Serizawa Haruki wrote:

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

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

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

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

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

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

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

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

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

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

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

dong wrote:

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

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

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

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

baz wrote:

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

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

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

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

baz wrote:

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

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

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

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

baz wrote:

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

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

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

baz wrote:

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

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

dong wrote:

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

baz wrote:

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

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

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

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

removed this change from the pr until discussion is more settled

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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 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.

false equivalency, strawman, strawman. come on dude.

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.

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.

ok, i get what you're saying:
An artist makes a song, the original version is, say, 3 minutes long. Then, the artist makes a new version and calls it "Full ver." which is, say, 5 minutes long. A mapper could take the "Full ver." and cut it to 4 minutes long, which would make it a "(Full ver.) (Cut ver.)", right?

i'm not looking to have a bajillion different tags for every possible edit a mapper can potentially make to an mp3, but i also don't have a solution to what this would be called

like, you're suggesting that if I wanted to map xi - Halcyon full ver. cut ver. with the chorus looped, two verses removed and a double solo that the correct metadata for this would be... "xi - Halcyon"?

dong wrote:

ok, i get what you're saying:
An artist makes a song, the original version is, say, 3 minutes long. Then, the artist makes a new version and calls it "Full ver." which is, say, 5 minutes long. A mapper could take the "Full ver." and cut it to 4 minutes long, which would make it a "(Full ver.) (Cut ver.)", right?

i'm not looking to have a bajillion different tags for every possible edit a mapper can potentially make to an mp3, but i also don't have a solution to what this would be called

like, you're suggesting that if I wanted to map xi - Halcyon full ver. cut ver. with the chorus looped, two verses removed and a double solo that the correct metadata for this would be... "xi - Halcyon"?

I think you misunderstood, I'm saying that with the current rules it's not allowed to remove the (Full Ver.) marker, so you have to make an amendment for such cases.
Also no I never said that such an extreme edit (which is being discouraged by the new RC guidelines anyways) should maintain the same exact metadata. All I'm saying is that you need to include these cases too to avoid contradictions like (Full Ver.) (Cut Ver.)

Sorry, I need one more clarification - are the map examples you provided supposed to be examples of where this has already happened, or examples of maps on which is COULD happen if someone were to cut the song, because i checked xi - Halcyon and ginkiha - nightfall and neither of these seem to have been cut in any way.

They haven't been cut but they could be

is this something that has EVER happened in the game's history?

edit: cases like (Short ver.) (Sped up ver.) can already exist under current rules if "(Short ver.)" is already in the official metadata

dong wrote:

is this something that has EVER happened in the game's history?

Probably yes, but tying to find that out would take a long time. In any case, it is very possible to happen so it should be taken into consideration.

dong wrote:

edit: cases like (Short ver.) (Sped up ver.) can already exist under current rules if "(Short ver.)" is already in the official metadata

No they can't because there are no rules about (Speed Up Ver.)

But sped up ver. is clearly editing how the song sounds just like "(GoldenWolf edit)". I can see your proposal for getting "Sped up ver." standardised - do you think that if someone speeds up a song that has (Short ver.) or (TV Size) already in the metadata that either of them should be removed?

dong wrote:

But sped up ver. is clearly editing how the song sounds just like "(GoldenWolf edit)". I can see your proposal for getting "Sped up ver." standardised - do you think that if someone speeds up a song that has (Short ver.) or (TV Size) already in the metadata that either of them should be removed?

Yes of course because if you speed up a specific version of the song (like TV Size) it's not that version anymore so there's no need to keep the TV Size marker

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

dong wrote:

But sped up ver. is clearly editing how the song sounds just like "(GoldenWolf edit)". I can see your proposal for getting "Sped up ver." standardised - do you think that if someone speeds up a song that has (Short ver.) or (TV Size) already in the metadata that either of them should be removed?

Yes of course because if you speed up a specific version of the song (like TV Size) it's not that version anymore so there's no need to keep the TV Size marker

And so if you cut the full version of the song it is no longer the full version of the song

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

Yes of course because if you speed up a specific version of the song (like TV Size) it's not that version anymore so there's no need to keep the TV Size marker

dong wrote:

And so if you cut the full version of the song it is no longer the full version of the song

I don't think speeding up a song can be compared to cutting it, also the difference is that there is usually no label for full versions, but there is for official shorter ones, I don't think this is really related to the double marker thing

i don't agree with you that speeding up a specific version of a song somehow means that any given official metadata marker for that version should be removed, by the way. you can speed up multiple different versions of a song. in which case, multiple markers is appropriate.

dong wrote:

i don't agree with you that speeding up a specific version of a song somehow means that any given official metadata marker for that version should be removed, by the way. you can speed up multiple different versions of a song. in which case, multiple markers is appropriate.

