Future album three month limit - Suggestions

asimpkins

Apologies if this has been discussed before, I tried to search and didn't find anything.

I would like to question whether the three month limit on upcoming albums being added really makes sense? Can we get rid of it, or if there's some important benefit I'm not aware of, at least extend it?

I was not aware of this limit, so I added an album when it was announced but it was four months away. Then it was moderated and then eventually removed. And after waiting a few weeks I'm just going to add it a second time. And now I'm maintaining a separate list of announced albums that are more than 3 months away that I need to regularly reference. In the meantime I expect other users not aware of this rule to mistakenly add them.

It just seems like a lot of extra effort by myself and the moderators and it would be easier for everyone to allow upcoming albums to just be added when they are announced?

albummaster

Janitor

Gender: Male

Site Admin

asimpkins wrote:

I would like to question whether the three month limit on upcoming albums being added really makes sense? Can we get rid of it, or if there's some important benefit I'm not aware of, at least extend it? ... I'm maintaining a separate list of announced albums that are more than 3 months away that I need to regularly reference. In the meantime I expect other users not aware of this rule to mistakenly add them.

Originally new releases weren't allowed on BEA at all (because how could you rank it if wasn't released?) and then it was 30 days, so BEA could list 'new' albums on the site ahead of time and appear fresher and more up-to-date (and people were getting frustrated trying to add new releases slightly ahead of time). Currently, the threshold is 90 days because 30 days wasn't enough.

Not everyone is as conscientiousness when adding new albums, so sometimes the site gets flooded when someone decides to add every new release possible on their chart(s) and then doesn't fill out any details (which then puts the onus on data moderators here to do the data-entry on their behalf which then adds to the workload). Ninety days was felt to be a fair balance to allow people to add future releases, but contain them enough so that the system couldn't be abused.

Not all albums will get released on the scheduled date, track lists & artwork sometimes change as well, so you can't update a future release once and then forget about it. New releases need to be checked until the day of release and they need to have an announced track list to prove they will be over 20 minutes. Personally, I enjoy having new releases on the site because it helps counteract the bias towards older albums and adds a bit of balance, but there does need to be some control over them.

asimpkins

Thanks for the explanation!

I definitely agree that the site is better with new releases. And that's why it's frustrating to me that it's restricted to a three month view. I use this site to track the upcoming release schedule for albums I'm interested in, and it's just not as useful as it could be because it gets cut off after three months.

I still don't quite understand the benefit of a 90 day limit. You mention the workload on moderators, but I entered an announced album complete with a release date, artwork, and track list, but the 90 day limit actually created extra work for moderators because they had to check the release date against this rule and then remove it. Only for me to add it again later, for which it will then need to be checked again.

Quote:

Not everyone is as conscientiousness when adding new albums, so sometimes the site gets flooded when someone decides to add every new release possible on their chart(s) and then doesn't fill out any details (which then puts the onus on data moderators here to do the data-entry on their behalf which then adds to the workload).

It seems to me the best way to address this problem would be to require future release to have release dates, artwork, and tracklists included. If those haven't been announced yet (or the person didn't bother to add them) then flag those for deletion. Instead the 90 day rule still allows for an un-detailed flood for the majority of new releases anyway, while creating moderation work on fully documented albums that fall outside this window.

Quote:

Not all albums will get released on the scheduled date, track lists & artwork sometimes change as well, so you can't update a future release once and then forget about it. New releases need to be checked until the day of release and they need to have an announced track list to prove they will be over 20 minutes.

I see the point here if future releases needed to be checked regularly. The longer the window the more work. But couldn't future releases just be checked when they are added and when the release date is reached? Then it would really matter much if it was 3 months or 4 months away.

Anyway, thanks for hearing me out! I'm sure you've thought about this a lot more than me and know much more about running a site like this. I'm probably missing some practicalities. But I hope you'll mull it over and consider if there's any sort of change that would work. It would be really nice to be able to add every album when it's announced and be able to build a single roadmap of future releases in one place instead of maintaining separate lists.

albummaster

Janitor

Gender: Male

Site Admin

asimpkins wrote:

It seems to me the best way to address this problem would be to require future release to have release dates, artwork, and tracklists included. If those haven't been announced yet (or the person didn't bother to add them) then flag those for deletion. Instead the 90 day rule still allows for an un-detailed flood for the majority of new releases anyway, while creating moderation work on fully documented albums that fall outside this window...

It would be really nice to be able to add every album when it's announced and be able to build a single roadmap of future releases in one place instead of maintaining separate lists.

That could perhaps be feasible, but in practice might not have the desired result as data moderators will probably end up filling out the details anyway, as they do now. In the background, there's been fairly regular discourse over the value of listing future releases on BEA versus the administrative impact, so very conscious that the site needs to get the right balance.

Having a roadmap of all future releases is only possible if there's an announced track list that qualifies each album for BEA (more than 4 tracks/over 20 minutes). Most albums being released more than 90 days into the future probably won't have fully announced track lists (& may contain tracks with placeholder names like 'Track 5' etc). Even 90 days ahead, the details are not guaranteed to be 100% accurate, but the probability becomes higher than an album rumoured to be released e.g. in six/eight/twelve months time (and the likelihood of a release actually happening also becomes higher as you get closer to the scheduled released date).

