I would agree with Nao, using tags to inform about if it’s cut or not + description should be enough to not mess too much with the current metadata system.
Trynna wrote:
I don't think it's super convenient to have a rule that says like "oh you must use (Short Ver.) if a song has it in it's title" but then add (Cut Ver.) just to mess things up for the ppl checking it. If anything, a way to merge those two would be better than just adding one more marker. I don't think being an official cut or not is that benefitial to know from a player's perspective, as in the end they are trying to show something extremely similar
The point of my proposal is to have the information in the title though, to avoid this:Nozhomi wrote:
I would agree with Nao, using tags to inform about if it’s cut or not + description should be enough to not mess too much with the current metadata system.
dong wrote:
I believe that all cuts/mixes of songs, official or unofficial, must have this fact specified somewhere which is visible in both osu!direct and the website's beatmap listing.
dong wrote:
My proposition is that any beatmap featuring an unofficial cut of a song should specify so in the title using the term "(Cut ver.)".
These are the cases I am talking about where this distinction is necessary, yes. What makes a non-anime song weird here? Have you seen Sotarks' Gold Dust mapset, for example? Why would the distinction be necessary for your examples but not a 'non-anime song'?realy0_ wrote:
imo i really agree with this but for the case when the song is actually extended, it is just misleading cuz a cut often meant shorter version of the song, not a longer official tv size ver
the case i'm actually talking about is when you cut a full ver into a tv size but with extra parts of the song like https://osu.ppy.sh/beatmapsets/775766#osu/1630299 or https://osu.ppy.sh/beatmapsets/745312#osu/1571309
also for non-anime songs it would be super weird imo
Isn't this song from a video game? Of course the track is gonna be looped. Cutting a looped song is expected, see, for example, any Pokémon or Undertale BGM map.Mirash wrote:
it seems like a good idea but at the same time i dont want to add CUT VERSION to all of the zts tracks that are basically looped for 9 minutes
https://old.ppy.sh/s/889315 this for example is a cut and doesn't suffer from it anyhow and i dont think people need to know its a cut
dong wrote:
realy0_ wrote:
imo i really agree with this but for the case when the song is actually extended, it is just misleading cuz a cut often meant shorter version of the song, not a longer official tv size ver
the case i'm actually talking about is when you cut a full ver into a tv size but with extra parts of the song like https://osu.ppy.sh/beatmapsets/775766#osu/1630299 or https://osu.ppy.sh/beatmapsets/745312#osu/1571309
also for non-anime songs it would be super weird imo
These are the cases I am talking about where this distinction is necessary, yes. What makes a non-anime song weird here? Have you seen Sotarks' Gold Dust mapset, for example? Why would the distinction be necessary for your examples but not a 'non-anime song'?
Well, going by this definition, if a song that loops (such as a BGM like an Undertale, Pokémon or zts track as previously mentioned) is cut, does that count as removing a portion of audio? I think if a song loops indefinitely then an exception can be made so long as a cut is not made part-way through a loop.glossygloss wrote:
Cut: A song file that has had a portion of audio removed to shorten the beatmapset's play time.
In this case, the shorter version is the original version, so no metadata changes need to be made - the cut ver. marker should not be added - and the extended ver. is as expected the version with the extended ver. marker. I think that each different version of a track should be distinguished starting from the original version of the song. If an artist makes a new version of the same song, whether shortened or extended, without their own marker in the official metadata, it should then be added based on which version is the original version.Ryuusei Aika wrote:
one case can be the very first version of a song is "full ver", like nearly all rhythm game songs, their first version is the original one while their "full ver" are actually called "extended ver", "original mix" etc. so in that case, players would like to see the shorter (original) version while downloading those rhythm game songs so adding a cut ver after those shorter songs shows disrespect to the artist and also conflict with the initial point with that proposal (well standardize tv size/short ver/game ver is also disrespectful but that's another story)
the second one is more reasonable since it divides the "propose of the artist" and "propose of the fan-made" better and respect the artist to some extent.
pishifat wrote:
i don't have much opinion on this proposal, so i'm gonna run it by all bn/nat members to see what they think. hopefully we'll be able to reach a conclusion in a few days
Proposal wrote:
If the song is an unofficial cut that is not made that way for a remix or cover, it should include (Cut Ver.) at the end of the current title string. This is to easily distinguish shortened versions of songs from their full length counterparts. Exceptions are if a song is only slightly shortened where musical sections match the original song, or if the cut is (a) full loop(s) from a looping track.