I feel like it's irrelevant whether it's a speed up of the full or short version but in any case it's super rare so no big deal. Cuts however are much more common so the double markers are kinda problematic

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

I feel like it's irrelevant whether it's a speed up of the full or short version but in any case it's super rare so no big deal. Cuts however are much more common so the double markers are kinda problematic

cuts are much more common, but you couldn't find me an example of a cut down full version that isn't an existing official version? i mean, the reason you couldn't find one is of course because it would be completely illogical to cut a "full version" of a song when an official shorter version already exists... Of course it could happen but i think mappers should be discouraged from doing that (i put a post in this thread addressing this). In any case, if you cut a song in such a way, then it just becomes (Cut ver.), but I seriously think you are misrepresenting how common such a case would be, like I can't see this happening unless a mapper was being a total clown on purpose, or if the two official cuts that you make your own cut between are like 15 minutes apart.

dong wrote:

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

I feel like it's irrelevant whether it's a speed up of the full or short version but in any case it's super rare so no big deal. Cuts however are much more common so the double markers are kinda problematic

cuts are much more common, but you couldn't find me an example of a cut down full version that isn't an existing official version? i mean, the reason you couldn't find one is of course because it would be completely illogical to cut a "full version" of a song when an official shorter version already exists... Of course it could happen but i think mappers should be discouraged from doing that (i put a post in this thread addressing this). In any case, if you cut a song in such a way, then it just becomes (Cut ver.), but I seriously think you are misrepresenting how common such a case would be, like I can't see this happening unless a mapper was being a total clown on purpose, or if the two official cuts that you make your own cut between are like 15 minutes apart.

It's not completely illogical, it does happen, here are some examples I could think of:
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/785518
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/583943
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/745312
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/813969
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/780952
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/475538

every single example there can be summed up as cut ver. they are not different to an extended version that has been cut, they are literally the full version of the song from a show or games OST that have been cut short by the user and not in an official way by the artists. if they were it would be something like radio edit or album version or something

you are literally refusing the central point of this entire proposal, that if someone did map an official full version, not extended, but the full version, there is NOTHING in the current systems metadata that would differentiate them from appearing as an un-edited version unless they played it.

this proposal isnt to discourage cut versions, its so that people KNOW what the are playing. you are really clutching at straws to extreme user cases that literally don't exist and are idiotic to even be attempted.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

It's not completely illogical, it does happen, here are some examples I could think of:
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/785518
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/583943
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/745312
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/813969
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/780952
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/475538

okay, and in all of these examples there should be a tag because otherwise i would have absolutely no idea that what I was playing was not actually the full version of the song.I don't see what is wrong with having "(Cut ver.)" in the titles of these songs. There is no contradiction.

i'll just chime in with a quick opinion here in case it hasn't been said since i couldn't keep up with how long this thread is. so if trying to differentiate cuts is basically impossible wouldn't adding a (Extended Ver.) or (Full Ver.) marker to full versions or something along that line be best in that case and just have no markers on cuts? or would that not solve the problem at all? because either way you would be adding an unofficial marker and if this is the easier case to define the edge cases for wouldn't it be better to have that instead?

like if there's an existing marker officially your unofficial marker would replace it, as was proven here artists do use (long ver.) (extended ver) ect all in their titles so it wouldn't be too out of place

like i figure it would solve stuff like (Sped Up Ver.) (Cut Ver.) shenanigans and also extensions/cuts i figure would be easy to spot with just a youtube search on the song or something and any edge like those are already discouraged with the '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.' guideline, and the cases where people extend songs that are already 5 minute drain times are so obscure that they should be handled on case by case basis as i've never seen anyone do that (if there has been cases like that i would love to know)

Bibbity Bill wrote:

i'll just chime in with a quick opinion here in case it hasn't been said since i couldn't keep up with how long this thread is. so if trying to differentiate cuts is basically impossible wouldn't adding a (Extended Ver.) or (Full Ver.) marker to full versions or something along that line be best in that case and just have no markers on cuts? or would that not solve the problem at all? because either way you would be adding an unofficial marker and if this is the easier case to define the edge cases for wouldn't it be better to have that instead?

