I agree that given a bunch of discids without any context there's no method to find homebrew releases with 100% certainty and no false positives. However, in this case the release has never been put out on CD. It's nice that people want to contribute, but I think fake discid's are just about as nice a contribution as incorrect PUID:s.
Philip On 5/9/08, Lukáš Lalinský <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dňa Pi, 2008-05-09 o 21:44 +0200, Philip Jägenstedt napísal: > > > I don't agree. If I see two discids I'll think that there are (at > > least) two pressings of the CD, not that someone ripped a CDR (from a > > friend or whatever) and used MusicBrainz to tag it. > > > There is an important point here: people don't need to submit discids to > tag their files. Even if they normally use discids to lookup releases, > and the discid isn't in the database, it's easier for them to just load > the release and _not_ submit the discid. But people do submit discids > because they want to contribute to the database. > > > > Peoples homemade discids are cruft and I applaud anyone who takes > > the time to clean up cruft even when the cruft is not causing much > > damage. Some more practically inclined will think that it's a waste > > of time, but why vote no? > > > Because it's reducing the usefulness of the database. There is no good > way to prove that a discid is homebrew (ie clasify what is 'cruft' and > what is not). There is the usual +2 seconds method, which I personally > consider questionable, but a simple script can check this much more > effectively than a bunch of editors. > > Lukas > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
