> Am I the only one that thinks this will be confusing to many users? I > >>> mean the concept of release groups is a relatively stealth one in the > >>> new UI. So, on one page, one sees the normalized name, clicks on it and > >>> the next page a non-normalized one? Seems to me that might confuse some > >>> ... maybe even me. At least with tracks and recordings and > >>> works, there seems to be a more clear demarcation between the various > >>> entities in the interface, but I don't see it that way with release > >>> groups. > >>> > >>> Perhaps I am in the minority, but I personally really like the > >>> normalized names in MB. I think it is a good idea to have a set of data > >>> that consistently treats secondary information like part numbers, volume > >>> numbers, capitalization, etc. the same way. I see those - especially > >>> volume numbers on cover art - as more of a graphic choice than artist > >>> intent in the vast majority of cases. I've said it before, but I believe > >>> that the normalizing we have done is one of the many things that > >>> distinguishes MB from other sites& services. > >>> > >>> Will I be able to get release groups titles served to Picard if I prefer > >>> the normalized names? That would help but, it introduces other issues > >>> as sometimes there are releases in the same release group that have > >>> completely different titles, and in that case I don't want to see the > >>> release group name, I want the release. > >>> > >>> I also wonder what to think about the thousands (tens of thousands, > >>> maybe?) that have already been normalized. That's not a reason not to > >>> change something if the change is for the better, but we will certainly > >>> then have to be expect that there will be a mix of normalized and > >>> non-normalized release titles for the foreseeable future. > >>> > >>> I guess I'd like to know if I am the only one that sees things this way? > I don't understand you. IMO this would be quasi-redundancy, adding > extra layers with little benefit. What kind of benefit did you expect > from NGS?
There are tons of benefits to NGS that have nothing to do with normalization/not of track or release titles. Works and recordings allow tracing up and down the tree where multiple tracks exist of the same recording and multiple recordings exist of the same work, by the same artist. For example, the latter lets one keep track of all the different versions of a work by a single artist, which was very clumsy at best before. Also, to find the earliest release was nauseatingly difficult before, but now you can go directly to the work. All those are huge benefits, which don't require discarding the normalization guides we have been using all along. Release groups are a little less clear on their benefits. They are basically containers, which are required to organize the data, but don't normally provide too much additional information in and of themselves. That is why it seems strange to me that we would split the normalization rules to apply to release groups but not releases. That seems like a very arbitrary distinction to me. In that instance, I would think whatever we decide on normalization, it should apply to releases and release groups - just my opinion. Of course, that leaves the possibility that different releases within a group will have different "what's on the cover"s, and thus make it difficult to determine what to call the release group. That's another reason why my preference would be to maintain the normalization across the board... _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
