Introduction

With the latest changes to metadata, unofficial edits of any song must use a (Cut Ver.) marker at the end of their title. Only when certain conditions are met, this marker is not applied.

While this change was much needed for the sake of clarity, it generates issues with how the other metadata rules currently exist.

Take for example the following song:


The official length of this Trance track is 4:45. So, if someone edits the song and makes a 2 minute version of it, with the current rules for metadata the title would be:


So far it's OK. It's a bit clunky having 2 markers, but still no major clarity issues. However, what if the mapper also increased the BPM of the song too?

With the current rules, the correct metadata after increasing the tempo would be this:


While all of the markers are technically correct, they end up bloating the original title in quite a extreme way. There is also a redundancy when both makers (Sped Up Ver.) and (Cut Ver.) exist in the title, since both use the word "Version".


Proposal

With those issues in mind, the solution proposed is to merge both (Cut Ver.) and (Speed Up Ver.)/(Nightcore Mix) markers into the single marker (Edit Ver.) when the song has been unofficially edited. This would also replace tempo modification markers and variations of the marker (Edit Version) if they exist in the original title.
For example, if the original title was artist - nameofthesong (Radio Edit) and someone edited that version either in length, tempo or both, the new metadata would be artist - nameofthesong (Edit Ver.).

Additionally, the old markers (like speed up ver. or cut ver.) must be added in the tags.

With this change, both players and mappers would be able to tell at a first glance that the song in the map does not belong to an official version while also making the metadata much more elegant and clear.

A few examples of how the current metadata works versus how the proposed metadata would work:



With this change, the wording in the ranking criteria could look like this:



FAQ

Q: Why remove the markers related to tempo changes? Wouldn't that make metadata more confusing?

A: The current markers related to tempo changes exist to tell mappers and players that the song has been edited and no longer has its original BPM. Having the marker (Edit Ver.) already encapsulates that the song has been modified and doesn't belong to any official versions.

Q: What about songs that only have their tempo modified?

A: While I'm not against keeping the markers (Sped Up Ver.) and (Nightcore Mix) for songs that only have their tempo increased, the (Edit Ver.) marker already indicates to mappers and players that the song has been edited. This proposal also adds the current tempo markers to the tags so players can still search for a map using the familiar terms.

Q: What about songs that are edited to match an official version in length but have their tempo increased?

A: They would still use the marker (Edit Ver.) because modifying their tempo means it's an unofficial edit even if it matches the length of an official version.

i agree

Totally agree!

me caiste bien weon +1

yes +1
having multiple marker in the song title only bloated it which makes even silly and unclear rn

While I do agree that multiple markers not only look bad but also make the title unnecessarily longer, generalizing all kinds of "edits" into a single marker seems counterintuitive. The whole point of these markers is to denote in which way the song was edited and therefore this would cause a major loss of information. It would also create ambiguity when a cut version of a song uses the same metadata as a sped up version of it, for example beatmapsets/1244123#osu/2586235 and beatmapsets/538998#osu/1514898. Besides, the word "edit" often refers to remixes or other alterations of the song itself such as beatmapsets/746506#osu/1573320 so this is also quite confusing.

Anyway, the current rules are definitely not ideal and we should try to find a more elegant way to solve it. I feel like this also just comes down to implementing a more efficient tagging system, an idea that was brought up several times in other threads and discussions. It might be complicated to do or take a long time but we've reached a point where metadata has become quite a mess with all these markers etc.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

While I do agree that multiple markers not only look bad but also make the title unnecessarily longer, generalizing all kinds of "edits" into a single marker seems counterintuitive. The whole point of these markers is to denote in which way the song was edited and therefore this would cause a major loss of information. It would also create ambiguity when a cut version of a song uses the same metadata as a sped up version of it, for example beatmapsets/1244123#osu/2586235 and beatmapsets/538998#osu/1514898.

