Re: [mb-users] Releases with incorrect barcodes on the physical medium

On 09/24/2012 10:44 AM, Alex Mauer wrote:
> On 09/24/2012 11:16 AM, caller#6 wrote:
>> As I understand it, we don't enter barcodes "as on cover". For example,
>> we add check digits where they're missing, or leading zeros, to make
>> them valid.
> My understanding is that we do enter them as on cover, but we enter the
> *barcode data* not the human readable. So adding check digits (which
> will be there in the barcode data) is perfectly fine. Leading zeros …
> not so much.
>
>> So in my opinion, add all three barcodes to the annotation, and if it
>> can't be established which is correct, then don't enter any in the
>> barcode field.
> I would say that if they appear on the release, the barcode is correct.
> Even if it was assigned incorrectly, or just made up or copied from some
> arbitrary other release. (Bootlegs do this occasionally)
>

If that's the prevailing wisdom, I won't fight it but it doesn't make 
sense to me.

To me, the barcode is a functional thing. If it doesn't actually 
identify a product in the marketplace, why enter it? I have to believe 
that for cases like this that are obviously printing/clerical errors of 
some kind, the problem was fixed with a sticker or something. Retailers 
had to keep track of inventory didn't they?

Alex / caller#6


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users