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: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.
critique this if you have more issues with it.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.
Yes I read it, you added one thing I mentioned but not the rest.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:critique this if you have more issues with it.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.
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?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
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?dong wrote:
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?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
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.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?
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.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.
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.
I don't see how it's disrespectful but fine.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 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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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
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.
I'm not being pedantic, it's important to think thoroughly about a rule before implementing it, look at what Noffy wrote: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?
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.
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:
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 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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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 doesdong 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 allLefafel 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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
No, metadata is permanent and if you already know that it's going to be an unnecessary rule at some point, it means that it's just a bandaid fix and not an ideal solution. It's quite ironic that you support this temporary fix when last time we were discussing spaces in tags (which is a much less problematic issue and it turned out that what I had proposed was actually intended but accidentally worded in a wrong way) you were completely against the idea of having a temporary solution instead of fixing stuff in the client or on the website.clayton wrote:
the thing u mention in #8 is coming, just not very soon. that's why we're looking to specify this info in titles. they can be edited out &replaced when a better feature is in place.
Yes, tags are meant for searching but could still be somewhat helpful I guess, though I'm indifferent to it. I feel like you're missing my point about the description, I'm saying that the length information is much more important than the information whether it's an unofficial cut or not as proven by the players who complained. Therefore it wouldn't be a problem to put it into the description, if people want more information about a map they have to click on it anyways, it's obviously impossible for the beatmap listing to include all the details of a map without looking cluttered. By adding the length in osu!direct/beatmap listings you are already giving players what they need to know if they are concerned about length.clayton wrote:
for the "why not in tags/description" part--- tags are not meant for viewing, only searching. and beatmap descriptions are an equally poor place to mark important info like this because they are volatile and not displayed alongside beatmap downloads (except for beatmapset pages)
1) It's not efficient at all, using a temporary fix just means that we'll have to change the rule again at some point and we'll end up with another huge metadata inconsistency and we honestly have enough of those already.clayton wrote:
my responses to ur other 7 things, I didn't read the whole thread so I'm probably just repeating people
- for a temporary fix I think this is okay & it's the most effective solution we have of letting people know that the song is shorter, be it an official cut or not (i'd argue the officiality doesn't really matter here)
- or both rules could change!
- two cuts can be different but they're both certainly not the original song. I think that's the only info it's meant to get across
- maybe "edit" is a better word than "cut" then? just semantics
- still missing part of the song; I don't see a problem with adding the "cut" label to this example
- they should be checking metadata & no amount of rules will help if BNs don't follow them. of course we should try to make them less confusing if possible though. in that very rare example case you'd probably act on consensus from other modders and BNs? i dont think it needs to be written in stone
- it's a dumb hack of what "titles" are supposed to be, but we don't yet have a standard way to mark cuts, and titles are our best option currently
I don't agree that they are fundamentally different pieces. The song is still the same, just a different version (in terms of length). I'll use official cuts such as TV Size and Short Ver. as an example. Many of those official releases have the same exact title in the metadata source as the full version, the artists themselves often don't differentiate between them, therefore you cannot say that it's misleading or unfair to the original piece because the difference between an official and an unofficial cut is usually trivial.Lefafel wrote:
I don't think just displaying map length on o!direct would be sufficient to solve this issue. In my opinion cuts cannot have identical core metadata to the original songs, because they're fundamentally different pieces. Having the two on equal terms is misleading and even unfair to the original piece. I think both the tag in the title and the length display are welcome additions, and neither solve the entire problem on their own.
That's not a bad idea actually, of course the implementation always takes time but stillLefafel wrote:
The long-term solution for cluttered titles could be a flair tagging system (similar to what reddit, for example, does), separating these alteration markers from the actual title. But for now, something needs to be done ASAP and this proposal seems to have gotten all the vital issues covered and has a lot of support behind it.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
Many official releases have the same exact title in the metadata source as the full version, the artists themselves often don't differentiate between them, therefore you cannot say that it's misleading or unfair to the original piece because the difference between an official and an unofficial cut is usually trivial.
Serizawa Haruki wrote:
Many official releases have the same exact title in the metadata source as the full version, the artists themselves often don't differentiate between them, therefore you cannot say that it's misleading or unfair to the original piece because the difference between an official and an unofficial cut is usually trivial.
There is still no sense in this argument because you claim that any cut should not be equal to the original full version regarding the metadata, yet even the artists don't differentiate between them, therefore they are the same song. Following your logic, we also don't have the right to add (TV Size) to anime openings yet we do and you most likely support that idea. But technically by doing that you're also not using the metadata as provided by the artist.Lefafel wrote:
Official releases are made by the copyright owners (or with their permission), they get to decide how they should be called. You don't get that same privilege, because you aren't the owner/creator of the piece you're cutting. Equating your cut with their official piece is not okay. The current proposal already addressess insignificant cuts, so if yours is only trivially different from an existing official piece, you're exempt from this tag anyway.
I didn't even ask to choose between the two, I only asked which aspect the issue is and you mentioned the length and not the fact that it's an unofficial cut. The same goes for other people in those reddit threads etc., the length difference was bothering them, not the fact that it's a cut. Sotarks' RIOT - Overkill map is again a good example for that, if it had (Cut Ver.), would that change anything? Would you refuse to download/play the map because of it? Is the information that it was cut somehow useful for your playing experience? Not really, the map's still the same and not significantly shorter than the original. However, if the map were cut to 1:30 length, it would probably make you less interested in it if we go by the assumption that some players dislike such cuts. This just proves that basically only the length is relevant and obviously the quality of the cut, but that can't be measured without listening to it.Lefafel wrote:
"last time" you asked to choose between length and the officiality of a cut as the more important factor, to which I answered with my choice being the length. You're once again misrepresenting what I've said. You're really not helping your case here.
For everything else, just scroll up and read again because all these things have been explained to you over and over again in this thread.
From a logical point of view, yes the (Full Ver.) or (Long Ver.) marker should be removed, however that is unrankable under the current rules so you'd have to make an amendment for that as well. I also have no idea where you're coming from regarding "butcheries", it's a very different topic.dong wrote:
The "(Full ver.) (Cut ver.)" problem is a moot point. If you cut a full version of a song then it is literally no longer the full version of the song and therefore only requires "(Cut ver.)". The fact that there are already ranked maps labelled "(Full ver.)" that have been cut is pretty hilarious though and proves that metadata transparency has a long way to go in this game. There are a million different ways to edit an MP3, though. It could be the case where you slap so many butcheries, speed ups, slow downs, loops onto a song that it just becomes a god damn "edit", and that's ok. Once you reach that point the song becomes almost unrecognizable anyway even if you didn't actually add anything new to the song from a technicality standpoint.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't add any markers at all, I only made an analogy to explain why the usage of (Cut Ver.) is unjustified. For many artists, the full version and the official cut version is the same. They often don't have different titles. So by adding (TV Size) you are also doing a "disservice" to the artist by changing their song title, if that's what you're concerned about. Artists not treating cut version differently is also the reason why the existence of (Cut Ver.) is unnecessary in the first place, because it's the same song.dong wrote:
It's also not a case of being interested in the song enough to go and look it up, this is a problem with every song whether i like it or not - I'm going to mention again that there are songs in this game which i had no idea were not the original or full versions of the song. Whether or not I enjoyed the song enough to go and look it up is irrelevant because it's a disservice to the artist none-the-less.
You argue that by saying this is a disservice to the artist that we shouldn't add any markers (such as TV Size, because there are many cases where it is not a part of the official metadata), but what gives you the right the cut the song and not label it as such in the first place? If a cut version of a song was uploaded to YouTube with no label in the title and it hit the algorithm getting more popular than the full version of the song, the same problem would arise of people not even knowing that the original version exists, clicking like and moving on.