Hire someone to clean up incorrect scrobbles across the site (I'll do it for free)

  • 16
  • Idea
  • Updated 2 years ago
I've already mentioned before on her about last.fm's huge problem regarding incorrect artists/albums/tracks. 

If you click on pretty much any artist - you're likely to see a long list of incorrect track names, full of 'radio edits', 'feat.'s, '(2006 remaster)' and the like. It's really messy and makes the whole point of last.fm charts pointless. Same goes for incorrect artist tags/redirects, and albums '(remastered)' or '(deluxe)' etc. If you're anal like me, it's a huge bug bear and ruins the whole fun of using this glorious website.

Now, it's probably too big a task for one last.fm employee to go through every single incorrect scrobble. In a perfect world, last.fm would introduce a feature that allowed us users to edit any incorrect scrobble whenever we came across them. But, we all know that there's always going to be some people who'll manipulate that system for whatever reason.

Is there ANY chance that last.fm could introduce such a feature that would allow certain 'trustworthy' users - ie users like me who have been around for 10+ years - to have the ability to edit incorrect scrobbles? And when I say edit, I mean that whenever someone scrobbles that incorrect song/artist, it would redirect to the correct version.

Perhaps it could be seen what each user with this ability has edited, and so if there are ever too many inconsistencies then they would lost that privilege. Or that user's recommendation for a change would appear in that artist/track/album's page - and it would require at least 10 or so other users to agree to the change. Something like that.

I'm sure last.fm would agree with me that they would like this site to be as accurate as possible, and I feel like a wiki-style system of users having 'powers' rather than just the last.fm team is the only feasible way of getting this problem sorted once and for all.

Cheers!
Photo of Tom Eames

Tom Eames

  • 67 Posts
  • 47 Reply Likes

Posted 2 years ago

  • 16
Photo of James Joul

James Joul

  • 983 Posts
  • 2017 Reply Likes
This is certainly a rather large problem at the moment. The database is grabbing every release it can find and each source uses different rules for tagging. Ideally, the catalogue should be able to do most of the heavy lifting and automatically filter out and fix incorrect tags. But even if this becomes a reality, it won't be perfect. There will always be incorrect tags. So I agree that it would be beneficial to give certain users access to tools that would allow us to manually fix things and I'd love to help out. 

We would also need to agree on which tags are actually "incorrect". I'm generally in favour of tags such as "Remastered", "Acoustic", "Radio Edit", "Deluxe Edition" etc. These are not the same as the original version, and in my eyes, should not be tagged as such. 
(Edited)
Photo of Tom Eames

Tom Eames

  • 67 Posts
  • 47 Reply Likes
Yeah, there would need to be a set of ground rules. I totally agree that 'acoustic version' or 'remix' should be two different tracks, but I disagree about 'remastered version's - as they are essentially the exact same song but on a different album. I would base the rules on how the actual charts work - they wouldn't include 'Come Together' and 'Come Together (2009 Remaster)' as two different entries, they'd combine them. If a band re-records a song from scratch then it's a brand new song, and I'd just about allow 'radio edit', as technically it's a different version. But 'remaster' - nope. A huge bug bear!
Photo of Quibbler

Quibbler

  • 123 Posts
  • 55 Reply Likes
A remastered tune is a NEW song construct so there has to be separate tag. I also volunteer for helping out a little bit.
Photo of SillyMusicLover

SillyMusicLover

  • 167 Posts
  • 500 Reply Likes
Wrong. Remastering is process of creating new master recording from original source tapes or files or whatever. It's the same recording. You guys can't tell remastering from remixing and from rerecording. That's why I'm strictly against this kind of volunteerism.
Photo of Quibbler

Quibbler

  • 123 Posts
  • 55 Reply Likes
WRONG! May I have an other opinion ? Thank you, too gracious.
Photo of SillyMusicLover

SillyMusicLover

  • 167 Posts
  • 500 Reply Likes
No problem. You may have whatever opinion you want until you're hired to edit the lastfm database. I hope that it won't happen.
Photo of Tom Stephen

Tom Stephen

  • 447 Posts
  • 619 Reply Likes
Remastering is mainly creating song basing on original source, but sometimes it's connected with remaking it, with some drastic changes. Example? Clan of Xymox's "A Day" - version on LP and "The Best Of" are totally different.

