• JeroenG8 over 4 years ago

    JeroenG8 edited over 4 years ago
    https://www.discogs.com/release/412634-Kiss/history#latest

    I am having an argument with user Abdelfauda, not for the first time, I must admit, and always about the same thing:
    When adding a new BaOI variant, he is changing the order of variants to what in his opinion is a 'logical order'.
    As far as I know it is NEVER allowed to change the order of variants once they are added.
    Am I correct about this?

    Earlier times when he did this:
    https://www.discogs.com/release/1260449-Never-Gonna-Give-You-Up/history#latest
    https://www.discogs.com/release/494796-Girl-You-Know-Its-True/history#latest
    (both incorrectly voted 'correct' by me, because of missing the variant-order-change, I apologize)
    But these are definately not the only times when he did re-arranging like this.

    p.s. he also always re-arranges the order of the companies to what in his opinion is 'logical', but since those can be dragged the chance of any mistake is little... BaOI variants order however.....

    It looks like is is doing this for quite a long time already and users has been saying this very often by now, but still he keeps on re-ordering....
  • Clogwhistle over 4 years ago

    Variants are listed in the order in which they are added to the database. No other logical consideration applies here.
  • hafler3o over 4 years ago

    Clogwhistle
    Variants are listed in the order in which they are added to the database. No other logical consideration applies here.


    Agreed.
  • JeroenG8 over 4 years ago

    https://www.discogs.com/release/412634-Kiss/history#latest
    Sigh... user absolutely refuses to revert his incorrect edits, and even accuses other users of voting abuse.
    It is very clear he will keep on making these forbidden edits when he is not stopped......
  • andygrayrecords over 4 years ago

    Happened here also, I didn't notice it immediately.
    https://www.discogs.com/release/1354903-You-Can-Do-It/history
    OS changed variant 1 to their previously unentered version.
  • JeroenG8 over 4 years ago

    I'm done with this, especially because user refuses to change his behaviour, I have filled a SR.
  • JeroenG8 over 4 years ago

    I really can't believe that Abdelfauda is still defending his forbidden edits and refuses to revert them in accordance to the guidelines.... He keeps on cluttering the submission histories with comments why his view about ordering the BaOI is better (and apparently the way the guidelines dictate how the ordering should be is incorrect)
    Only way to stop him seems management interference... hope this will happen soon.
  • Abdelfauda over 4 years ago

  • hafler3o over 4 years ago

    Abdelfauda
    kindly drawing your attention to https://www.discogs.com/release/440982-Touch-Too-Much/history#latest

    That particular edit looks fine to me. This does not mean I agree with any other edits performed but if this item were in my collection I would have no problem voting correct. As an SR has been raised, I'll not interfere further. We need auto-ordering in BAOI, I remember contributing to a thread on it not long back actually.
  • mjb over 4 years ago

    mjb edited over 4 years ago
    hafler3o
    That particular edit looks fine to me.

    Er, well, aside from applying his personal preference to abbreviating "variant", the matrix combo that was variant 1 is now number 2. The unnumbered combo became number 1 in his new scheme.

    I generally would not be making these kinds of changes, myself. Like a lot of users, I just follow whatever pattern was started by the first couple of matrix entries, and I don't mess with it for the sake of tidiness—unless leaving it alone is truly confusing or egregiously or disruptively runs afoul of guidelines or management statements in the forum.

    Voting on such changes is opening a can of worms as well. It is like arguing over genre/style tag edits. You can do it if you want to put your conflict resolution skills to the test, and you may be totally justified and in the right, but in the end you're dragging multiple people into endless debates over the smallest things, and after doing this a few dozen times, you have to ask whether it's really worth it.
  • denizen over 4 years ago

    Changing the order of variants is absolutely wrong. Simply because I can add a release to my collection and write in my collection notes "I have variant 4" or something. I remember this topic was addressed in the forum a few months ago and management was clear about this. I'll try to find that other thread.

    That said, JeroenG8, your NMC votes are also wrong IMO. You can either cast EI votes to revert the changes, or not vote at all and file a SR, but you cannot cast NMC votes, because technically the data is still correct.
  • Clogwhistle over 4 years ago

    denizen
    I can add a release to my collection and write in my collection notes "I have variant 4" or something.

