Releases with incorrect barcodes on the physical medium

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

Releases with incorrect barcodes on the physical medium

Jeff Hoj
I have obtained the 2012 Holly Cole SACD re-issues by Analogue Productions.  They re-issued both Temptation and Don't Smoke in Bed.  The problem is, both CDs have the same barcode printed on them.  Doing some research, it seems that the barcode printed is not the correct one for either release, but belongs to a release by Freddie Hubbard. See:
http://www.sa-cd.net/showthread/89026//y

So, as I was entering these into the database today [1,2], I was wondering what barcode I should enter.  I cannot confirm that the ones posted on SA-CD.net are in fact correct, so I was hesitant to put those in without confirmation.  On the other hand, although it is "wrong", the one printed on the release is one that someone might use to search for the disc in the database.  So, I wasn't sure what to do.  I left the barcodes blank for the moment.

Any thoughts on how to proceed?  Is there any precedent for a misprinting like this?

[1] http://musicbrainz.org/release/205ec4b7-1b29-41d0-8e04-af5d4260f0c7
[2] http://musicbrainz.org/release/b6d2c6d0-5349-4f1d-9b95-5c697406a9c5

Jeff

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

Re: Releases with incorrect barcodes on the physical medium

CallerNo6
On 09/23/2012 06:17 PM, Jeff Hoj wrote:

> I have obtained the 2012 Holly Cole SACD re-issues by Analogue
> Productions.  They re-issued both Temptation and Don't Smoke in Bed.  
> The problem is, both CDs have the same barcode printed on them.  Doing
> some research, it seems that the barcode printed is not the correct
> one for either release, but belongs to a release by Freddie Hubbard. See:
> http://www.sa-cd.net/showthread/89026//y
>
> So, as I was entering these into the database today [1,2], I was
> wondering what barcode I should enter.  I cannot confirm that the ones
> posted on SA-CD.net are in fact correct, so I was hesitant to put
> those in without confirmation.  On the other hand, although it is
> "wrong", the one printed on the release is one that someone might use
> to search for the disc in the database.  So, I wasn't sure what to
> do.  I left the barcodes blank for the moment.
>
> Any thoughts on how to proceed?  Is there any precedent for a
> misprinting like this?
>
> [1] http://musicbrainz.org/release/205ec4b7-1b29-41d0-8e04-af5d4260f0c7
> [2] http://musicbrainz.org/release/b6d2c6d0-5349-4f1d-9b95-5c697406a9c5
>
>

FWIW,

1. That shared barcode is legit, and is registered to Analogue
Productions (according to gs1.org). So that's a good start.
2. And it seems to belongs to the Freddie Hubbard disc. Amazon thinks
it's the correct one. And there's the corresponding "84073" in the  
barcode & catalog number.
3. As you said, the other barcodes (given on the sa-cd.net thread) are
suspect. For "Temptation"
     - Googling "753088004964" I get some hits for "Temptation".
     - But Amazon thinks it should be "0753088404863" (using
ASIN>Barcode lookup).

As I understand it, we don't enter barcodes "as on cover". For example,
we add check digits where they're missing, or leading zeros, to make
them valid.

So in my opinion, add all three barcodes to the annotation, and if it
can't be established which is correct, then don't enter any in the
barcode field.

Alex / caller#6


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

Re: Releases with incorrect barcodes on the physical medium

Alex Mauer
On 09/24/2012 11:16 AM, caller#6 wrote:

> 1. That shared barcode is legit, and is registered to Analogue
> Productions (according to gs1.org). So that's a good start.
> 2. And it seems to belongs to the Freddie Hubbard disc. Amazon thinks
> it's the correct one. And there's the corresponding "84073" in the  
> barcode & catalog number.
> 3. As you said, the other barcodes (given on the sa-cd.net thread) are
> suspect. For "Temptation"
>      - Googling "753088004964" I get some hits for "Temptation".
>      - But Amazon thinks it should be "0753088404863" (using
> ASIN>Barcode lookup).
>
> As I understand it, we don't enter barcodes "as on cover". For example,
> we add check digits where they're missing, or leading zeros, to make
> them valid.

My understanding is that we do enter them as on cover, but we enter the
*barcode data* not the human readable. So adding check digits (which
will be there in the barcode data) is perfectly fine. Leading zeros …
not so much.

> So in my opinion, add all three barcodes to the annotation, and if it
> can't be established which is correct, then don't enter any in the
> barcode field.

