Why do s still vote negatively rather than fix themselves?

I was assisting to clean up a mixed up artist page, and I was focused on that task, so I didn't notice the earlier comment about the supposed release date error. Of course if I notice other errors I fix them too (as my pending submissions demonstrate).

I received a negative vote only 1 hour after I made an edit: https://www.discogs.sie.com/release/1535272-Fritz-The-Cat-Original-Soundtrack-Recording/history#latest

I'm getting more and more frustrated by voting behaviour like this and I don't understand it. If s believe something is wrong why do they vote negatively rather than make the edit themselves?

The berothbr who negatively voted on my edit appears to be an experienced and accomplished with a voting average of 4.10. Why would they be so afraid to edit it?

Questions:

1. As I edited the release 1 hour earlier and was active why didn't the just leave a comment?

2. The first noticed the supposed error 1 year ago so why did they not fix it back then instead of leaving it on the release for 1 year?

If you see errors please fix them rather than wait for others to fix them!

There can be many different resons why someone casts a vote instead of fixing the release.

The same can be asked of you, why start a tread about it instead of just fixing the release?

You take over responsibility for the whole release when fixing an error. This may be problematic when you do not own the release. Other errors may remain, and you often cannot check and correct them. You even may receive a negative vote although you have done something to improve data quality. Happened to me more than once. So

Input
If you see errors please fix them rather than wait for others to fix them!

is not a good suggestion.

Input
I'm getting more and more frustrated by voting behaviour like this and I don't understand it.

On the release in question brianvy first identified a problem with the release year and posted a comment. 1 year ago, I then posted a comment about the incorrect release year. Thus, the issue was clearly identified repeatedly in the history.

I don’t know anything about the release and have never even heard about it other than the fact that there was a problem with the release year, which is quite obvious when reviewing the Rainbo Records discography.

Ample notice was provided in the history about the problem. The only problem here (besides for the release year) is that you neglected to glance at the history prior to pushing through an edit.

Silvermo
There can be many different resons why someone casts a vote instead of fixing the release.

The same can be asked of you, why start a tread about it instead of just fixing the release?

Wouldn't that be because those s are afraid they will get EI'ed themselves for mistakes others made, as has happened here?

Here is somebody who gets an entirely incorrect vote for fixing an unrelated error. Hardly seems fair - this was actually fixing (part of) the release. So yeah, I would bring this to the forum, too.

I'm also set on fixing a couple of errors (per this thread https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/814598), but that way I'm not really getting any more motivation...

berothbr
Ample notice was provided in the history about the problem. The only problem here (besides for the release year) is that you neglected to glance at the history prior to pushing through an edit.

How is that even a problem? So you should never correct mistakes you spot - only if you clean up everything in there, too, after carefully having read the whole history?

Input
I was assisting to clean up a mixed up artist page, and I was focused on that task, so I didn't notice the earlier comment about the supposed release date error. Of course if I notice other errors I fix them too (as my pending submissions demonstrate).

I received a negative vote only 1 hour after I made an edit: https://www.discogs.sie.com/release/1535272-Fritz-The-Cat-Original-Soundtrack-Recording/history#latest

I'm getting more and more frustrated by voting behaviour like this and I don't understand it. If s believe something is wrong why do they vote negatively rather than make the edit themselves?

The berothbr who negatively voted on my edit appears to be an experienced and accomplished with a voting average of 4.10. Why would they be so afraid to edit it?

Questions:

1. As I edited the release 1 hour earlier and was active why didn't the just leave a comment?

2. The first noticed the supposed error 1 year ago so why did they not fix it back then instead of leaving it on the release for 1 year?

If you see errors please fix them rather than wait for others to fix them!

Because a site like this will clearly attract more than its fair share of people like that. It's pretty obvious.

I'll now no doubt get a good trawl through my edits to see if fault can be found. He's done it before.

Oops I forgot to add on Fritz The Cat (Original Soundtrack Recording), I think one of the reasons I didn’t edit it is because I didn’t know whether any of credits in the tracklist (except for written-by) were valid as nine are shown in the images. Thus, I would have either had to guess that those were ok, removed info that might have been valid based on the images, etc. Posting a comment first and casting a vote 1 year later was the safest option for fixing the release year issue.

rdvriese
So you should never correct mistakes you spot - only if you clean up everything in there, too, after carefully having read the whole history?

Absolutely. It would be totally irresponsible to carry on otherwise.

rdvriese


How is that even a problem? So you should never correct mistakes you spot - only if you clean up everything in there, too, after carefully having read the whole history?

If it's not perfect, it's not good enough for some people. It's just as well that people who lack perspective rarely end up in charge of anything more important than a website. But there's a reason for that. It's not a productive way of working.

AndyEvans2
It's just as well that people who lack perspective rarely end up in charge of anything more important than a website

it’s one thing to respectfully disagree with my vote, but there’s no reason to repeatedly insult me.

rdvriese
Here is somebody who gets an entirely incorrect vote for fixing an unrelated error.

The vote cast was a needs minor changes vote. Absolutly in line with the voting guide lines as the release needed minor changes (the year was incorrect).

Edit: spelling
Edited wording as the year now has been changed/fixed

Input
If you see errors please fix them rather than wait for others to fix them!

Agree that more people should do this.

MartinR
This may be problematic when you do not own the release.

You know what's really problematic ? Errors that stay in the database longer than needed.
In this case we're not talking about something only owners can fix. Anyone can do it.

Input
I received a negative vote

There are no negative votes on Discogs.
If the vote you've received was "Needs minor Changes", then it was "3".
The last time I checked, "3" is a positive integer.

Other than that:

Silvermo
why start a tread about it instead of just fixing the release?

In other words:
Think positive! ;)

berothbr
it’s one thing to respectfully disagree with my vote, but there’s no reason to repeatedly insult me.

It wasn't intended as an insult, merely a statement of how things are.

Silvermo

The vote cast was a needs minor changes vote. Absolutly in line with the voting guide lines as the release needed minor changes (the year was incorrect).

My bad, I had interpreted "negative vote" as "incorrect". Yet, it seems a bit harsh on someone who's just trying to fix errors.

berothbr
Absolutely. It would be totally irresponsible to carry on otherwise.

I mean, I absolutely disagree with that idea. The people who are responding to the aforementioned call by andrenafulva to fix errors, I an't imagine them going though every single release history in order to fix one obvious mistake. That's just deterring people from making a meaningful contribution.

jweijde
You know what's really problematic ? Errors that stay in the database longer than needed.
In this case we're not talking about something only owners can fix. Anyone can do it.