If the song is shortened for reasons other than a remix, a cover, or an official cut, it should include (Short 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.
realy0_ wrote:
i wonder how this would be applied to cases where you use a unoffical extended mp3 ? do you have to put a (Cut Ver.) in the second map if it doesn't follow this ? "This is to easily distinguish shortened versions of songs from their full length counterparts."
https://osu.ppy.sh/beatmapsets/514204#osu/1092402
(official)
https://osu.ppy.sh/beatmapsets/515939#osu/1095534
(unofficial extension)
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
The problem about this is that it still wouldn't differentiate between different cut lenghts. A 30 second cut and a 2:30 cut would have the same exact title which would still be misleading.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
Also, the reason why the (Short Ver.) marker wasn't enforced on all game size maps (like TV Size for anime openings) is that it would affect a large number of maps and it would make things even more complicated so it wouldn't make much sense to enforce (Cut Ver.) on so many maps.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
And I think someone already mentioned this earlier but in some cases it's actually really hard to find out how long the original song is unless you buy the single/album somewhere, and it could be confusing if a song was released with different lengths without indicating short/full version, this has actually happened to me on some of my maps.
dong wrote:
realy0_ wrote:
i wonder how this would be applied to cases where you use a unoffical extended mp3 ? do you have to put a (Cut Ver.) in the second map if it doesn't follow this ? "This is to easily distinguish shortened versions of songs from their full length counterparts."
https://osu.ppy.sh/beatmapsets/514204#osu/1092402
(official)
https://osu.ppy.sh/beatmapsets/515939#osu/1095534
(unofficial extension)
then it is an "Extended ver."..?
realy0_ wrote:
so then it has to be precised in the purposal or else people would be confused
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
The problem about this is that it still wouldn't differentiate between different cut lenghts. A 30 second cut and a 2:30 cut would have the same exact title which would still be misleading.
As I said, this problem can easily be solved by simply adding information about the map length in osu!direct/on the website or by clicking on the mapdong wrote:
The problem is differentiating between the official length of the song and any cut version. If I download a beatmap without any indication that it differs from the official, original version of the song, I expect it to be the official, original version of the song. If the marker is added then I at least know which map is the official length and which have been 'butchered'. Differentiating between a million different varieties of 'cut version' is unimportant.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
Also, the reason why the (Short Ver.) marker wasn't enforced on all game size maps (like TV Size for anime openings) is that it would affect a large number of maps and it would make things even more complicated so it wouldn't make much sense to enforce (Cut Ver.) on so many maps.
I wouldn't say it is, these standardization rules are supposed to be somewhat consistent with each other, meaning that if (Cut Ver.) is enforced on all maps, the same thing would have to be done with (Short Ver.) but apparently it has already been decided that (Short Ver.) shouldn't be enforced. I also don't consider it a problem like you say. Before the standardization rules existed, the metadata wasn't wrong, just handled differently. Standardization doesn't necessarily equal progress.dong wrote:
This point is moot because why let a problem persist just because it has existed for years? Progress means progress. I was previously unaware that 'TV Size' markers weren't required for official TV Size cuts. If that's the case, that is unequivocably stupid.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
And I think someone already mentioned this earlier but in some cases it's actually really hard to find out how long the original song is unless you buy the single/album somewhere, and it could be confusing if a song was released with different lengths without indicating short/full version, this has actually happened to me on some of my maps.
Yes you usually know if you cut an mp3 but BNs also need to check the metadata which means they have to find out whether it's a cut or not. Also, some people just take mp3s from other maps so they wouldn't know if it's cut or not. Regarding the different versions of the same song, sometimes they are released at the same time or the release date is unknown. And "just doing the research" is not really possible if no information is available at all.dong wrote:
You should know if you cut an mp3 yourself first of all, but this just boils down to whether or not you even care about having proper metadata, which the ranking criteria definitely should. If the artist themselves doesn't specify in the official metadata then the earliest released version of the track should not have a marker, and those shorter and longer than the original release should use the unofficial markers discussed in this thread, in my opinion. If it's just 'hard to find out', then just do the research.
