Serizawa Haruki wrote:

repeating same things again

It is FAR worse and unhealthy to let you mappers butcher songs to a third of their length and rank them under identical names to the full versions. I'm willing to bet this is the overwhelming majority opinion amongst all active players. How "high quality" your hatchetjob is, shouldn't even factor into this. The current proposal already addresses insignificant modifications, what more do you want?

You can trip over definitions and what ifs all you like, fact is the identification in song titles is sorely needed (and already greenlit by the relevant staff). That is because, if the tag is not there, the implication is that you've mapped the official version. That is not only false, it's misleading and in increasingly frequent cases intentionally taken advantage of.

I don't see how you can argue that no indicator is somehow more accurate than having "Cut Ver." (or a similar tag, call it "Unofficial Cut" if you prefer) on cut songs' titles.

S. H. wrote:

How exactly is the information that "something" was done to the song helpful for players?

How is it not? It serves as a prompt to actually check what the mp3 is (because it's not an official one), and that is exactly what it needs to do. It is an indicator of an alteration. It can't be infinitely accurate and descriptive because it's indicating something that is unofficial and not standardized, but that doesn't make it useless. That's the bad faith in your argument; "If it isn't perfect, it's useless".

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

You keep saying that you would like this to change, but you are not providing any further arguments or reasons for this. You also still didn't address my point about the similarity of official/unofficial cuts.

The TV size marker in the official metadata exists because it makes a distinction about length. An unofficial cut has no distinction about length despite being shortened in a similar way to a TV size version. This is my argument for including this information in the title of an unofficially cut song - it is otherwise misleading to not include this information. I don't understand your point about the "similarity between official/unofficial cuts" If it's official, it uses the official metadata. If it's unofficial, it should use my proposed marker.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

That doesn't make sense because when you download the map you usually don't know what the original length of the song is so it's not misleading. You can usually only judge whether it's a cut or not based on length (as Eph's tweet proves) and you can find the length information on the map's web page or in-game.

So you've found another problem in that without this marker someone might download a song they don't know without this marker and think that it's the official full version of the song. Let me get this straight: I believe that the original versions of the song should use official metadata, and that any unofficial deviation from the official song (which is most commonly a cut version) should be expressed in the title, because I and many other players find it both misleading and annoying to deal with these bad cuts (something which is addressed in UC's cut proposal) or being disappointed after already comitting to downloading the map through osu!direct.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

What would your solution for this problem be then? I only mentioned this because it could cause problems and you should find solutions for this kind of issues if you want to go ahead with your proposal.

I think that the mapper can include their own marker stating that it is their own mix of the song. Perhaps there's a more specific music term than 'mix'. I'm not a musician, but for example if UndeadCapulet made a 'mix' of a song he can include the marker (UC Mix), or something to that effect. Not something that I've fleshed out because this wasn't considered in the original proposal and I don't think it falls under my proposal, but if you do, then that is my opinion. I find the fact that this is allowed to be done in the first place without and restrictions or additional metadata in place utterly ridiculous. If I was annoyed at the state of things before, I sure am annoyed to find out that the hole goes even deeper.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

Well, of course the people who post in those threads will most likely be the ones who agree because the ones who disagree or don't care about it won't be bothered to comment. And again, it doesn't really matter how many people agree, you need arguments if you want to be convincing.

Ok. You've argued that it looks bad. I disagree. If you can get more people to express the same concern as you that the aesthetics of your title outweigh the importance of information then I might consider this point, otherwise, I don't know how to respond to it.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

Both (Short Nightcore Ver.) and (Nightcore Mix) (Short Ver.) are just making the title unnecessarily longer. I don't think it's a good solution to have multiple markers, but as I said, using only one of them doesn't work either.

Nor do I, this is the one point where I can somewhat agree. There's also cases where the shorter version of an official song is more well known than the longer version (think: the shorter version of a song from DDR). I might need some help coming up with a solution for this.

Lefafel wrote:

I don't see how you can argue that no indicator is somehow more accurate than having "Cut Ver." (or a similar tag, call it "Unofficial Cut" if you prefer) on cut songs' titles.

I saw on one of Sotarks' recently ranked maps he included the the "(Unofficial)" which I find to a pretty nice, short, all-encompassing tag, though it doesn't mesh well with other tags.

Lefafel wrote:

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

repeating same things again

First of all, if you don't even consider and try to diminish my points, maybe you are the one acting in bad faith.

Lefafel wrote:

It is FAR worse and unhealthy to let you mappers butcher songs to a third of their length and rank them under identical names to the full versions. I'm willing to bet this is the overwhelming majority opinion amongst all active players. How "high quality" your hatchetjob is, shouldn't even factor into this. The current proposal already addresses insignificant modifications, what more do you want?

Just because you think cuts are bad doesn't mean everyone else does and prohibiting them is not only irrelevant to this thread but also complete nonsense.

Lefafel wrote:

You can trip over definitions and what ifs all you like, fact is the identification in song titles is sorely needed (and already greenlit by the relevant staff). That is because, if the tag is not there, the implication is that you've mapped the official version. That is not only false, it's misleading and in increasingly frequent cases intentionally taken advantage of.

I don't know where you got this from but if it really were "sorely needed", it probably would've been implemented a long time ago or at least proposed but I don't recall that happening in the past years. It's also not true that the implication is that it's the full version, why would you think that? There's no full ver label on maps, that's why the length information exists. Also, how is it "in increasingly frequent cases intentionally taken advantage of"? Cutting songs is allowed and there's nothing wrong with unless it's low quality but you said that it doesn't matter yourself so yea

Lefafel wrote:

I don't see how you can argue that no indicator is somehow more accurate than having "Cut Ver." (or a similar tag, call it "Unofficial Cut" if you prefer) on cut songs' titles.

I never said that it's more accurate, I only said that having Cut Ver. is not helpful.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

How exactly is the information that "something" was done to the song helpful for players?

Lefafel wrote:

How is it not? It serves as a prompt to actually check what the mp3 is (because it's not an official one), and that is exactly what it needs to do. It is an indicator of an alteration. It can't be infinitely accurate and descriptive because it's indicating something that is unofficial and not standardized, but that doesn't make it useless. That's the bad faith in your argument; "If it isn't perfect, it's useless".

None of this makes any sense, just because the title includes Cut Ver. doesn't mean that you can "check what the mp3 is", you still need to actually listen to it in order to know what it sounds like. Yes, it is an indicator of an alteration, but so is (TV Size), (Short Ver.) and even (xy Remix), that information is simply not sufficient to warrant a complete overhaul.
Also stop portraying my words as "bad faith", maybe you simply don't understand them.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

You keep saying that you would like this to change, but you are not providing any further arguments or reasons for this. You also still didn't address my point about the similarity of official/unofficial cuts.

dong wrote:

The TV size marker in the official metadata exists because it makes a distinction about length. An unofficial cut has no distinction about length despite being shortened in a similar way to a TV size version. This is my argument for including this information in the title of an unofficially cut song - it is otherwise misleading to not include this information. I don't understand your point about the "similarity between official/unofficial cuts" If it's official, it uses the official metadata. If it's unofficial, it should use my proposed marker.

So the problem is the length difference, and as I already said, the solution for that is to simply look up the length before downloading/playing the map.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

That doesn't make sense because when you download the map you usually don't know what the original length of the song is so it's not misleading. You can usually only judge whether it's a cut or not based on length (as Eph's tweet proves) and you can find the length information on the map's web page or in-game.

dong wrote:

So you've found another problem in that without this marker someone might download a song they don't know without this marker and think that it's the official full version of the song. Let me get this straight: I believe that the original versions of the song should use official metadata, and that any unofficial deviation from the official song (which is most commonly a cut version) should be expressed in the title, because I and many other players find it both misleading and annoying to deal with these bad cuts (something which is addressed in UC's cut proposal) or being disappointed after already comitting to downloading the map through osu!direct.

If they don't look at the length, then yes, they might think it's the official version, but there is no way for them to know anyways because they didn't know about the original length in the first place. I don't understand this logic at all, you're saying that unofficial cuts are bad and annoying to deal with, but they are nearly the same as official cuts, but apparently those aren't a problem? Whether you or most players like short maps is not relevant here, if you want to avoid them you need to look at the length in any case because for example every visual novel/eroge/video game short ver map that doesn't have the marker in the official metadata source can't be distinguished from the full version either so this proposal wouldn't actually fix the issue. For songs whose original release is the short version, you would also think that it's the full version so you can't really avoid it being "misleading", although i don't consider that a big problem to begin with, it's not like you are forced to play certain maps.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

What would your solution for this problem be then? I only mentioned this because it could cause problems and you should find solutions for this kind of issues if you want to go ahead with your proposal.

dong wrote:

I think that the mapper can include their own marker stating that it is their own mix of the song. Perhaps there's a more specific music term than 'mix'. I'm not a musician, but for example if UndeadCapulet made a 'mix' of a song he can include the marker (UC Mix), or something to that effect. Not something that I've fleshed out because this wasn't considered in the original proposal and I don't think it falls under my proposal, but if you do, then that is my opinion. I find the fact that this is allowed to be done in the first place without and restrictions or additional metadata in place utterly ridiculous. If I was annoyed at the state of things before, I sure am annoyed to find out that the hole goes even deeper.

Disallowing this kind of edits is a whole different story and as I said, markers like Remix, Mix or Edit are supposed to be used for actual alterations of the song itself, not its parts.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

Well, of course the people who post in those threads will most likely be the ones who agree because the ones who disagree or don't care about it won't be bothered to comment. And again, it doesn't really matter how many people agree, you need arguments if you want to be convincing.

dong wrote:

Ok. You've argued that it looks bad. I disagree. If you can get more people to express the same concern as you that the aesthetics of your title outweigh the importance of information then I might consider this point, otherwise, I don't know how to respond to it.

Of course I could ask some people to just say "agree with Haruki" but that doesn't change anything, it doesn't make my arguments stronger. Just like a bunch of people agreeing with you doesn't make it more important.

dong wrote:

I saw on one of Sotarks' recently ranked maps he included the the "(Unofficial)" which I find to a pretty nice, short, all-encompassing tag, though it doesn't mesh well with other tags.

If this marker isn't included in the metadata source, it's technically incorrect to use it. I'm not sure whether this is official or not though.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

So the problem is the length difference, and as I already said, the solution for that is to simply look up the length before downloading/playing the map.

...

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

If they don't look at the length, then yes, they might think it's the official version, but there is no way for them to know anyways because they didn't know about the original length in the first place. I don't understand this logic at all, you're saying that unofficial cuts are bad and annoying to deal with, but they are nearly the same as official cuts, but apparently those aren't a problem? Whether you or most players like short maps is not relevant here, if you want to avoid them you need to look at the length in any case because for example every visual novel/eroge/video game short ver map that doesn't have the marker in the official metadata source can't be distinguished from the full version either so this proposal wouldn't actually fix the issue. For songs whose original release is the short version, you would also think that it's the full version so you can't really avoid it being "misleading", although i don't consider that a big problem to begin with, it's not like you are forced to play certain maps.

From the OP:

dong wrote:

When looking at the beatmap listing either on the website or through osu!direct, the only information visible to the user is the artist, title, source, and some difficulty information. The problem here does not arise for official cuts, as in the ranking criteria it is stated that, for example, a TV-size beatmap should be specified as such in the title, however fan-made works are not included.

This means that many beatmap titles are misleading in that the information that it is a shorter version of a song is left out. Often players do not realise that this is the case until they have already finished playing the beatmap, much to their dismay. This also means that unofficially cut versions have become indistinguishable from full versions of the same song.

If you don't consider it a problem then that's on you. Clearly enough people do.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

If they don't look at the length, then yes, they might think it's the official version, but there is no way for them to know anyways because they didn't know about the original length in the first place. I don't understand this logic at all, you're saying that unofficial cuts are bad and annoying to deal with, but they are nearly the same as official cuts, but apparently those aren't a problem? Whether you or most players like short maps is not relevant here, if you want to avoid them you need to look at the length in any case because for example every visual novel/eroge/video game short ver map that doesn't have the marker in the official metadata source can't be distinguished from the full version either so this proposal wouldn't actually fix the issue. For songs whose original release is the short version, you would also think that it's the full version so you can't really avoid it being "misleading", although i don't consider that a big problem to begin with, it's not like you are forced to play certain maps.

dong wrote:

From the OP:

When looking at the beatmap listing either on the website or through osu!direct, the only information visible to the user is the artist, title, source, and some difficulty information. The problem here does not arise for official cuts, as in the ranking criteria it is stated that, for example, a TV-size beatmap should be specified as such in the title, however fan-made works are not included.

This means that many beatmap titles are misleading in that the information that it is a shorter version of a song is left out. Often players do not realise that this is the case until they have already finished playing the beatmap, much to their dismay. This also means that unofficially cut versions have become indistinguishable from full versions of the same song.

If you don't consider it a problem then that's on you. Clearly enough people do.

The problem is that even the OP includes wrong information. While you are correct about TV Size maps requiring the respective marker, this is not true for a lot of other songs like Eroge/Visual Novel/Video Games etc.
"Often players do not realise that this is the case until they have already finished playing the beatmap, much to their dismay."
Before you play the map, you literally just need to look at the upper left corner and if players are disappointed by the map being short, then that's a different issue. Would players be disappointed if the full song were only like 2 minutes long? Probably yes, therefore it doesn't really matter if (Cut Ver.) is being added to the title. For example, one of my ranked maps (https://osu.ppy.sh/beatmapsets/746632) is 2 minutes long. Is it a cut or the full version? Most people would think it's a cut because it's fairly short and it sounds similar to many ranked cut songs. But it's actually the full version. Does finding that out make them less upset all of a sudden? Clearly not so I think your point is moot.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

Just because you think cuts are bad doesn't mean everyone else does and prohibiting them is not only irrelevant to this thread but also complete nonsense.

I think cuts being indistiguishable from uncut maps is bad, and an increasingly big problem. That is why I said the quality of your cut should not even come into the argument, because it's irrelevant to this particular amendment.

S. H. wrote:

I don't know where you got this from but if it really were "sorely needed", it probably would've been implemented a long time ago or at least proposed but I don't recall that happening in the past years. It's also not true that the implication is that it's the full version, why would you think that? There's no full ver label on maps, that's why the length information exists. Also, how is it "in increasingly frequent cases intentionally taken advantage of"? Cutting songs is allowed and there's nothing wrong with unless it's low quality but you said that it doesn't matter yourself so yea

It has only recently become a bigger problem, exactly because of the abuse cases. So yes, it is sorely needed to stop that abuse.

Why do I think the implication of a full version is there? Because most times, the original piece is well known or even previously ranked. I think that's perfectly reasonable, I see the title of a song I know (without any extra tags), I assume it is the official version of the song. Assuming anything else would be the weird thing to do.

Cutting songs is of course allowed, and right now it is allowed to omit that fact from the title metadata. One of those things is ok, the other isn't. I'll leave it to you to figure out which is which.

S. H. wrote:

I never said that it's more accurate, I only said that having Cut Ver. is not helpful.

...so you're just saying it doesn't make a difference if the tag is there or not? Because I'll just flat out disagree with that.

S. H. wrote:

None of this makes any sense, just because the title includes Cut Ver. doesn't mean that you can "check what the mp3 is", you still need to actually listen to it in order to know what it sounds like. Yes, it is an indicator of an alteration, but so is (TV Size), (Short Ver.) and even (xy Remix), that information is simply not sufficient to warrant a complete overhaul.

What exactly is this complete overhaul? This is just an amendment to the already existing metadata rules, and one that does not significantly affect the other sections. So far you've failed to point out a single significant disadvantage in introducing this new rule.

By checking the mp3 I mean looking at its length and any additional beatmap tags, and adjusting expectations based on them. Just like with (Short Ver.), or (xy Remix). It's just another indicator for the actual content of the map. It's added valuable information. A Quality of Life buff for the playerbase.

You keep insisting that players somehow wouldn't know about the original songs of these cut versions, when it so obviously isn't the case. It's exactly because we know these songs and know what to expect, that the misleading metadata has become such a big nuisance. And even for the songs that we don't know, having the cut tag in the name takes absolutely nothing away from your mapset (except the clickbait aspect I guess, which is the point) so this proposal is always a net positive.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

Just because you think cuts are bad doesn't mean everyone else does and prohibiting them is not only irrelevant to this thread but also complete nonsense.

Lefafel wrote:

I think cuts being indistiguishable from uncut maps is bad, and an increasingly big problem. That is why I said the quality of your cut should not even come into the argument, because it's irrelevant to this particular ammendment.

