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?

KittyAdventure wrote:

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

We are talking about song which have been manually cut by the mapper or someone else specifically for osu!, not official cuts (which is the case for TV Size)

wouldnt you also want it on official cut vers that dont have it, since the point of this is not to bait people with the song title implying the full thing but its actually an evil 1 minute cut masquerading as a full song

Applying it to official stuff is a muddy area cause it's not uncommon for it to be unclear whether the shorter version is cut or if the longer version is extended.

Nao Tomori wrote:

wouldnt you also want it on official cut vers that dont have it, since the point of this is not to bait people with the song title implying the full thing but its actually an evil 1 minute cut masquerading as a full song

Hence why i think "(Unofficial cut)" is a good idea, only problem is character limit.

dont really agree, songs are not "extended" by the artists, either they loop or there is actually just new stuff added to it / remastered / etc. if it's a loop then it's not the full version and if its new stuff then it is the full version and the short one is cut (unless full is released after but yeah). we already change official metadata in the first place for tv size.

https://osu.ppy.sh/beatmapsets/687879#osu/1455779 for example here's a 30s cut which was literally released as a 25 second preview of the song (then extended to be rankable), it's exactly what you guys are complaining about with this post, but it wouldn't get targeted by the rule lol. however, if i cut the full song to 1:30 to mimic a tv size (that full song is 5 minutes long) i would be adding cut ver. it doesn't really make sense to add tv size to things and not cut ver to officially released short versions too because they fundamentally serve the same purpose.

the discussion about including for official cuts too seems valid but I don't think it's in the scope of this change. for unofficial cuts, the issue brought up was unclear meaning of "significant cut", can we clarify that and get this in?

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.

this looks fine to me, if a bit silly that it needs a definition (I have doubts that it lies beyond common sense, and why would anyone bother making an "insignificant cut" anyway)

hi! sorry for not keeping up - since my last postings, the next semester at my uni started!

the only reason i didn't specify anything for official cuts is because it's an artist problem and not a mapper one, but i'm for differentiating them.

either way, i think it would be beneficial for a ruling which applies to unofficial cuts to be pushed through and if official cuts remain a large problem, tackle it separately.