Are we allowed to move BAOI fields now?

Hi all, quick query...

It's always been my understanding that moving BAOI and LCCN around once in place is regarded as preference-editing and is very much frowned upon. Has this now changed and has a decision been made somewhere that Rights Society, Label Code and Price Code can now be moved above matrix information with the blessing of the staff?

Related release --> Portishead - Dummy

Pheenixx
It's always been my understanding that moving BAOI and LCCN around once in place is regarded as preference-editing and is very much frowned upon. Has this now changed and has a decision been made somewhere that Rights Society, Label Code and Price Code can now be moved above matrix information with the blessing of the staff?

No, it has not. A few s are taking an old forum discussion to justify preference edits and making them with neither consensus nor staff/management approval. AFAICT if that is the only edit the advice from Diognes_The_Fox to vote Entirely Incorrect still applies.

Paging mushy77 who made the last edit on the linked release.

When editing if I am adding additional info, either you have to move the new variant over the barcode/etc to lump it with the rest of the matrix variants or you can move that info up to the top where people won't have to move around it anyways.

Unless you just add the matrix variant to the bottom and have it separated from the rest of the variants (which doesn't look right, imo), you have to move things around anyways, so why not put the static information at the top of the list where it's out of the way and less likely to be accidentally removed or manipulated by future editors who have to work around it.

I don't think edits should be done for the express purpose of moving baoi info around, though. If you are editing the release and adding additional info and need to make rearrangements to apply that information correctly anyways, I don't see it as being a harmful update.

Fauni-Gena
only edit the advice from Diognes_The_Fox to vote Entirely Incorrect still applies.

Would not apply in this case, additional valid edits were performed.

I believe a lot of the reasoning behind not moving BaOI info around dated to the old days of the subform when that process involved copying and pasting data, which obviously leads to a lot of data issues.

As the BaOI order can be adjusted by moving the fields around without touching the data inside, that problem is largely negated and puts it more in the realm of image order disputes.

Diognes_The_Fox
Would not apply in this case, additional valid edits were performed.

If additional edits were not performed would it still apply? I see lots of these edits lately where absolutely nothing else is done except for rearranging baoi or credits, which are strictly preference edits AFAICT.

Fauni-Gena
If additional edits were not performed would it still apply? I see lots of these edits lately where absolutely nothing else is done except for rearranging baoi or credits, which are strictly preference edits AFAICT.

Diognes_The_Fox
I don't think edits should be done for the express purpose of moving baoi info around, though.

Yeah, EI those, unless it's like honestly a mess and they're legitimately fixing it. Use your judgement when you see it.

Diognes_The_Fox
Yeah, EI those, unless it's like honestly a mess and they're legitimately fixing it. Use your judgement when you see it.

Thank you. I am not quick to give EI votes. Of course, if someone is doing it chronically and/or is obnoxious about it that's a different matter.

When is it acceptable to edit in order to move BAOI, LCCN or notes?
https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/717588

In the above forum thread from a couple of years ago the consensus was that it's okay to perform "common sense" edits in some instances as on some devices the BAOI move function does not work therefore the move will have to be made afterwards in a separate edit.

For example if the "Barcode (Text)" is at the top and the "Barcode (Scanned)" has been added at the bottom below all the matrix information it's fine to edit and move:

Barcode (Text): 5 021620 921563
Rights Society: MS
Matrix / Runout (CD1): 94872
Mastering SID Code (CD1): none
Mould SID Code (CD1): IFPI 7308
Matrix / Runout (CD2): 94873 REACT200
Mastering SID Code (CD2): IFPI LJ81
Mould SID Code (CD2): none
Barcode (Scanned): 5021620921563 <--- why would anyone want to keep this here?

Electro-Magnetic
For example if the "Barcode (Text)" is at the top and the "Barcode (Scanned)" has been added at the bottom below all the matrix information it's fine to edit and move:

Yeah, stuff like that is more in the realm of okay edits.

Electro-Magnetic
Barcode (Scanned): 5021620921563 <--- why would anyone want to keep this here?

Because either the contributor was new and didn't know you could move it or the contributor didn't feel they were able to change the BaOI to add it where it should be. That or laziness.

In the best way to list CD variants thread. Brent has said it's acceptable to move some BAOI if for example it means the next has to add their variant and then move it up if there's other data in the way.

Diognes_The_Fox
Because either the contributor was new and didn't know you could move it or the contributor didn't feel they were able to change the BaOI to add it where it should be. That or laziness.

There is one more reason. On my iPad the ability to pick up and move the BAoI around is lacking (Safari). Pictures can be moved up and down for instance, but BAoI cannot. I assume this is more poor coding. My Out of date PC running uned OS and browser will happily move it though.

