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.

This is just the standard for most rhythm games when they use music and it's not the official full length. I don't agree with this proposal at all aside from mixes which could be "remixes" and are usually always noted when it comes down to metadata. Also at the same time this further goes down the line of unofficial metadata and stuff like such. The song is still the base song and has nothing really changed about the core other than it's size being cus to a desirable amount and it's not like people can't already see the song length when downloading a map. It's quite a trivial discussion though if it's still being held.

ok ill be honest i dont know what's going on in this thread anymore. the things serizawa pointed out as problems were discussed and stalemated immediately with no budge on either side, so there's not much i can do besides just... putting up the pr for what's in the op and praying people find it okay? the only thing changed since then was the definition of "significant cut" but there's a lot more conversation about other things that isn't addressed with changes (either becuase they're unnecessary or nobody knows what to do)

so i'll ask again, what's the biggest concerns left with implementing this?

don't make it apply to official stuff since the difference between short/long versions as to whether the shorter version is a (Short Ver.) or the long version is an (Extended Ver.) can be quite ambiguous

keep it to unofficial cuts only

not sure if there's other concerns considering there's been no replies for 2 weeks oh no

apologies, now that my semester is over i can pay attention to this again, lol

the problem mainly would be the redundancy of tags between two different cut versions by different people of different lengths - i argue that it's important just to specify that it is not an official version and so the tag remains useful, but it's up for debate.

if an outro that is <20% of the track remains unmapped, and is therefore not cut from the song, the metadata should stay the same. if the mp3 is edited, then "cut ver." should be added.

there might be a problem with songs where there's an official extended version, and someone makes a cut of that which is longer than the original version - is this a cut to the extended version or an extenstion to the original that's not the official one (cases like this in beatmaps are absolutely ridiculous and speak volumes to the lengths to which people will go to get around length restriction but still a problem lol)

similarly, is "cut. ver" really the best wording? is "edit" better? something else? because of the reason i listed just above, if we take this marker to signify that the mp3 has been edited by the mapper in some way

yes, i think that an official cut's metadata should be left as-is

my responses are in bold below:

Noffy wrote:

don't make it apply to official stuff since the difference between short/long versions as to whether the shorter version is a (Short Ver.) or the long version is an (Extended Ver.) can be quite ambiguous

keep it to unofficial cuts only

sounds reasonable, we can stick with that

dong wrote:

apologies, now that my semester is over i can pay attention to this again, lol

the problem mainly would be the redundancy of tags between two different cut versions by different people of different lengths - i argue that it's important just to specify that it is not an official version and so the tag remains useful, but it's up for debate.

what is an example of redundancy of tags in this case? i'm not sure i understand

if an outro that is <20% of the track remains unmapped, and is therefore not cut from the song, the metadata should stay the same. if the mp3 is edited, then "cut ver." should be added.

i assume this logic would change depending on the outcome of https://osu.ppy.sh/community/forums/topics/996498 ?

there might be a problem with songs where there's an official extended version, and someone makes a cut of that which is longer than the original version - is this a cut to the extended version or an extenstion to the original that's not the official one (cases like this in beatmaps are absolutely ridiculous and speak volumes to the lengths to which people will go to get around length restriction but still a problem lol)

i personally dont think we need to account for such rare exceptions. keeping original metadata for 1 in 1000 beatmaps is fine to me. if someone actually does this weird idea, we can account for it at the time

similarly, is "cut. ver" really the best wording? is "edit" better? something else? because of the reason i listed just above, if we take this marker to signify that the mp3 has been edited by the mapper in some way

edit makes me think of a song being edited (like remixes) so i'd stick with cut, dunno if it's just me with that perception though

yes, i think that an official cut's metadata should be left as-is

is the wording in the op what we'd be going with? it seems to hit all the bases still but i want to be sure

As pishi said, many issues haven't been addressed with changes, either because no solution was found or because the creator of the proposal didn't agree with it. However, there are also some things where they agreed but didn't apply the necessary changes, for example the point about cutting songs with (Full Ver.) markers:

I wrote:

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.

There is lots of other stuff that came to no conclusion though and shouldn't be swept under the carpet.

hello again endless thread, i'm here to ask what needs to be done to get this in the ranking criteria

if things don't go anywhere again, it'll be time to archive i think because this has been going nowhere for monthssssss

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

As pishi said, many issues haven't been addressed with changes, either because no solution was found or because the creator of the proposal didn't agree with it.

gimme list of these

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

However, there are also some things where they agreed but didn't apply the necessary changes, for example the point about cutting songs with (Full Ver.) markers:

I wrote:

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.

gimme list of these too

Hello once again! It's been a good while since I've been able to direct my attention towards this thread so please forgive me if I get some things wrong.