Sure, but how would you know the length specified in osu!direct/the site isn't the length of the official release? You would either have to search for the length of other ranked maps or scour the internet for metadata which you state later on in the post might be impossible.Serizawa Haruki wrote:
As I said, this problem can easily be solved by simply adding information about the map length in osu!direct/on the website or by clicking on the map
Speaking as someone whose interest in the issue stems outside of rhythm games, there are very few cases where the source metadata are not available somewhere online; even if it's not, you can usually find the length of the full version by searching for it on a video site such as YouTube or niconico. If you're re-using an mp3 from another set, then there will be a link back to the original metadata which usually contains the length. If you have sourced the mp3 from somewhere else online, then there will almost definitely be metadata on it.Serizawa Haruki wrote:
Yes you usually know if you cut an mp3 but BNs also need to check the metadata which means they have to find out whether it's a cut or not. Also, some people just take mp3s from other maps so they wouldn't know if it's cut or not. Regarding the different versions of the same song, sometimes they are released at the same time or the release date is unknown. And "just doing the research" is not really possible if no information is available at all.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
As I said, this problem can easily be solved by simply adding information about the map length in osu!direct/on the website or by clicking on the map
Adding (Cut Ver.) to every second map kinda goes against the idea of "Do not modify the metadata an artist provides on official sources unless said modification is done in order to comply with formatting and standardisation rules on this Ranking Criteria." Even if this falls under the exceptions, the rule would become pointless because contrary to (TV Size) and (Short Ver.), this one is an artificial marker which changes the metadata of the map. The (Cut Ver.) marker doesn't exist in the official metadata, but TV Size and Short Ver are common in official sources, so enforcing those make sense for standardization purposes, however this one doesn't.helix wrote:
Sure, but how would you know the length specified in osu!direct/the site isn't the length of the official release? You would either have to search for the length of other ranked maps or scour the internet for metadata which you state later on in the post might be impossible.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
Yes you usually know if you cut an mp3 but BNs also need to check the metadata which means they have to find out whether it's a cut or not. Also, some people just take mp3s from other maps so they wouldn't know if it's cut or not. Regarding the different versions of the same song, sometimes they are released at the same time or the release date is unknown. And "just doing the research" is not really possible if no information is available at all.
Like I said, some songs are not available on platforms such as YouTube or niconico, you have to buy them or find a sketchy website with pirated music if you're lucky. As for taking the mp3 from another map, it's not true that the map always contains a metadata link. This usually only happens on ranked maps, pending and graveyarded maps often don't have that. And a lot of older ranked maps don't have it either because the metadata rules were less strict some years ago.helix wrote:
Speaking as someone whose interest in the issue stems outside of rhythm games, there are very few cases where the source metadata are not available somewhere online; even if it's not, you can usually find the length of the full version by searching for it on a video site such as YouTube or niconico. If you're re-using an mp3 from another set, then there will be a link back to the original metadata which usually contains the length. If you have sourced the mp3 from somewhere else online, then there will almost definitely be metadata on it.
I don't really understand the need to be informed about the length of the original song. You said "if they play a shortened version of a map they may not look for other versions of the song since they may think this is the only officially released length" but if someone wants to look up the song of a map they played, they will do so regardless of map length, and then they will probably find the full version themselves.helix wrote:
I can see you're personally invested in this issue because 3/4 of your ranked maps are cut significantly from the official versions (presumably to match the length of the TV-size versions) with no indication there's actually a longer version available. Looking at this from the perspective of a player, as I mentioned earlier, if they play a shortened version of a map they may not look for other versions of the song since they may think this is the only officially released length.
If I'm not being succinct enough, in my opinion, this change is not only important for the players in the sense that they get the best gameplay experience, but also for ensuring the quality of the metadata in the ranked section.
You can obviously disagree with me but I expect you to at least provide some counterarguments so we can discuss the issue properly.dong wrote:
ok, i'm not here to change your mind since a vote was already cast with the majority in favour, but i respectfully disagree. we should focus on wording this the best we can.
Fine, then "Short" should not be the wording. "Cut ver." may still be in use in official metadata, but I would presume it is much less common, therefore it better differentiates between an official and an unofficial cut.Serizawa Haruki wrote:
1) Using (Short Ver.) as pishi suggested is not a good idea in any case because it would not differentiate between an official and an unofficial cut. For example, if someone cuts an Eroge song to 2:30, it would have the same title as the official opening (let's say around 1:30) if it already has the marker in the metadata. Since this was your main reason to make this proposal, it wouldn't work out well.
That's the entire point of my proposal - that cutting a song should be a siginificant enough change to warrant an additional marker.Serizawa Haruki wrote:
2) Unlike (Short Ver.) and (TV Size), the (Cut Ver.) marker doesn't really exist in official sources so enforcing it onto many maps would be a significant alteration of the original metadata which goes against the RC rule which states that it shouldn't be changed with additional markers considering that cutting a song doesn't change it in any way except for its length.
