Lefafel wrote:

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

words

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

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

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

Merriam-Webster wrote:

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

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

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

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

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

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

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

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

Lefafel wrote:

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

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

Lefafel wrote:

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

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

Lefafel wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lefafel wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Once denied, will come back stronger as they say.

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

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

My Suggestion:

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

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

baz wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

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

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

cl8n wrote:

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

critique this if you have more issues with it.

dong wrote:

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

cl8n wrote:

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

critique this if you have more issues with it.

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

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

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

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

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

dong wrote:

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

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

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

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

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

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

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

dong wrote:

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

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

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

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

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

dong wrote:

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

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

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

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

dong wrote:

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

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

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

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

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

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


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

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

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

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

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

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

dong wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

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

dong wrote:

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

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

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

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

baz wrote:

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

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

Noffy wrote:

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

dong wrote:

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

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

dong wrote:

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

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

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

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

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

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

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

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

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

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

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

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

Lefafel wrote:

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

That's not true though, you would probably still feel "scammed" or disappointed (which is only your personal opinion) for maps such as https://osu.ppy.sh/s/1001305 if you compare it to https://osu.ppy.sh/s/665057 or the full version. Every cut is different, there are good and bad ones and a marker won't tell you which one it is. This brings me back to my previous point, that you have to actually listen to the cut or play it in order to know if you like it or not. Apparently you are against any cut and you wouldn't download any map with this marker in its title, but then you'd also miss out on good cuts. I'll use this map as an example again. Knowing that this is a cut now won't influence your opinion on it and if the length is what you care about, then adding it to the beatmap listing is the best solution for that. And again, a 1 minute cut of this song would have the exact same metadata as this map, wouldn't that be even more misleading? You might think it's 5 minutes long but then it's only 1 minute long so the marker doesn't help you at all.

dong wrote:

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

Yea but the difference is that adding the length is only beneficial, it doesn't cause any problems and doesn't mess with metadata but altering the song title does

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

That's not true though, you would probably still feel "scammed" or disappointed (which is only your personal opinion) for maps such as https://osu.ppy.sh/s/1001305 if you compare it to https://osu.ppy.sh/s/665057 or the full version. Every cut is different, there are good and bad ones and a marker won't tell you which one it is.

I would feel disappointed because someone thought it was ok to make a shit cut yeah, but I wouldn't feel disappointed because I got misled. That's the difference you just refuse to understand. Bad content is bad, tagged or not. Misleading content is worse, because it's misleading.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

Apparently you are against any cut and you wouldn't download any map with this marker in its title, but then you'd also miss out on good cuts.

Nice job grossly misrepresenting what I've said (wether it's out of ignorance or out of malice, doesn't really matter). Stop strawmanning, maybe then others would start to take you seriously.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

And again, a 1 minute cut of this song would have the exact same metadata as this map, wouldn't that be even more misleading? You might think it's 5 minutes long but then it's only 1 minute long so the marker doesn't help you at all.

This makes no sense, you make no sense. You clearly just don't understand why the tag is important, because these examples you keep giving are completely nonsensical.

If a map is tagged as "Cut Ver.", I no longer expect it to be of any particular length. That is the point. The tag doesn't tell you the map length, and it's not supposed to do that. Please fucking understand that already.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

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

I understand where you are coming from with this, but I respectfully disagree.

The (Cut Ver.) marker exists to mark that a song is an unofficial cut. While the specifics of what accounts for a significant or insignificant cut depends entirely on the context of the cut, it should assume that a significant cut meets the criteria of the guidelines proposed in UndeadCapulet's proposal.

While the marker doesn't help to specify the length of the cut, I don't think that it should be its purpose. The purpose should be to standardize the naming convention for cuts much like (TV Size), (Short Ver.), (Game Ver.), (Sped Up Ver.) and (Extended Ver.). While the proposed marker doesn't specify many details about the cut, I think that the proposed marker fit's in well with the existing standardized markers while still marking that it has a significant unofficial cut.

While I do agree that the length of beatmaps should be featured more prominently on osu!direct and in the Beatmap Listing Page (along with other relevant information about a beatmap's set) I still think that it is equally important to have a title standardization for maps that have been unofficially cut.