Ok but why is it bad and an increasingly big problem? If you don't provide an actual reason your argument is void.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

I don't know where you got this from but if it really were "sorely needed", it probably would've been implemented a long time ago or at least proposed but I don't recall that happening in the past years. It's also not true that the implication is that it's the full version, why would you think that? There's no full ver label on maps, that's why the length information exists. Also, how is it "in increasingly frequent cases intentionally taken advantage of"? Cutting songs is allowed and there's nothing wrong with unless it's low quality but you said that it doesn't matter yourself so yea

Lefafel wrote:

It has only recently become a bigger problem, exactly because of the abuse cases. So yes, it is sorely needed to stop that abuse.

What abuse cases? What exactly is being abused? Because I don't see any of that happening. If you think making certain cuts is bad, that's a different topic as we have both already stated.

Lefafel wrote:

Why do I think the implication of a full version is there? Because most times, the original piece is well known or even previously ranked. I think that's perfectly reasonable, I see the title of a song I know (without any extra tags), I assume it is the official version of the song. Assuming anything else would be the weird thing to do.

Cutting songs is of course allowed, and right now it is allowed to omit that fact from the title metadata. One of those things is ok, the other isn't. I'll leave it to you to figure out which is which.

You are free to make that assumption, however there is no distinction between the full version and an official cut version either (except for TV Size songs).

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

I never said that it's more accurate, I only said that having Cut Ver. is not helpful.

Lefafel wrote:

...so you're just saying it doesn't make a difference if the tag is there or not? Because I'll just flat out disagree with that.

Yes, it doesn't make a difference and I already explained it in some of my previous posts so I'm not going to explain it again.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

None of this makes any sense, just because the title includes Cut Ver. doesn't mean that you can "check what the mp3 is", you still need to actually listen to it in order to know what it sounds like. Yes, it is an indicator of an alteration, but so is (TV Size), (Short Ver.) and even (xy Remix), that information is simply not sufficient to warrant a complete overhaul.

Lefafel wrote:

What exactly is this complete overhaul? This is just an amendment to the already existing metadata rules, and one that does not significantly affect the other sections. So far you've failed to point out a single significant disadvantage in introducing this new rule.

Adding a new marker to half the ranked section seems like a pretty significant change to me and it does affect the other metadata sections when it comes to standardization rules, rules about audio editing etc.
The disadvantage is that there is no benefit from adding this rule, it only makes the title longer and that's it. Changing things for the sake of it is not very efficient.

Lefafel wrote:

By checking the mp3 I mean looking at its length and any additional beatmap tags, and adjusting expectations based on them. Just like with (Short Ver.), or (xy Remix). It's just another indicator for the actual content of the map. It's added valuable information. A Quality of Life buff for the playerbase.

This information should not be put in the title though. The title needs to resemble what official sources state, with the exception of standardized formatting and stuff like (CV:), (TV Size) etc. The information about the cut is already included in the length of the map as you said.

Lefafel wrote:

You keep insisting that players somehow wouldn't know about the original songs of these cut versions, when it so obviously isn't the case. It's exactly because we know these songs and know what to expect, that the misleading metadata has become such a big nuisance. And even for the songs that we don't know, having the cut tag in the name takes absolutely nothing away from your mapset so this proposal is always a net positive.

I've listed many other reasons why it's not a good idea but it's obviously easier for you to pick one of them and say that you disagree. If you read my other posts you'll see that I already explained most of the issues. Your logic of "it takes absolutely nothing away from your mapset" is flawed because then we could also simply add (Full Ver.) to every song. It doesn't take away anything either. But it's still a problem because it contradicts with the actual metadata, just like (Cut Ver.).

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

Ok but why is it bad and an increasingly big problem? If you don't provide an actual reason your argument is void.

Oh, now you want to pull me into this repeating ourselves circus too? Ok, for the very last time: It creates false expectations and false equality between different versions. This is the last time I'm going to repeat it, so stop asking. That goes for every other point you are asking a repeat for.

S. H. wrote:

You are free to make that assumption, however there is no distinction between the full version and an official cut version either (except for TV Size songs).

I'm all for introducing an official cut ver. tag too, if that's what you're implying.

S. H. wrote:

Adding a new marker to half the ranked section seems like a pretty significant change to me and it does affect the other metadata sections when it comes to standardization rules, rules about audio editing etc.

We aren't retroactively going to edit beatmaps that are already ranked, are we? I don't think anyone expects that to happen.

S. H. wrote:

The disadvantage is that there is no benefit from adding this rule, it only makes the title longer and that's it. Changing things for the sake of it is not very efficient.

You just keep on ingnoring the very reason this proposal was made for. Cool.

S. H. wrote:

This information should not be put in the title though. The title needs to resemble what official sources state, with the exception of standardized formatting and stuff like (CV:), (TV Size) etc. The information about the cut is already included in the length of the map as you said.

Why would we use the official track info (and only that info) on a track that isn't the official track? How does that make any sense?

S. H. wrote:

I've listed many other reasons why it's not a good idea but it's obviously easier for you to pick one of them and say that you disagree. If you read my other posts you'll see that I already explained most of the issues. Your logic of "it takes absolutely nothing away from your mapset" is flawed because then we could also simply add (Full Ver.) to every song. It doesn't take away anything either. But it's still a problem because it contradicts with the actual metadata, just like (Cut Ver.).

Again, there is no "actual metadata" because you aren't using the actual song, you've edited it. Your point is invalid. If you edit the song, you edit the metadata too. Reasonable.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

Ok but why is it bad and an increasingly big problem? If you don't provide an actual reason your argument is void.

Lefafel wrote:

Oh, now you want to pull me into this repeating ourselves circus too? Ok, for the very last time: It creates false expectations and false equality between different versions. This is the last time I'm going to repeat it, so stop asking. That goes for every other point you are asking a repeat for.

I repeated it because you're missing the point. Adding (Cut Ver.) to the title doesn't avoid false expectations and false equality between different versions. The reasons for this can be found in my previous posts.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

You are free to make that assumption, however there is no distinction between the full version and an official cut version either (except for TV Size songs).

Lefafel wrote:

I'm all for introducing an official cut ver. tag too, if that's what you're implying.

It already exists, but it's not being enforced on maps that don't have it officially because it would be a too drastic change. The same reason applies here too.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

Adding a new marker to half the ranked section seems like a pretty significant change to me and it does affect the other metadata sections when it comes to standardization rules, rules about audio editing etc.

Lefafel wrote:

We aren't retroactively going to edit beatmaps that are already ranked, are we? I don't think anyone expects that to happen.

I didn't even say that. But it would affect all maps from now on and a lot of maps happen to be cut songs so it would affect a lot of maps.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

The disadvantage is that there is no benefit from adding this rule, it only makes the title longer and that's it. Changing things for the sake of it is not very efficient.

Lefafel wrote:

You just keep on ingnoring the very reason this proposal was made for. Cool.

That's absolutely not what's happening. I'm simply saying that this proposal doesn't fix your concerns.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

This information should not be put in the title though. The title needs to resemble what official sources state, with the exception of standardized formatting and stuff like (CV:), (TV Size) etc. The information about the cut is already included in the length of the map as you said.

Lefafel wrote:

Why would we use the official track info (and only that info) on a track that isn't the official track? How does that make any sense?

It seems like you don't understand that, unlike a remix, cutting a song doesn't change the song itself, but only the way its part are put together. It's still the same track, therefore it should have the same metadata.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

I've listed many other reasons why it's not a good idea but it's obviously easier for you to pick one of them and say that you disagree. If you read my other posts you'll see that I already explained most of the issues. Your logic of "it takes absolutely nothing away from your mapset" is flawed because then we could also simply add (Full Ver.) to every song. It doesn't take away anything either. But it's still a problem because it contradicts with the actual metadata, just like (Cut Ver.).

Lefafel wrote:

Again, there is no "actual metadata" because you aren't using the actual song, you've edited it. Your point is invalid. If you edit the song, you edit the metadata too. Reasonable.

Shortening a song =/= editing it. An edit is more like this, an actual alteration of the song: https://osu.ppy.sh/s/747535

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

words

- You say the tag won't help distinguish lobotomized maps, yet none of your points support that claim. I dunno mang, what more can I say?

- Affecting all maps from now on is GOOD, it's the desired outcome, it's what we are aiming for! Just adjust to it.

- You've applied your personal, warped definition of what editing is. I can give you the dictionary definition to stop this little semantics argument:

Merriam-Webster wrote:

edit : to alter, adapt, or refine especially to bring about conformity to a standard or to suit a particular purpose

If you edit something, it is no longer equal to the original.

Lefafel wrote:

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

words

- You say the tag won't help distinguish lobotomized maps, yet none of your points support that claim. I dunno mang, what more can I say?

- Affecting all maps from now on is GOOD, it's the desired outcome, it's what we are aiming for! Just adjust to it.

- You've applied your personal, warped definition of what editing is. I can give you the dictionary definition to stop this little semantics argument:

Merriam-Webster wrote:

edit : to alter, adapt, or refine especially to bring about conformity to a standard or to suit a particular purpose

If you edit something, it is no longer equal to the original.

If you read my entire posts and not only cut out the part you want, you'd understand why, otherwise I can't really take you seriously if you ignore 90% of what I say.
You also need to understand that not everyone wants this change just because you want it.
Lastly, you failed to understand that there are different types of edits and that there's a big difference between the example I provided and a cut.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

you failed to understand that there are different types of edits and that there's a big difference between the example I provided and a cut.

It doesn't matter there are different kinds of edits, every edit alters the original piece by definition so there's no grounds to argue that an edited piece should use the exact metadata of the original piece. End of discussion.

I read this entire thread twice through, and there isn't a single point made by you that would make a valid argument against a tag being able to distinguish between (for example) a 1 minute cut and an official version. Because that argument doesn't exist. Everything that warranted addressing was addressed by OP already.

I know not everyone wants this change, not everyone wants to vaccinate their kids either but that doesn't mean vaccines should not exist.

Lefafel wrote:

It doesn't matter there are different kinds of edits, every edit alters the original piece by definition so there's no grounds to argue that an edited piece should use the exact metadata of the original piece. End of discussion.

Firstly, the dictionary definition doesn't take the current context into consideration and I am very well aware what an edit is generally. But if you are so attached to this definition, then changing the audio bitrate is an edit too. And so is cutting 2 seconds from the mp3 file. Would adding a marker for those cases make sense? No, and that's why you need to use common sense and not a dictionary to figure things out.

Lefafel wrote:

I read this entire thread twice through, and there isn't a single point made by you that would make a valid argument against a tag being able to distinguish between (for example) a 1 minute cut and an official version. Because that argument doesn't exist. Everything that warranted addressing was addressed by OP already.

It would in fact distinguish between those maps in your example. However, and this is nothing new from my side, what is the reason for this need of distinguishing between them? The fact that it's an unofficial cut or that it's shorter than the full version? Because in both cases, it wouldn't remove your concern. If it's because it's unofficial, then my argument against that is that there is usually barely any difference between official and unofficial cuts. If it's because of the length, then the issue persists with literally any official cut except TV Size.

Lefafel wrote:

I know everyone doesn't want this change, not everyone wants to vaccinate their kids either but that doesn't mean vaccines should not exist.

Ah yes, comparing the metadata in a circle clicking game with a measure to save thousands of lives totally makes sense.

I feel like we're definitely getting off track here. Not saying anyone is in the right or wrong but I don't think anything can be solved when the thread turns into a shit-flinging mess. If anyone has any points they would like me or anyone else involved to address please make a nicely structured post because reading this all back is a tad painful.

The current suggested wording for this change includes the word "insignificant", for those cases. That was discussed in the first couple pages. None of this changes the argument. Cutting up a song is an edit, an edited song's metadata should not be a copy of the original song's metadata.

The reason to distinguish between them is the length. It is unfortunate that official cuts aren't being tagged accordingly, but that is no reason to not make the amendment here. This was already argued before. If anything, this'll just add more pressure to fix that issue too.

Ah yes, calling out the obvious absurdity of a hyperbole, totally undermines it. Oh wait...

Lefafel wrote:

The current suggested wording for this change includes the word "insignificant", for those cases. That was discussed in the first couple pages. None of this changes the argument.

The reason to distinguish between them is the length. It is unfortunate that official cuts aren't being tagged accordingly, but that is no reason to not make the amendment here. This was already argued before. If anything, this'll just add more pressure to fix that issue too.

Ah yes, calling out the obvious absurdity of a hyperbole, totally undermines it. Oh wait...

You are contradicting yourself because you literally said that any type of edit should change the metadata as well, I guess you can't be consistent?
Anyways, the enforcement of (Short Ver.) was already denied so it does change the argument significantly. If you want to change the RC, you need to at least include all the information in the initial post and think about solutions for any potential problems that have been mentioned, none of that has happened so far. You didn't even reply to many of my comments yet.

You see a contradiction because you are too invested in your own position and keep swinging the goal posts around. My argument hasn't changed.

Once denied, will come back stronger as they say.

I have no reason to address most of your points, for reasons stated previously. It'd be counterproductive if anything.

To bring this back on track I think it would make more sense to add an extra clarification to the existing rules for remixes or covers of songs made by the creator of the mapset.

My Suggestion:

1. If the creator of the mapset has remixed or covered the song, they are free to name it appropriately to signal that this song is a special version. In this case the original songs should still be clearly indicated in the title and tags in order for players to be able to search for the original songs.
   1. Note: If changes to the song only remove significant portions from the official release, the (Cut Ver.) tag should be appended to the title of the song as well as included in the tags

I think this more clearly defines when the tag should be used over the previous wording. I personally prefer the use of (Cut Ver.) over (Short Ver.) since I find it to be less ambiguous but if a majority disagrees then it can be easily substituted for a more appropriate name.

baz wrote:

1. Note: If changes to the song only remove significant portions from the official release, the (Cut Ver.) tag should be appended to the title of the song as well as included in the tags

adding it to the tags is redundant if it's already in the title

https://github.com/ppy/osu-wiki/pull/2453 will be pending for a few days for last minute input

this is also being added alongside some of https://osu.ppy.sh/community/forums/topics/917229

Can you like not ignore all the posts in this thread after your last one? This proposal isn't ready to go at all.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

Can you like not ignore all the posts in this thread after your last one? This proposal isn't ready to go at all.

i appended the OP a while ago with your feedback in mind. have you read it? i am content with what has been written on github here:

cl8n wrote:

**If the song is shortened for reasons other than a remix, a cover, or an official cut, it should include `(Cut Ver.)` at the end of its title.** This is to clearly signify shortened songs from their full versions. Songs that are insignificantly shortened, songs that are shortened in ways that nearly match their original versions, and songs that are a full loop of a looping track are exempt. A song that has been extended either through looping or slowing down segment(s) should add `(Extended Ver.)` at the end of its title.

critique this if you have more issues with it.

dong wrote:

i appended the OP a while ago with your feedback in mind. have you read it? i am content with what has been written on github here:

cl8n wrote:

**If the song is shortened for reasons other than a remix, a cover, or an official cut, it should include `(Cut Ver.)` at the end of its title.** This is to clearly signify shortened songs from their full versions. Songs that are insignificantly shortened, songs that are shortened in ways that nearly match their original versions, and songs that are a full loop of a looping track are exempt. A song that has been extended either through looping or slowing down segment(s) should add `(Extended Ver.)` at the end of its title.

critique this if you have more issues with it.

Yes I read it, you added one thing I mentioned but not the rest.

The wording "insignificantly shortened" is very unclear, how do you determine if something is insignificant or not?
Take this map as an example, it's 5 minutes long but the full version is 5:40 as can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8pOVirjGF0
The last 40 seconds of the song are very different from the rest and the mapper probably wouldn't have mapped that part anyways, so it could be seen as insignificant, however in other cases a 40s section might make a big difference

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

The wording "insignificantly shortened" is very unclear, how do you determine if something is insignificant or not?
Take this map as an example, it's 5 minutes long but the full version is 5:40 as can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8pOVirjGF0
The last 40 seconds of the song are very different from the rest and the mapper probably wouldn't have mapped that part anyways, so it could be seen as insignificant, however in other cases a 40s section might make a big difference

If you cut that part from the map it would be insignificant, but I see no reason to cut it from the mp3 - many maps that have endings different enough that they go unmapped have the ending extend into the results screen or have a skip at the end. This is something that would be brought up in modding, no?

dong wrote:

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

The wording "insignificantly shortened" is very unclear, how do you determine if something is insignificant or not?
Take this map as an example, it's 5 minutes long but the full version is 5:40 as can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8pOVirjGF0
The last 40 seconds of the song are very different from the rest and the mapper probably wouldn't have mapped that part anyways, so it could be seen as insignificant, however in other cases a 40s section might make a big difference

If you cut that part from the map it would be insignificant, but I see no reason to cut it from the mp3 - many maps that have endings different enough that they go unmapped have the ending extend into the results screen or have a skip at the end. This is something that would be brought up in modding, no?