I think it would be beneficial to lay out clearly where this proposal stands as of now, in March 2020 (lol)

- mp3s which have been cut down from an official version of the song by the mapper should be marked with "Cut ver."
- mp3s which have been extended from an official version of the song by the mapper should be marked with "Extended ver."
- the official metadata should always take precedence if the mp3 is official, even if two different official versions have the same metadata, unless it is found appropriate to change it ("TV size" rules apply here?) - I'm thinking of, for example, songs in DDR which have been cut down to under 2 minutes for the purpose of the game, but it is not stated in the official metadata. this is not a cut by the mapper and therefore it has no bearing on this proposal so long as the source is correctly attributed.

Let me reiterate: my entire proposal refers only to mp3s cut by the mapper or someone else made specifically for mapping in osu!. The metadata should make clear how the mp3 has been edited and go some way as to how it has been edited.

There arises a problem where an mp3 is edited somehow in between a shorter official version of the song and an existing official longer version of the song. In my opinion, a song should be considered as "Extended" if it extends the longest official version of the song. A short version is an edit of the mp3 that cuts the song to be shorter than the official shortest version of the song, within reason (if there's some random, obscure preview of the song released somewhere, that shouldn't count, and discretion should be used). Between these two extremes exists an "edit" or "unofficial" tag, maybe? anyone can feel free to agree or disagree with this if they have a better proposal. i am not sure how common this state is in modern mapping.

good proposal

How would this rule interact with say

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.

Or


If you do not beatmap the last 20% of your beatmapset's audio file, it must be cut. The intro time is not included. This does not apply if more than 20% of the outro is occupied by a storyboard/video.

Id assume its pretty straight forward but there may be some edge cases?

Sparhten wrote:

How would this rule interact with say

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.

This would continue to not be allowed (i actually mistakenly thought it was given someone said "what about if someone does this as has happened on some maps") - was this a recent change to the RC? either way, no change to this rule, but if it suddenly were to be allowed, there would need to be a denomination in the title.

Sparhten wrote:

If you do not beatmap the last 20% of your beatmapset's audio file, it must be cut. The intro time is not included. This does not apply if more than 20% of the outro is occupied by a storyboard/video.

if someone cuts more than 20% off the end of their beatmap in order to comply with this ruling, then my proposal will come into effect, and a denomination will be required in the title (less than 20% you'd surely just not cut the song and have an end skip, right? then it's fine)

dong's responses make sense based on my interpretation of the rule

does anyone have issues with the proposal? if not i'll submit a pr

Sparhten wrote:

If you do not beatmap the last 20% of your beatmapset's audio file, it must be cut. The intro time is not included. This does not apply if more than 20% of the outro is occupied by a storyboard/video.

dong wrote:

if someone cuts more than 20% off the end of their beatmap in order to comply with this ruling, then my proposal will come into effect, and a denomination will be required in the title (less than 20% you'd surely just not cut the song and have an end skip, right? then it's fine)

I'm a bit confused by this answer considering last time you said that the rule would not apply in this case:

dong wrote:

yeah, I can compromise if this is done specifically because the outro is a looping part of the music and you wish to cut it to meet that 20% threshold.

Anyway, the main problem about this proposal is still the huge contradiction that would result from it. With the introduction of (Cut Ver.), players are expecting songs without any markers to be the full version, but official cuts that don't include any markers such as (Short Ver.) would not be distinguishable and therefore misleading, for example beatmapsets/964002 has the same metadata as beatmapsets/132392.

dong wrote:

A short version is an edit of the mp3 that cuts the song to be shorter than the official shortest version of the song, within reason (if there's some random, obscure preview of the song released somewhere, that shouldn't count, and discretion should be used).

This is also conflicting because it would mean that cuts from the full version of a song would not be covered by the rule. Besides, cutting TV size songs or other versions of similar length is generally discouraged so this point doesn't really make sense I think.

Another problem is the (Extended Ver.) marker. Some songs have this marker in their official metadata source, for example beatmapsets/551831. How would you distinguish officially extended versions with this marker from unofficially extended ones?

This leads back to my previous point about already existing markers like (Full Ver.) needing to be removed when cutting said version. This sort of exceptions would need to be addressed in the wording of the rule.

