This is why I suggest two link types: because the cover art link is useful, but it's usefulness shouldn't forbid from adding other links to Amazon. If an album has a cover art link to Amazon and another user wants to add another link to Amazon, I think he should be able to (well if the new link brings something interesting to MB such as royalties, or maybe some info that was not on the "official" link). And at the same time, the cover art link is useful to us even if Amazon doesn't actually currently sell the album. The only way I see to allow both kinds of functions (the visual function and the commercial function) is to separate them.
2006/5/28, Beth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I see where you're coming from. Though I think that can be stated in the wikidocs that already cover it. I mean, it's understandable if someone is adding an amazon link that has the "wrong" cover, because they don't know. But, if someone does know and wants to change it for that reason, that makes a world of good sense in my opinion. I just don't want linking for image sake alone. Nyght aka Beth -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frederic Da Vitoria Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 4:49 AM To: MusicBrainz style discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFV: Amazon Relationship Type 2006/5/28, Beth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Yeah, I was going to say as I've read their seller agreement, they don't > seem to differentiate. And, I am definitely for adding links without cover > art, or seller created pages. > > I somewhat disagree with having "other commercial links" and just "artwork" > links however. But, I would like to look into potential other purchaser > agreements with other companies (besides just amazon.) Hmm. What if both a valid-artwork and an invalid-artwork link are entered. Would the valid-artwork link be used to show the picture? If not, I think we miss something. Having the cover is relevant IMO, not just a cosmetic feature. So if MB is able to choose automatically between conflicting links, OK. If not, I suggest we address this problem before changing the rules. > > Of course, I'd rather have a general ya interested, or no, too much coding > involved before I go digging for other great partnerships. :) > > Nyght aka Beth > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rod > Begbie > Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 8:58 PM > To: MusicBrainz style discussion > Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFV: Amazon Relationship Type > > On 5/27/06, Steve Wyles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm not certain commission is earned on amazon reseller sales. This needs > > to be confirmed. > > I can confirm that Amazon give the exact same percentage commission > for "third-party" sales. > > Rod. > > -- > :: Rod Begbie :: http://groovymother.com/ :: > > > _______________________________________________ > Musicbrainz-style mailing list > Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > -- Frederic Da Vitoria _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
-- Frederic Da Vitoria _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style