Pheenixx
moving BAOI

most shuffles are caused because the old dropdown was

Barcode
Mastering SID Code
Mould SID Code
Matrix/Runout
ASIN
Rights Society
Label Code
Other

then discogs implemented new options and changed the order to

Barcode
Label Code
Matrix/Runout
Mastering SID Code
Mould SID Code
Pressing Plant ID
Distribution Code
Price Code
Deposito Legal
ASIN
ISRC
Rights Society
Other

now you have s who follow the dropdown ... what do they? shuffle...

the solutions are all proposed but stuck:

one that looks like easy to execute is a gap between static and variants:
https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/392356?utm_campaign=thread-notify&utm_medium=pm&page=14&utm_source=relationship#7830686

Diognes_The_Fox
static BaOI items on top (barcode, price code, and other non-varying info) so that variants can be added without needing to move those entries

https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/777314#7740372

same at LCCN:
https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/767518?page=1#7700551

Diognes_The_Fox
That or laziness.

Or maybe they were working from a tablet where you cannot move the fields around :-)

LolH
Or maybe they were working from a tablet where you cannot move the fields around :-)

Yes, it's really annoying I can't move anything.

LolH
Or maybe they were working from a tablet where you cannot move the fields around :-)

I keep forgetting about this until I try and do some in-the-field update from my phone. I'll poke around and see if anything can be done here.

Good idea.
Sometimes I forget and have to go and finish the job on my PC

ziggiole
Sometimes I forget and have to go and finish the job on my PC

I do this, too. Some people forget, don't have another PC or laptop, or just can't be bothered. This is why the static BaOI data should be moved above the runout variants, so this constant moving isn't even necessary.

I won't do any editing on my phone. Period. If I'm not near my desk for some reason it'll just have to wait.

Also on phone the submissions layout is the desktop version, dashboard mobile version, anything else forget it

leeving
This is why the static BaOI data should be moved above the runout variants, so this constant moving isn't even necessary.

This should be enshrined in the RSG!

hafler3o
This should be enshrined in the RSG!

I would be ok with this. Something like -

"The that adds the second Variant to the BaOI also needs to add Variant 1 to the first set of runouts and also move all static BaOI data above Variant 1."

Maybe this would help editors add "Variant 1" to the original runout, too.

leeving
"The that adds the second Variant to the BaOI also needs to add Variant 1 to the first set of runouts and also move all static BaOI data above Variant 1."

I am and I will always be against this absolute nonsense that would put irrelevant identifiers in a privileged position, above the most relevant ones.
People who are unable to add a variant immediately below the existing one(s) should not edit.

vinyljunkie66
People who are unable to add a variant immediately below the existing one(s) should not edit.

Why exclude people that can't? Why is it that big of an issue that the static BaOI is above the runouts? I am actually curious why you have an aversion to this data being above the runout data.

And why are the Barcode/Rights Society/Other etc. "irrelevant"?

leeving
Why exclude people that can't?

Everybody can. It's not so difficult.
Do you really believe that people who are unable to add a variant immediately below the existing one(s) are instead able to recognize if their variant actually belongs to that specific releases? My experience here says they're not: at least half of the supposed variants added by lazy and/or inexperienced s are bogus and don't belong.

leeving
Why is it that big of an issue that the static BaOI is above the runouts?

I could say: why is that big of an issue to leave the order of the data as found and respect the order introduced by the (s) who spent their precious time to add those data? What's relevant for me can be irrelevant for you and vice versa. I believe the runouts are by far the most important identifiers on a vinyl release, you probably believe otherwise but this must not be a problem.
This specific matter, among other things, was extensively discussed in the endless https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/392356 thread, where I was just one of the many who were against the idea of a dictated order in BaOI.
What's the point in putting this under discussion again and again and trying to force the issue in order to trigger a global and unnecessary mass preference edit that would also cause a lot of discontent in many s?
Just let's leave the order of the data as found (unless nonsensical, of course), in respect of the s who added them, and rather let's educate new s to learn and understand how to add new data properly.

vinyljunkie66
What's the point in putting this under discussion again and again and trying to force the issue in order to trigger a global and unnecessary mass preference edit that would also cause a lot of discontent in many s?
Just let's leave the order of the data as found (unless nonsensical, of course), in respect of the s who added them, and rather let's educate new s to learn and understand how to add new data properly.

Very well said.

vinyljunkie66
Everybody can. It's not so difficult.

No...everybody can't. Some people only have mobile devices that can't move the BaOI fields around. Why make subs that NEED to be fixed when they can add their variant to the bottom where the field appears for them. In your senario, their variant entries could be under all the static BaOI and would require someone else to fix it.

vinyljunkie66
trigger a global and unnecessary mass preference edit

Did the new Stereo guideline change trigger anything?? I didn't see any mass preference edits over that. This would be the same. Only move the static data up if you are making other edits.

vinyljunkie66
I believe the runouts are by far the most important identifiers on a vinyl release

I do to, but I place no importance in the order of the data, only the ease of entering the data. Not having to move variants around is just easier for me and everyone. It also lessens the chance of having to fix something after the fact.

vinyljunkie66
People who are unable to add a variant immediately below the existing one(s) should not edit.

hafler3o
On my iPad the ability to pick up and move the BAoI around is lacking

I don't agree that you shouldn't edit because of technical issues.