All in all, the implementation of this rule would cause more harm than good.

hello darkness my old friend

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

I'm a bit confused by this answer considering last time you said that the rule would not apply in this case:

dong wrote:

yeah, I can compromise if this is done specifically because the outro is a looping part of the music and you wish to cut it to meet that 20% threshold.

yeah if it's literally a loop that can be judged independently. maybe you're right if it's more than 20% at the end of a song of it just looping. can you find me an example of a song like that? lol

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

Anyway, the main problem about this proposal is still the huge contradiction that would result from it. With the introduction of (Cut Ver.), players are expecting songs without any markers to be the full version, but official cuts that don't include any markers such as (Short Ver.) would not be distinguishable and therefore misleading, for example beatmapsets/964002 has the same metadata as beatmapsets/132392.

This proposal is only concerned with cuts made by the mapper or another mapper, differentiating official from unofficial. If another thread needs to be made about official short versions a la "TV Size" ruling in the future then so be it, but that was never in mind with this proposal.

dong wrote:

A short version is an edit of the mp3 that cuts the song to be shorter than the official shortest version of the song, within reason (if there's some random, obscure preview of the song released somewhere, that shouldn't count, and discretion should be used).

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

This is also conflicting because it would mean that cuts from the full version of a song would not be covered by the rule. Besides, cutting TV size songs or other versions of similar length is generally discouraged so this point doesn't really make sense I think.

I actually do agree with your concern here and I don't mind extending the definition to be any unofficial cut simply for the sake of differentiating official from unofficial, which is the point of this proposal.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

Another problem is the (Extended Ver.) marker. Some songs have this marker in their official metadata source, for example beatmapsets/551831. How would you distinguish officially extended versions with this marker from unofficially extended ones?

This leads back to my previous point about already existing markers like (Full Ver.) needing to be removed when cutting said version. This sort of exceptions would need to be addressed in the wording of the rule.

Any suggestions? Open to anyone. I can think of examples of this too ("move that body", "chaoz fantasy"), so I'm not sure if "extended ver." and "full ver." are appropriate either. "cut ver." at least is pretty clear cut in that you would not expect that in official metadata, but I'm not sure about a similar wording for extensions. maybe you should just avoid doing it ababababab

regarding the eroge short vers, this is actually something that has been bothering me for a while so I would totally support adding a marker for those as well; an easy solution would be doing the same thing we already do for TV sizes, simply adding a "Short Ver." marker or something similar

basically, if there is a longer version, or one is to be released in the future, add "Short Ver." or similar


for extended vers, I don't think it matters much since the amount of unoffical extensions getting ranked is close to zero due to it being unrankable if you try to pass drain requirements with it (and I haven't heard of anyone extending songs for a different reason), but in the extremely rare case of this happening you could simply add a different marker to the title

I agree about adding Short Ver. or smth like Cut to title of an unofficial cut of the song, as it may look confuzing especially on osu!direct client where the length isn't displayed so players just dl it thinking it may be a full one but ain't so yea this would b convenient

Just adding (Cut Ver.) to the end of the title can work in my opinion, but what about future cut versions of the songs? Some official songs use (Cut Ver.) on the title, and it would mix up with the mapper's cut versions.

Just (Cut) in that case would be viable; since rarely songs use that and it works with (Cut Ver.) (Cut) in that situation

Or maybe (Short) instead so we fully remove the Ver. and just keep the base of it as a reference could work too

definitely agree. its gotten me upset once or twice & im surprised its not already a rule.

Vulkin wrote:

Just adding (Cut Ver.) to the end of the title can work in my opinion, but what about future cut versions of the songs? Some official songs use (Cut Ver.) on the title, and it would mix up with the mapper's cut versions.

i think we should add [Unofficial Cut Ver.] if the version is unofficial AND the official cut version of the song is officially named (by official sources) cut ver.

Something I liked was when a mapper I knew called them (osu! Edit) in the title, Instead... like it makes sense because the only reason you're cutting it is because of osu! in the first place.

MinNin wrote:

i think we should add [Unofficial Cut Ver.] if the version is unofficial AND the official cut version of the song is officially named (by official sources) cut ver.

There's a character limit for titles. I want the tag to be as concise as possible.

icytors wrote:

Something I liked was when a mapper I knew called them (osu! Edit) in the title, Instead... like it makes sense because the only reason you're cutting it is because of osu! in the first place.

I feel like "osu! Edit" would confuse the map with featured artist content, or make it seem official in some way.