Are you suggesting that the release period should be open-ended, and if not, what would the ideal cut-off look like? What's the main benefit to BEA (and users) of listing albums more than 90 days in advance if the details are (probably) not going to be correct and the albums themselves won't be ranked as they won't qualify for year charts etc until they reach their release date. This might be a fault of BEA, but right now you'd probably only find future releases on the latest releases page, relevant artist pages and in some custom charts (which can be used to preload albums onto the site).

asimpkins

Yes, to be clear I'm advocating that future releases with fully announced artwork and tracklists (no Track 5-like placeholders) be allowed to be retained even if they are over 90 days in the future. If the full details of the album haven't been released yet, then it's not eligible, mark it for deletion. If the chart creator failed to add them and the moderator doesn't want to bother with the research, that's fine too, delete it!

But don't delete completed entries only to have them be re-added a few weeks later.

As for the benefits:

1. The easiests times to remember to add an album are when they are announced and when they are released. Those are the publicity points. It's nice to have the album already available when it's released, so it's frustrating when the announcement date is forbidden due to the 90 day limit.

2. While "BestEver" ranking is the primary focus of this website, the presence of custom charts and various forum threads also creates a valuable secondary purpose of grouping albums by other criteria. That's another great part of being a music fan. I enjoy maintaining a custom list of upcoming releases to keep track of what to look forward to, and the list would be even better if I could add more albums to it when they are announced.

Romanelli

Bone Swah

Gender: Male

Location: Broomfield, Colorado

Moderator

On the downside.

Right now, data moderation is full of mostly future releases. It wasn't that way until we started getting weekly posts of new releases. Prior to that, we might have seen 10 or so at most. Last week, the number of new releases on BEA was 94...not counting those that hadn't been fully moderated yet. 94 new releases in one week. Keep in mind that even if those are completely moderated by the user adding them, they still have to be double checked on the date of release to make sure it's actually been released, and that the information added is correct (in MANY cases, it's not).

I understand wanting to keep track of future releases, and wanting to have that information for months in the future. But is BEA really the place for that? I would bet the house that on a very large number of future releases that tracks are being pre-rated (which brings the question of how can you rate tracks you've absolutely never heard?) BEA is not Discogs or RYM. What separates this site from them is that BEA has never been the place where every album needs to exist. The purpose of BEA is to make charts, and to create from those charts (the ones that count) one large chart to determine the site's name. What is the best ever album? Does adding an album that won't be released for another six months really help to make that determination?

You can still have future releases up to 90 days in advance. I believe that any further out is not practical, not necessary, and adding more to the workload of a VERY small group of users trying to keep the flow of albums being added here afloat. It would be just as easy (actually, easier) to keep a simple excel sheet listing future releases more than 90 days out. When an album reaches 90 days, you can do the double checking and add it to the site.

I would also like to suggest an addition for future releases: a field for source. A quick copy and paste for the url where the album can be found, or at least where the name of the site can be typed in. The flood of new releases (almost none of which will end up being on any charts at all) is only going to get more massive as we go along. As well, I think that it would be a good idea for tracks and albums to NOT be ratable until the actual release date.

Mostly. The data moderation is not work that many people do. At all. Right now, there are 118 albums in the list of not moderated albums. That list is so long because I have not been keeping on top of it like I normally do. Because, well, I get tired and have a life. We have several users on BEA who add large numbers of albums and do none of the data moderation...a number of those users have been here for many years. 118 is the number now...it would be considerably higher if I were not working albums here and there. Right now, in the last seven days, I have still done more than 3,000 pieces of data moderation (in all fairness, I add albums to the site as well...not future releases). The two closest to that are both in the 1600 range, and I can guarantee that the entirety of their data moderation is from albums they themselves added...they do not do moderation for albums they did not add. From number 4 down, nobody has done more than 500 data mod edits in the last week. This means that for the most part, this work is being done by one person.

The point of that is let's please not add to that workload. This isn't a site where some computer does all the work...this is manual work that is purely voluntary in nature. And the fact is, there are simply not many volunteers. Right now? That workload is mostly being handled by Albummaster and myself. That's it. When you add an album that is in the future, we have to verify it. And believe me...if it's more than 90 days in the future, it's a LOT faster and easier to dismiss it per site rules and have it deleted than it is to go digging through what could be several obscure websites to get information about an album that may or may not even ever end up seeing the light of day. If the tracklist is incomplete? It's not a complete add. If the date is "sometime in May 2026"? It's a no. If the tracklist is 4 tracks or less without including running times? Nope. Have to be able to verify it's longer than 20 minutes. There are many other variables with future releases, and the farther out that release date is, the more likely it is that the info is not accurate. And the further out that date is, the more time has to be spent trying to even find the album, as well as trying to piece it together. And tracklists, especially for future releases further out, DO change. Release dates change. Cover art changes. It's more work that we shouldn't have to do for something that may end up not even existing.

