Auto tagging with amazon sucks
Moderator: Gurus
-
turtle313
Auto tagging with amazon sucks
It makes to many mistakes! Need an agreement with musicmatch. Theirs is great but to user oriented. I need media money speed and autonomy with musicmatch accuracy.
For my collection it's the best I've tried but then I've been to several steps to make it fairly structured already.
One thing that no serivce I've used have got correct though is the years! It's almost ALWAYS way to new... mostly from 1990 and forward. For a lot of my older album, the year I get back is 1990 no matter what, seems like a default. Gratefully I can chose not to auto-tag with the release date in MM.
And what's up with Pink Floyd and Amazon? It only recognized 10% or somethin of my albums
U2 and Sting was bad too - all three are huge artists and I think the problem comes from the amount of different releases of the albums rather than the lack of information.
Thx
One thing that no serivce I've used have got correct though is the years! It's almost ALWAYS way to new... mostly from 1990 and forward. For a lot of my older album, the year I get back is 1990 no matter what, seems like a default. Gratefully I can chose not to auto-tag with the release date in MM.
And what's up with Pink Floyd and Amazon? It only recognized 10% or somethin of my albums
U2 and Sting was bad too - all three are huge artists and I think the problem comes from the amount of different releases of the albums rather than the lack of information.Thx
a database is best to be written by hand, yourself. if you're so picky then certainly do them yourself. however, most people just want the track titles and cover for which amazon is 90% right. every database that gets info from external sources will need some kind of manual check/intervention. that's life. not everyone who submits data to various places is that bothered about accuracy therefore when other people use this data it wil need amending.
as for genres, i feel genres are a personal matter. if amazon said a cd was 'rock/pop' who's to say everyone agrees?. instead of just 'punk rock' i often use genres such as 'US punk rock' or 'UK punk rock' and 'metal' 'alt metal' 'rap metal' etc etc etc - they're up to the user.
basically - there is no perfect source for everyone's data except their own database they've made themselves.
MaFt
as for genres, i feel genres are a personal matter. if amazon said a cd was 'rock/pop' who's to say everyone agrees?. instead of just 'punk rock' i often use genres such as 'US punk rock' or 'UK punk rock' and 'metal' 'alt metal' 'rap metal' etc etc etc - they're up to the user.
basically - there is no perfect source for everyone's data except their own database they've made themselves.
MaFt
******************
http://maft.co.uk
http://maft.co.uk
dittoMaFt wrote:a database is best to be written by hand, yourself. if you're so picky then certainly do them yourself. however, most people just want the track titles and cover for which amazon is 90% right. every database that gets info from external sources will need some kind of manual check/intervention. that's life. not everyone who submits data to various places is that bothered about accuracy therefore when other people use this data it wil need amending.
as for genres, i feel genres are a personal matter. if amazon said a cd was 'rock/pop' who's to say everyone agrees?. instead of just 'punk rock' i often use genres such as 'US punk rock' or 'UK punk rock' and 'metal' 'alt metal' 'rap metal' etc etc etc - they're up to the user.
basically - there is no perfect source for everyone's data except their own database they've made themselves.
MaFt
EYal