I think "Cut ver." is a much better solution in comparison to, say, "Short ver."
I rarely ever see it used officially. Can anyone point me to an example in a ranked map where the official title includes "Cut ver." instead of, eg, "Short ver."?

dong wrote:

I think "Cut ver." is a much better solution in comparison to, say, "Short ver."
I rarely ever see it used officially. Can anyone point me to an example in a ranked map where the official title includes "Cut ver." instead of, eg, "Short ver."?

honestly, i'd actually want to see this rule in place. this map uses a longer version with extra parts added (solely because of pp), but technically is cut down to barely 2 minutes. the actual tv size version is shorter, and for organization, mappers should specify whether a map is an official cut or not. BUT mappers, if they make an unofficial cut version of the song, should put (TV Size) in the tags, because it can still be considered tv size if we're going by a loose definition.

Where are we at with this? I don't mind if it is (Cut ver.) or (Cut) - we can spend aeons arguing about the wording, but not being privvy to BN inner-workings I want to know where we are in terms of coming to a solution here.

dong wrote:

yeah if it's literally a loop that can be judged independently. maybe you're right if it's more than 20% at the end of a song of it just looping. can you find me an example of a song like that? lol

It's pretty common for electronic songs to have very long outros with the same rhythm repeating over and over, for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYzxMAyrEEM

The part from 3:34 until the end (more than 20%) is super repetitive and neither interesting to map nor to play so cutting it would be reasonable.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

Anyway, the main problem about this proposal is still the huge contradiction that would result from it. With the introduction of (Cut Ver.), players are expecting songs without any markers to be the full version, but official cuts that don't include any markers such as (Short Ver.) would not be distinguishable and therefore misleading, for example beatmapsets/964002 has the same metadata as beatmapsets/132392.

dong wrote:

This proposal is only concerned with cuts made by the mapper or another mapper, differentiating official from unofficial. If another thread needs to be made about official short versions a la "TV Size" ruling in the future then so be it, but that was never in mind with this proposal.

I know what this proposal is about, but you can't simply ignore the consequences that come with it just because they were not part of the initial idea. Ranking criteria rules are not the be treated in isolation, they must be compatible with every other rule and make sense as a whole. This proposal is based on the presupposition that songs without any additional markers in the title are (or rather should be) the full version of the song, and I think that is the very problem. It's simply not feasible to make such as assumption when in fact a lot of artists don't add any special labels to shorter versions of their songs.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

It's pretty common for electronic songs to have very long outros with the same rhythm repeating over and over, for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYzxMAyrEEM

The part from 3:34 until the end (more than 20%) is super repetitive and neither interesting to map nor to play so cutting it would be reasonable.

yes, that would be a cut version, because you have cut more than 20% of the song, no matter how "repetitive" it is

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

I know what this proposal is about, but you can't simply ignore the consequences that come with it just because they were not part of the initial idea. Ranking criteria rules are not the be treated in isolation, they must be compatible with every other rule and make sense as a whole. This proposal is based on the presupposition that songs without any additional markers in the title are (or rather should be) the full version of the song, and I think that is the very problem. It's simply not feasible to make such as assumption when in fact a lot of artists don't add any special labels to shorter versions of their songs.

when i download a song with no marker, i assume that it is at least one of the official versions. not that it is the full version, unless there exists a version with "short ver." literally as the official title (or tv size as per tv size criteria), then i will assume that it is the full version.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

It's pretty common for electronic songs to have very long outros with the same rhythm repeating over and over, for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYzxMAyrEEM

The part from 3:34 until the end (more than 20%) is super repetitive and neither interesting to map nor to play so cutting it would be reasonable.

dong wrote:

yes, that would be a cut version, because you have cut more than 20% of the song, no matter how "repetitive" it is

You agreed to make exceptions for looping songs for the exact same reason though, repetition. I don't see how this is any different just because one section is looping rather than the entire song.

Anyway, there are other songs which exemplify this issue more evidently:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duNvbqZzLd8
This song loops the same rhythm for 1.5 minutes at the end (starting from 5:50) which is more than 20% of the entire song's length. Forcing people to map, let alone play, this entire section isn't sensible because it would be an extremely stale and boring experience for most people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wjZrswriz0
This song has a long period of almost silence at the end, the only sounds are faint drums with the rhythm of a metronome. I'm pretty sure that any map of this song that does not cut out the last part would be vetoed due to the lack of engaging gameplay (as we have seen on other maps before).