But even when I think 'remastered' should be merged, because in most cases there's the same song recorded in better quality (and there are maaaaaaany remasters), I think the next "exception" should be: 'live'. I think it's very different from original, so should stay also non-corrected.
Photo of SillyMusicLover

SillyMusicLover

  • 167 Posts
  • 500 Reply Likes
Example? Clan of Xymox's "A Day" - version on LP and "The Best Of" are totally different.

It is not a remaster, it is not even a remix. It's a new recording
Photo of Kullat Nunu

Kullat Nunu

  • 2 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
But if it's a live or an acoustic version then it would be seen in the album from which that live/acoustic version comes. Songs have only one name.
If you click on, say, The Who's My Generation track from someone's library you will see how many scrobbles are from the studio album version and how many from the "Live at Leeds" album. If the second has more scrobbles then that album cover is the one you will see on that user's "My Generation".

Remember we are only talking about easy-tagging pop music, classical music is another -mess- deal...
Photo of Patrick

Patrick

  • 1244 Posts
  • 757 Reply Likes
Because in most cases there's the same song recorded in better quality.

I don't think so. It all depends on the house label that recorded their records; thanks to remastering procedure, plenty of albums house labels destroyed. Many albums whenever they recorded them from gramophone records or cassettes sound plastic and sterile.

Take for example the group MEGADETH; all the albums that house label recorded and digitalized sound sterile, plastic, and loud. The reason is that the digital input creates extreme compression that crumples the sound. That is why many albums sound too loud and noisy. Google the loudness war; it will explain you everything.

Photo of Patrick

Patrick

  • 1244 Posts
  • 757 Reply Likes
Because in most cases there's the same song recorded in better quality.

I don't think so. It all depends on the house label that recorded their records; thanks to remastering procedure, plenty of albums house labels destroyed. Many albums whenever they recorded them from gramophone records or cassettes sound plastic and sterile.

Take for example the group MEGADETH; all the albums that house label recorded and digitalized sound sterile, plastic, and loud. The reason is that the digital input creates extreme compression that crumples the sound. That is why many albums sound too loud and noisy. Google the loudness war; it will explain you everything.

Photo of Patrick

Patrick

  • 1244 Posts
  • 757 Reply Likes
[EDIT]: Duplicate post, again. I cannot wait to last.FM engineers return the old last.FM forum back.
Photo of He's dead, Jim!

He's dead, Jim!

  • 1595 Posts
  • 405 Reply Likes
What we have for now is the vote buttons, Correct yes/no. It looks like there is code lurking under there for suggesting corrections.
Photo of Tom Eames

Tom Eames

  • 67 Posts
  • 47 Reply Likes
Yeah, when I first saw those buttons it gave me hope, but they've been there now for like a year and nothing has changed (from what I can see).
Photo of Tom Eames

Tom Eames

  • 67 Posts
  • 47 Reply Likes
In a perfect world - there'd be two different versions of last.fm - one that has the data that everyone uses, complete with incorrect scrobbles - and another version that only you as a user can see. So then, weird nerds like me would be able to edit to their heart's content without it affecting the main site.
Photo of george dedas

george dedas

  • 120 Posts
  • 142 Reply Likes
yes, absolutely....this is a wonderful suggestion...vote up!
Photo of Patrick

Patrick

  • 1248 Posts
  • 760 Reply Likes
Plenty of tags are wrong; most of them have a hyphen, instead of parenthesis, while some of them have a parenthesis, instead of a hyphen. Not to mention that there are several records having the same number of tracks, added title is the only difference, while the running time is the same. Ridiculous, that is all I can say.
(Edited)
Photo of Quibbler

Quibbler

  • 123 Posts
  • 55 Reply Likes
Parenthesis, square brackets, whitespace... all these instances are providing the actual circumstances...
(Edited)
Photo of G.G.B.