What sort of "community" is this where doing one good thing isn't enough but instead gets you censure by fundamentalists who point out you didn't do two good things?

Input
1. As I edited the release 1 hour earlier and was active why didn't the just leave a comment?

2. The first noticed the supposed error 1 year ago so why did they not fix it back then instead of leaving it on the release for 1 year?

If you see errors please fix them rather than wait for others to fix them!

If I get involved in a mass edit / cleanup I will expect a number of things to happen(in order of likelihood):
Mostly nothing. Tumbleweed.
A c vote.
A nmc vote + comment.
someone else editing directly after I update without voting (saucy!)
A very rare EI, usually unrelated, by someone inexperienced.

minor change votes will actually help you rather than no votes and the odd EI. 1 million nmcs will not get you in CIP. It's not actually a negative vote, think "glass half-full" and either fix or move on.

loukash
There are no negative votes on Discogs.

Negative. Adjective. "not desirable"

Perhaps English is not your first language so it's not a criticism.

rdvriese
My bad, I had interpreted "negative vote" as "incorrect". Yet, it seems a bit harsh on someone who's just trying to fix errors

Technically the vote is on the release and it is good that the release was marked as needs changes. But yes the discogs voting system is really broken and needs to be reworked. Now there is a risk of getting ”bad” votes if you fix one thing on a release and leave other misstakes/incorrect things.

AndyEvans2
What sort of "community" is this where doing one good thing isn't enough but instead gets you censure by fundamentalists who point out you didn't do two good things

First you accused me of being a troll, then you alleged I’m incapable of managing anything more than a website, and now you’re calling me a fundamentalist, but it’s not supposed to be an insult?

rdvriese
I mean, I absolutely disagree with that idea. The people who are responding to the aforementioned call by andrenafulva to fix errors, I an't imagine them going though every single release history in order to fix one obvious mistake. That's just deterring people from making a meaningful contribution.

On one hand, I totally understand your point and don’t think it’s necessarily wrong. However, I think it’s contributor malpractice not to review the submission history and at least address previous comments before clicking submit.

berothbr
First you accused me of being a troll, then you alleged I’m incapable of managing anything more than a website, and now you’re calling me a fundamentalist, but it’s not supposed to be an insult?

1. I didn't
2. I didn't mention you specifically and was careful not to be absolute about it. Different people of all kinds make it to positions of seniority. There's no "one size fits all"
3. Fundamentalist. "...any form of belief that mandates a strict obedience to a particular set of beliefs."
Advocating strict adherence to the guidelines, particularly to (in my view) the detriment of the data falls into that.

Input
If you see errors please fix them rather than wait for others to fix them!

When you see submissions like Flight Patterns - There Is No Montauk.
Without having the release(s), what can you do?

It may be sad, but comments and votes are the easiest way.

berothbr
However, I think it’s contributor malpractice not to review the submission history and at least address previous comments before clicking submit.

+1

caobao
When you see submissions like Solomon Sisay - Sitota or Flight Patterns - There Is No Montauk.
Without having the release(s), what can you do?

It may be sad, but comments and votes are the easiest way.

No-one says you have to fix every error you see.

AndyEvans2
1. I didn't

AndyEvans2
I'll now no doubt get a good trawl through my edits to see if fault can be found. He's done it before

What else could that possibly mean?

caobao
Without having the release(s), what can you do?

Exactly. This is specially true with releases that cannot be told apart such as poorly submitted reissues, releases with generic runout data, info carried over from a draft, etc.

berothbr
What else could that possibly mean?

OK. Not my understanding of the word 'troll'. You have done that once before when we disagreed about something here.

rdvriese
I mean, I absolutely disagree with that idea. The people who are responding to the aforementioned call by andrenafulva to fix errors, I an't imagine them going though every single release history in order to fix one obvious mistake. That's just deterring people from making a meaningful contribution.

Why have I been pinged into this spat?

andrenafulva
Why have I been pinged into this spat?

I think what happened here is someone edited a release in response to a mass edit thread you had started. I subsequently cast a vote on one of those releases due to an outstanding error. Had they not tried to help out with your mass edit, they would not have edited the release with the outstanding issues and thus received the vote.

andrenafulva

Why have I been pinged into this spat?

My apologies, I did not particularly want to ping you in this spat, it was just because I had earlier referred to your thread. (My point being that making mass corrections could potentially lead to unwanted votes). But I've already decided to leave this discussion me, so sorry for that.

Gosh, some crude logic to be found in this thread.

berothbr
I don’t know anything about the release and have never even heard about it

So in the end this is the reason why you chose not to make any edit in this release, but from others you expect taking action when the same applies to them? Just based on the "ample notice" in the history that the issue date "should be removed"? Then please all the other wrong issue dates in the entries of Rainbo Records with your votes, when browsing the list there are much more to be found. Or maybe make some comments first, because this "Posting a comment first and casting a vote 1 year later was the safest option for fixing the release year issue." might be valid again, at least from your perspective.

brigbrag
Then please all the other wrong issue dates in the entries of Rainbo Records with your votes, when browsing the list there are much more to be found. Or maybe make some comments first, because this "Posting a comment first and casting a vote 1 year later was the safest option for fixing the release year issue."

If you review the Rainbo releases, particularly those with proximate S#####s, you will find that I have indeed posted comments and, in some cases, subsequently voted on dozens (if not hundreds) of releases with dubious release dates.

- Two s made a comment in the submission history saying to remove the date because of runout information.
- Neither of those s decided to make this simple change themselves, expected others to do so instead.
- Another makes a different change, gets hit with NMiC vote because the voting system is broken.
- Emotions run high and people are lazy.

Ah yes, the Discogs voting system and related etiquette are working just fine! Nothing to see here!

Hi guys, I apologise for over-reacting by starting this thread which seems to be causing some arguments between other s that I did not expect.

In the case of my edits, I was simply trying to do my best. I spent a few hours fixing an artist page that was mixed up for over a decade that had 6 different artists mixed up on one page. Instead of any positive I felt I was 'punished' for someone else's error from years ago.

I was also surprised that the error was identified some time ago but it was left for someone else to edit. And it seems the voting system is what prevents s from jumping and performing the edit themselves.

Silvermo
The same can be asked of you, why start a tread about it instead of just fixing the release?

Comments like what you posted don't help and just tend to aggravate the situation. Apart from the arguments, at least the thread allowed others to voice their opinions about the pitfalls of the voting system.