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

I know what this proposal is about, but you can't simply ignore the consequences that come with it just because they were not part of the initial idea. Ranking criteria rules are not the be treated in isolation, they must be compatible with every other rule and make sense as a whole. This proposal is based on the presupposition that songs without any additional markers in the title are (or rather should be) the full version of the song, and I think that is the very problem. It's simply not feasible to make such as assumption when in fact a lot of artists don't add any special labels to shorter versions of their songs.

dong wrote:

when i download a song with no marker, i assume that it is at least one of the official versions. not that it is the full version, unless there exists a version with "short ver." literally as the official title (or tv size as per tv size criteria), then i will assume that it is the full version.

You are overemphasizing the importance of the "official" status, there is no clear difference between an official and unofficial cut, neither regarding length nor quality. Recreations of official cuts are also technically unofficial so treating them differently proves that such a distinction is not necessary.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

You agreed to make exceptions for looping songs for the exact same reason though, repetition. I don't see how this is any different just because one section is looping rather than the entire song.

Anyway, there are other songs which exemplify this issue more evidently:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duNvbqZzLd8
This song loops the same rhythm for 1.5 minutes at the end (starting from 5:50) which is more than 20% of the entire song's length. Forcing people to map, let alone play, this entire section isn't sensible because it would be an extremely stale and boring experience for most people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wjZrswriz0
This song has a long period of almost silence at the end, the only sounds are faint drums with the rhythm of a metronome. I'm pretty sure that any map of this song that does not cut out the last part would be vetoed due to the lack of engaging gameplay (as we have seen on other maps before).

I am not making a case against cut versions. I am making a case for including a marker for unofficial cut versions. You have provided some extreme examples and I would be happy for people to cut them so long as such a marker is provided, though personally I think that if the current ranking criteria cannot make an exception for such extreme cases in allowing the final parts of these songs to extend into the results screen with a skip despite being over 20%, then that part of the ranking criteria is also flawed.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

You are overemphasizing the importance of the "official" status, there is no clear difference between an official and unofficial cut, neither regarding length nor quality. Recreations of official cuts are also technically unofficial so treating them differently proves that such a distinction is not necessary.

In your opinion? And why would you recreate an official cut unless the official cut is somehow unusable? In which case yeah, you have an unofficial cut. The point is that I expect a map without a marker to be the full version or some official cut for which I may or may not have prior knowledge about existing. There is a clear difference if an official shorter version of, say, Gold Dust (which is already a short version, but it's official and the most well known version) or Airplanes simply does not exist - then I expect it to be one of the official lengths that I have prior knowledge of!

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

You agreed to make exceptions for looping songs for the exact same reason though, repetition. I don't see how this is any different just because one section is looping rather than the entire song.

Anyway, there are other songs which exemplify this issue more evidently:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duNvbqZzLd8
This song loops the same rhythm for 1.5 minutes at the end (starting from 5:50) which is more than 20% of the entire song's length. Forcing people to map, let alone play, this entire section isn't sensible because it would be an extremely stale and boring experience for most people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wjZrswriz0
This song has a long period of almost silence at the end, the only sounds are faint drums with the rhythm of a metronome. I'm pretty sure that any map of this song that does not cut out the last part would be vetoed due to the lack of engaging gameplay (as we have seen on other maps before).

dong wrote:

I am not making a case against cut versions. I am making a case for including a marker for unofficial cut versions. You have provided some extreme examples and I would be happy for people to cut them so long as such a marker is provided, though personally I think that if the current ranking criteria cannot make an exception for such extreme cases in allowing the final parts of these songs to extend into the results screen with a skip despite being over 20%, then that part of the ranking criteria is also flawed.

I have the impression you don't fully understand the problem. Of course people could still cut these songs, but they would basically be forced to do so and they would have no other option than adding the (Cut Ver.) marker, although they are only removing parts of the song that wouldn't be mapped anyway.

You are right that the 20% rule is somewhat flawed for these cases, but removing it would also not be a viable solution because that would allow mappers to only map a fraction of the entire song without cutting the audio file, resulting in an awkward gameplay experience and unnecessarily big file size.

Consequently, there either needs to be an exception from the marker rule for songs that cut more than the last 20% of the song in order to comply with that rule due to having a section at the end that is not suitable for mapping, or that rule needs to be modified as you said. There is actually a thread about it: community/forums/topics/996498

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

You are overemphasizing the importance of the "official" status, there is no clear difference between an official and unofficial cut, neither regarding length nor quality. Recreations of official cuts are also technically unofficial so treating them differently proves that such a distinction is not necessary.

dong wrote:

In your opinion? And why would you recreate an official cut unless the official cut is somehow unusable? In which case yeah, you have an unofficial cut. The point is that I expect a map without a marker to be the full version or some official cut for which I may or may not have prior knowledge about existing. There is a clear difference if an official shorter version of, say, Gold Dust (which is already a short version, but it's official and the most well known version) or Airplanes simply does not exist - then I expect it to be one of the official lengths that I have prior knowledge of!