    Worse still is if an issue arises and, on reading back through the Release History, you find that it was User X who added Variant 3. After this User's involvement, we end up with a situation where we can't PM the submitter of Variant 3 because the Variant numbers have been changed.
    There were reasons for these Guidelines.
  • hafler3o over 4 years ago

    mjb
    hafler3oThat particular edit looks fine to me.
    Er, well, aside from applying his personal preference to abbreviating "variant", the matrix combo that was variant 1 is now number 2. The unnumbered combo became number 1 in his new scheme..

    I take your point but the 1st data in is usually never tagged as variant one until a second set of data arrives anyway. I'm an engineer so can live with variant zero, one two etc. or start with one, two three etc. Many users would balk at variant zero! An untagged variant applies to what? At least applying a specific number at first point of entry or early in a subs history (variant 1 added or 2 or 3 say) can save a lot of squinting and headscratching! I managed to 'let go' of my own high standards of data curation long ago. My personal sanity must come first.
  • LolH over 4 years ago

    mjb
    Er, well, aside from applying his personal preference to abbreviating "variant", the matrix combo that was variant 1 is now number 2. The unnumbered combo became number 1 in his new scheme.

    This edit looks correct to me. Exising 1st entry becomes variant 1 when subsequent variants are added, so that part of the edit was correct. I personally wouldn't use 'var.' but would have left it at variant (correcting the capitalization in the process) but I think that is a minor quibble, not worthy of a NMiC vote. IMHO, anyway.
  • JeroenG8 over 4 years ago

    hafler3o
    That particular edit looks fine to me.

    LolH
    This edit looks correct to me.

    No it's not, because:
    mjb
    the matrix combo that was variant 1 is now number 2.


    LolH
    Exising 1st entry becomes variant 1 when subsequent variants are added, so that part of the edit was correct.

    If he did that the edit indeed should have been correct, but he didn't, as pointed out earlier:
    mjb
    the matrix combo that was variant 1 is now number 2.


    denizen
    That said, JeroenG8, your NMC votes are also wrong IMO.

    I realized that they woudl raise discussion. It's not something I would usually vote on, but in this case I (and with me many other users) were fed up with this user constanty ignoring this guideline and even refusing to understand that he is wrong, I saw no other option to make this user see that what he is doing is against the guidelines, before I would go to the last option which is filling a SR to management (which I ending up doing anyway, because the votes didn't help)
  • LolH over 4 years ago

    LolH edited over 4 years ago
    JeroenG8
    the matrix combo that was variant 1 is now number 2.

    Only because what should have been variant number 1 had not been given a numerical position. So, in that instance the edit is correct. By giving the original entry varaint number 1, as it should have been given when the second set of data was added, the second set can then only be (re-)numbered variant 2.

    Edit: typo.
  • LolH over 4 years ago

    JeroenG8
    If he did that the edit indeed should have been correct, but he didn't, as pointed out earlier:

    Look again. He did it correctly:

    Original variant 1, un-numbered:
    Matrix / Runout (A-side etchings): WEA-11450-A PF
    Matrix / Runout (B-side etchings): WEA-11450-B PF
    New Variant1, numbered:
    Matrix / Runout (Runout A, etched, var. 1): WEA-11450-A PF
    Matrix / Runout (Runout B, etched, var. 1): WEA-11450-B PF

    Original Variant 2 incorrectly numbered variant 1:
    Matrix / Runout (Variant 1 Side A): WEA-11450-A PF
    Matrix / Runout (Variant 1 Side B): WEA-11450-BX PF
    New variant 2 now correctly numbered as variant 2:
    Matrix / Runout (Runout A, etched, var. 2): WEA-11450-A PF
    Matrix / Runout (Runout B, etched, var. 2): WEA-11450-Bx PF
  • jweijde over 4 years ago

    jweijde edited over 4 years ago
    JeroenG8
    As far as I know it is NEVER allowed to change the order of variants once they are added.
    Am I correct about this?

    I'm afraid you're wrong. Discogs has implemented functionality that allows the user to change the order of the BAOI entries effortlessly. So it would make no sense if this was "never allowed".
    The only place were reordering is not permitted is the Credits section. The credits section doesn't offer the ability to easily change the order, like the BAOI section. You'll have to copy-paste the data. The guideline about this (RSG §10.1.7.) doesn't mention anything about moving around credits within the credits section though, only between sections (being the Tracklist section and the Credits section)
  • JeroenG8 over 4 years ago

    LolH
    Only because what should have been variant number 1 had not been given a numerical position. So, in that instance the edit is correct. By giving the original entry varaint number 1, as it should have been given when the second set of data was added, the second set can then only be (re-)numbered variant 2.