Both a 1 minute cut and 3 minute cut are unofficial cuts, and the official mp3 should take precedence when working out metdata in this case. I don't see a problem with having this distinction for both of these cases, because if someone is downloading a map with a "Cut ver." marker, they know that some amount of the song has been cut in comparison to any official cut. It simply exists to better inform the player about what it is they are downloading.Serizawa Haruki wrote:
3) A song can be cut in many different ways and different lengths so if someone makes a 1 minute cut of a song, it would still have the same title as a 3 minute cut. This can be an even bigger problem if a song consists of parts which sound very different from each other. Some known examples for this are https://osu.ppy.sh/s/823960 and https://osu.ppy.sh/s/456366 but there are actually many songs with such a contrast (mostly electronic songs with a calm intro/outro and very heavy drops). Cutting the song in a way that makes only one part of the song remain would get the Cut Ver. marker, but if someone else cut the other part, it would get the marker as well despite being completely different.
Would this fall under a remix? If you're adding an R3 Music Box section, that information is already in the metadata, as can be seen in this map for example. If parts of the same song are looped without cutting any other parts out, that's an extension. I believe this should also be reflected in the metadata the same way i believe "Cut ver." should be. If parts are both cut and looped, well, you're mapping a frankenstein's monster - I guess it's a remix. How often does this happen? It's definitely not the same song at that point, you're telling me that shouldn't be reflected in the metadata upfront? That's even more serious that my initial problem. There is also already a guideline against this in the RC. It's a guideline, but that means the case should be less than common.Serizawa Haruki wrote:
4) What if someone cuts a song but extends it at the same time? Like, if one part of a song is removed but a different part that happens to be longer is being looped, it would be both a cut and an extension at the same time. I'm not sure if this has been done before but considering all the audio file edits people have done in order to go around song length limits (adding R3 Music Box, looping parts of the song several times, putting 2 songs together etc.), this would be a viable possibility.
er, yes, this is a Cut ver. You have removed a part of the song from the mp3, outro or not. If it's 20% of the song, I'd say that's pretty significant, too. Whether or not "not mapping this intro/outro" constitutes "basically mapping the full song" is subjective, but I disagree.Serizawa Haruki wrote:
5) If a song has a long outro (more than 20%) which the mapper doesn't want to map, they would have to cut it for the sake of rankability, but then they would have to add (Cut Ver.) to the title despite basically mapping the full song.
That's their job. I don't really think this is much of an argument. Things will slip through the cracks, maybe. Doesn't this happen with every rule?Serizawa Haruki wrote:
6) There would be more metadata related things to check for BNs and QAH and it could be confusing if there are different versions of the same song or if the mapper made a minor cut which isn't noticeable right away.
dong wrote:
Thanks for summarizing your arguments.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
2) Unlike (Short Ver.) and (TV Size), the (Cut Ver.) marker doesn't really exist in official sources so enforcing it onto many maps would be a significant alteration of the original metadata which goes against the RC rule which states that it shouldn't be changed with additional markers considering that cutting a song doesn't change it in any way except for its length.
Yes, but it's not reasonable because you are changing the metadata of the song without changing the song. That's like saying the metadata needs to be changed because someone didn't map the intro or outro of the song. If someone does that, they are also removing a part of the song from the map, yet the metadata remains the same. The distinction between unofficial and official cuts is not as important as you think because many unofficial cuts sound very similar to official ones and reflect the song well. In those cases, I wouldn't say it matters whether it's official or unofficial because there is barely any difference.dong wrote:
That's the entire point of my proposal - that cutting a song should be a siginificant enough change to warrant an additional marker.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
3) A song can be cut in many different ways and different lengths so if someone makes a 1 minute cut of a song, it would still have the same title as a 3 minute cut. This can be an even bigger problem if a song consists of parts which sound very different from each other. Some known examples for this are https://osu.ppy.sh/s/823960 and https://osu.ppy.sh/s/456366 but there are actually many songs with such a contrast (mostly electronic songs with a calm intro/outro and very heavy drops). Cutting the song in a way that makes only one part of the song remain would get the Cut Ver. marker, but if someone else cut the other part, it would get the marker as well despite being completely different.
It may inform them that it's a cut, but they still don't know what they're downloading. They know nothing about the length or about which part of the song the map contains and that is more important than whether it's an official or unofficial cut.dong wrote:
Both a 1 minute cut and 3 minute cut are unofficial cuts, and the official mp3 should take precedence when working out metdata in this case. I don't see a problem with having this distinction for both of these cases, because if someone is downloading a map with a "Cut ver." marker, they know that some amount of the song has been cut in comparison to any official cut. It simply exists to better inform the player about what it is they are downloading.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
4) What if someone cuts a song but extends it at the same time? Like, if one part of a song is removed but a different part that happens to be longer is being looped, it would be both a cut and an extension at the same time. I'm not sure if this has been done before but considering all the audio file edits people have done in order to go around song length limits (adding R3 Music Box, looping parts of the song several times, putting 2 songs together etc.), this would be a viable possibility.