It's hard to follow your train of thought when you contradict yourself repeatedly. First you added a clause that says recreations of official cuts don't count towards the rule but now you say that it would be an unofficial cut. Recreations are not uncommon as there is often no high quality audio file available for the short version so people have to use the full version and cut it themselves.

Anyway, I still don't see why it matters whether a shorter version is official or not. I saw your video about Airplanes and I highly doubt your reaction would've been different if that version were official and you simply didn't know it exists, since you were disappointed about the fact that it ended sooner than expected, not about it being unofficial. This is why I'm arguing that the key aspect is the length, not whether it's official or not.

honestly, i just really want to see this resolved

okay, so problem:

If unofficial cut versions are made to include "cut ver." in the title, should this be extended to official short versions which do not include "short ver." or similar in the official metadata similarly to the TV size ruling?

I don't think this is for two people to decide arguing with each other.

i think just using cut ver. is better imo. cut ver. implies that it's a cut version made by you, while short ver. implies that this is the rerecorded version made to be short

okay, so i think this could work (nats check maybe)

RC wrote:

Unofficial short versions of maps must have the (Cut ver.) tag attached to it. Fanmade works are included if they're considered "(TV Size)" Official short versions that have the (Cut ver.) tag attached to it are to be replaced with (Short ver.).

After reading through the thread (wow, that was long) here is what I've done, based off the various opinions and issues presented.


There is now a pull request open on github

This PR does a few things:
- Adds a rule for cut versions having it in the title
- Moves the 20% outro to guidelines. It should have been a guideline anyways as it has exceptions. Added unmappable audio due to fade out or timing to the exceptions. There should not be songs that HAVE to be cut now when the outro isn't mappable, which was a major issue brought up here.
- Fixed phrasing for short ver./game ver. slightly to make it clear other similar markers apply to those standardizations.

I'll leave it open for one week so people have time to see it and make suggestions for it as it has been a long-standing RC issue - this is probably one of our oldest RC related threads to have stayed active throughout. The main issue present on osu is cut versions, so I am considering extensions out of scope for now. Please make a new thread for that if needed.

Why are the exceptions mentioned in the original rule being omitted now?

I also can't stress this enough but this actually doesn't make things clearer, in fact it adds even more chaos to metadata given the myriad of ranked maps without such markers. Think about it, if someone maps a cut song that was previously ranked, there are now 2 versions but only one of them is marked as a cut so the person looking up the song will be mislead to believe that the one without the marker is the full version, which is exactly the problem this proposal was trying to solve. I'm repeating myself here but it also creates more confusion with official cuts since they will also look like full versions. I really fail to see how messing with the metadata rules on such a large scale again is a good idea when it doesn't even fix these issues.

Any new rules apply to all maps going forward but not previous ones. This is not something that can be fixed, and will cause some confusion, but that doesn't mean improvements are not worth implementing. If song authors choose not to tag short versions, that is their choice which will be matched in this case. Many tracks, especially other rhythm game tracks, are too messy for which version is "original" or "short" or "extended". This is a very complex issue which is why it's considered out of scope compared to "unofficial cuts will be marked as such". I do not think it's worthwhile to delay the simpler part of a quality of life change that players and mappers alike want in an attempt to cover every single exception to the point discussion has been stuttering for over a year. If other weird issues occur I would think they can be handled case-by-case or RC adjusted as needed. Clearly solutions to the other issues aren't coming, so let's stick with what we can address and can fix for now.

I've now added "songs that are shortened in ways that nearly match their original versions" and looping versions to the exeptions in the pull request. Insignificantly shortened is even more vague but basically says the same thing as the nearly matching part so it has been removed.

"What about cut versions of (extended ver.)s of songs that are different than the original shorter version"-> before this gets brought up again, this is part of why Cut Ver. would simply be added to the existing title instead of replacing current markers, which is different from how the other tags are handled. It'd look a bit dumb but would be the best way to handle such cases.