G.G.B.

  • 416 Posts
  • 273 Reply Likes
If I remember correctly, there once was a function to input a suggestion for a title correction which showed up after clicking on "Not a correct title", but it disappeared after a short time. 

MusicBrainz uses a pretty well thought out style guideline. Maybe Last.fm can hire a service to fix titles using these rules.
(Edited)
Photo of Patrick

Patrick

  • 1224 Posts
  • 726 Reply Likes
If I remember correctly, there once was a function to input a suggestion for a title correction which showed up after clicking on "Not a correct title", but it disappeared after a short time. 
When LFM site had that? Before BETA or after BETA?
Photo of Tom Eames

Tom Eames

  • 67 Posts
  • 47 Reply Likes
And then you get instances when artists are wrong because of Spotify. For instance, Angus & Julia Stone are separated on Spotify for some stupid reason, so all their tracks will be scrobbled by 'Angus', who is a totally different artist altogether.

Or there are tracks that are a duet, like Lindsey Buckingham & Christine McVie, but because Lindsey comes first on Spotify, it's scrobbled just under his name.
Photo of Quibbler

Quibbler

  • 123 Posts
  • 55 Reply Likes
There are also problems when a band is called "Mike & The Mechanics" and there is only a "Mike + The Mechanics" page (just an example).
(Edited)
Photo of Tom Eames

Tom Eames

  • 67 Posts
  • 47 Reply Likes
Any official update on this yet? 3 months since my last moan.
Photo of Jon

Jon, Community & Customer Services

  • 4705 Posts
  • 3510 Reply Likes
Actually, we have two new hires starting next month.  :)

In all seriousness though, we're fully aware of the issues with the catalogue and corrections on the site -- it's by far the most visible and frequently reported problem.  I can assure you that it is being worked on and we are making progress.

However, as I've said elsewhere, scrobble corrections haven't been implemented on the site yet. That means we can't add new corrections or remove old invalid corrections on the site.  The corrections you see on the website today are the old mappings imported from the old site -- this is a static dataset that can't be edited.  At the time, this was deemed a reasonable temporary solution for the most obvious corrections (e.g. Beatles -> The Beatles) while we built corrections on the new catalogue.  Unfortunately that work is taking much longer than originally anticipated, and that means that in the interim, new incorrect spellings from sites like Spotify are quite prominent and can't be fixed.  Likewise, you have old mappings that are no longer relevant (Kesha -> Ke$ha), and stuff that we're not even sure how it got remapped in the first place (Noah Cyrus -> Miley Cyrus).

It's also compounded by the catalogue clustering service, which imports new releases and tracklists from major trusted sources, and appears to weight too heavily things like "explicit" versions or "deluxe" editions.  Again, it should be a fairly straightforward fix, but right now there's no manual override -- at the moment, I can't say "that one's wrong, use musicbrainz for this one".  

So, it's not so much that we need more people to manually clean up data, or a community effort, or a new musicbrainz-style system to solicit this data from users (which is a reasonable suggestion). This issue we have right now is that we can't add new correction mappings or remove existing ones. It's entirely fixable, but time consuming work, because the underline systems in the back end are ...complicated.  In fact, the majority of issues people are encountering on the site to do with corrections and their libraries (artists appearing twice; 'corrections off' setting only applied in limited places; things that can't be deleted / unloved, not being able to sort your library by a-z, etc), are all interconnected and caused by a handful of key services, which we're in the process of upgrading and migrating to cloud based systems.