like if there's an existing marker officially your unofficial marker would replace it, as was proven here artists do use (long ver.) (extended ver) ect all in their titles so it wouldn't be too out of place

like i figure it would solve stuff like (Sped Up Ver.) (Cut Ver.) shenanigans and also extensions/cuts i figure would be easy to spot with just a youtube search on the song or something and any edge like those are already discouraged with the '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.' guideline, and the cases where people extend songs that are already 5 minute drain times are so obscure that they should be handled on case by case basis as i've never seen anyone do that (if there has been cases like that i would love to know)

I don't think we should be adding markers to any official release of a song. If a song has no markers at all then it should be assumed that it is the first and original version of the song (with the exception of TV sizes). In the many cases that artists create longer/shorter versions of their own songs we should use whatever metadata the song artist provides and come up with a way to differentiate unofficial cuts made by the mapper - hence why we changed the proposal from "Short ver." to "Cut ver." for unofficial cuts, as many artists already use the "short" wording for official cuts vs. almost no one calling their own songs "Cut ver."

The official version of the song should be treated as the "default" version of the song.

Nevo coming in

-Anime Edit-, Short ver., TV MIX, TV EDIT, etc. all get put under (TV Size) regardless of what the artists actually labelled the songs as. So osu! on the whole already changes what the artist picked their songs to be. Adding a Cut Ver. to the marker should be within the realm of reason considering there are already rules in place that directly ignore what an artist specifically choose for their metadata. Adding on (Cut Ver.) gets rid of confusion of what version a song is. EXCEPT for those cases where there's different cuts of the same songs XD

KANA-BOON - Nai Mono Nedari By Nevo
KANA-BOON - Nai Mono Nedari By Zhu

THE ORAL CIGARETTES - 5150 By Nevo
THE ORAL CIGARETTES - 5150 By Kagetsu

But on the side of adding the marker being useful!
JIN ft. Shoichi Taguchi (Sentimental Vector) - Kagerou Days By Nevo
JIN ft. Shouichi Taguchi (Sentimental Vector) - Kagerou Days By Nevo

Same song, same bg, same mapper. One's full and one's short so a marker would be nice to tell the difference and not resorting to amazing metadata tricks

Funnily enough in 2012 they actually thought of this

Hatsune Miku - Kagerou Days By m i z u k i
Hatsune Miku - Kagerou Days (Short Ver.) By phonic


tl;dr since we already ignore what the artists sets for their tv size markers we might as well try to use markers to just have quality of life among the playerbase.

HOWEVER HOW DO WE DISTINGUISH DIFFERENT CUTS HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM and what if the artist has cut versions and tv size versions

blobowob

dong wrote:

I don't think we should be adding markers to any official release of a song. If a song has no markers at all then it should be assumed that it is the first and original version of the song (with the exception of TV sizes). In the many cases that artists create longer/shorter versions of their own songs we should use whatever metadata the song artist provides and come up with a way to differentiate unofficial cuts made by the mapper - hence why we changed the proposal from "Short ver." to "Cut ver." for unofficial cuts, as many artists already use the "short" wording for official cuts vs. almost no one calling their own songs "Cut ver."

The official version of the song should be treated as the "default" version of the song.

i mean it would give distinction that it's different from cut vers, it would be easily enforceable in the rc already, it wouldn't cause any ugly double markers, only downside to having a marker like this would be that it would look weird with songs that wouldn't normally be cut and for the whole 'it would look less official' argument but i mean you could say that with any additional markers added to songs in the first place like with adding (TV Size) on songs that don't have it officially (think western cartoon shows and non anime stuff in general that usually end with theme in the title that most people would already recognize as a theme song but needing to add it due to it being from a tv show like https://osu.ppy.sh/s/933621 for example) and editing metadata for standardization since it would be different than what you would search for on official places.

just to me it seems like the most logical solution and more straight forward to implement and to me is sufficient enough to show distinction between different versions of the song since to me that's what i figure the main point of the proposal was in the first place

just a suggestion anyway for this complicated issue since it seems like there isn't gonna be any compromises without sacrifices somewhere and to me it would be better to have the more straight forward and less ambiguous one as the defining one since everyone can agree what's a full ver compared to a cut/edited ver