Handling metadata things like this on a case-by-case basis is a very bad approach though, every time there is such a case nobody knows what to do and the map just gets ranked with arbitrary metadata. There is literally no reason not to include the exceptions that were pointed out by various people. Cuts made for the sake of remixes and covers shouldn't use the marker if there is no full version of it. Also, how are double markers going to be handled? Is it (Sped Up Ver.) (Cut Ver.) or (Cut Ver.) (Sped Up Ver.)? I understand that extensions can be left out for now as they are very rare, but everything else is common and should be addressed.

As for adding (Cut Ver.) after other markers like Extended or Full Ver., it wouldn't only look a bit dumb, it's literally a contradiction. If it's a cut version it's not the full version and vice versa.

Anyway, I still don't get how it's an improvement to implement this. What exactly does it fix? Figuring out which version of a song it is based on the title alone is not possible in any case (even with this rule), especially when here the marker would even apply to completely different types of cuts although length markers are supposed to denote a specific version. Unless you can show that this would bring more clarity to metadata, I think it's best if people adapt to it and/or try to find a different solution.

pr looks good to me, it solves "Unofficial cuts/mixes of songs must be specified" just fine and I don't think it needs to be more complicated than that

there's plenty of fuckery that will always be had with these title-marker things, but "fixing" all of those problems is not the scope of this thread. in the future I'd rather just scrap these and give some dev love to more intuitive display of edit/remix/cover/extension/arrangement/whateverthefuckelse

^ this is merely for weird cuts and edits to alter the length of a song. Things like Remixes and covers were never problematic.


Not a fan of the proposal as well as some years ago things like Cut/Edit/Nightcore markers were perfectly fine until people chose it's not the correct way to use metadata. And reverting this in a state where inconsistency has a bigger impact than suddenly labeling maps with the correct marker I doubt the practical usage of this change.

I understand the metadata of 13 years cannot be adjusted to our rules today but I'd work on this issue to optimise the metadata of already ranked maps, and not apply major changes to a song title. Hell I recently nominated two maps that were cut and had no marker that indicates that. And a few months ago I got a DQ for using a short ver. marker. And I honestly don't believe this is a rule that will last for a long time.

Might just add a tagging system that clearly indicates the version type of a song (original, tv size, cover, remix, etc.) that is unrelated to the title. so at least it fixes the problem with older maps.

Stefan wrote:

Might just add a tagging system that clearly indicates the version type of a song (original, tv size, cover, remix, etc.) that is unrelated to the title. so at least it fixes the problem with older maps.

I think this is a good idea because it's a more organized and flexible solution and also allows for easier searching/filtering. This could be combined with community/forums/topics/1138937 (related to https://github.com/ppy/osu-web/issues/5852) in order to tackle both issues at once.

Stefan wrote:

Might just add a tagging system that clearly indicates the version type of a song (original, tv size, cover, remix, etc.) that is unrelated to the title. so at least it fixes the problem with older maps.

does this mean that the existing tv size tags and others will no longer see use? is there any probability of having it in-game (direct) in stable?

A better tagging system is also in mind for genres and other length markers, but likely will not happen in the near future, and certainly not on stable. For now, updated the PR so Cut Ver. would replace other length markers when relevant, and polished up wording a bit.

if you're interested in following along with new metadata/tagging/whatever systems: unfortunately discussion is kinda all over the place across osu-web, #modding, and other Discord channels, but the gist is in https://github.com/ppy/osu-web/issues/5852, and Ephemeral later restated there the basic idea for how new system might look https://github.com/ppy/osu-web/issues/5852#issuecomment-687696017. that GitHub thread was originally about genre and language but the proposed system fixes a crapload of issues including the ones in this thread

it won't be supported in stable like Noffy said but that's not holding anything back. the new stuff can work alongside old stuff for as long as it's necessary

this change looks good to me, I understand there are still some cases where you wouldn't be able to parse useful info out of title markers, but identifying unofficial cuts is the thing we're trying to address here and this does it without introducing other problems that don't already exist

clayton wrote:

pr looks good to me, it solves "Unofficial cuts/mixes of songs must be specified" just fine and I don't think it needs to be more complicated than that

It *is* more complicated than that and just because you choose to ignore other aspects doesn't change the fact that it opens a can of worms.

clayton wrote:

there's plenty of fuckery that will always be had with these title-marker things, but "fixing" all of those problems is not the scope of this thread. in the future I'd rather just scrap these and give some dev love to more intuitive display of edit/remix/cover/extension/arrangement/whateverthefuckelse

I literally explained why this doesn't solve the very scope of this thread, I don't know why you're saying that these problems are out of scope when they are exactly what this proposal tries to solve. Also if a different system is planned, that is even more of a reason to leave things the way they are and work on a much more efficient solution instead. We've already seen how much of a mess it was when people kept changing the TV Size rules several times. If you already know it's going to be replaced at some point, why even bother adding it in the first place.