MartinR
You take over responsibility for the whole release when fixing an error.

Yes. And this is always a risk and for this reason a few years ago I posted this on my profile:

Just trying to improve some releases in this great database. If any of the releases I have edited need further changes, just leave a comment and I will fix as soon as I see your message. Of course feel free to jump in and update the releases too.

Thank you berothbr for your personal message and your explanation in this thread - I appreciate it. However I will respond to two of your more critical comments here:

berothbr
The only problem here (besides for the release year) is that you neglected to glance at the history prior to pushing through an edit.

berothbr
I think it’s contributor malpractice not to review the submission history and at least address previous comments before clicking submit.

As I said in my initial post: I was assisting to clean up a mixed up artist page, and I was focused on that task, so I didn't notice the earlier comment about the supposed release date error. Of course if I notice other errors I fix them too (as my pending submissions demonstrate).

I usually edit all errors on releases that I see and I try to take notice of previous comments but I guess on this occasion I had 'tunnel vision' due to editing 19 versions of the Fritz The Cat releases in a row. But I will surely be more careful in the future.

Once again thanks for your message and explanation and sorry for all the drama. Peace.

loukash
Think positive! ;)

Good advice, especially during these unusual times in the world. Stay safe all!

And by the way I was just about to edit the release as suggested but jweijde I saw that had edited it. Thanks!

twilightambiance
Ah yes, the Discogs voting system and related etiquette are working just fine! Nothing to see here!

Indeed - stuck in the middle. You comment and someone says “do it yourself”. You vote, per instructions from Nik just to do so, and someone who has been here for three weeks files a SR and other unnamed management knee jerk sanction you for following the system they have created. It’s largely broken.

twilightambiance
- Emotions run high and people are lazy.

I take offense to this. Not 1, but 2 comments were posted prior to casting a vote. What alternative is there other than making an irresponsible edit to a release with potential issues (as detailed here) that can only be addressed by someone with a copy? Moreover, if the wanted to proceed with a mass edit, but were not sure how to fix the outstanding issues, they could have easily communicated that in their submission note. Similarly, if they were mass editing in accordance with a discussion, they could have also alluded to that by posting a URL to the thread. Unfortunately, they failed to do so. The voter shouldn’t be criticized for their failures.

Opdiner

Indeed - stuck in the middle. You comment and someone says “do it yourself”. You vote, per instructions from Nik just to do so, and someone who has been here for three weeks files a SR and other unnamed management knee jerk sanction you for following the system they have created. It’s largely broken.

That does miss the third option. You fix what you can and make the database a little better. That's the constructive middle ground.

AndyEvans2
That does miss the third option. You fix what you can and make the database a little better. That's the constructive middle ground.

Which is what many of us do - please see my pendings at close to 30,000. That still doesn’t mean the voting system is working or istered properly. It’s very scary especially for new s who are often terrified of being voted down or sanctioned. I’m not sure how many new s you mentor but I always have a few and it’s a barrier to editing. People are scared to fix what they can. You may see that as constructive, I’m not sure i agree.

Opdiner
Which is what many of us do - please see my pendings at close to 30,000. That still doesn’t mean the voting system is working or istered properly. It’s very scary especially for new s who are often terrified of being voted down or sanctioned. I’m not sure how many new s you mentor but I always have a few and it’s a barrier to editing. People are scared to fix what they can. You may see that as constructive, I’m not sure i agree.

Apologies if that came across as a go at you. I only meant to point out that you had omitted what I (and clearly you) see as the best way to help. I'm not nearly good enough at this to mentor anyway having a limited interest in the data (artists only - not interested in the records themselves).

AndyEvans2
Apologies if that came across as a go at you. I only meant to point out that you had omitted what I (and clearly you) see as the best way to help. I'm not nearly good enough at this to mentor anyway having a limited interest in the data (artists only - not interested in the records themselves).

No problem, and accepted. It is worrying that so many people submit a few records, get a vote or two, then never return. I’m guilty of casting votes against newbies thoughtlessly but am very conscious these days of it. Sadly the voting system was a slapped together system over a decade ago and never really fixed.

A somewhat related question from my part then: I'm busy fixing the credits for Unknown Artist - Disco Baraonda, which, as you can see is quite defective. The credits are listed as artists (as is noted by other s in the history). This means I can't fix this, without having to fix the whole edit, or else I will be fully responsible for this defective sub. Yet if I don't, the incorrect artist page remains in the DB. I also cannot vote. Then how do I proceed (without being forced to tidy up the whole sub)?

rdvriese
Then how do I proceed (without being forced to tidy up the whole sub)?

If you can’t edit and can’t vote then your only options are to open a thread or just post a comment. The next editor should see that comment and be able to address it in their edit.

rdvriese
A somewhat related question from my part then: I'm busy fixing the credits for Hans Bouwens - a mass edit for which I started a thread. Now the artist page Jan Bouwens shouldn't exist, because it's an ANV for the former. But his artist page was created through Various - DiscoBaraonda, which, as you can see is quite defective. The credits are listed as artists (as is noted by other s in the history). This means I can't fix this, without having to fix the whole edit, or else I will be fully responsible for this defective sub. Yet if I don't, the incorrect artist page remains in the DB. I also cannot vote. Then how do I proceed (without being forced to tidy up the whole sub)?

You let the data sit wrong but sit back and smile smugly knowing you adhered to one interpretation of a guideline.

When looking through submissions you can often find known errors that stand out to you, but you don’t have a copy and the images provided (if any) are not clear.
So without a copy if you start making edits you may be making things worse.
So generally I then look to see how long the has been a member and consider if the errors would be obvious, or if the is making a pattern of the same mistakes.
If a new and no pattern I would generally leave a note and hope they will correct it.
If has been a long time and has made a similar pattern of mistakes , often ignoring comments by others, then I vote. Sometimes the vote will instigate corrections.

steve.fletcher
When looking through submissions you can often find known errors that stand out to you, but you don’t have a copy and the images provided (if any) are not clear.

This is true and all very good advice but there are some errors, most obviously artist disambiguation, where not only is having a copy not necessary but 99.9% of the time is not useful at all.

That is exactly the sort of error that was being fixed in this instance which led to a "negative" vote for other issues.

berothbr
The voter shouldn’t be criticized for their failures.

I'll criticize the voter all day, every day in this situation. It's hypocrisy is what this all is.