It's not a remix because the song hasn't been changed in a way that makes a new/different song. The parts of the song are simply being assembled in a different way, but the song itself is still the same.dong wrote:
Would this fall under a remix? If you're adding an R3 Music Box section, that information is already in the metadata, as can be seen in this map for example. If parts of the same song are looped without cutting any other parts out, that's an extension. I believe this should also be reflected in the metadata the same way i believe "Cut ver." should be. If parts are both cut and looped, well, you're mapping a frankenstein's monster - I guess it's a remix. How often does this happen? It's definitely not the same song at that point, you're telling me that shouldn't be reflected in the metadata upfront? That's even more serious that my initial problem. There is also already a guideline against this in the RC. It's a guideline, but that means the case should be less than common.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
5) If a song has a long outro (more than 20%) which the mapper doesn't want to map, they would have to cut it for the sake of rankability, but then they would have to add (Cut Ver.) to the title despite basically mapping the full song.
I think you misunderstood me because I didn't fully explain the issue. The RC states that an audio file must be cut if the last 20% of it are unmapped. There are songs where the outro is a very long fade out or the same rhythm being repeated dozens of times in a row. Both of these cases wouldn't be very interesting to map and it would be understandable if a mapper decides to not map those parts, just like any other part of the song they are not interested in mapping.dong wrote:
er, yes, this is a Cut ver. You have removed a part of the song from the mp3, outro or not. If it's 20% of the song, I'd say that's pretty significant, too. Whether or not "not mapping this intro/outro" constitutes "basically mapping the full song" is subjective, but I disagree.
I think the marker literally saying "(Cut ver.) is quite clear in what it means. It sounds the same - so does a TV Size. I don't really see your argument. Are you saying that historically markers have only been used when the song it changed in such a way that makes it sound different? In that case, I would like this to change.Serizawa Haruki wrote:
Yes, but it's not reasonable because you are changing the metadata of the song without changing the song. That's like saying the metadata needs to be changed because someone didn't map the intro or outro of the song. If someone does that, they are also removing a part of the song from the map, yet the metadata remains the same. The distinction between unofficial and official cuts is not as important as you think because many unofficial cuts sound very similar to official ones and reflect the song well. In those cases, I wouldn't say it matters whether it's official or unofficial because there is barely any difference.
If the website in ingame downloader is improved to display the length, I'm all for it, but that doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon and i would still argue for this marker to be required on maps as I can clearly see that the lack of there being a marker is being used in a misleading way. If something like this was promised in the near future I could potentially back down, but as of now, this is my proposal.Serizawa Haruki wrote:
It may inform them that it's a cut, but they still don't know what they're downloading. They know nothing about the length or about which part of the song the map contains and that is more important than whether it's an official or unofficial cut.
I completely disagree that the song is the same, and i definitely disagree that people should be able to completely reorder parts of a song without specifying such in the title. This appears to be a different concern than what I express in the OP though, but I can see people using this as a loophole, which would make the whole situation worse.Serizawa Haruki wrote:
It's not a remix because the song hasn't been changed in a way that makes a new/different song. The parts of the song are simply being assembled in a different way, but the song itself is still the same.
In my ideal world this is still a Cut ver. but the line is thinner. I wouldn't consider a song with less than 20% of the ending not mapped (but not cut) a cut version, so I'm willing to compromise on outros. I can't say I have a robust argument against this.Serizawa Haruki wrote:
I think you misunderstood me because I didn't fully explain the issue. The RC states that an audio file must be cut if the last 20% of it are unmapped. There are songs where the outro is a very long fade out or the same rhythm being repeated dozens of times in a row. Both of these cases wouldn't be very interesting to map and it would be understandable if a mapper decides to not map those parts, just like any other part of the song they are not interested in mapping.
