Ignore compliance for certain albums
Some albums just cannot be fixed because, for instance, their album art cannot be found anywhere. For the sake of achieving 100% compliance I'd like to mark these albums as 'ignored'. I want to be able to do it for any aspect of bliss, for instance file organisation (saying 'actually, the existing location is ok') or genre etc.
Timo Schmidt commented
Canononical is giving me "fixes" that are sometimes just plain wrong (title = "When's it okay" -> fix: "When it's okay") or I'm disagreeing on the suggested genre.
A "thanks but no thanks" button would be great.
We already have that for ignoring files and folders altogether: https://www.blisshq.com/music-library-management-blog/2011/08/16/new-release-20110809/
The trouble for adding _another_ file for this is that this is something we'll have to continue to support in the future. And the edge cases - does the file get moved when bliss's file org feature moves files? Lots of stuff like this will crop up.
Ralph Martin commented
You are making this all too complicated. Why not just look for a file ".ignore" in the album's folder, and just skip compliance processing for the album. That would be simple to implement, and do what most people here want. Then separate suggestions could be made for the clever stuff.
Yes - although this idea would merely ignore that.
For dates, three dates spring to mind:
- Recording date
- Original release date (the original album/single whatever release date)
- Release date (e.g. for remasters)
But that should be in another idea thread.
Ignore an incorrect year. It may want to be set to the recording date rather than release date for reasons of sorting albums into a recording timeline, even if certain recordings were held back from release for many years. Bob Dylan's Bootleg Series falls into this category - the live recording of the Manchester Free Trade Hall concert on May 17th 1966 should be located in a Bob Dylan discography near to Blonde on Blonde despite not being officially released for 32 years.
Also another consideration regarding ignoring compliance - this could be accomplished at the overall album level (e.g. global) vs at the field level (e.g. genre or title). Obviously, the former would likely be easier to implement.
Bliss is very useful and makes it far easier to organize my music collection than some of the other more complicated desktop tools. I am having an issue: I have added the rule "Check the following information is canonically correct for each album". The tool is suggesting that my "genre" choice is incorrect (likely because it does not match one of the online databases?) I don't want to remove the album from my Bliss collection, but I do want the to ignore the Bliss suggestion.
There should be an option to approve or overlook "errors". Such as file paths and album names that are SUPPOSED to be written one way that would otherwise fit into a fix log. One should have the option to say "accept these as correct without changes".
Matt G commented
Adding a vote for this. One example is "Remastered" albums. I have "Abbey Road" album as well as "Abbey Road - Remastered" album, and I'd like to keep both, but the "Remastered" gets caught on the Title Check. I don't want to have to unlink all linked releases every time I rescan my library. I'd rather mark the Remastered album as "Ignore" or "Exempt" or something (even if I have to re-ignore it again after rescanning...that's ok.) .
This would also be useful for having your own fields calculated from other data - https://www.blisshq.com/music-library-management-blog/2017/10/03/derived-tags/
Joshua Braveman commented
I would like to also be able to ignore suggestions when I've renamed the album title to include qualifying information like "remaster". Since I may have multiple versions of the ablum in my server. Also live unofficial recordings can't be validated by an external database.
"Unknown" doesn't mean the album is unknown, it means the album's _compliance_ is unknown, i.e. whether it obeys the rules or not.
Normally this is indicative of another problem - send a debug archive to us as per https://www.blisshq.com/support/reporting-problems.html Thanks!
I've shown 1502 albums to bliss and quite a number is "unknown". I'm using Sony's MEDIAGO software getting information from Gracenote. And, believe me, Gracenote is knowing every single album.
It would be great if you could add a button to each album shown a IGNORE button, this should ignore the remaining non-compliance's. A list of ignored non-compliance should be retrievable. This could be used where a reported non-compliance is disagreed by the user yet the user wants to see a clean and compliant library.
This would also be useful for that: https://www.blisshq.com/music-library-management-blog/2017/10/03/derived-tags/
Frank Köhntopp commented
Very helpful - I have several versions of some albums ("SACD", "2011 Remaster") that MusicBrainz wants to correct to the original one, which is not helpful.
Great ideas. The main progress has been identifying a way of fixing these problems, although work has not begun on them yet.
Ignoring certain compliance for certain albums can be seen as a special case of https://www.blisshq.com/music-library-management-blog/2017/08/01/ruleset-selecta/ - i.e. the "selector" selects this album in particular, and the ruleset assigned to that selector is the same as otherwise, except with the "ignored" rule removed.
Has there been any motion on this request? I want to achieve full compliance on my library, but I want to be able to hit "Ignore" or add exceptions for certain things bliss can't recognize just yet.
ex. 1 - I have many live recordings of shows, and the format is always Date - Location (ie 2018/05/10 Boston, MA). bliss wants to change this to 2018/05/10 Boston, Ma. Being able to ignore, or add some sort of exception for state abbreviations would be marvelous.
ex. 2 - (feat.) tags. My preferred method is lowercase feat., but bliss wants to change this to (Feat.). Being able to add an exception/ignore these cases would make my library much cleaner / compliant.
In some cases it may be linking to the wrong release (and yes, linking to a subset would definitely be useful - I have at least one case where I have 2 releases of the same album with different content which are bundled into one by Bliss and I'd like to separate them).
But in other cases I think Bliss is linking to a correct release, but that the databases it gets the information from are inconsistent in their approach to what goes in subtitles and what should be part of the main title. A common example is where an album has a 'Deluxe Edition' with extra tracks and the databases are inconsistent in whether they include 'Deluxe Edition' in the title or not. So in those cases where I disagree with the division between title and subtitle, I'd like to have the option to ignore the rule.