People leave comments about fixing something in a submission because they don't want to take responsibility for the submission as a whole and get potentially negative votes for something they overlooked. However, those same people are more than happy with voting on that same submission saying "Well, I TOLD someone what to fix and they didn't listen." Then you have these people getting upset and now we're here.

To take a popular saying and twist it a little: Votes for thee, but not for me (because I don't want responsibility)!

steve.fletcher
When looking through submissions you can often find known errors that stand out to you, but you don’t have a copy and the images provided (if any) are not clear.
So without a copy if you start making edits you may be making things worse

Thanks Steve. I couldn’t have said this any better.

AndyEvans2
That is exactly the sort of error that was being fixed in this instance which led to a "negative" vote for other issues.

Had I known that, I might have just posted a third comment about the year to the history (the same goes for if they were a with a low rank).. However, Input never communicated that in their submission comment by posting the URL to the mass edit thread.

berothbr
Had I known that

Their edit starts with;
"Fixed misplaced artist: Innocent Bystanders > Innocent Bystanders (2)"

If it was even within the realm of possibility, I would totally be on board with crowdfunding the money to have Discogs hire a programmer whose sole responsibility is fixing the voting system on this site, it's just totally busted and makes everyone upset. This actively causes s to stop contributing to the database.

- We should be able to select an edit from within the submission history to vote on so the latest editor can make an edit without fearing that their voting average is going to go down. These votes need to go to the people that deserve them, or if no one is technically responsible for the issue, someone should just make the edit and be done with it.
- Once an edit fixes an issue, I should be able to vote on that person's edit and if it's a correct vote, I should also be able to select the "Needs Changes" votes that were fixed by the last edit and clear them.
- If someone votes "NMiC" on an edit, but someone else thinks it's "NMaC" or even "EI", that stronger vote should overwrite the weaker vote, not pile on it. Voting average should be adjusted accordingly.

twilightambiance
I'll criticize the voter all day, every day in this situation

Then what’s the purpose of voting? The issue was identified by 2 separate s in the history. Those comments were ignored twice by editors. The problem had not been fixed in 3 years. Was it not time to flag the issue? What else could I have done? I’ve already explained why it would have been irresponsible for me to edit that release. What else could I have done? Opened a thread because no one bothered to look at my comments? PMd s with the release in the collection? Comparatively, the reason there aren’t more dubious years in that section of the Rainbo discography is because myself and a few others have been posting comments, casting votes, and editing releases for quite some time.

AndyEvans2
"Fixed misplaced artist: Innocent Bystanders > Innocent Bystanders (2)"

Was I supposed to magically conclude that they were fixing the misplaced artist on numerous releases as party of a prediscussed mass edit from that comment? Even so, carrying out a mass edit does not absolve someone of the responsibility of reading the submission history and at least reviewing the rest of the release page prior to clicking submit.

berothbr
Then what’s the purpose of voting?

Based on the broken system we have right now, we have a duty to only vote on mistakes that the last editor made. We can't in good intent vote on the submission as a whole because the voting system doesn't allow us to direct the vote at the people that needed that vote. It just goes to the last person who touched the submission and that's why people get upset.

While it's true that negative votes will usually get someone to fix the issue, it's not usually the people that initially caused that issue. It's someone else just getting it done, whether they have the release or not, which is what you should have done in the first place. Literally just fix the issue and move on.

You will never even come close to being in CIP territory with your voting average and the amount of votes you have. Just make the database better and fix these issues. And, perhaps you can protest about the broken voting system while you're at it.

twilightambiance
This actively causes s to stop contributing to the database.

I would imagine a couple people stopped doing it, but how many s have stopped contributing?

twilightambiance
- We should be able to select an edit from within the submission history to vote on so the latest editor can make an edit without fearing that their voting average is going to go down. These votes need to go to the people that deserve them, or if no one is technically responsible for the issue, someone should just make the edit and be done with it.
- Once an edit fixes an issue, I should be able to vote on that person's edit and if it's a correct vote, I should also be able to select the "Needs Changes" votes that were fixed by the last edit and clear them.
- If someone votes "NMiC" on an edit, but someone else thinks it's "NMaC" or even "EI", that stronger vote should overwrite the weaker vote, not pile on it. Voting average should be adjusted accordingly.

OK, I have my own DISCOGS OCD issues, but this is insane. Voting on individual edits as opposed to the overall status of a specific release seems nuts to me.

As long as I am not CIP'd, I really don't care if I am at a 3.50 or 3.99 or 4.05. I mean, once you reach a certain number, a "Correct" vote could actually bring your number down, right? Yes, some abusive edits have hit me...maybe a dozen since I've been a member here...but I just submit an SR and it's taken care of.

Now, to address the original question...

Most of the time I make the edit on my own, but sometimes, especially in the cases of very poor submissions or incorrect mass edits, I will vote, rather than just make the change. This way, the has to look at their mistake and consider whether they should correct it or ignore it...and get more "negative" votes.

MJG196
Voting on individual edits as opposed to the overall status of a specific release seems nuts to me.

It is also against voting guide lines

MJG196
As long as I am not CIP'd, I really don't care if I am at a 3.50 or 3.99 or 4.05.

Silvermo
It is also against voting guide lines

You and several other people are actively tiptoeing around the big issue here. You and I can shrug off a negative vote because we've received hundreds or thousands of votes and our voting average will not significantly change. This is not true for new s who don't have these correct votes under their belt. There are people who are afraid to make edits to the database because they've seen how things go around here. You can get hit with a negative vote for something you didn't see or didn't have enough knowledge to see was wrong and that dissuades people from contributing, whether you see that or don't.

It's easy to use the voting system and follow the current voting guidelines when you know you'll never suffer from its downsides.

MJG196
Voting on individual edits as opposed to the overall status of a specific release seems nuts to me.

You're being disingenuous. Votes would count toward the overall status of the submission. If there was any negative votes left on the submission, the release would still say "Needs Changes", regardless of the correct votes for that release. The only difference here is that we can direct the votes to the people that deserve them, not the last person to touch the submission. This should not be that difficult of a concept to get pushed through. It would absolutely fix the voting and editing atmosphere around this place, which it desperately needs.

berothbr
Was I supposed to magically conclude that they were fixing the misplaced artist on numerous releases .

It's irrelevant whether it was a mass edit. That was the sum of their edit. They did a good thing and feel (and I agree with them) they got a bit of a slap for it.

And, yes, I agree - the way the guidelines have been written you are covered and have acted in a way that is in accordance with them. A way that puts s doing the right thing off. A way that means people will walk away from a fix because they might get a slap. A way that hurts the data. A way that's not conducive to a community building better data. But, yes, a way you can justify to yourself was in line with the guidelines.

twilightambiance
which is what you should have done in the first place.