Other markers for songs that are literally a remix (Sped up ver., Nightcore Mix) take precedence over "Cut ver.", definitely. I don't see a problem with including one and not the other. Whether or not it "looks bad" is subjective. I think a map like this one NOT including "Cut ver." in the title looks bad, hence why I made this proposal in the first place.Serizawa Haruki wrote:
Having this marker on a big portion of ranked maps simply looks bad and it would be even worse for songs that have (Sped Up Ver.) or (Nightcore Mix) in the title because most of them are cuts so those would have 2 markers next to each other and that looks horrible
No, these aren't comparable at all. If you remove a part of the song (a.k.a Cut it), then yeah you are definitely changing the song, and the metadata needs to reflect that. Not mapping a part of the mp3 is not changing the song at all. That should be obvious.Serizawa Haruki wrote:
Yes, but it's not reasonable because you are changing the metadata of the song without changing the song. That's like saying the metadata needs to be changed because someone didn't map the intro or outro of the song.
The tag should be added for exactly this reason; to prompt us players to actually look into what the hell we're about to download instead of misleading us to downloadS. H. wrote:
It may inform them that it's a cut, but they still don't know what they're downloading. They know nothing about the length or about which part of the song the map contains and that is more important than whether it's an official or unofficial cut.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
Yes, but it's not reasonable because you are changing the metadata of the song without changing the song. That's like saying the metadata needs to be changed because someone didn't map the intro or outro of the song. If someone does that, they are also removing a part of the song from the map, yet the metadata remains the same. The distinction between unofficial and official cuts is not as important as you think because many unofficial cuts sound very similar to official ones and reflect the song well. In those cases, I wouldn't say it matters whether it's official or unofficial because there is barely any difference.
That's not what I'm saying, but I have already explained why (Cut Ver.) is not the same as (TV Size) in my other post. TV Size exists in the official metadata of some TV Size songs, later it was used for all TV Size songs regardless of whether they have the marker in the official source or not (standardization).dong wrote:
I think the marker literally saying "(Cut ver.) is quite clear in what it means. It sounds the same - so does a TV Size. I don't really see your argument. Are you saying that historically markers have only been used when the song it changed in such a way that makes it sound different? In that case, I would like this to change.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
It may inform them that it's a cut, but they still don't know what they're downloading. They know nothing about the length or about which part of the song the map contains and that is more important than whether it's an official or unofficial cut.
I am aware that such changes are unlikely to happen/take a long time but making such drastic workaround changes isn't a reasonable option just because the interface doesn't include every information you'd like to have. I don't really get what you mean by "the lack of there being a marker is being used in a misleading way" because nobody is doing anything misleading by simply using the normal song title just like for the past 10 years.dong wrote:
If the website in ingame downloader is improved to display the length, I'm all for it, but that doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon and i would still argue for this marker to be required on maps as I can clearly see that the lack of there being a marker is being used in a misleading way. If something like this was promised in the near future I could potentially back down, but as of now, this is my proposal.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
It's not a remix because the song hasn't been changed in a way that makes a new/different song. The parts of the song are simply being assembled in a different way, but the song itself is still the same.
What I mean by "the song is the same" is that the sounds are not being edited. Of course there is a difference between the original song and a version where the parts of the song are ordered in a different way but it's still not a remix.dong wrote:
I completely disagree that the song is the same, and i definitely disagree that people should be able to completely reorder parts of a song without specifying such in the title. This appears to be a different concern than what I express in the OP though, but I can see people using this as a loophole, which would make the whole situation worse.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
I think you misunderstood me because I didn't fully explain the issue. The RC states that an audio file must be cut if the last 20% of it are unmapped. There are songs where the outro is a very long fade out or the same rhythm being repeated dozens of times in a row. Both of these cases wouldn't be very interesting to map and it would be understandable if a mapper decides to not map those parts, just like any other part of the song they are not interested in mapping.
So your solution for this would be that maps where the outro is cut don't need this marker?dong wrote:
In my ideal world this is still a Cut ver. but the line is thinner. I wouldn't consider a song with less than 20% of the ending not mapped (but not cut) a cut version, so I'm willing to compromise on outros. I can't say I have a robust argument against this.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
Having this marker on a big portion of ranked maps simply looks bad and it would be even worse for songs that have (Sped Up Ver.) or (Nightcore Mix) in the title because most of them are cuts so those would have 2 markers next to each other and that looks horrible
That doesn't make any sense because you say that the point of this proposal is to know whether a song is an unofficial cut or not when downloading it, yet in these cases you wouldn't be able to tell the difference if there is a full version and a cut version of the song.dong wrote:
Other markers for songs that are literally a remix (Sped up ver., Nightcore Mix) take precedence over "Cut ver.", definitely. I don't see a problem with including one and not the other. Whether or not it "looks bad" is subjective. I think a map like this one NOT including "Cut ver." in the title looks bad, hence why I made this proposal in the first place.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
Yes, but it's not reasonable because you are changing the metadata of the song without changing the song. That's like saying the metadata needs to be changed because someone didn't map the intro or outro of the song.
