Issue 3017: Duplicate?

New issue submitted

Subject changed to »Duplicate?« (previously »Dup;ocate?«)

I think bands have favourite tune sets and might possibly use the same set for two separate recordings of the same dance. Though just reusing an older recording on a new album is obviously also possible. Its probably harmless to merge them but no great advantage either I think (unlike dances or tunes).

Hi Murrough,

Given that one of the tracks is on a Bobby MacLeod compilation (Highland Accordion Maestro) and the other is on a various artists compilation (Legendary Scottish Dance Bands Vol 1), it’s highly probable that it’s reuse of a track (if it was two albums of original recordings, then I’d argue they would be different recordings).

The advantage of merging is that when a third album shows up, you don’t have the issue of which of the recordings you connect it with (hint, there is a third album, and I’m just waiting on issue 3013 which will add it to the database so start linking up the tracks).

Cheers, and Merry Christmas,

Mark

Hi Mark, I second Murrough here. From the database editing point of view, it is kind of “unnecessary” work when it comes to recordings. To determine whether a recording is a duplicate or not, we would have to listen to them; we can’t determine it on length or tune lists. And it has no advantage to us to put work into this (clearing up or finding/confirming duplicate recording entries). If an editor creates a third entry for the third recording or reuses one of the existing two is his choice and for sure based on the basic data he has (e.g. if I have no information on playing time, exact tunes at the time of creation - then I create a new entry, to be safe).
I tend to ignore requests for “recordings consolidation” and concentrate on tune, dance, person duplicates - that’s the “bigger bugger”.

Assigned changed to »tone2tone« (previously »None«)
Disposition changed to »Ignored« (previously »New«)