artists are still merged.  From the point of view of one of the split Artists, I guess you can call that a "takeover" of the MBID.  But IMHO, that wordage has connotations which the situation simply doesnt deserve.  It's more just a simple fact; no 2 artists can have the same MBID after they Are split apart, and at least one of the two will always Therefore end up with a new MBID.

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 13, 2012, at 10:08 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> Except in the case of a few SPAs, I don't think it's important to preserve
>> MBIDs at all.  I think it especially unimportant for artists that have only
>> a handful of performer ARs, without releases, recordings, RGs, or works.  An
>> MBID identifies a unique entity at MusicBrainz at a specific time that you
>> look at that unique entity.  Any given MBID does not, however, identify a
>> predetermined unique entity across time in such a way that that MBID, and
>> only that MBID, always has, and always will, refer to specifically the one
>> unique entity, given that entities can me removed, merged, split, or
>> otherwise manipulated to change the unique entity identified by any given
>> MBID.
>
> An MBID is supposed to be a *permanent* ID. Which is what allows other
> sites (like the BBC) to use them to link to us and inside their own
> sites, too. Mistakes that lead to one changing can happen and I have
> made some myself, but they should be avoided if at all possible. And
> while one entity can certainly have more than one MBID after merges,
> *all of them* will still point to it - the only case where one is gone
> is if the entity itself is removed.
>
> Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Keep ID after takeover?

Kuno Woudt
In reply to this post by Philipp Wolfer-3
On 13/08/12 16:46, Philipp Wolfer wrote:
> But I don't agree with you on the notion, that a MBID is only
> a temporarily identifier for an entity in the MB database at a specific
> point in time. I really believe the opposite, that a MBID should be a
> permanent, stable, unique identifier. Only that way other parties can
> rely on MBIDs, and that's how I understand
> http://musicbrainz.org/doc/MusicBrainz_Identifier .

Indeed an MBID should be permanent.

So, to everyone:  if during editing you encounter a situation where two
artists were merged together by mistake, and the split has now created a
new MBID for an artist and the old MBID for that artist is incorrectly
in the redirect table for the merge -- please contact a developer (e.g.
find warp on irc :).  We can fix the MBID redirect manually. I expect
this doesn't happen too often, but if it does we'll have to create some
kind of interface for a group of editors to more directly fix MBIDs.

MBIDs are what connects musicbrainz to the music collections and
databases of our users and clients, and it is very important that an
MBID doesn't suddenly refer to a different entity.

-- kuno / warp.


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Keep ID after takeover?

Per Starbäck
In reply to this post by Brian Schweitzer
2012/8/13 Brian Schweitzer <[hidden email]>:
> Per didn't identify me, but I am the autoeditor he's referring to.  In all
> honesty, this thread seems a bit out of proportion to what is actually a
> pretty common thing to happen.  The "takeover" language in particular is
> overly strong, imho.

If this is common the more reason to bring this up, because it shouldn't be.

> The "takeover" language in particular is overly strong, imho.

Maybe there are nuances of language here that I don't get, but my
intention then was not to
criticize but to ask what I should do now to fix it. Obviously MBIDs
are meant to be
permanent, but was it OK to be a bit lax about it.when it would be
easier to fix it the other way?
As you observed I didn't identify you or any particulars, but just
sticked to that question, even
though I got rather irritated when I saw the edits where you without
any explanation at all just removed
the information I had added. An edit note saying what had happened
would have made it a lot
better, especially one that mentioned the "new" artist you created
which I hadn't seen when I
asked about how to fix it here.

> The latter (Eric Ekholm) is the one Per added a year or so back; he had 4
> performer ARs, a wikipedia URL AR, a birthdate, a death date, and an "Erik
> Ekholm" alias.  Nothing else.
>
> The former (Erik Ekholm) is an artist whom I had added in the past.  I'm not
> sure if he was merged into Eric Ekholm (thus creating the alias), but prior
> to my split edits described below, both Eric and Erik were resolving to the
> same artist.

This sounds strange to me. The edit history for the artist I created
shows no merges.
A datadump I have from July has an artist_name where there is no Erik
Ekholm at all, just the Eric Ekholm
that I created.

kuno/warp wrote:
> MBIDs are what connects musicbrainz to the music collections and
> databases of our users and clients, and it is very important that an
> MBID doesn't suddenly refer to a different entity.

Absolutely. I want to repeat what Brian Schweitzer pointed out though,
that in this case it's really
no big damage, since it was such a minor artist anyway. I think the
main drawback afterwards is
that the few edits about the guitar player now are made by brianfreud
without edit notes instead of
by me with edit notes (just saying "cd", but that is useful if someone
has reason to dispute
any of the info years ahead).

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users