    I noticed this now too indeed, so I apologized for this one submission in the history.
    That keeps all the other submissions were he DID re-number the variants, which is forbidden, without showing the slightest intention of changing that behaviour.

    jweijde
    The guideline about this (...) doesn't mention anything (...)

    The forum discussion including management involvement however do.
  • jweijde over 4 years ago

    JeroenG8
    The forum discussion including management involvement however do.


    Might be so, but that's still only about the credits section as far as I know. As I said, it does not make any sense if this also applies to the BAOI section since that section provides functionality for it.
  • LolH over 4 years ago

    jweijde
    I'm afraid you're wrong. Discogs has implemented functionality that allows the user to change the order of the BAOI entries effortlessly.

    Whilst in principle you are correct here in that you can easily move fields in LCCN & BaOI artound, it should not be done. I can see arguements for moving fields around to re-group data after edits have been performed - for example a new matrix variant just being added to the bottom of the BaOI section, rather than at the bottom of the rest of the matrix data, or a new publisher credit being entered at the bottom of the LCCN section rather than with the rest of the publishers. But you should certainly NEVER re-order BaOI matrix data variants, as errors can be introduced when re-numbering the different variants.
  • JeroenG8 over 4 years ago

    jweijde
    Might be so, but that's still only about the credits section as far as I know. As I said, it does not make any sense if this also applies to the BAOI section since that section provides functionality for it.


    Actually it does for the BaOI section.
    However, keep in mind we are not talking about simply moving around the BaOI, we are talking about changing the variant numbering of matrixes etc.
    That is something that can only be done be hand, which can lead to huge mistakes if not done properly.
    And because it doesn't make any sens to simply change a variant number, but it can lead to huge mistakes, it is forbidden, as was discussed and ruled in the forums.
  • Abdelfauda over 4 years ago

    LolH
    as errors can be introduced when re-numbering the different variants.


    being aware of this I triple-check with the previous state of submission during update (constantly comparing with the sub in previous state opened in a seperate window during entry) and thereafter in the history when changes are visible. A NMinC vote would be justified if I made a transmission error.
    Or simply - 'hey buddy, you made an error' as a comment.
    The risk of this procedure is not bigger than the entry of new data itself.
    Runout data is very sensitive. An omitted number, sign or letter does not result in incomplete but in wrong data. The only possible solution would be to remove doubtful (=incomplete) data but this is not allowed at all.
    However I find it useful to list runout data at the bottom of the BaoI field - while other identifiers apply to all variants, runout data describes multiple pressing variants featuring the same other identifiers. As most variants are sequential (A1, A2 etc.), I opted for sequential listing to provide better overview.
    Same goes for LCCN: Pressed By at the top, Lacquer Cut At at the bottom and distribution credits in the middle is what I often find.
    Therefore I tend to sort LCCN fields in accordance to the chronology of the production process - from recording to distribution.
    If more care was taken for the proper presentation/description of data, empirical database work would be much easier.
  • JeroenG8 over 4 years ago

    Abdelfauda
    being aware of this I triple-check with the previous state of submission during update (constantly comparing with the sub in previous state opened in a seperate window during entry) and thereafter in the history when changes are visible.

    How many times do we have to tell you that all this doesn't matter?
    It is forbidden. Not allowed. Period. So stop it.

    Abdelfauda
    However I find it useful (...)

    RSG §10.1.7. "Please don't edit releases to move about credits between sections because of personal preferences, as this can lead to errors being introduced."
    And multiple forums discussions have been there in which it became clear that this also applies to Company-section, BaOI-section, etc.
    In short: It is absolutely irrelevant what you find useful.... Just follow the guidelines, just like every other user has to do.
  • LolH over 4 years ago

    Abdelfauda
    being aware of this I triple-check with the previous state of submission during update

    But the point is, this is forbidden. Now that you have been told by numerous other users, you would be foolish to continue, as EI votes would be cast without further warning.

    Abdelfauda
    However I find it useful to list runout data at the bottom of the BaoI field - while other identifiers apply to all variants, runout data describes multiple pressing variants featuring the same other identifiers. As most variants are sequential (A1, A2 etc.),

    Likewise, and if that is how you want to do it in your new submissions that of course is your choice. But, you DO NOT move around the order from somebody else's submission.

    Abdelfauda
    Same goes for LCCN: Pressed By at the top, Lacquer Cut At at the bottom and distribution credits in the middle is what I often find.
    Therefore I tend to sort LCCN fields in accordance to the chronology of the production process - from recording to distribution.