If we use your example of Overkill - RIOT, to me, it should be perfectly fine for it not to use the (Cut Ver.) marker despite having ~40 seconds of audio cut from it. Why? Because the audio that has been cut doesn't substantially change how the song could be mapped and while I would have preferred the audio to be left in I don't think that it is significant of a cut to matter in this case. On the other hand, if we take the same song and instead decide to cut it down to the 3 min mark, this significantly changes how a mapper would approach mapping it as we have changed the structure of how the song plays out, a player may be misled as it is missing several sections of the song that they might otherwise expect to be included, as of such it should include the (Cut Ver.) marker.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

That's not true though, you would probably still feel "scammed" or disappointed (which is only your personal opinion) for maps such as https://osu.ppy.sh/s/1001305 if you compare it to https://osu.ppy.sh/s/665057 or the full version. Every cut is different, there are good and bad ones and a marker won't tell you which one it is.

Lefafel wrote:

I would feel disappointed because someone thought it was ok to make a shit cut yeah, but I wouldn't feel disappointed because I got misled. That's the difference you just refuse to understand. Bad content is bad, tagged or not. Misleading content is worse, because it's misleading.

How is it not misleading if (Cut Ver.) could mean that 30 seconds were removed or 3 minutes were removed? This would not be solved at all

baz wrote:

I understand where you are coming from with this, but I respectfully disagree.

The (Cut Ver.) marker exists to mark that a song is an unofficial cut. While the specifics of what accounts for a significant or insignificant cut depends entirely on the context of the cut, it should assume that a significant cut meets the criteria of the guidelines proposed in UndeadCapulet's proposal.

Uhh no, those guidelines were established to discourage low quality cuts, it has nothing to do with whether a cut is significant or not.

baz wrote:

While the marker doesn't help to specify the length of the cut, I don't think that it should be its purpose. The purpose should be to standardize the naming convention for cuts much like (TV Size), (Short Ver.), (Game Ver.), (Sped Up Ver.) and (Extended Ver.). While the proposed marker doesn't specify many details about the cut, I think that the proposed marker fit's in well with the existing standardized markers while still marking that it has a significant unofficial cut.

While I do agree that the length of beatmaps should be featured more prominently on osu!direct and in the Beatmap Listing Page (along with other relevant information about a beatmap's set) I still think that it is equally important to have a title standardization for maps that have been unofficially cut.

This marker is not comparable at all to TV Size or Short Ver. for reasons stated above, it does help showing unofficial cuts, but it also causes many issues and inconsistencies with other metadata RC rules, so its implementation is quite problematic.

baz wrote:

If we use your example of Overkill - RIOT, to me, it should be perfectly fine for it not to use the (Cut Ver.) marker despite having ~40 seconds of audio cut from it. Why? Because the audio that has been cut doesn't substantially change how the song could be mapped and while I would have preferred the audio to be left in I don't think that it is significant of a cut to matter in this case. On the other hand, if we take the same song and instead decide to cut it down to the 3 min mark, this significantly changes how a mapper would approach mapping it as we have changed the structure of how the song plays out, a player may be misled as it is missing several sections of the song that they might otherwise expect to be included, as of such it should include the (Cut Ver.) marker.

I don't see how the length of the cut affects how the mapper maps the song, the only difference is that some repeating (or non-repeating) parts are not being mapped. Also, this cut would technically count as significant considering it's an entire section of the song, but then again that's misleading to have in the title. It should be established what characterizes a significant cut in a somewhat objective way, otherwise there are going to be many unnecessary discussions about it on individual maps because people interpret it differently.

I stand by my definition of a significant cut being one that omits a verse, chorus, solo or movement, with an exemption for looping songs so long as a full loop is realised.

Yes, the map you linked is a borderline case but cutting 40 seconds off of a song is still cutting 40 seconds off of a song. There is already a 20% threshold of an mp3 that needs to be mapped, so if you don't want to map that much and cut the mp3 to get past it, then a cut is a cut and you can deal with having it in your title.

In the map you provided, it was more than 20% (something I didn't realise earlier in the thread) so it was cut to meet the RC - in this case I change my mind and agree that the map should require (Cut ver.) in the title as per my proposal, and I disagree with baz.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

This marker is not comparable at all to TV Size or Short Ver. for reasons stated above, it does help showing unofficial cuts, but it also causes many issues and inconsistencies with other metadata RC rules, so its implementation is quite problematic.