This is an entirely irresponsible insinuation. So your position is that rather than post a comment, I should potentially compound the errors on a release by making a hasty edit instead of flagging the issue so someone more knowledgeable than myself can resolve it in the future?

twilightambiance
Based on the broken system we have right now, we have a duty to only vote on mistakes that the last editor made

Why does it matter who introduced the error? All what matters with a vote is the overall accuracy of the release page.

twilightambiance
You and several other people are actively tiptoeing around the big issue here.

This is not even an issue here Input has been a member for 9 years and has over 1100 pending releases in their history.

twilightambiance
It would absolutely fix the voting and editing atmosphere around this place, which it desperately needs.

Eh, I don't really agree with that. I'm not saying all your points are invalid, but I don't understand why people get so emotional over votes. We all work together to make entries correct. Nobody should take votes so personally.

I thought the matter was resolved but I was pinged again. 🙂

I wish to make to clear that I did not willingly ignore the comment about the release year and if I noticed it I would certainly have dealt with it as part of my primary edit.

https://www.discogs.sie.com//Input
Just trying to improve some releases in this great database. If any of the releases I have edited need further changes, just leave a comment and I will fix as soon as I see your message. Of course feel free to jump in and update the releases too.

This will be my last post in this thread. Let us all move on...

AndyEvans2
A way that puts s doing the right thing off. A way that means people will walk away from a fix because they might get a slap. A way that hurts the data. A way that's not conducive to a community building better data. But, yes, a way you can justify to yourself was in line with the guidelines.

This is unfair and absurd. By flagging an issue on a release page that was glossed over by two people editing carelessly, I’m somehow detracting from the community by exercising my voting powers? Is it really crushing the spirit of the community for holding someone able after they failed to do the bare minimum of performing a cursory review of the release page prior to clicking submit? Incredible.

Input
I wish to make to clear that I did not willingly ignore the comment about the release year and if I noticed it I would certainly have dealt with it as part of my primary edit.

does it really matter if your carelessness was intentional?

berothbr
So your position is that rather than post a comment, I should potentially compound the errors on a release by making a hasty edit instead of flagging the issue so someone more knowledgeable than myself can resolve it in the future?

You're being so disingenuous, it's frankly unbelievable! Why are you voting on a submission that has an issue that you're not knowledgeable enough about? Perhaps if you're that unsure about it, you should reserve your vote for something that you know is actually incorrect.

Look at the submission history above. Both you and brianvy knew what had to be done to fix the issue and neither of you did it. Full stop.

berothbr
Is it really crushing the spirit of the community for holding someone able after they failed to do the bare minimum of performing a cursory review of the release page prior to clicking submit? Incredible.

But a change too onerous for you to make?

Your contribution has been to point at something that needs fixing, not do anything about it, not notice any of the other things that need fixing, reiterate that something you can't fix needs fixing and then to criticise someone else who fixed something that you had multiple chances to fix but didn't.

That's a fair summary of the edits and interactions, isn't it?

I

twilightambiance
Why are you voting on a submission that has an issue that you're not knowledgeable enough about?

That’s absurd. You don’t need to be a subject matter expert to identify a dubious release year when reviewing the Rainbo Records discography - it’s obvious to anyone capable of comparing a bunch of years listed in chronological order.

twilightambiance
Both you and brianvy knew what had to be done to fix the issue and neither of you did it.

As previously stated repeatedly, I did not know how to fix that entire release page - I only knew that the date was wrong.

AndyEvans2
Your contribution has been to point at something that needs fixing, not do anything about it, not notice any of the other things that need fixing, reiterate that something you can't fix needs fixing and then to criticise someone else who fixed something that you had multiple chances to fix but didn't.

That's a fair summary of the edits and interactions, isn't it?

So there’s no ability for someone who edits carelessly? Somehow I’m to blame because someone else just wanted to click submit as quickly as possible without considering the rest of the page?

My above post was going to be my last post but I can't let you get away with:

berothbr
does it really matter if your carelessness was intentional?

We have already discussed the situation and you PM'd me to apologise, I apologised back and we agreed that there are no hard feelings. It should have ended there. There is no good reason for you to be shit stirring any longer. Just drop it and move on...

Input
There is no good reason for you to be shit stirring any longer.

You are the one who opened this thread! What am I supposed to do? Just not defend myself while other s criticize my actions?

twilightambiance
If it was even within the realm of possibility, I would totally be on board with crowdfunding the money to have Discogs hire a programmer whose sole responsibility is fixing the voting system on this site, it's just totally busted and makes everyone upset. This actively causes s to stop contributing to the database.

I do have to say: as a fairly new (just a couple of months), I would indeed be put of. I started using discogs simply as a way of cataloguing my collection. I never expected myself having to make contributions, I didn't think I had so many obscure or simply undocumented releases, but apparently I do have a couple. So I started contributing, much to my liking. Then, a while ago, I took a liking to it, started following the forums and so on. Now I'm actively trying to improve certain parts of the DB - parts I am indeed knowledgeable of.

But also: I have, in the course of these few months, only received two votes and my average is now 4.0. Receiving a negative vote or two for mistakes I didd't even make, would lead me to CIP. Otherwise, I couldn't care less about votes, that's also why I haven't asked for any for my pending submissions.

I think that's an unfair way of treating s making their first steps. I think some longtime dedicated s who have made tons of contributions while this site was younger (and thus have accumulated tons of votes) are not really trying to see things from a newer 's perspective.

rdvriese
I think that's an unfair way of treating s making their first steps. I think some longtime dedicated s who have made tons of contributions while this site was younger (and thus have accumulated tons of votes) are not really trying to see things from a newer 's perspective.

We’re supposed to consider that when voting (which I did BTW on the release in question).

Edit: no need to worry about your voting average anymore - I gave you a boost

berothbr
You are the one who opened this thread! What am I supposed to do? Just not defend myself while other s criticize my actions?

And I apologised for over-reacting and starting the thread in my second post: https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/814675#8089748

Sure you were defending yourself but you were also making digs at me even though we had already amicably resolved the matter through PM many hours ago! Hopefully the situation is now done and dusted.

And this WILL be my last post in this thread as I am logging out for the day. Take it easy and stay safe everyone.

Wow.

I'm relatively new to the "making edits" game (new enough that I can't vote on anything except merges), and honestly, I had no idea prior to reading this thread that votes related to releases I edited would be on the entire entry, not just the edit I made. That's insane, and definitely makes me more much more wary of making edits in the future.