I'm assuming the reason why it was cut is that the mapper didn't want that part to play after finishing the map, it's not something that would necessarily be brought up in modding considering the map got ranked like that. The question is whether even this map would get a (Cut Ver.) marker or not, how much do you have to cut to make it significant?

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

I'm assuming the reason why it was cut is that the mapper didn't want that part to play after finishing the map, it's not something that would necessarily be brought up in modding considering the map got ranked like that. The question is whether even this map would get a (Cut Ver.) marker or not, how much do you have to cut to make it significant?

a significant cut to me would start at cutting off an entire verse, chorus, solo, movement, etc. from the mp3. whether people disagree with me on that or not can continue to be argued.

dong wrote:

a significant cut to me would start at cutting off an entire verse, chorus, solo, movement, etc. from the mp3. whether people disagree with me on that or not can continue to be argued.

In that case this map would still require the Cut Ver. marker even if the mapper wouldn't have mapped that part anyways, which seems a bit odd to me because there's pretty much no difference between not mapping it and cutting it.
Anyways, I still feel like this is just a workaround solution for the lack of visibility of the song length in osu!direct or whatever, the song title is really not the ideal place to put it. Even putting it in the map description could work, the only problem is that it can be edited later on, but that also applies to warnings about explicit lyrics (which are mandatory) so I guess it's ok.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

In that case this map would still require the Cut Ver. marker even if the mapper wouldn't have mapped that part anyways, which seems a bit odd to me because there's pretty much no difference between not mapping it and cutting it.

if it doesnt quite fit an already ranked edge case map with a strange outro that the mapper may/may not want to map and may/may not want to include as a skip/extend into the results screen then so be it. if the mapper wants to cut the ending off of the mp3 then that's 40 seconds of the song gone, which aside from being slightly disrespectful to the composer is a pretty significant cut

dong wrote:

if it doesnt quite fit an already ranked edge case map with a strange outro that the mapper may/may not want to map and may/may not want to include as a skip/extend into the results screen then so be it. if the mapper wants to cut the ending off of the mp3 then that's 40 seconds of the song gone, which aside from being slightly disrespectful to the composer is a pretty significant cut

I don't see how it's disrespectful but fine.

In any case, putting the information about Cut Ver in the tags and in the description is a more viable option if anything as I said in my post above. That way, you still see it when downloading the map on the website and it's more convenient because it's not as strict as a marker and doesn't clutter the song title unnecessarily. So if you really need this information, that would the best place to put it. As for osu!direct, you should open a github issue or something and explain the problem there. Of course it's not guaranteed to happen and it might take a while but that doesn't mean using a workaround solution is a good alternative

i don't agree that this is a 'workaround solution' as i believe that metadata ought to become more transparent in a lot of different ways. i don't agree that different types of official cuts having markers in the title (already happening) is less important than an unofficial cut having a similar marker in the title and it's pretty clear to me that this is something on which we fundamentally disagree, so unless you can get many more people to rally against me (i'm talking hundreds if we take into account the support this proposal has on this front. sorry.

dong wrote:

i don't agree that this is a 'workaround solution' as i believe that metadata ought to become more transparent in a lot of different ways. i don't agree that different types of official cuts having markers in the title (already happening) is less important than an unofficial cut having a similar marker in the title and it's pretty clear to me that this is something on which we fundamentally disagree, so unless you can get many more people to rally against me (i'm talking hundreds if we take into account the support this proposal has on this front. sorry.

I really don't understand what you mean by more "transparent". There is no difference whether this information is included in the title or in the description, you will see it either way if you look at it, just like with 18+ lyrics warnings. Also, feel free to disagree with me but don't say ridiculous stuff like "you need hundreds of people to rally against me" because this is not how it works. It's not a matter of x people against y people, it's about finding the best solution together. Of course not everyone will agree with each other but you should at least try to stay neutral and discuss the topic normally, there's no need to make it look like a fight or something. And for your information, I already asked several mappers about their opinion and most of them thought that this is an unnecessary change and they were quite against the idea of not having a clean title for cut songs anymore, however they didn't want to post in this thread. Moreover, a lot of BNs were against it as well but most of them didn't bother posting anything here, just like many "normal" users.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

I really don't understand what you mean by more "transparent". There is no difference whether this information is included in the title or in the description, you will see it either way if you look at it, just like with 18+ lyrics warnings.

i'm saying that the 'cut ver.' marker is no different to a 'tv size' marker which is already required in the title. it is ridiculous to compare this to an 18+ content warning when every version of the same song will require the same 18+ content warning. do i think that an 18+ content warning should be shown on the beatmap listing rather than the description? yes, but it is an entirely different issue.

i've already given a million reasons why i think this is a necessary change. having the length on the beatmap listing would help but i would still like to have it in the title as well as it is an equivalence the the already existing metadata rules about official cuts, and it helps to make it clear that the mp3 has been edited by the mapper in some way.


edit: also, i mean transparent in the way that there are maps of songs that i had absolutely no idea that the song wasn't the original or full version for YEARS because it wasn't mentioned anywhere. adding the length to the beatmap listing wouldn't help that either.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

Moreover, a lot of BNs were against it as well but most of them didn't bother posting anything here, just like many "normal" users.

well there werent more of them against it than for in the 'internal poll'. but yes, i'm sure that many mappers are against the proposal - you're the only one making a case here, though

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

I really don't understand what you mean by more "transparent". There is no difference whether this information is included in the title or in the description, you will see it either way if you look at it, just like with 18+ lyrics warnings.

dong wrote:

i'm saying that the 'cut ver.' marker is no different to a 'tv size' marker which is already required in the title. it is ridiculous to compare this to an 18+ content warning when every version of the same song will require the same 18+ content warning. do i think that an 18+ content warning should be shown on the beatmap listing rather than the description? yes, but it is an entirely different issue.

i've already given a million reasons why i think this is a necessary change. having the length on the beatmap listing would help but i would still like to have it in the title as well as it is an equivalence the the already existing metadata rules about official cuts, and it helps to make it clear that the mp3 has been edited by the mapper in some way.