Still relevant:

I wrote:

Cuts made for the sake of remixes and covers shouldn't use the marker if there is no full version of it. Also, how are double markers going to be handled? Is it (Sped Up Ver.) (Cut Ver.) or (Cut Ver.) (Sped Up Ver.)?

I wrote:

Figuring out which version of a song it is based on the title alone is not possible in any case (even with this rule), especially when here the marker would even apply to completely different types of cuts although length markers are supposed to denote a specific version. Unless you can show that this would bring more clarity to metadata, I think it's best if people adapt to it and/or try to find a different solution.

Also if a different system is planned, that is even more of a reason to leave things the way they are and work on a much more efficient solution instead.

why is both not an option lol. it's not like time spent thinking about RC is directly subtracted from time spent working on the other stuff. I can tell you that much cuz it's looking like I am gonna be the guy working on the other stuff ಠ_ಠ

for the "I wrote"s:

1. where are you getting the idea that this conflicts with remix/covers?
   for double markers, why does order matter?
2. brings more clarity for the stuff like in OP cuz u can tell that it's been cut from full version, this is why I said it feels like you're talking about something more complicated than how this actually is, all we wanna do is specify when things are cut

clayton wrote:

why is both not an option lol. it's not like time spent thinking about RC is directly subtracted from time spent working on the other stuff. I can tell you that much cuz it's looking like I am gonna be the guy working on the other stuff ಠ_ಠ

It's not about spending time, it's because it would make this change redundant and since you mentioned to scrap such markers once this system is implemented it would just increase the inconsistencies.

clayton wrote:

1. where are you getting the idea that this conflicts with remix/covers?
   for double markers, why does order matter?
2. brings more clarity for the stuff like in OP cuz u can tell that it's been cut from full version, this is why I said it feels like you're talking about something more complicated than how this actually is, all we wanna do is specify when things are cut

1. It conflicts because if someone cuts a song and then makes a cover/remix, they'd have to add this marker although a full version of said cover/remix doesn't exist. Look at community/forums/posts/7156425, this was part of the rule but then randomly removed.
The order for double markers matters for consistency across different maps. Also the marker rules contradict each other because they both say "add this at the end of the title" but technically only one can be at the end. There needs to be a clause regarding which one takes precedence.

2. It doesn't though, it's still the same as before:


There also seems to be a loophole regarding tracks which repeat themselves because lots of electronic music consists of the same verse, chorus, drop repeated twice so it would fall under the exceptions despite being a cut from a regular song and not the typical video game music or similar that was in mind with this exception.

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

It's not about spending time, it's because it would make this change redundant and since you mentioned to scrap such markers once this system is implemented it would just increase the inconsistencies.

a lot of these types of rules are going to be "redundant" or require reworks, doesn't mean it's not worth improving them for now. also when eventually we can scrap the markers and get a move on using more practical metadata tools there won't be any inconsistencies as we'll be fixing past ranked maps too

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

It conflicts because if someone cuts a song and then makes a cover/remix, they'd have to add this marker although a full version of said cover/remix doesn't exist.

what part of RC tells you to add "(Cut Ver.)" to a cover or remix? I'm not seeing it written or implied anywhere, and I'm assuming Noffy left out the explicit wording abt this cuz there's just no reason to say it. covers and remixes are the full length versions of themselves

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

The order for double markers matters for consistency across different maps. Also the marker rules contradict each other because they both say "add this at the end of the title" but technically only one can be at the end. There needs to be a clause regarding which one takes precedence.

okay my bad for wording but rather than "why does it matter" I should have asked "who cares". it doesn't take genius to understand that both wanting to be at the end means you'll have to put one before the other in some cases. you can add an additional rule like "if u need multiple title markers, put them in alphabetical order" if u rly care that much

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

[the image]

yeah cuz ur looking at past ranked maps that didn't follow these rules, see community/forums/posts/7668399

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

There also seems to be a loophole regarding tracks which repeat themselves because lots of electronic music consists of the same verse, chorus, drop repeated twice so it would fall under the exceptions despite being a cut from a regular song and not the typical video game music or similar that was in mind with this exception.

I'm not sure if ppl would consider those "looping tracks" to begin with but @ other ppl in this thread Should probably clarify if that wasnt the intention

this is merged now and rule is in effect, so archiving the thread now