Here's why it's insane - imagine two different communities whose purpose is to make this database.

One community requires that anyone adding or changing any entry must make the best, most complete, most rules-adherent possible entry every time, or risk receiving less-than-perfect votes that accrue to their personally.

Another community asks people to contribute to a minimum standard on initial entry, and then subsequently other people make incremental improvements as they are able to. There are only two kinds of vote: one that accrues to a person when they make an edit that's just wrong (and some number of these make it so you can't make more), and one that accrues to an entry as to its completeness, so people know where to focus their attention.

Which of these do you think will get to a better database faster? I'd wager on the second one, because it encourages people to make ongoing contributions as they can, even if they're not complete, but the entries still improve over time. The first one penalizes people for not getting an entry 100% right 100% of the time, which is a daunting task given how much needs to be there to make an entry complete, which means there are lots of opportunities for minor errors, and there are frequently disagreements over guidelines interpretations that make one person's "correct" another person's EI.

Under this interpretation, I can't even fix an obvious typo on some entry unless I'm willing to check and complete every last bit of data in it. And forget touching entries I don't own, even in the obvious typo case - too risky to be penalized.

ZJ_AJ
I can't even fix an obvious typo on some entry unless I'm willing to check and complete every last bit of data in it.

Yeah, but what about the poor voter, who has to check everything too, just because you fixed an apostrophe. They find something in desparate need of change, comment and tag the submission (that's vote) accordingly, then get it in the neck for being knowlegeable on the multifarious artists, credits, lccn, baoi, notes, guidelines and protocols. Some entries now have 30+ variants in baoi, it's not possible to check these at all, so asking us to vote on the totality of the sub. is pure nonsense.

berothbr
Absolutely. It would be totally irresponsible to carry on otherwise.

This is exactly why we need to change the voting system. Someone legitimately fixing something on a release is objectively a good thing. To scare people away from that is absolutely backwards. My voting average is pretty safe so I don’t shy away from fixing errors anymore, but I certainly did back in the day.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again here. This is my proposal for an overhaul:

Release votes should be able to be placed on the correctness or incorrectness of a release without affecting anyone.

Edit votes should be able to be placed on edits made by s, regardless of when they made the edit. Someone made an awful error 7 edits back? Give them a vote of some kind. Another made a full and complete edit of the entire sub? Let them get that vote, not the person who came around years later and added a sub-genre only. (Not that those aren’t valid edits, but that would be frustrating if that got them a C&C vote for a simple edit like that, while the person before them did all the work to bring the sub up to C&C level.)

The voting system here is super problematic and it scares people away from making good faith edits, AND even scares away some people from voting NMC on a sub because they know it will go to the last editor who maybe did a positive update to the sub. I would LOVE to flag releases that are messed up and not randomly hit someone with that. The SUBMISSION is wrong, NOT the edit.

I guess the other philosophical thing I just cannot understand is that as soon as a release has an identified error, no other errors can be fixed apparently unless you fix the identified error as well.

So, you make a comment on a release about something you can’t fix unless you own it. Years go by with no one who owns it actually fixing that issue. Then, someone identifies another error they CAN fix. Should they now just comment about that easy fix and leave two errors now because they can’t fix the first issue? Or should they fix the one error, therefore making the submission objectively better as well as all the knock on effects that some error fixing can do - think of incorrect profiles being used - John Smith (3) vs John Smith (7). Should an easy to fix profile error just sit in perpetuity because someone didn’t want to touch the release?

OR, even if a NMC vote existed initially, and someone fixes a different error, they should expect a NMC vote which hits THEM.

I just can’t fathom why anyone would hold any ill will towards anyone who fixes something on a submission, but maybe leaves other errors they can’t fix. It sounds like people are saying it’s better to leave all errors unless you can fix all errors. Why?? Just fix what you can and move on. That attitude is so much better for the database. Because I have come across releases with errors I can’t fix without owning the release. I comment mentioning I’m only making that one fix I came there for. Now in a different voting system, I could fix some errors and then immediately vote on the correctness of the submission as NMC since it’s unrelated to the last edit.

Anyway, this is a thread that we’ll continue to see forever until the voting system changes.

berothbr

twilightambiance: "Why are you voting on a submission that has an issue that you're not knowledgeable enough about?"

That’s absurd. You don’t need to be a subject matter expert to identify a dubious release year when reviewing the Rainbo Records discography - it’s obvious to anyone capable of comparing a bunch of years listed in chronological order.

Actually, it's not really. If I look at Rainbo Records (as someone who has no familiarity with them, but might come along to inadvertently change one of their 11,329 releases as part of a forum thread-initiated mass edit), and sort by Catalogue number - the 20 or so above Fritz the Cat vary between 2006, 2004, 2009, 2002 and Unknown. Those below it are 2007, 2006, 2011, 2015, 2002 and of course Unknown.
To be honest, the whole profile looks like a mess if I order in this way, in of the dates being not the same order at the catalogue numbers. Sure - I could (and I do, looking at it) assume that this whole block may very likely all be meant to be 2006, but it's really impossible for me to know that for sure. It's NOT a bunch of years in Chronological order, it's a bunch of years ordered by Catalogue number.
I know of other 'labels' who, whilst they will 'do their part' (say the pressing of the physical records), aren't ultimately responsible for the final release date, and so it's not unusual for their internal numbering system not to match their release dates.

However, one thing is for certain here - you are not a 'subject matter expert' on the release in question. You don't deem yourself qualified enough to Edit it, so I am curious as to why do you deem yourself qualified enough to Vote on it?

berothbr

As previously stated repeatedly, I did not know how to fix that entire release page - I only knew that the date was wrong.

In fact - you didn't actually KNOW that the date was wrong, but you made an assumption (and even then, the original commenter had said that the year was wrong, despite a previous editor, who had made several edits to the release, adding the year in a specific edit, citing that the year came 'from distribution program').
As mentioned - you "don’t know anything about the release and have never even heard about it". So why Vote on it? Why touch it at all? A comment should suffice in this situation - there's still no definitive proof that the year was wrong (from a Discogs perspective - it's not like it's the only 2004 in a list of hundreds of 2006's which would still not be concrete evidence, but at least something more to go off). Even if it's the same comment over and over - at least it's been made, and hopefully someone who can actually do something about it, does.

I mean, you're very likely 100% correct, but if you don't think you know enough to Edit, I don't see why you wouldn't feel the same way about Voting.