Bibbity Bill wrote:

i mean it would give distinction that it's different from cut vers, it would be easily enforceable in the rc already, it wouldn't cause any ugly double markers, only downside to having a marker like this would be that it would look weird with songs that wouldn't normally be cut and for the whole 'it would look less official' argument but i mean you could say that with any additional markers added to songs in the first place like with adding (TV Size) on songs that don't have it officially (think western cartoon shows and non anime stuff in general that usually end with theme in the title that most people would already recognize as a theme song but needing to add it due to it being from a tv show like https://osu.ppy.sh/s/933621 for example) and editing metadata for standardization since it would be different than what you would search for on official places.

We should be distinguishing the unofficial cut versions from the official versions here, not the other way around. I mean, the original version of any song should be the most commonly used for mapping, no? I seriously fail to understand why on Earth the original version should have a marker when part of the main purpose of this proposition was to inform the player that what they are playing is or is not the official version of the song.

Nevo wrote:

HOWEVER HOW DO WE DISTINGUISH DIFFERENT CUTS HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM and what if the artist has cut versions and tv size versions

I mean the only solution I can think of to this is to display the length of beatmaps in the beatmap listing and on osu!direct (which I would like to be implemented in addition to this proposal) but that would take until Lazer.

also, how about keep use old tv size metadata like -TV SIZE VERSION- and TV EDIT like official website say? it's because not every tv size is shorter from full version. I give you guys 4 example:

LONG SHOT PARTY - distance:
Full version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VL9KzZKHqU
vs
TV Size: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWNNjIIq4TA

soraru - Gin no Kisei
There is have 2 version, album version and single version, but I take single version one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpAVEc14hbY
vs
TV Size: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtIOVH8OC94

MUCC - Classic
Full version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqSRKha48Qk
vs
TV Size: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwOl8yU1jfE

Mrs. GREEN APPLE - Speaking
Full version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KUA-1DvQZk
vs
TV Size: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOJ1AK3q1FE (I can't found better one so yeah)

Its true if TV Size is shorter from full version, but after I thinking again when found some of that, I disagree if TV Size is shorter of Full Version. Why?
1. There is some singer accidentally made a different TV version and Full version of their song
2. Ever you can cut it from full version, that's also not same and look like force cutting
3. It's doesn't matter if the pitch is same or not, the melody is same or not, the rhythm is same or not, TV Size is TV Size, Short Version is Short Version, Full Version is Full Version.

also, I found this from LiSA Official Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7Oi2h-vKFI

In this case, we know if LiSA always use -MUSiC CLiP YouTube EDIT ver.- or (Short Version) for every his song. But on crossing field, use marker it as "(TV Size)", not "(Short Version)".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwkzK-F0Y00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-FvkYM6jYU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeEIl4JlE-g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pudLJ-L9ZI8

Everyone can cut it to make it look like TV Size. But, also there is some of anime song its make different like full version, like soraru - Gin no Kisei.

https://kittyadventure20.s-ul.eu/Sy7TyKHT
https://kittyadventure20.s-ul.eu/1KzuN90j

I bought that on 2018 and when I check it, it's really different, especially in the vocal parts, which on full version, soraru singing "douuuu "shi" te (shi doesn't really hear clearly and its slower than TV Size one, its proof that soraru recorded more than one times.) and TV Size, soraru siinging "doushite" without "dou" take it long.

Just to test the waters, what are peoples opinions be if we change the marker to something like (Unofficial Cut.) or words to a similar meaning for unofficial cuts and leaving official cuts with the official metadata?

KittyAdventure wrote:

also, how about keep use old tv size metadata like -TV SIZE VERSION- and TV EDIT like official website say? it's because not every tv size is shorter from full version.

this isn't really related much to the proposal, it's a different issue entirely. you're talking about official cuts while this thread is specifically for distinctions to be given to unofficial cuts.

baz wrote:

Just to test the waters, what are peoples opinions be if we change the marker to something like (Unofficial Cut.) or words to a similar meaning for unofficial cuts and leaving official cuts with the official metadata?

I quite like this phrasing actually. Moreso than "(Cut ver.)" as there is less room for multiple tags to stack up all saying "ver."

I don't think (Cut Ver.) its good to use because its cut like TV Size or fade out like that?