I don't think that the implementation problematic at all. The current proposal catches all of the edge cases that come to mind.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

I don't see how the length of the cut affects how the mapper maps the song, the only difference is that some repeating (or non-repeating) parts are not being mapped.

The length of the cuts aren't really significant but more the contents of them; one is removing the outro to a song while the other would be removing several verses and a chorus, this fundamentally changes the flow of the song and in turn, how a mapper would approach it.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

Also, this cut would technically count as significant considering it's an entire section of the song, but then again that's misleading to have in the title.

Yes, while in a technical sense you are cutting out a portion of the song I don't think this specific section is significant enough due to the content of it.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

It should be established what characterizes a significant cut in a somewhat objective way, otherwise there are going to be many unnecessary discussions about it on individual maps because people interpret it differently.

While there should be some objectivity to what a significant cut is, 99.99% of cases could just easily be solved with some common sense through a mod if people are unsure. I don't think that having more definitions in the current implementation is necessary.

dong wrote:

In the map you provided, it was more than 20% (something I didn't realise earlier in the thread) so it was cut to meet the RC - in this case I change my mind and agree that the map should require (Cut ver.) in the title as per my proposal, and I disagree with baz.

I did not realize this either too, while I think this is kind a shady I don't think I would have any strong opinion on if it should or shouldn't have the marker.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

This marker is not comparable at all to TV Size or Short Ver. for reasons stated above, it does help showing unofficial cuts, but it also causes many issues and inconsistencies with other metadata RC rules, so its implementation is quite problematic.

baz wrote:

I don't think that the implementation problematic at all. The current proposal catches all of the edge cases that come to mind.

Nope, I brought up several points a while ago and they weren't all addressed. For example the problem about having more than 1 marker (such as a cut of a remix or a sped up song) in the title persists.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

I don't see how the length of the cut affects how the mapper maps the song, the only difference is that some repeating (or non-repeating) parts are not being mapped.

baz wrote:

The length of the cuts aren't really significant but more the contents of them; one is removing the outro to a song while the other would be removing several verses and a chorus, this fundamentally changes the flow of the song and in turn, how a mapper would approach it.

As a mapper I can guarantee you that this isn't the case at all, I mapped both cuts and full versions and there is no difference when mapping them whatsoever.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

Also, this cut would technically count as significant considering it's an entire section of the song, but then again that's misleading to have in the title.

baz wrote:

Yes, while in a technical sense you are cutting out a portion of the song I don't think this specific section is significant enough due to the content of it.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

It should be established what characterizes a significant cut in a somewhat objective way, otherwise there are going to be many unnecessary discussions about it on individual maps because people interpret it differently.

baz wrote:

While there should be some objectivity to what a significant cut is, 99.99% of cases could just easily be solved with some common sense through a mod if people are unsure. I don't think that having more definitions in the current implementation is necessary.

The fact that you and dong have different opinions on this specific example already proves that common sense isn't a viable option, there simply is no common sense in such situations, if you ask different people you will get different answers and that should be avoided if possible.

dong wrote:

In the map you provided, it was more than 20% (something I didn't realise earlier in the thread) so it was cut to meet the RC - in this case I change my mind and agree that the map should require (Cut ver.) in the title as per my proposal, and I disagree with baz.

baz wrote:

I did not realize this either too, while I think this is kind a shady I don't think I would have any strong opinion on if it should or shouldn't have the marker.

40 seconds is less than 20% of 5:40 so it wasn't cut for rankability apparently, however it could happen on a different song so yeah, this is quite conflicting.

oh im stupid 20% of 340 seconds is 68 seconds yeah lol

well i just dont think that mp3 should have been cut - that's kind of stupid that it was, idrk what else to say about that

removed this change from the pr until discussion is more settled

could i get a summary of what still needs to be cleared up?

Thanks pishifat - I'm going to make edit the OP to clear up what constitues a cut significant enough to require the marker.

There's also a problem where maps require multiple titles (such as if a song is sped up for "Sped up ver." AND is also a cut version for "Cut ver.") - we should come up with a solution to this.

If I'm forgetting something pressing that isn't "submit a request to add the length to the beatmap listing and osu!direct screens", then let me know.