Now, we have a release with no given year, and a comment stating 'Disputed year removed' - again, no reference to this thread to go alongside that edit either (other than the previous mention).

Has any of this done anything to improve the database??

spakatak
Now, we have a release with no given year, and a comment stating 'Disputed year removed' - again, no reference to this thread to go alongside that edit either (other than the previous mention).

Why would that be needed ? There were already two people in the history questioning the date. Besides, this thread isn't about what the correct release year is, so why should I reference it anyway?

To those thinking they can now no longer edit one thing unless they check everything:
There is no guideline requiring you to check all data when making an edit. It's only the voting guidelines that mention voters are voting on the entire release and not only on the last edit. So it's actually the voters who are supposed to check all data. Ofcourse, this can imply that contributors should do the same as otherwise they might get burned. Don't worry too much about that though: chances are your edit will never be voted on. Just keep on making those edits.

jweijde
Why would that be needed ?

Only because, in my personal opinion (and again, it's only personal, not anything concrete) - none of the previous two people had provided anything substantial to suggest that a removal was valid (esp. given the broad range of inaccuracies I presented in the Rainbo release dates in my previous message).
Again, personally, I'd have dropped the thread in the submission notes, simply again to avoid poor voting guidelines - once again, there was a previous editor who suggested that the date was correct (or at least believed it to be when they added it to the release) - in their opinion, your edit could be seen as Entirely Incorrect, because you've removed 'correct' data, without providing a reason.
Again, it all comes down to whether or not it's worth 'risking' a 'bad' vote. To each their own - just voicing an opinion :)

spakatak
In fact - you didn't actually KNOW that the date was wrong, but you made an assumption

All evidence based determinations are just assumptions.

As previously mentioned before an incorrect date is easy to spot on the Rainbo page. This is because when Rainbo presses a 12” record, it assigns a S### in each runout. These numbers are chronologically sequenced. However, when Rainbo represses a record, it just recycles the original S###. Thus, the release year should either be equal to the proximate Rainbo S### release years or newer. It cannot be older. This pattern is what should have been obvious from the Rainbo discography.

The reason the dates on that page do not look more chaotic is because s like myself, Showbiz_Kid and others have been periodically making an effort to purge incorrect dates by posting comments, casting votes, and making edits. The vote I cast here was part of that ongoing effort.

AndyEvans2

Your contribution has been to point at something that needs fixing, not do anything about it, not notice any of the other things that need fixing, reiterate that something you could easily fix yourself needs fixing and then to criticise someone else who fixed something that you had multiple chances to fix but didn't.

That's a fair summary of the edits and interactions, isn't it?

History has repeated itself very quickly - more sad than suprrising.

AndyEvans2
AndyEvans2
Your contribution has been to point at something that needs fixing, not do anything about it, not notice any of the other things that need fixing, reiterate that something you could easily fix yourself needs fixing and then to criticise someone else who fixed something that you had multiple chances to fix but didn't.

That's a fair summary of the edits and interactions, isn't it?

History has repeated itself very quickly - more sad than suprrising.

What now?

itsgreatshakes
What now?

Apart from me being unable to spell surprising... exactly the same thing.

A pointing out something they understand and could fix themselves. Somebody else (this time me) fixes an unrelated issue and gets told to fix the thing they know nothing about and aren't interested in. It seems some s just love to play games with the database when a positive contribution would genuinely be easier to make and would help everybody get along together. That second outcome, sadly, is not high on some s' agendas. In fact, the reverse.

berothbr
rdvrieseSo you should never correct mistakes you spot - only if you clean up everything in there, too, after carefully having read the whole history?

Absolutely. It would be totally irresponsible to carry on otherwise.

I just read the entire thread and this is a ridiculous comment. Nowhere in the guidelines does it state that you need to fix all errors on a submission while performing an edit. The applicable guideline does state that you should read the submission history before editing but that's as far as it goes.

The issue at hand is addressed in the guideline that deals with voting, where it states that you are voting on the entire submission and not only the last edit. That statement clearly places the onus on the voter to do the correct thing, since it's part of that guideline. It has nothing to do with what an editor needs to do. In other words, while your vote was okay per the guideline, it's a pretty crappy thing to do to someone who just fixed a different error.

Stating it's irresponsible for an editor to fix one thing but not everything not only doesn't help the database but also doesn't even jibe with the guidelines.

itsgreatshakes
I just read the entire thread and this is a ridiculous comment.

Please quote me correctly. I didn’t write most of that quote.

AndyEvans2
time me) fixes an unrelated issue and gets told to fix the thing they know nothing about and aren't interested in. It seems some s just love to play games with the database when a positive contribution would genuinely be easier to make and would help everybody get along together.

If you’re going to criticize my voting, you could at least be fair and ping me.

I assume you are referencing Chris Rainbow - Looking Over My Shoulder. On that release, I posted a comment a month ago where I identified some obvious errors in the LCCN, which, in turn, negatively effect several profile pages, and even provided a link to a discussion if the had any questions. Incidentally, another posted a comment in of my request. You then edited the page. I then posted another comment. Rather than ask for assistance, ask a question, disagree with the request to fix the issue, or express an interest in fixing it in the future, you just wrote “I don't have this to these. Do your worst.” As a result, I cast a vote to flag the issue so that someone more knowledgeable about the release can fix.

itsgreatshakes
It has nothing to do with what an editor needs to do. In other words, while your vote was okay per the guideline, it's a pretty crappy thing to do to someone who just fixed a different error.

How else do you suggest I flag the issue on the release page? I couldn’t just edit it myself because there aren’t any images that show the company info that needs to be fixed, so there is no way to know whether any of that info is accurate, how it appears on the release, etc. Honestly, how else should I have handled that situation?

berothbr
If you’re going to criticize my voting, you could at least be fair and ping me.

I deliberately didn't name you and I'm not sure anyone could track it back to you. You've been waiting for your chance. You took it. No surprise.

berothbr
As a result, I cast a vote to flag the issue so that someone more knowledgeable about the release can fix.

So you know enough about it to say it's wrong but not what's right?

berothbr
Honestly, how else should I have handled that situation?

And what extra have you achieved by the vote? Other than the vote itself which I suspect was what it was about.

berothbr
I couldn’t just edit it myself because there aren’t any images that show the company info that needs to be fixed, so there is no way to know whether any of that info is accurate, how it appears on the release, etc. Honestly, how else should I have handled that situation?