There is not really much of a difference between the outro of a song being cut or it being unmapped, especially when it's not even noticeable for players.Lefafel wrote:
No, these aren't comparable at all. If you remove a part of the song (a.k.a Cut it), then yeah you are definitely changing the song, and the metadata needs to reflect that. Not mapping a part of the mp3 is not changing the song at all. That should be obvious.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
It may inform them that it's a cut, but they still don't know what they're downloading. They know nothing about the length or about which part of the song the map contains and that is more important than whether it's an official or unofficial cut.
Even with (Cut Ver.), you still don't know how much was cut and what the cut actually sounds like. Therefore it could still be "misleading" if you consider it that way.Lefafel wrote:
The tag should be added for exactly this reason; to prompt us players to actually look into what the hell we're about to download instead of misleading us to downloadyour mutilated excuse of a maponly a portion of what is to be expected from the metadata.
I am well aware that Cut Ver. is not the same as TV Size, I was just using an example. I didn't really understand your point. The problem here is that while a TV Size cut includes this fact in the metadata, because it is the official metadata, an unofficially cut version does not, whereas I believe that it should. TV size of obviously not the correct marker to use in this case, so I propose that we enforce the use of Cut ver.Serizawa Haruki wrote:
That's not what I'm saying, but I have already explained why (Cut Ver.) is not the same as (TV Size) in my other post. TV Size exists in the official metadata of some TV Size songs, later it was used for all TV Size songs regardless of whether they have the marker in the official source or not (standardization).
You didn't really address the part about unofficial and official cuts being very similar. I don't think you'd be able to tell if a certain TV Size song were official or not if the TV Size marker didn't exist. People have also been talking about making exceptions for recreations of official cuts (which is a vague definition but w/e). That already shows that unofficial cuts shouldn't be treated as something completely different.
I download a song with the normal title, and expect it to be the official full length of the song. If it is not, then it is misleading. I believe Ephemeral recently summed up this problem in a tweet: https://twitter.com/ephemeralis/status/1153205847259897856Serizawa Haruki wrote:
I am aware that such changes are unlikely to happen/take a long time but making such drastic workaround changes isn't a reasonable option just because the interface doesn't include every information you'd like to have. I don't really get what you mean by "the lack of there being a marker is being used in a misleading way" because nobody is doing anything misleading by simply using the normal song title just like for the past 10 years.
Do you believe that this doesn't warrant a distinction in the metadata, then? Like I said I don't think the problem I initially set out to fix covers this question but I'm really not sure what to say to you if you honestly believe that an mp3 as heavily edited as you describe should have the exact same metadata as the official song.Serizawa Haruki wrote:
What I mean by "the song is the same" is that the sounds are not being edited. Of course there is a difference between the original song and a version where the parts of the song are ordered in a different way but it's still not a remix.
yeah, I can compromise if this is done specifically because the outro is a looping part of the music and you wish to cut it to meet that 20% threshold.Serizawa Haruki wrote:
So your solution for this would be that maps where the outro is cut don't need this marker?
I completely disagree that most people would prefer seeing a title without an unnecessary marker, but you'd have to ask them. I've provided many examples on reddit (and the replies to Ephemeral's recent tweet) that people are sick and tired of this problem, so you tell me if more people think otherwise.Serizawa Haruki wrote:
That doesn't make any sense because you say that the point of this proposal is to know whether a song is an unofficial cut or not when downloading it, yet in these cases you wouldn't be able to tell the difference if there is a full version and a cut version of the song.
Of course "looks bad" is subjective but I think most people prefer seeing a title without an unnecessary marker
there doesn't need to be much of a difference, if you remove a part of the mp3 then you have made a cut version. If you didn't remove a part of the mp3, then you have the original version. This again comes back to why the tag needs to exist: to let players know somethingwas done to the song and to proceed at their own risk, so to speak.Serizawa Haruki wrote:
There is not really much of a difference between the outro of a song being cut or it being unmapped, especially when it's not even noticeable for players
It doesn't need to tell us how much is missing, it just needs to tell us the mp3 was altered so we can judge for ourselves before downloading. Your argument is very much in bad faith.S. H. wrote:
Even with (Cut Ver.), you still don't know how much was cut and what the cut actually sounds like. Therefore it could still be "misleading" if you consider it that way.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
That's not what I'm saying, but I have already explained why (Cut Ver.) is not the same as (TV Size) in my other post. TV Size exists in the official metadata of some TV Size songs, later it was used for all TV Size songs regardless of whether they have the marker in the official source or not (standardization).