    Again - up to you. (You do seem to contradict your self here) Not the order I would use (Labels, Copyrights, Publishers, Recording, Mixing, Mastering, then Lacquer Cut, Press Plant and finally Marketing and Distribution credits) but I would strongly recommend leaving the data in the order in which you find it.
  • Diognes_The_Fox over 4 years ago

    Abdelfauda
    being aware of this I triple-check with the previous state of submission during update (constantly comparing with the sub in previous state opened in a seperate window during entry) and thereafter in the history when changes are visible. A NMinC vote would be justified if I made a transmission error.
    Or simply - 'hey buddy, you made an error' as a comment.
    The risk of this procedure is not bigger than the entry of new data itself.
    Runout data is very sensitive. An omitted number, sign or letter does not result in incomplete but in wrong data. The only possible solution would be to remove doubtful (=incomplete) data but this is not allowed at all.
    However I find it useful to list runout data at the bottom of the BaoI field - while other identifiers apply to all variants, runout data describes multiple pressing variants featuring the same other identifiers. As most variants are sequential (A1, A2 etc.), I opted for sequential listing to provide better overview.
    Same goes for LCCN: Pressed By at the top, Lacquer Cut At at the bottom and distribution credits in the middle is what I often find.
    Therefore I tend to sort LCCN fields in accordance to the chronology of the production process - from recording to distribution.
    If more care was taken for the proper presentation/description of data, empirical database work would be much easier.


    Please don't change baoi variant order to suit personal preference.
  • jweijde over 4 years ago

    LolH
    you DO NOT move around the order from somebody else's submission.


    Submissions are public domain. No one owns their submissions once that green button is clicked

    Diognes_The_Fox
    Please don't change baoi variant order to suit personal preference.


    Then why is there functionality to do exactly that ?
    As long as the actual data is not changed, using this functionality to reorder the BAOI fields really shouldn't be an issue. I don't understand why some people keep making a fuss about it.
  • denizen over 4 years ago

    jweijde
    Then why is there functionality to do exactly that ?


    Read DTF's message: "Please don't change baoi variant order to suit personal preference." (emphasis mine).
    It's not about changing BAOI order, it's about changing numbering of the variants.
  • JeroenG8 over 4 years ago

    jweijde
    Then why is there functionality to do exactly that ?

    As already explained above, there isn't such functionality.
    Changing variant numbering is a HANDMADE job.
    denizen said it one more time exactly how it is:
    denizen
    It's not about changing BAOI order, it's about changing numbering of the variants.
  • Clogwhistle over 4 years ago

    JeroenG8
    Changing variant numbering is a HANDMADE job.

    That is to say that the Variant numbers can only be changed manually. Swapping the data by simply moving the cells would result in the numbers being out of sequence but the data strings would still be associated with the relevant Variant numbers.
  • LolH over 4 years ago

    jweijde
    Then why is there functionality to do exactly that ?

    So that you can fix obvious errors, like next matrix variant not grouped with the rest.
    I'll say again, you DO NOT move the order of data around of somebody else's submission. Ownership has nothing to do with it. If somebory chooses a particular order it's just tough if you don't like it. Moving it to your preference is just that, a preference edit.
  • Abdelfauda over 4 years ago

    Abdelfauda edited over 4 years ago
    JeroenG8
    Just follow the guidelines, just like every other user has to do.


    Had nothing else in mind. BaoI variant order regulations do not exist in the guidelines.

    JeroenG8
    Changing variant numbering is a HANDMADE job.


    Every kind of data entry is a handmade job. You can do it careless or with greatest care, especially for details. Database functionality depends on the latter aspect.

    Diognes_The_Fox
    Please don't change baoi variant order to suit personal preference.


    Sequential and/or unified listing is no 'personal preference', it is a voluntary service for the community I intend to provide in order to improve the recognizability (or functionality) of data in a submission.

    Provided greatest personal caution, I still don't see any disadvantage for the database in this approach which would be worth negative sanctions.

    Guidelines, management advice and community decisions are not intended to prevent the better of two options, they are intended to advice users how to illustrate the release as precisely yet cognizably as possible.
    LolH
    If somebory chooses a particular order it's just tough if you don't like it.


