Re: Possible Future Extensions

Hello Ian,

>>> One tells the rating is between 1-5, the other between 0-100 (I assume
>> 0-100 will be used internally?)
>>
>> I think I remember reading that they are 0-100 everywhere. I'm sure someone
>> who knows will say.
>> I don't know about the rest so I'll leave it for others to answer.
>>
> They're 0-100 in the database, but some ways of looking at the data do
> still return 1-5 values, somewhat confusingly. The /ws/1/rating
> endpoints seem to do 1-5, where the /ws/2/rating ones do 0-100 (which is
> perhaps reasonable, since that was a major upgrade). However, adding
> ?inc=user-ratings in the WS also returns 1-5, and the site interface
> only allows setting multiples of 20 (i.e. 1-5 stars), though it'll still
> display the other values.
>
> So in principle they're 0-100 everywhere, but in practice there's places
> that are basically only 1-5 stars. YMMV, etc.
>
> We discussed some of the particularities and peculiarities of this in a
> thread starting at
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-devel/2015-February/005933.html
> (though the start of the thread was for another issue)
>
thanks for the information!

I have read through it and I even analysed the tables in a current 
snapshot of the Musicbrainz DB.
I found the following:

All tables called "_rating_raw" are empty!
But on the other hand, the "_meta" tables does contain information!!

artist_meta: 25215 ratings
recording_meta: 219029 ratings
work_meta: 1419 ratings
label_meta: 602 ratings
release_group_meta: 65150 ratings

Most probably the "_rating_raw" tables are aggregated and then deleted 
afterwards?
I assume that the exact editor/rating values are lost forever? This 
would really a pity to loose so many recording rating information 
(groupable to editors/users)...

Would it be possible to not delete the rating information in the future?

Best regards,

Andre

(just as a sidenote: and what I also found was that the "_meta" tables a 
contain additionally a lot of rows, which only references the object, 
but have no values for "rating" and "rating_count"... E.g. the 
"recording_meta" table has in total 14.791.695 entries, of which 
14.608.329 actually doesn't contain a rating - it seems that every 
recording has an entry in recording meta automatically...)