Issue Details (XML | Word | Printable)

Key: MBS-1755
Type: Improvement Improvement
Status: Closed Closed
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: Normal Normal
Assignee: Michael Wiencek
Reporter: Nicolás Tamargo
Votes: 20
Watchers: 9

If you were logged in you would be able to see more operations.
MusicBrainz Server

Easier work AR adding / automagically create works

Created: 18/Apr/11 07:55 PM   Updated: 17/Oct/12 12:24 AM   Resolved: 16/Oct/12 09:37 PM
Component/s: Edit system
Affects Version/s: NGS - Release Candidate 2
Fix Version/s: Schema change, 2012-10-15

Issue Links:

 Description  « Hide

It would be really helpful if it was possible to add relationships to works from the Relate to Recordings screen (which might need a renaming, of course). Currently, there's no easy way of doing that (while those relationships are fairly easily added to Mason).

Of course, for that to work seamlessly, new works should be added under the hood for recordings that lack them.

Sort Order: Ascending order - Click to sort in descending order
Ross Collins added a comment - 18/Jun/11 08:58 PM

Creating new works is so tedious now. Under Mason you could apply the composer relationship to all tracks on a release in a single edit. Now if I have a release of 20 tracks without a composer relationship (and without an existing work entry in the database) I have to manually create 20 works, then manually associate each of these works to the composer, then manually associate each of these works to the recordings. That's 60 manual edits, each of which is quite fiddly to set up the necessary relationship. This is crazy - I must be missing something...

I've just seen the new "Relate to works" option in - the perfect solution! Please roll this one out quickly...

Ian McEwen added a comment - 19/Jul/11 07:36 PM

Linked some semi-related issues, not sure if these will fall into the same place.

Ger added a comment - 08/Aug/11 02:10 AM

@Ross, Yes I've put myself through this torture, and (see works related to "Annett Louisan") fully agree. I really miss the old system in this respect.

Something like AWB for Mediawiki would be great for these kinds of edits, but unlike Mediawiki, I don't think the Musicbrainz platform has enough support for such development so some kind of server change is the best we can hope for.

My ideal way would be to lock a particular relationship edit: i.e. (in my own case) you select "Frank Ramond" and "composed" without selecting the target work and then there is an option where "Create relationship..." would be to create this specific relationship (and if you have selected a recording a warning that it will automatically create a work for this relationship) and this would remain until you click something like "Abandon repeated edit"

Something like on the page,
"Use in a relationship
Use in a repeated relationship
Relate to ..."

nikki added a comment - 08/Aug/11 10:09 AM

Isn't this the same thing as MBS-1837? I'd recommend looking at that ticket anyway, since the stuff on the test server hasn't been released because we don't know how to include looking up existing works.

Ger: I'd probably just make the "Use in a relationship" link stay selected until cancelled (since we can use the "relate to..." box to add a single relationship). It's not quite the same since it wouldn't remember the relationship type too, but I think we should avoid adding too many workflows (we already have three!)

Ross Collins added a comment - 08/Aug/11 11:13 AM

I guess this ticket deals with the specific case that the test server can do fine right now... shame that the more difficult case of dealing with existing works is blocking progress on this ticket.

Oliver Charles added a comment - 08/Aug/11 11:14 AM - edited

@Ross, I will bring it up today that maybe we can just ship with it how it is then, though we've not done that because we fear it might lead to a load of duplication

Ross Collins added a comment - 08/Aug/11 11:35 AM

Well, duplicates can always be merged. Depends what's more important - an easier way to get a release worth of new works quickly added to the database - or fewer duplicates. Given that the NGS transition has lead to lots of duplicates that had to be manually merged anyway, it would be strange to now decide that duplicates must be absolutely avoided.

Oliver Charles added a comment - 08/Aug/11 11:51 AM

Duplicates can be merged, but it puts more work on our editors, increases the potential amount of noise in the system, and relies on the fact that duplicates can be identified. We should accept that duplicates can happen, but we really should be striving to avoid them when we can. I don't see why the introduction of a new feature shouldn't hold out for that goal

Ross Collins added a comment - 08/Aug/11 01:37 PM

To reduce carelessness and naivety in user edits it would help to have the new feature make it clear, in the first instance prior to feature completion, that it is only for adding new works and that users should first check that such works don't first exist in the database.

Regarding unidentifiable duplicates - how are they ever avoidable or can even be minimised? Surely the only thing holding back this new feature from acceptance is the simple case of obvious duplicates that users would notice in a search box and thus are also easily fixed? I personally wouldn't mind having to vote down or merge a bunch of duplicate works when they appear in my artist subscription e-mails if it meant that creating a release worth of new works was much more easier than the current ordeal (see my first comment).

I also don't consider this to be a new feature as such, more of a loss of an existing feature under Mason that needs to be reimplemented for the NGS. Lots of new ways of doing things in the NGS have resulted in more duplicates appearing (even with "add medium"!) and hasn't held back other features from transitioning from Mason to the NGS before they were fully "mature"...

Oliver Charles added a comment - 01/Oct/12 01:30 PM

As the relationship editor has been reverted, I'm reopening this and pushing it to the next release.

Ian McEwen added a comment - 16/Oct/12 09:37 PM

Re-adding to schema change, this wasn't correctly set back to in beta testing.

Ross Collins added a comment - 16/Oct/12 10:04 PM

If this is indeed fixed then how do I do it? I had a look both on the main site and the beta site, and it wasn't clear to me how this is now implemented.

Nicolás Tamargo added a comment - 16/Oct/12 10:05 PM

"Edit Relationships" on the release sidebar. A how-to for it coming (hopefully) tomorrow.

Ross Collins added a comment - 16/Oct/12 10:16 PM

Thanks (thought I'd tried that before but didn't get that screen, perhaps the server is still a bit flakey). Wow, that's way more complicated than the earlier "Relate to works" option in Definitely would benefit from some documentation / a tutorial!

nikki added a comment - 17/Oct/12 12:06 AM

If there's anything in particular you think isn't very clear/obvious/intuitive, it would be nice to know.

Dimitris P added a comment - 17/Oct/12 12:23 AM - edited

I really like it! It makes adding ARs so much faster! Thanks a lot to the coders for this.
Some thoughts:
a) The edit relationships link should become more prominent on the page since it's perhaps the most useful tool for editors. Right now it's kind of buried but I'm guessing this is also somewhat intentional until people get the hang of it and any possible bugs get fixed.
b) It should be easier to check which works already exist instead of having to click on each one separately to search.
c) While adding an AR it should be possible to click on the artist you pick after searching so you can check you got the right one (like it is with labels when adding a release for example).

That's it for now, I'll post again if anything more pops up. Thanks again for the great work!