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
  • 2014 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 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

  • 1224 Posts
  • 726 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

  • 1224 Posts
  • 726 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

  • 1224 Posts
  • 726 Reply Likes
[EDIT]: Duplicate post, again. I cannot wait to last.FM engineers return the old last.FM forum back.
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

  • 1224 Posts
  • 726 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)