    If I recognize a particular order I will not touch it, just to mention this.
  • Clogwhistle over 4 years ago

    Please. Variants are numbered in the order in which they are added to the database. There is a similar convention for the numbering of Artists with the same name, e.g. Family (6) .
  • Fauni-Gena over 4 years ago

    Abdelfauda
    Sequential and/or unified listing is no 'personal preference',

    On Discogs it most certainly is. You've now had a staff/management member tell you not to do it and you are still arguing. Just please follow the same rules we all must follow.
    Abdelfauda
    it is a voluntary service for the community I intend to provide in order to improve the recognizability (or functionality) of data in a submission.

    Provided greatest personal caution, I still don't see any disadvantage for the database in this approach which would be worth negative sanctions.

    Since you are human you can still make mistakes no matter how careful you are. We all do. Introducing mistakes is a disservice. In addition, if you ignore the Guidelines (really rules) you are asking for negative sanctions.
    Abdelfauda
    Guidelines, management advice and community decisions are not intended to prevent the better of two options,

    Better in your opinion only. Clearly there are community members who disagree with you. Clearly staff doesn't agree either. Please just stop.
  • JeroenG8 over 4 years ago

    Abdelfauda
    Sequential and/or unified listing is no 'personal preference',

    Yes it is. It is YOUR personal preference to list them sequential.
    Guidelines, forum consensis and management decision tells you to list them in order of addition to the submission.

    Abdelfauda
    it is a voluntary service for the community I intend to provide in order to improve the recognizability (or functionality) of data in a submission.

    You are the only one who thinks it is an improvement... no one else, only you. you are doing NO ONE a favour by 'improving' the data like you are doing now.

    Fauni-Gena
    You've now had a staff/management member tell you not to do it and you are still arguing. Just please follow the same rules we all must follow.

    Indeed.
    Abdelfauda, it is very simple: Management told you to stop moving the BaOI variants around.... so stop arguing and revert your incorrect edits.
    I replied Diognes_The_Fox in the SR to see to it that you will indeed revert those edits and will not do make those kind of edits again. I'd recommend you to do this, otherwise you'll possibly end up being in CIP, and that is not what you want, is it?
  • Silvermo over 4 years ago

    Abdelfauda
    Provided greatest personal caution, I still don't see any disadvantage for the database in this approach which would be worth negative sanctions.

    A big disatvantage, that have been pointed out in this and other treads, is that people save what variant they have in their notes. When you change the variant numbers around you make all those notes wrong. For collectors this can have very serious implications like buying a very expencive version (that you already own) of a release. For example. Your personal prefrence can screw up a lot of information in peoples collection information.
  • Abdelfauda over 4 years ago

    Silvermo
    For collectors this can have very serious implications like buying a very expencive version (that you already own) of a release.


    Usually pressing variants with the same appearance in other aspects (center labels etc.) are not affected by big differences. Usually users write A-1/B-1 in their notes not var. numbers.

    Clogwhistle
    Variants are numbered in the order in which they are added to the database. There is a similar convention for the numbering of Artists with the same name, e.g. Family (6) .


    This is the first convincing argument.
    JeroenG8
    Guidelines, forum consensis and management decision tells you to list them in order of addition to the submission.


    As above. 100% accepted for runout variants. will correct submissions in question and not change the order as it has been entered anymore. Thanks for your efforts to convince me.
  • Silvermo over 4 years ago

    Abdelfauda
    Usually pressing variants with the same appearance in other aspects (center labels etc.) are not affected by big differences. Usually users write A-1/B-1 in their notes not var. numbers.

    So because you dont care about what variant you own noone else does? Please just stop vandalizing the database with changes that can affect other peoples collection notes in a serious way
  • JT_X over 4 years ago

    Abdelfauda
    Usually users write A-1/B-1 in their notes not var. numbers.

    Big assumption. I record the variants in a dedicated field. Your edits would make my notes worthless.
  • Abdelfauda over 4 years ago

    Silvermo
    So because you dont care about what variant you own noone else does? Please just stop vandalizing the database with changes that can affect other peoples collection notes in a serious way


    I do care, otherwise I would not enter runout info meticulously. However, I understood your argument and accepted it. Be rest assured that I have never 'vandalized' a correct and well kept submission. you may have a look into my couple of thousand edits during the last years and you might find out that I don't make loose entries.
  • Abdelfauda over 4 years ago

    JT_X
    I record the variants in a dedicated field. Your edits would make my notes worthless.


    Don't worry, argument has already reached my brain and is working.
  • kraftberg over 4 years ago

    JT_X
    I record the variants in a dedicated field.

    Do the same with my variants. And I'm also not a friend of changing order of variants.

    Abdelfauda
    argument has already reached my brain and is working.