It is different from TV Size because TV Size signifies a specific version of the song whereas Cut Ver. would be used for any cut, not a specific one. Also, TV Size is used by many artists in the official song title which is the reason why it was standardized in the first place. This isn't the case for Cut Ver. though.

I compared this to the 18+ content warning only to make up for the possible issue that beatmap descriptions can be edited at any point, I didn't compare it because it's related somehow, that was just an analogy.

I don't see how adding it to the description does not make it clear that it's a cut, it would be a much easier implementation because it doesn't mess with other existing markers etc.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

Moreover, a lot of BNs were against it as well but most of them didn't bother posting anything here, just like many "normal" users.

dong wrote:

well there werent more of them against it than for in the 'internal poll'. but yes, i'm sure that many mappers are against the proposal - you're the only one making a case here, though

That's not relevant at all, the poll makes no sense in the first place because only BNs could vote. Therefore the opinion of any non-BN was excluded, and if you take into account that this proposal was made by a non-BN to begin with, you will realize that it's a huge contradiction to let this poll be a deciding factor in this matter.

Do you actually have any reasonable feedback for the proposal or are you going to continue to be pedantic because this doesn't help make the proposal any better?

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

It is different from TV Size because TV Size signifies a specific version of the song whereas Cut Ver. would be used for any cut, not a specific one. Also, TV Size is used by many artists in the official song title which is the reason why it was standardized in the first place. This isn't the case for Cut Ver. though.

I compared this to the 18+ content warning only to make up for the possible issue that beatmap descriptions can be edited at any point, I didn't compare it because it's related somehow, that was just an analogy.

I don't see how adding it to the description does not make it clear that it's a cut, it would be a much easier implementation because it doesn't mess with other existing markers etc.

of course it's different from the TV Size marker, what i'm saying is that it's used for an incredibly similar purpose and provides valuable information to the player. putting the information in the description/tags is not adequate in the cases i have described with regards to the beatmap listings (rectifiable down the line, sure, in a couple of years at a push in the client) and the lack of transparency i described in not knowing what version of a song i'm even playing.

it seriously makes no sense for a 1 minute long cut of a 3 minute long song to be titled the same. hell, with the current rules you could cut a 20 minute long song down to a minute and still have identical core metadata.

its actually awful that this isn't a standard to begin with.

Nothing and i mean NOTHING disappoints me more when i see a song in qualified or ranked and i realise its been shortened.

I don't really play for PP or self improvement, i play for either ranked score or to just simply enjoy a song and map complimenting the songs, how are you meant to enjoy it when your experience is cut short?

When its shortened for the sake of PP (and at this current state of the meta its basically ego inflation at this point), because the mapper simply cannot be bothered to map for more than a minuite or 2 or worst of all, when a mapper doesn't have the skill to make a full version exciting to play because its too challenging for them to map a repetitive song in a good way; none of this is good for the game at all

its actually appalling that people are basically arguing against this, there is nothing to lose from adding this to the metadata or future maps. it saves me getting my hopes up for another disappointing map that isn't worth my time.

baz wrote:

Do you actually have any reasonable feedback for the proposal or are you going to continue to be pedantic because this doesn't help make the proposal any better?

I'm not being pedantic, it's important to think thoroughly about a rule before implementing it, look at what Noffy wrote:

Noffy wrote:

I ask people please play devil's advocate and imagine how the following can be loophole'd or stretched or messed with before it's potentially applied to the live RC.

dong wrote:

of course it's different from the TV Size marker, what i'm saying is that it's used for an incredibly similar purpose and provides valuable information to the player. putting the information in the description/tags is not adequate in the cases i have described with regards to the beatmap listings (rectifiable down the line, sure, in a couple of years at a push in the client) and the lack of transparency i described in not knowing what version of a song i'm even playing.

As I said, adding the length information to the beatmap listing page is a technical issue and should be handled accordingly. Changing the metadata because of it is simply not a reasonable solution that works well with out current metadata rules.

dong wrote:

it seriously makes no sense for a 1 minute long cut of a 3 minute long song to be titled the same. hell, with the current rules you could cut a 20 minute long song down to a minute and still have identical core metadata.

It doesn't make sense for a 30 second long cut to be titled the same as a 3 minute long cut either, but that's what your proposal wouldn't account for, as well as several other issues I mentioned a while ago.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

It doesn't make sense for a 30 second long cut to be titled the same as a 3 minute long cut either, but that's what your proposal wouldn't account for, as well as several other issues I mentioned a while ago.

...why not? The Cut tag is there to signify a change from the original piece, so we as players can expect to not be receiving the full experience when we DL the map. It doesn't have to be infinitely specific, you've been told this over and over again. Just like there can be different extended versions, there can be different cut versions and that's fine. As long as the tag is there, it doesn't make you feel scammed or disappointed because your expectations weren't misled by the metadata.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

As I said, adding the length information to the beatmap listing page is a technical issue and should be handled accordingly. Changing the metadata because of it is simply not a reasonable solution that works well with out current metadata rules.

It doesn't make sense for a 30 second long cut to be titled the same as a 3 minute long cut either, but that's what your proposal wouldn't account for, as well as several other issues I mentioned a while ago.

i mean, why not both? adding length info doesn't solve the entire problem and adding this marker doesn't either, but both would be very beneficial.

i love downloading maps to find out they are cut down without it saying it anywhere