Where is the loss of information? A speed up or cut version would still contain the tags indicating what kind of edit it has. Both mapsets have an unofficial edit, so if anything, adding multiple markers to unofficial edits is even more confusing. The whole point of this proposal is to make titles more simple while still including all the relevant information. Having a (Edit Ver.) marker already implies that the song has been modified in a certain way. If it's speed up, a cut version or both shouldn't matter as much as informing the player or mapper that the song is an unofficial edit.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

Besides, the word "edit" often refers to remixes or other alterations of the song itself such as beatmapsets/746506#osu/1573320 so this is also quite confusing.

If you read the proposed re-wording for ranking criteria this is already explained partially: "Unofficial edits of songs that change the original tempo and/or modify the original length." GoldenWolf or Dicate edits change more than just tempo or length so just adding the conditional "...only change the original tempo and/or modify the original length" would solve this issue.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

Anyway, the current rules are definitely not ideal and we should try to find a more elegant way to solve it. I feel like this also just comes down to implementing a more efficient tagging system, an idea that was brought up several times in other threads and discussions. It might be complicated to do or take a long time but we've reached a point where metadata has become quite a mess with all these markers etc.

I find this solution quite elegant and since implementing a different tagging system will take a while, I find this proposal viable, before the ranking section is filled with markers longer than the original titles.

following big rewrite of this section https://github.com/ppy/osu-wiki/pull/4274 you'd now write "(Sped Up & Cut Ver.)" or "(Nightcore & Cut Ver.)"

does that close this thread?

clayton wrote:

following big rewrite of this section https://github.com/ppy/osu-wiki/pull/4274 you'd now write "(Sped Up & Cut Ver.)" or "(Nightcore & Cut Ver.)"

does that close this thread?

Only if you prefer having those markers over the more simple and clear (Edit Ver.)

i mean i'd assume some songs officially have (edit ver.) in title so thatd conflict if u speed up/cut that song

imo what clayton said should already work well

Wanpachi wrote:

i mean i'd assume some songs officially have (edit ver.) in title so thatd conflict if u speed up/cut that song

imo what clayton said should already work well

This is only for unofficial edits. If the original metadata has (edit ver.) then it would remain unchanged as long as the song is not edited unofficially. Or would you rather prefer having (edit ver.)(Sped Up & Cut Ver.) metadata instead?

i guess i just don't see the point in shortening this further to "Edit Ver." when you lose the info in title for no gain besides less characters. tags let you search, but title lets you identify as well--- which is pretty much why we've got "title markers" in the first place.

clayton wrote:

i guess i just don't see the point in shortening this further to "Edit Ver." when you lose the info in title for no gain besides less characters. tags let you search, but title lets you identify as well--- which is pretty much why we've got "title markers" in the first place.

Since people keep saying the argument of "losing information" I'll try to be more clear.

What is the point of having (Cut Ver.) or (Sped Up Ver.) in the title? Inform players and mappers that the track is an edited version. The marker (Edit Ver.) encapsulates the exact same information, except it's not as detailed (at first glance only) in explaining what kind of edit it is.

So what's more important to have in the title, indicating that a song has been unofficially edited or indicating what kind of edit has been done?

Instead of having the following markers

for the exact same song but edited differently, having just

is a much more clear and elegant approach to metadata standardization.

If you really wanna know what kind of edit has been done, all it takes is looking at the tags.
The whole point of markers is informing in a simple way that the song has been edited, not blasting the title with so much information that the tittle itself is an afterthought compared to the amount of additional markers.

