• 4theLuvOvMusic about 1 year ago

    4theLuvOvMusic edited about 1 year ago
    Olivia Newton-John - Till You Say You'll Be Mine, I want to fix what is obvious label is not correct, but for catalogue number I am not shure what to do. grimble50 is refuse to fix, is refuse to reply for comment there, I sent message also still refuse to do any things. f.12396 is not mention on discs labels, if is not print on release, I put none in stead of this f.12396 I can not confirm?
  • Pheenixx about 1 year ago

    Just edit it as you think best with what info is available there. Catalogue number should be "none". The superfluous note needs removing too.
  • Electro-Magnetic about 1 year ago

    I just took a look at the release and noticed that the original submitter grimble50 who isn't responding to comments had uploaded images that are were not orientated correctly. A user LoveSoldier downloaded the images and rotated them and uploaded the images which is beneficial for viewing. Pheenixx then re-enabled the incorrectly orientated images, I believe according to RSG §13.1.8. I'm not criticising any users here, just the ridiculous guideline that seemingly favours upside-down images over correctly orientated images. Surely RSG §13.1.4 overrides 13.1.8. If not staff needs to review that guideline ASAP!
  • LolH about 1 year ago

    Yeh, I know that's the guideline, but sticking to guidelines just for the sake of it. Something Pheenixx normally argues against.
  • 4theLuvOvMusic about 1 year ago

    please, this is not for discuss the images, is another post for that things. Please keep for this topic
    4theLuvOvMusic
    f.12396 is not mention on discs labels, if is not print on release, I put none in stead of this f.12396 I can not confirm?
  • Pheenixx about 1 year ago

    LolH
    Yeh, I know that's the guideline, but sticking to guidelines just for the sake of it. Something djdustie normally argues against.

    I think the whole "image quality will degrade" argument is stupid and I think it should be ok to download / crop / rotate image and re-submit. At the end of the day, it's still a *real* image of the actual release. Sadly, the rules say different.
  • cheebacheebakid about 1 year ago

    4theLuvOvMusic
    label is not correct
    +1 seems a legitimate Decca release

    Pheenixx
    Catalogue number should be "none"
    +1 per RSG §4.7.2
  • 4theLuvOvMusic about 1 year ago

    I have now edit, I think all is now fix. I remove tracks times because look like is copy from Till You Say You'll Be Mine and is also not print on that release (and siebenhals as is normal has give no sources for this)
  • brasscrest about 1 year ago

    brasscrest edited about 1 year ago
    Pheenixx
    LolHYeh, I know that's the guideline, but sticking to guidelines just for the sake of it. Something djdustie normally argues against.
    I think the whole "image quality will degrade" argument is stupid and I think it should be ok to download / crop / rotate image and re-submit. At the end of the day, it's still a *real* image of the actual release. Sadly, the rules say different.


    I believe that the rule is in place because they are using a high compression rate on the images once we upload them. High compression rates degrade the quality of the image. When it's downloaded and then re-uploaded, it's compressed again, causing further degradation. Every time the image is compressed again, it loses more information.

    Which is exactly what RSG §13.1.8 says.
  • Pheenixx about 1 year ago

    Yes but, as I said, the image is still of the actual item, even if it even more compressed than before. Someone else could add a poor-quality / even-more-heavily compressed photo taken the correct way up but, when compared side by side, could be substantially worse than the “rotated” one, yet it would be counted as more valid. That’s a shame.
  • brasscrest about 1 year ago

    Pheenixx
    Yes but, as I said, the image is still of the actual item, even if it even more compressed than before. Someone else could add a poor-quality / even-more-heavily compressed photo taken the correct way up but, when compared side by side, could be substantially worse than the “rotated” one, yet it would be counted as more valid. That’s a shame.

    That's a good point. But without the rule in place you'd probably have someone who decides to go through and "fix" hundreds of images that don't really need fixing.
  • Pheenixx about 1 year ago

    Possibly. But that’s a separate discussion, if someone was going through and only rotating images and/or correcting poorly cropped images, I’d applaud them for doing so.

Log In You must be logged in to post.