I would say that if they appear on the release, the barcode is correct.
Even if it was assigned incorrectly, or just made up or copied from some
arbitrary other release. (Bootlegs do this occasionally)



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

Re: Releases with incorrect barcodes on the physical medium

Calvin Walton-2
On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 12:44 -0500, Alex Mauer wrote:

> On 09/24/2012 11:16 AM, caller#6 wrote:
> > 1. That shared barcode is legit, and is registered to Analogue
> > Productions (according to gs1.org). So that's a good start.
> > 2. And it seems to belongs to the Freddie Hubbard disc. Amazon thinks
> > it's the correct one. And there's the corresponding "84073" in the  
> > barcode & catalog number.
> > 3. As you said, the other barcodes (given on the sa-cd.net thread) are
> > suspect. For "Temptation"
> >      - Googling "753088004964" I get some hits for "Temptation".
> >      - But Amazon thinks it should be "0753088404863" (using
> > ASIN>Barcode lookup).
> >
> > As I understand it, we don't enter barcodes "as on cover". For example,
> > we add check digits where they're missing, or leading zeros, to make
> > them valid.
>
> My understanding is that we do enter them as on cover, but we enter the
> *barcode data* not the human readable. So adding check digits (which
> will be there in the barcode data) is perfectly fine. Leading zeros …
> not so much.

Because of how the barcode technology is designed, whether you get a
12-digit number (UPC) or 13-digit number with a leading 0 (EAN-13)
pretty much depends entirely on the reader used. The encoding used by
EAN-13 barcodes with a leading 0 is exactly the same as used for
12-digit UPCs.

(I.e. every UPC can be turned into a valid EAN-13 by adding a leading 0,
and doing so doesn't change the printed barcode itself.)

--
Calvin Walton <[hidden email]>


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

Re: Releases with incorrect barcodes on the physical medium

CallerNo6
In reply to this post by Alex Mauer
On 09/24/2012 10:44 AM, Alex Mauer wrote:

> On 09/24/2012 11:16 AM, caller#6 wrote:
>> As I understand it, we don't enter barcodes "as on cover". For example,
>> we add check digits where they're missing, or leading zeros, to make
>> them valid.
> My understanding is that we do enter them as on cover, but we enter the
> *barcode data* not the human readable. So adding check digits (which
> will be there in the barcode data) is perfectly fine. Leading zeros …
> not so much.
>
>> So in my opinion, add all three barcodes to the annotation, and if it
>> can't be established which is correct, then don't enter any in the
>> barcode field.
> I would say that if they appear on the release, the barcode is correct.
> Even if it was assigned incorrectly, or just made up or copied from some
> arbitrary other release. (Bootlegs do this occasionally)
>

If that's the prevailing wisdom, I won't fight it but it doesn't make
sense to me.

To me, the barcode is a functional thing. If it doesn't actually
identify a product in the marketplace, why enter it? I have to believe
that for cases like this that are obviously printing/clerical errors of
some kind, the problem was fixed with a sticker or something. Retailers
had to keep track of inventory didn't they?

Alex / caller#6


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

Re: Releases with incorrect barcodes on the physical medium

Kuno Woudt
Hello,

On 09/25/2012 05:43 PM, caller#6 wrote:
> If that's the prevailing wisdom, I won't fight it but it doesn't make
> sense to me.
>
> To me, the barcode is a functional thing. If it doesn't actually
> identify a product in the marketplace, why enter it? I have to believe
> that for cases like this that are obviously printing/clerical errors of
> some kind, the problem was fixed with a sticker or something. Retailers
> had to keep track of inventory didn't they?

I expect one of the uses of barcodes is for a musicbrainz user to
perform a lookup of data in the database by scanning whatever barcode is
printed on the physical release they have.  Which to me means that if a
barcode appears on a physical release, I should be allowed to enter it
in a machine readable field in musicbrainz when I enter that release.

-- 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: Releases with incorrect barcodes on the physical medium

jacobbrett
Kuno Woudt wrote
Hello,

On 09/25/2012 05:43 PM, caller#6 wrote:
> If that's the prevailing wisdom, I won't fight it but it doesn't make
> sense to me.
>
> To me, the barcode is a functional thing. If it doesn't actually
> identify a product in the marketplace, why enter it? I have to believe
> that for cases like this that are obviously printing/clerical errors of
> some kind, the problem was fixed with a sticker or something. Retailers
> had to keep track of inventory didn't they?

I expect one of the uses of barcodes is for a musicbrainz user to
perform a lookup of data in the database by scanning whatever barcode is
printed on the physical release they have.  Which to me means that if a
barcode appears on a physical release, I should be allowed to enter it
in a machine readable field in musicbrainz when I enter that release.

-- kuno / warp.


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
The problem is that online retailers may get hold of the correct barcode, so we have two barcodes in the wild attributed to one release. Perhaps the obvious solution is to support multiple barcodes for a release, though with a flag to specify if it's technically incorrect?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Releases with incorrect barcodes on the physical medium

Kuno Woudt
Hello,

On 10/04/2012 10:11 AM, jacobbrett wrote:
> The problem is that online retailers may get hold of the correct barcode, so
> we have two barcodes in the wild attributed to one release. Perhaps the
> obvious solution is to support multiple barcodes for a release, though with
> a flag to specify if it's technically incorrect?

I see two options:

1. Allow multiple barcodes on a release
2. Accept two entries in the database for what is only a single release.

Solution #2 is acceptable to me, as the situation is reasonably rare.
(Though I wouldn't object to solution #1).

-- kuno / warp.

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