Illyasviel wrote:

Wanpachi wrote:

i mean i'd assume some songs officially have (edit ver.) in title so thatd conflict if u speed up/cut that song

imo what clayton said should already work well

This is only for unofficial edits. If the original metadata has (edit ver.) then it would remain unchanged as long as the song is not edited unofficially. Or would you rather prefer having (edit ver.)(Sped Up & Cut Ver.) metadata instead?

yeag but u can also unofficially edit an officially edited song

like if u sped up helix (edit ver.) (not like i really would) the edit vers wld conflict

Wanpachi wrote:

Illyasviel wrote:

Wanpachi wrote:

i mean i'd assume some songs officially have (edit ver.) in title so thatd conflict if u speed up/cut that song

imo what clayton said should already work well

This is only for unofficial edits. If the original metadata has (edit ver.) then it would remain unchanged as long as the song is not edited unofficially. Or would you rather prefer having (edit ver.)(Sped Up & Cut Ver.) metadata instead?

yeag but u can also unofficially edit an officially edited song

Sure, but that's no longer an official edit. It's an unofficial edit of an official edit. Having just (Edit Ver.) instead of (edit ver.)(Sped Up & Cut Ver.) is significantly better and more clear. Which is the whole point of my proposal.

Following your example then, the current metadata would make the title helix (edit ver.) (Sped Up Ver.) which not only looks worse and it implies two versions, it's no longer the official edited version even if the title says it is besides the (Sped Up Ver.) marker. Having (Edit Ver.) and then Sped Up Ver. in the tags would still be less confusing and more clear visually.

Illyasviel wrote:

Sure, but that's no longer an official edit. It's an unofficial edit of an official edit. Having just (Edit Ver.) instead of (edit ver.)(Sped Up & Cut Ver.) is significantly better and more clear. Which is the whole point of my proposal.

Following your example then, the current metadata would make the title helix (edit ver.) (Sped Up Ver.) which not only looks worse and it implies two versions, it's no longer the official edited version even if the title says it is besides the (Sped Up Ver.) marker. Having (Edit Ver.) and then Sped Up Ver. in the tags would still be less confusing and more clear visually.

then wouldnt that be even more confusing? i mean p sure people would be confused on which is the actual edit ver and which is the sped up edit ver

Illyasviel wrote:

What is the point of having (Cut Ver.) or (Sped Up Ver.) in the title? Inform players and mappers that the track is an edited version.

it's to inform that it's cut or sped up...

helix isnt an official edit lks added a 1/4 hihat to it!

also the point is to explain what type of edit it is at a glance instead of making them go hunt for it in the desc or whatever which is the entire point of having the rule in the first place

i think it should only apply to songs like fragmented where there's a (2020 Remix) tag. it should also only apply to songs that have both been cut and sped up.

this rule is only good to prevent your osu library from looking clunky.

this also works for long titles, like Nante Jibun de Kangaenasai na, because if someone were to cut the already short song to under a minute, and also to speed it up more (i don't really see why), then yeah, it should be Nante Jibun de Kangaenasai na (Edit Ver.) instead of Nante Jibun de Kangaenasai na (Cut Ver.) (Sped Up Ver.)

If you added length somewhere to the preview you could just prevent the issue at whole... people who already know the song would know it's shorter then, and it doesn't really matter to people who never knew the song before whether there's a full... if they cared they would just look it up themselves, right? (or looked in the description mentioned below if the title has "Edit Ver.")
If you wanted to know whether the song was nightcore'd/sped up or not, you just click "play" and it will tell you w/the preview audio, so I don't find that part much of an issue. And if you wanted to know how much of a cut the song is you look at the length. Then you don't even have to visit the map page, which would in theory inform you how it was edited as specifically as possible in the description. (that's what I think should be required, anyways)

However, (Edit Ver.) would work because it assumes it an unofficial ver. of the song and wouldn't tarnish the song to anyone new listening giving their first impressions based off the song... like how I did with Make a Move lol.
And it would help for cases that are really hard to tell, like 5% speed increase/decrease or changes that make the song longer or shorter by a couple moments.

the change mentioned here community/forums/posts/7701786 seems good to cover the concern of having too many markers in the title. Edit Ver looks cleaner but doesn't tell users what they want to know