Why couldn't you fix it? To start with, you're suggesting the track numbers be removed from the LCCN. You could remove them and just replicate the data in the release notes. It retains the same state of ambiguity (which I assume you're referring to - is it "EMI Music Ltd." or "EMI Music[,] Ltd." or some other minor name difference). But that ambiguity is still there.

The fix you're asking for is a simple fix, so just fix it.

And you know that the vote you are casting is literally going to an individual along with flagging the release. Andy didn't introduce that error, so why should he get a negative vote on his profile, when the person who did do it incorrectly doesn't? You have to acknowledge this is a broken system, so try to understand why it upsets people in these types of situations.

AndyEvans2
So you know enough about it to say it's wrong but not what's right?

Yes. If I could have fixed the release myself, then I would have. However, without images of the publishing info, more data, or any communication from you about that info, all what I could be sure was that the track positions obviously do not belong in the LCCN and needed to be fixed. Whether those should be eliminated altogether or simply migrated to the release notes as per RSG §14.1.4, I do not know.

AndyEvans2
And what extra have you achieved by the vote? Other than the vote itself which I suspect was what it was about.

The purpose of the vote was to flag the data issue so that someone can find it and fix it in the future.

baldorr
Why couldn't you fix it? To start with, you're suggesting the track numbers be removed from the LCCN. You could remove them and just replicate the data in the release notes.

The publishing info is not shown in the images. How could I possibly transition it to the release notes? I don’t know if or how any of that info appears on the release or, alternately, where it came from. Is it even valid info to begin with? These are all questions I could not answer myself. All what I knew is that track positions certainly do not belong in the LCCN.

berothbr
itsgreatshakesI just read the entire thread and this is a ridiculous comment.Please quote me correctly. I didn’t write most of that quote.

Of course, I included what you were responding to, so the context of your comment would be clear. I thought that was obvious.

The point I was trying to make is that there's nothing in the guidelines that directs someone making an edit to fix everything wrong with a submission. What you're referring to is the voting guideline that has nothing to do with how edits should be made.

If I were in your situation, I either would have posted another comment about the year being wrong, left it alone altogether or fixed the year myself.

itsgreatshakes
Of course, I included what you were responding to, so the context of your comment would be clear. I thought that was obvious.

It was not obvious and unfair.

itsgreatshakes
If I were in your situation, I either would have posted another comment about the year being wrong, left it alone altogether or fixed the year myself.

What are you talking about? How can you possibly evaluate my vote if you didn’t even bother to review the release page?

Go look at the LCCN of Chris Rainbow - Looking Over My Shoulder.
Click through each publisher and try to find the release in the publisher’s discography.
That’s the problem that needed to be flagged.

berothbr
What are you talking about? How can you possibly evaluate my vote if you didn’t even bother to review the release page?

I looked at the page. I wouldn't have voted in that situation because someone had just made a correct edit. I would either have posted another comment regarding the incorrect release date or corrected the date myself or done nothing and moved on.

itsgreatshakes
I looked at the page. I wouldn't have voted in that situation because someone had just made a correct edit. I would either have posted another comment regarding the incorrect release date or corrected the date myself or done nothing and moved on.

You obviously did not because the release date is totally irrelevant. How can you have an opinion if you didn’t even look at the vote?

berothbr
You obviously did not because the release date is totally irrelevant. How can you have an opinion if you didn’t even look at the vote?

I'm talking about the submission the OP was referring to when he opened this thread. In the submission notes, you wrote

The release year needs changes. See above

Apparently you voted NMiC. Was there a different reason you voted?

berothbr
It was not obvious and unfair.

It was totally obvious to me.

berothbr
The publishing info is not shown in the images. How could I possibly transition it to the release notes? I don’t know if or how any of that info appears on the release or, alternately, where it came from. Is it even valid info to begin with? These are all questions I could not answer myself. All what I knew is that track positions certainly do not belong in the LCCN.

Right, so then move it wholesale to the release notes. Nothing fundamentally changed with the information (right or wrong), but at least the LCCN catalog numbers would be cleared since that's a glaring error that messes up company pages.

It might be a lateral shift, but I would rather default to trusting people rather than assuming not only is it added to the wrong section, but it's totally wrong info too. By just doing this fix, you've legit improved that release AND the database. It is a positive change.

Let's try it another way - if the added that info to the release notes to begin with, would you have even questioned it? Are you suggesting that any release that doesn't have images that you would vote Needs Changes because it could be incorrect? This is the exact same issue. The actual error is where the info is added, not necessarily the info itself.

I dunno, this just seems like a fundamental philosophical difference between different s on Discogs. Maybe there's an ime that we can't get past on this issue. Hence why so many people want to see a voting system overhaul. Like, I would like to think you at least can acknowledge that something seems broken here. You might be following the rules rigidly, but if the rules changed then we could avoid this issue all together.

baldorr
I dunno, this just seems like a fundamental philosophical difference between different s on Discogs. Maybe there's an ime that we can't get past on this issue.

If we = s in general, I agree.

baldorr
Hence why so many people want to see a voting system overhaul.

Yeah! Let's have something new and broken to rag on.

baldorr
You might be following the rules rigidly

Technically, I suppose but realistically, not even that. Sure, you can cast a vote on a submission that needs changes at any time but it's totally unfair to do that right after somebody just made an otherwise correct edit. The guidelines didn't direct that to fix everything on that sub or do nothing at all.

itsgreatshakes
The guidelines didn't direct that to fix everything on that sub or do nothing at all.

Anytime anyone touches anything, they're automatically taking responsibility for everything - like it or not.

hatfulofelt
Anytime anyone touches anything, they're automatically taking responsibility for everything - like it or not.

That's what I mean. That is totally following the voting rules, the vote is on the submission. And to me it seems flawed that only the last editor is the one to get that vote (both correct votes or needs changes votes). This is a collective effort, so if votes are on the release, then have them be on the release only.

And if we want to retain some sort of vote average for s, then let us vote on their edits. Was an edit correct? Then vote on that edit in isolation.

hatfulofelt
Anytime anyone touches anything, they're automatically taking responsibility for everything - like it or not.

As long as the voting system stats as is, this is correct.

But nobody forces voters to behave in particular ways.

itsgreatshakes
Sure, you can cast a vote on a submission that needs changes at any time but it's totally unfair to do that right after somebody just made an otherwise correct edit.

Agree. And fixing one thing at a time is better than fixing nothing at all.

hatfulofelt
taking responsibility for everything

Yes, that's true. But everyone knows that's not always the fair thing.