Addressing that is going to be the development team's main focus for coming months (hence the lack of user facing site updates recently), and once complete, we should finally be able to (quickly) address the long standing corrections / library issues that people have been reporting.  When that happens, that's when we'll evaluate the best way to solicit corrections data -- it might actually possible that you'll be able to edit your library  data yourself (rather than voting for a correction), I know that's something that we're looking into at least. 
Photo of colored lights

colored lights

  • 14 Posts
  • 21 Reply Likes
Thanks Jon for the good info.  Godspeed!  
Photo of jjs6791@gmail.com

jjs6791@gmail.com

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thank you for the information
Photo of cptchi

cptchi

  • 140 Posts
  • 201 Reply Likes
Either they let users suggest song corrections like we could suggest artist corrections in the past or not. Don't give them the pleasure of making you work on something alone and for free for something they should've had prepared since the redesign.
(Edited)
Photo of Red Hood

Red Hood

  • 3 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
I wish they'd just disable auto-correct across the site until they have the database working as it should be. In the mean time, my charts had gotten so ruined because of the forced auto-corrects, I had to start a completely new profile. It's bogus how even when it's turned off, auto-correct still takes effect in your library.

I always fix my tags by cross-referencing Musicbrainz, Discogs & iTunes with each other before I scrobble, so I always scrobble the correct tag. I don't need Last.fm auto-correcting my scrobbles incorrectly. Does that not defeat the entire purpose of auto-correct?
Photo of Simon Bäck

Simon Bäck

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
I also know a lot of wrong spelled artists, albums and tracks. Would be nice to see some steps forward in this issue.
This have been up for several years but nothing seems to happen sadly.
Photo of clavier12AZQSWX

clavier12AZQSWX

  • 42 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
i will do it for free too.
but we need serious people to have this such kind of responsabilities.

So only "premium" users shoud have this "power" like :
- profil with many years of registering
- profil with many contributions (many fixes title or votes, many upload cover)

The danger is having a guy in his bad day (like broken heart of drunk) who will erase/compromise the data in revenge on his sadness....

Since the beta version of lastfm, many user got angry and deleted things (like covers) or their accounts.

sometime i saw some really bad covert art, and sometimes i see 50 times the same cover ! so we could "sort/delete" that items and also make the website lighter.
Photo of Patrick

Patrick

  • 1248 Posts
  • 760 Reply Likes
Wouldn't it be much easier to LFM Moderators build a personal catalog? The problem at LFM is that he catches everything that people listen to across the Internet. This situation forces people to change the tags to avoid having default icons in their library. You will notice something like this at the groups like Accept and TESTAMENT. Either they will start listening to tracks that have parentheses, brackets or hyphens. I would name this "catalog trolling" because it's a tremendous stress when you see something like this. There has to be a way to obstruct this because this is getting out of control. But that's just my two cents.
(Edited)
Photo of clavier12AZQSWX

clavier12AZQSWX

  • 42 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
the solution is easy :
lfm should make visible the counter of "right/wrong" and decide a level to fix the true.
when i vote for a right or a wrong name, i don't know how many people did the same, i don't know how it is useful or useless....
when a "number" is reached between right and good (ie : 100 vote of difference), the fix would be auto-applied.
i don't think there will be 100 trollers or fake-scrobler to imposer their "wrong" name, but i think there will hundreds honorable scrobblers to fix the true just by voting.

My idea is good for title name, album name and album art.

Photo of precisionxt

precisionxt

  • 7 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
The only problem I see with this are many albums/artists are so obscure that they’ll never reach 100 votes for corrections. I know the number could be lower, just my 2cents.
Photo of Jan

Jan

  • 326 Posts
  • 346 Reply Likes
Agreed, perhaps make the number of votes required proportional to the amount of listeners of the artist but with an upper limit for those artists with a massive amount of listeners.
Photo of Elliot Robinson

Elliot Robinson

  • 883 Posts
  • 2146 Reply Likes
My thoughts exactly, presicionxt. Jan is right that a proportional vote would be needed for lesser listened-to artists - furthermore, this formula would absolutely need to be applied to the image library votes, too.

Voting is the obvious solution but, speaking from my own experience of how ineffective Last FM votes generally appear to be, I fear it's a function that only appears to be constructive.