    Good that you thinking again about this. ;-)
  • kraftberg over 4 years ago

    Abdelfauda
    kindly drawing your attention to https://www.discogs.com/release/440982-Touch-Too-Much/history#latest

    I would have done the same on that release. Correct for me.
  • Abdelfauda over 4 years ago

    kraftberg
    I record the variants in a dedicated field.

    Do the same with my variants. And I'm also not a friend of changing order of variants.

    Abdelfauda
    argument has already reached my brain and is working.

    Good that you thinking again about this. ;-)


    The recording of variant numbers in collectors' personal notes is indeed a striking argument I had not been thinking of before. Bringing this point into discussion made me immediately realize my faulty approach. Thanks again for your patience and convincing arguments ;-).

    all submissions in question reverted to previous BaoI variant order.
  • jweijde over 4 years ago

    LolH
    you DO NOT move the order of data around of somebody else's submission.

    No one owns their submissions. I can do whatever I want with items you submitted as long as I don't introduce errors and follow the guidelines.

    JeroenG8
    As already explained above, there isn't such functionality.
    Changing variant numbering is a HANDMADE job.


    Ok, that's clear then.
  • LolH over 4 years ago

    jweijde
    No one owns their submissions. I can do whatever I want with items you submitted as long as I don't introduce errors and follow the guidelines.

    OK, I'll re-phrase it. You DO NOT move the order of the data around of ANY submissions. I wasn't making the point that anyone 'owns' a submission; the point I was making was that it's tough if you do not like the order that is used on a submission that somebody else added.
    Moving data around is NOT following the guidelines, is it.
  • jweijde over 4 years ago

    LolH
    Moving data around is NOT following the guidelines, is it.


    There's only a guideline for not moving credits between sections (Tracklist < - > main credits). There's nothing in the guidelines about changing the order of the BAOI or changing the order of matrix variants by manually editing the variant numbers.
    Anyway, since this topic is about the latter, I take it that management's comment up thread is also about that and not about reordering the BAOI fields in general.
  • LolH over 4 years ago

    LolH edited over 4 years ago
    jweijde
    Anyway, since this topic is about the latter

    This topic, and my comments, yes.
    And it is generally accepted that Management statements are in effect guidelines.
    Over and above that, simple re-ordering of data fields is not to be done for preference, no matter what your thoughts on the point of having fields that can be dragged and dropped, except in circumstances like those I suggest up thread. Preference edits will almost always ruffle somebody's feathers, whether that be the OS or some other member.

    Oh, and for the record RSG §1.10.3:
    "Please don't do updates just to change the order of data (such as in the format or credit fields). Only do updates to correct or add information."

    Edit: Guideline.
  • Clogwhistle over 4 years ago

    jweijde
    There's only a guideline for not moving credits between sections (Tracklist < - > main credits)

    The Guideline gives those credits as examples. The words "such as" in...
    LolH
    "Please don't do updates just to change the order of data (such as in the format or credit fields). Only do updates to correct or add information."

    ...leave scope for other fields to be covered by the Guideline. Do we really need to request a blow-by-blow Guideline proscribing each and every database Field affected by the Guideline?
  • OLDFRIENDSFORSALE over 4 years ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    Please don't change baoi variant order to suit personal preference.

    one more reason for introduce a auto order of BaoI
    https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/707594
  • jweijde over 4 years ago

    LolH
    "Please don't do updates just to change the order of data (such as in the format or credit fields). Only do updates to correct or add information."


    Did the concerned edit only change the order or was other information also "corrected or added" ?
    Anyway, I see how this guideline can be applied to the BAOI fields. It is kinda ridiculous though that we have functionality that allows to change the order without any hassle, only to have it blocked of by some guideline that's only in place so contributors don't run into users who hold on to their original submissions like they are their babies. With all due respect and understanding, but people should get over that. Is data quality not affected ? Move on.
    Clogwhistle
    Do we really need to request a blow-by-blow Guideline proscribing each and every database Field affected by the Guideline?

    No, we don't even need that guideline either. If people introduce errors we can already vote on the data or, if possible, correct it. The guideline probably causes more trouble than it solves. Look at the debates we're having about this. What's it worth, really ?
  • Clogwhistle over 4 years ago

    jweijde
    Did the concerned edit only change the order or was other information also "corrected or added" ?

    Although my head hurts now I'm pretty sure that the User concerned was renumbering the Variants to a "logical order." The User has acknowledged and undertood this and I think we're left debating the best order for the data.

Log In You must be logged in to post.