You didn't really address the part about unofficial and official cuts being very similar. I don't think you'd be able to tell if a certain TV Size song were official or not if the TV Size marker didn't exist. People have also been talking about making exceptions for recreations of official cuts (which is a vague definition but w/e). That already shows that unofficial cuts shouldn't be treated as something completely different.
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:
I am well aware that Cut Ver. is not the same as TV Size, I was just using an example. I didn't really understand your point. The problem here is that while a TV Size cut includes this fact in the metadata, because it is the official metadata, an unofficially cut version does not, whereas I believe that it should. TV size of obviously not the correct marker to use in this case, so I propose that we enforce the use of Cut ver.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
I am aware that such changes are unlikely to happen/take a long time but making such drastic workaround changes isn't a reasonable option just because the interface doesn't include every information you'd like to have. I don't really get what you mean by "the lack of there being a marker is being used in a misleading way" because nobody is doing anything misleading by simply using the normal song title just like for the past 10 years.
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:
I download a song with the normal title, and expect it to be the official full length of the song. If it is not, then it is misleading. I believe Ephemeral recently summed up this problem in a tweet: https://twitter.com/ephemeralis/status/1153205847259897856
This is a sentiment that a lot of players share.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
What I mean by "the song is the same" is that the sounds are not being edited. Of course there is a difference between the original song and a version where the parts of the song are ordered in a different way but it's still not a remix.
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:
Do you believe that this doesn't warrant a distinction in the metadata, then? Like I said I don't think the problem I initially set out to fix covers this question but I'm really not sure what to say to you if you honestly believe that an mp3 as heavily edited as you describe should have the exact same metadata as the official song.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
That doesn't make any sense because you say that the point of this proposal is to know whether a song is an unofficial cut or not when downloading it, yet in these cases you wouldn't be able to tell the difference if there is a full version and a cut version of the song.
Of course "looks bad" is subjective but I think most people prefer seeing a title without an unnecessary marker
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:
I completely disagree that most people would prefer seeing a title without an unnecessary marker, but you'd have to ask them. I've provided many examples on reddit (and the replies to Ephemeral's recent tweet) that people are sick and tired of this problem, so you tell me if more people think otherwise.
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.dong wrote:
I see your point with having two markers next to each other, and the problem continuing when someone uploads a remix short ver. - good loophole, too. Necessary evil, in my opinion, but if we need to combine tags I can compromise there too (eg. (Short Nightcore ver)). Better than no solution at all. I think these additional, unofficial tags should be judged on whether or not they accurately reflect the song, and that call can be made during the ranking process.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
There is not really much of a difference between the outro of a song being cut or it being unmapped, especially when it's not even noticeable for players
How exactly is the information that "something" was done to the song helpful for players? It either needs to be specific or it's useless to begin with, otherwise we would simply use (Short Ver.) for every short song, regardless of TV Size, Game Size or Cut Ver. Like I replied to dong, the crucial difference is the map length, because it's the only way to know that the song was cut. And the length is displayed on the website and in-game so you know what to expect.Lefafel wrote:
there doesn't need to be much of a difference, if you remove a part of the mp3 then you have made a cut version. If you didn't remove a part of the mp3, then you have the original version. This again comes back to why the tag needs to exist: to let players know somethingwas done to the song and to proceed at their own risk, so to speak.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
Even with (Cut Ver.), you still don't know how much was cut and what the cut actually sounds like. Therefore it could still be "misleading" if you consider it that way.
You make it sound like a cut is necessarily a bad thing and that it's risky or something, but that's not the case at all. Most cuts are well done and don't impact the song quality, only its length. I also don't see how any of my arguments is in bad faith? I'm just trying to explain why this proposal isn't such a good ideaLefafel wrote:
It doesn't need to tell us how much is missing, it just needs to tell us the mp3 was altered so we can judge for ourselves before downloading. Your argument is very much in bad faith.
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?Serizawa Haruki wrote:
repeating same things again
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".S. H. wrote:
How exactly is the information that "something" was done to the song helpful for players?
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:
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.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.
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:
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.
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:
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
repeating same things again
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:
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?
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 yeaLefafel 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 never said that it's more accurate, I only said that having Cut Ver. is not helpful.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.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
How exactly is the information that "something" was done to the song helpful for players?
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:
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.
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.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.
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.
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:
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.
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.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.
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.
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:
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.
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.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.