forum

[Proposal] Unofficial cuts/mixes of songs must be specified

posted
Total Posts
193
show more
Serizawa Haruki
Can you like not ignore all the posts in this thread after your last one? This proposal isn't ready to go at all.
Topic Starter
dong

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.
Serizawa Haruki

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
Topic Starter
dong

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?
Serizawa Haruki

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?
Topic Starter
dong

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.
Serizawa Haruki

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.
Topic Starter
dong

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
Serizawa Haruki

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
Topic Starter
dong
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

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.
Topic Starter
dong

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

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.
baz
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?
Topic Starter
dong

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.
mmi
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.
Serizawa Haruki

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.
Lefafel

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.
Topic Starter
dong

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.
Doomsday is Bad
i love downloading maps to find out they are cut down without it saying it anywhere
Serizawa Haruki

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
Lefafel

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.
baz

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

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.
Topic Starter
dong
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.
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

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.
Topic Starter
dong
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
pishifat
removed this change from the pr until discussion is more settled

could i get a summary of what still needs to be cleared up?
Topic Starter
dong
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.
Serizawa Haruki
Ok here's another summary from my part:

First of all, I think your wording about what makes a cut significant could be clarified in a better way. You mention "...which omits at least a single verse, chorus, solo, or movement in the song". I think all these can be summarized with the term "section" which is similar to "movement" in music theory anyways. A verse, chorus etc. is a section so it would fit for all of those. Also this should probably go into the glossary for "cut", not the rule itself I think.

In the OP you also say "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." but this is not quite true as any other official cut that is not TV Size will not necessarily have a marker which indicates it.

You could also simply remove that thing about Harumachi Clover since it was just a misunderstanding and has already been explained.

I'll write my main arguments down again for better visibility since the thread got cluttered:

1) 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 idea of the following RC rule: "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."
Of course this would fall under the exception mentioned in the rule, but keep in mind that a cut doesn't change the way the song sounds at all, therefore it is not an actual edit/remix, just a shorter version. That should not justify the introduction of an artificial marker.

2) Since all official cuts except TV Size songs don't require a marker unless it's already in the metadata source, enforcing (Cut Ver.) would result in official cuts to have the same exact title as the full version and thus still be misleading. If (Short Ver.) etc. isn't being enforced, neither should (Cut Ver.) be.

3) A song can be cut in many different ways and different lengths so if for example 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, so the marker wouldn't make it any less misleading.

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.
The RC rule "The audio file of a song should not be artificially extended in order to meet a time limitation in the beatmapset section of this criteria. This can include (but is not limited to) looping sections of the audio file, lowering the BPM of the song or section of the song, or adding small amounts of music to the song without incorporating it throughout the entire song. This does not apply to song compilations or audio files less than the minimum rankable beatmapset length." only discourages it if it's done for the sake of reaching a certain drain time threshold, but if that is not the case, it's fine to do so.

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. And also if it's less than 20%, it is not rare that mappers decide to not map the outro, which is essentially the same as cutting it. This would cause another contradiction where two maps that have the exact same parts mapped have different metadata.

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 difficult/confusing if there are different versions of the same song or if there are no official uploads/sources where the song length can be taken from.

7) Having this marker on a big portion of ranked maps is simply not very pleasant and makes the song title unnecessarily longer. It would be even worse for songs that have (Sped Up Ver.), (Nightcore Mix) or (XY Remix) etc. in the title because many of them are cuts so those would have 2 markers next to each other and that looks horrible and takes up many characters (there is a character limit).
Edit: One thing that also came to my mind is that it would also be a contradiction to have stuff like (Long Ver.) (Cut Ver.) in the title for songs such as https://osu.ppy.sh/s/705224, https://osu.ppy.sh/s/522725 or https://osu.ppy.sh/s/557145 and also for (Full Ver.) (Cut Ver.), for example https://osu.ppy.sh/s/473048, https://osu.ppy.sh/s/801506 or https://osu.ppy.sh/s/679876

8) The main issue seems to be that some players are disappointed when they realize that the map they downloaded is shorter than expected, which implies that the length is the deciding factor (as confirmed by someone in the thread). To fix that problem, changes to the beatmap listing and osu!direct need to be made. The information about whether it's the full version or not doesn't seem very important to me when downloading the map/playing it. If someone is specifically interested in a certain song, they will most likely try to find it on the internet and probably discover its full length there. If anything, it could be included in the tags/beatmap description which would still be visible for people who download the map without modifying the metadata. And no, the beatmap listing isn't supposed to include every single information about every map, that's what beatmap pages exist for, if you want to know more about a map you should simply click on it.
clayton
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.

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)

my responses to ur other 7 things, I didn't read the whole thread so I'm probably just repeating people

  1. 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)
  2. or both rules could change!
  3. 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
  4. maybe "edit" is a better word than "cut" then? just semantics
  5. still missing part of the song; I don't see a problem with adding the "cut" label to this example
  6. 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
  7. 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
Lefafel
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.

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

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.
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:

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)
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:

my responses to ur other 7 things, I didn't read the whole thread so I'm probably just repeating people

  1. 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)
  2. or both rules could change!
  3. 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
  4. maybe "edit" is a better word than "cut" then? just semantics
  5. still missing part of the song; I don't see a problem with adding the "cut" label to this example
  6. 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
  7. 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
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.

2) Maybe, but that would have to be added to the proposal and be discussed again, most people were against the enforcement of (Short Ver.), that's why I mentioned it

3) I know, my point is that it wouldn't necessarily be less misleading than it is right now, that's the main reason why players want this change and the marker wouldn't actually help them in many cases.

4) I don't think so, Edit is usually used for changes to the song that affect how it sounds, it is not really related to length from what I've seen

5) The main problem is that the mapper is forced to use (Cut Ver.) in this example and it's understandable if they would like to see a clean title considering they mapped the entire song except for a part that doesn't offer an interesting gameplay experience and wouldn't have been mapped anyways.

6) I guess?

7) That's not the point, I'm saying that multiple markers are an awful idea, it's easy to go beyond the character limit with stuff like (Asterisk DnB Remix) (Cut Ver.) and in the case of (Speed Up Ver.) (Cut Ver.) it sounds ridiculous to have "Ver." twice next to each other

One thing that came to my mind right now is that it would also be a contradiction to have stuff like (Long Ver.) (Cut Ver.) in the title for songs such as https://osu.ppy.sh/s/705224, https://osu.ppy.sh/s/522725 or https://osu.ppy.sh/s/557145 and also for (Full Ver.) (Cut Ver.), for example https://osu.ppy.sh/s/473048, https://osu.ppy.sh/s/801506 or https://osu.ppy.sh/s/679876
Serizawa Haruki

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.
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.
What I don't understand is why you need to know if it's not the full version, like for what? You can look up the song if you're interested in it. Also, last time you said "The reason to distinguish between them is the length." which makes me wonder why it's suddenly not enough to include that.

Lefafel 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.
That's not a bad idea actually, of course the implementation always takes time but still
Lefafel

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.


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.


"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.
Serizawa Haruki

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.

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.
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:

"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.
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
false equivalency, strawman, strawman. come on dude.
Topic Starter
dong
Good morning, I'm just gonna make a few points and not direct replies since this ppl have already said things I was going to say:

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.

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.
Serizawa Haruki

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.
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:

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.
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.
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply