realy0_ wrote:

so then it has to be precised in the purposal or else people would be confused

ok, i will make an amendment

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.

dong 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.
And since you brought it up, one of my ranked maps is of a song where the official YouTube upload is 2:41 long, however if you buy the song it's like 3 or 4 minutes, I don't remember exactly. Anyways, both have no information about short/full version so you'd think that the 2:41 version is actually the full one

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.

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.

You can obviously disagree with me but I expect you to at least provide some counterarguments so we can discuss the issue properly.
Deciding whether this proposal is being implemented or not based on a vote where only BNs and NATs can participate is unreasonable because many of them are either not involved in metadata affairs, don't care about them or are simply not affected by this change because they don't cut songs. The vote also excludes every user who is not part of these usergroups which is kinda unfair because everyone's opinion should matter equally. Plus, the number of people agreeing with something does not necessarily mean that it's the best option.

I'll summarize my previous concerns and add some new ones I thought about so it's easier to reply:
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.
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 and that goes against the RC rule which states that it shouldn't be changed with additional markers, if you consider that cutting a song doesn't change it in any way except for its length.
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 make the Cut Ver. marker apply, but if someone else cut the other part, it would get the marker as well despite being completely different.
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 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.
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.
6) There would be more metadata related things to check for BNs and QAH (a lot of them don't check the metadata in the first place) 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.
7) 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

Thanks for summarizing your arguments.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

I also added 7) in my post above right after you made your comment so I guess you should read that as well.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

S. 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.

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 download your mutilated excuse of a map only a portion of what is to be expected from the metadata.

re: pishi's proposed wording, I do think using "Short Ver." would be unnecessarily ambiguous since that tag already exists and is being used for something slightly different. "Cut Ver." sounds good and descriptive.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So your solution for this would be that maps where the outro is cut don't need this marker?

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 download your mutilated excuse of a map only a portion of what is to be expected from the metadata.

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.

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.

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.

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:

So your solution for this would be that maps where the outro is cut don't need this marker?

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:

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Lefafel 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.

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 idea

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?