I also don't agree that if one doesn't bother moving fields around, should not edit. One should not edit if one isn't able to add correct data. Even if the way it is added is a mess, as long as it is added in a way someone else can clean up the mess, the edit is a step forward.

For this reason I agree with

Diognes_The_Fox
I believe a lot of the reasoning behind not moving BaOI info around dated to the old days of the subform when that process involved copying and pasting data, which obviously leads to a lot of data issues.

As the BaOI order can be adjusted by moving the fields around without touching the data inside, that problem is largely negated and puts it more in the realm of image order disputes.

The fields shouldn't be juggled around for no obvious reason, but a random looking field order can be sorted as a side edit.

I think no particular prescribed order is needed, but for runouts & CD moulds, I cannot think of any case where placing them last is not the best place for them: It is practical for adding variants & if you take a release I tend to first see the sleeve -> then the optional insert/booklet -> then the disc labels -> and last the runouts.

---
As as side note: a larger baoi problem than order switching on the moment, are the numerous sloppy draft copies which keep the baoi fields unchanged, including runouts.
I wonder, should the baoi be copied (by default) when a different version is added from a draft copy?

vinyljunkie66
the runouts are by far the most important identifiers on a vinyl release,

The last place in a list is second to the first place in importance.
Mid places get the least attention.

I think the last place is perfect for important information.

Dr.SultanAszazin
I wonder, should the baoi be copied (by default) when a different version is added from a draft copy?

This would be something that I would like to see. The basic sub data gets copied, but not any of the BaOI.

Dr.SultanAszazin
The fields shouldn't be juggled around for no obvious reason, but a random looking field order can be sorted as a side edit.

Agreed. We haven't really assessed if there's any current actual preferred / best sorting order for BaOI stuff, so if it looks like there's an identifiable system on the submission as it stands, try and follow it. If not, use the one that makes the most sense for the case at hand. That is the best advice I can really give on it at the moment.

leeving
Some people only have mobile devices that can't move the BaOI fields around. Why make subs that NEED to be fixed when they can add their variant to the bottom where the field appears for them.

They should use a computer. :D
Jokes aside, 9 times out of 10 (underestimation) a submission where variant runouts have been added NEEDS to be fixed the same: unfortunately, incorrect descriptions and incomplete/inaccurate data are the norm here – not to mention all the cases where supposed variants are simply bogus.
So, if someone is unable to add their variant runouts/matrices in their proper place but only at the bottom, it's not a tragedy but just one more reason to check the edit carefully before moving the new data, as usually there are other errors to fix.

leeving
Did the new Stereo guideline change trigger anything??

The (not-so-)subtle difference is in the word 'preference'.
To add the stereo tag is not a preference edit: you edit a release and, as a part of your edit, you add the stereo tag.
To change the order of the data is a preference edit: you edit a release and, as a part of your edit, you change the existing order of the data to someone's preference, in disrespect of the (s) who bothered to add them in the first place.

Dr.SultanAszazin
I think the last place is perfect for important information.

I beg to differ but, again, it's obvious we can have different point of views and that should never be a problem. To force a dictated order would surely cause problems, or at least a lot of discontent, instead. Rather:

Dr.SultanAszazin
I wonder, should the baoi be copied (by default) when a different version is added from a draft copy?

This has been suggested several times in the past and, yes, I agree that the copy-to-draft function, at least the one from the master page, should be changed drastically.
I an excellent proposal about this, sorry I don't remind who made it, but it was:
a) the 'add a release' button from the master page should create a basic draft (tracklist only) and not a carbon-copy of the key release;
b) the 'copy to draft' button from a specific release history should create a carbon copy of the draft issue.
But that's another story.

Diognes_The_Fox
if it looks like there's an identifiable system on the submission as it stands, try and follow it. If not, use the one that makes the most sense for the case at hand.

If your advice means that
a) in presence of a total mess, data should be ordered as the editor sees fit;
b) in presence of properly organized data, the existing order (and descriptions) should not be touched and new data should be added in conformity with the existing ones,
I'm perfectly fine with this.

Dr.SultanAszazin
hafler3o:
On my iPad the ability to pick up and move the BAoI around is lacking

I don't agree that you shouldn't edit because of technical issues

But I never said that I'm not going to edit so why disagree with a statement I never made about 'not editing because I can't move BAOI'? Or have you pasted the wrong person's comment in there?

hafler3o
But I never said that I'm not going to edit so why disagree with a statement I never made about 'not editing because I can't move BAOI'? Or have you pasted the wrong person's comment in there?

Oh, excuse me, my presentation wasn't very effective. My disagreement was meant for the quote from vinyljunkie placed above it, with your case as an example why I think one should not hold from editing when not being able to move fields.

Dr.SultanAszazin
Oh, excuse me, my presentation wasn't very effective

OK, no probs. I it it can make me think twice about editing when the BAOI is a dog's dinner though.