Thanks for listening.
_________________
I'm leaning on the threshold
Of her mystery
And crashing through the walls
Of dying history

asimpkins

Likewise! Thanks for hearing me out!

albummaster

Janitor

Gender: Male

Site Admin

wow, quite a lot to go through here:

asimpkins wrote:

1. The easiests times to remember to add an album are when they are announced and when they are released. Those are the publicity points. It's nice to have the album already available when it's released, so it's frustrating when the announcement date is forbidden due to the 90 day limit

I personally don't think BEA will miss any notable albums because of this. They'll be publicised widely and if it as an 'under the radar' release of notable quality, it'll be picked up by users pretty quickly (and 90 gives plenty of time for the albums to be noticed/added ahead of release).

asimpkins wrote:

I enjoy maintaining a custom list of upcoming releases to keep track of what to look forward to, and the list would be even better if I could add more albums to it when they are announced.

Definitely understand why this could be useful, but out of interest what albums are currently not meeting the 90 day criteria (which are disallowed under the current site rules)?

Romanelli wrote:

Right now, data moderation is full of mostly future releases. It wasn't that way until we started getting weekly posts of new releases.

This post was added for a few reasons: to provide more visibility of upcoming releases, to give the site more balance and to give people the chance to add any notable releases that might be 'missing' (but not sure people really jump from that post to make a chart).

Romanelli wrote:

Prior to that, we might have seen 10 or so at most. Last week, the number of new releases on BEA was 94...not counting those that hadn't been fully moderated yet. 94 new releases in one week. Keep in mind that even if those are completely moderated by the user adding them, they still have to be double checked on the date of release to make sure it's actually been released, and that the information added is correct.

There's no doubting activity has picked up in this area in the past few months, which does add an extra burden, especially on Fridays (like today). I've just spent over half an hour checking about 90 albums before I came to add this post (and these weren't detailed checks, as there's not enough hours in a day, but just making sure each album had been released on their stated release date). It's certainly a chore I could do without.

Romanelli wrote:

I would bet the house that on a very large number of future releases that tracks are being pre-rated (which brings the question of how can you rate tracks you've absolutely never heard?)

Some albums are leaked, and so a (long) while back it was decided on BEA to allow people to rate unreleased albums (& tracks). This also gives a gauge to other people as to the merits of an album (if this system is being abused, then that's a different story).

Romanelli wrote:

BEA is not Discogs or RYM. What separates this site from them is that BEA has never been the place where every album needs to exist. The purpose of BEA is to make charts, and to create from those charts (the ones that count) one large chart to determine the site's name.

That's an essential point, BEA isn't the site to list EVERY album and EVERY release, otherwise the site would have been designed a lot differently and be called something else. I think 90 days provides about the right balance to allow the site to function, like it does, with very limited resources (you could also argue the period could be a bit shorter).

Romanelli wrote:

I would also like to suggest an addition for future releases: a field for source. A quick copy and paste for the url where the album can be found, or at least where the name of the site can be typed in. The flood of new releases (almost none of which will end up being on any charts at all) is only going to get more massive as we go along.

Unfortunately, the point at which an album is added (a user chart) does not easily allow for this. But I agree that hunting down future releases, particularly from lesser known artists, is extremely time-consuming (and frustrating). Data moderation is a massive task and these types of release put incredible pressure on the few people that help to maintain the site. On balance, I think maintaining the 90 day limit is still the right policy for the site as it provides about the right balance between usefulness of data and site maintainability.

asimpkins

Quote:

but out of interest what albums are currently not meeting the 90 day criteria (which are disallowed under the current site rules)?

Sure, here's a good example.
Joyce Manor - I Used To Go To This Bar
https://joycemanor.bandcamp.com/album/i-used-to-go-to-this-bar

This was announced (with album art and full tracklist) on 10/7 with a 1/30 release date.

The album that led to my discovery of this rule and prompted this discussion was The Cribs - Selling A Vibe. It was announced with full details on 8/18 with a 1/9 release date. I had added it back then (with artwork and tracklist) only to have it deleted and so I had to add it all again yesterday. Did this really save anyone any work?

https://www.stereogum.com/2319659/the-c...res/music/

Quote:

That's an essential point, BEA isn't the site to list EVERY album and EVERY release, otherwise the site would have been designed a lot differently and be called something else.

I understand. And for the record I do try to limit myself to adding albums that I think have a very good chance of making my lists. I'm not trying to do mindless data entry. I'm not trying to maintain a list of every upcoming release, just those of particular interest to me.

Quote:

I personally don't think BEA will 'miss' any notable albums because of this.

Agree, I don't think this issue is anything as serious as that. It's just inconvenient for myself to do all this separate tracking and re-addition. (Not to mention, unless I missed it, this rule isn't really publicized anywhere? So it's really easy to violate.) And I do think there's some value to having new releases in the database before their actual release date, so I think there's value in making it convenient for that to happen.

I do sympathize with the massive amount of moderation that this site requires. I think it sucks that some people add album entries sloppily or without details and rely on other people to clean it up. I don't want this discussion to go in circles, so I've been trying to respectfully accept the decision, but I still can't help feeling that this rule is mis-targeted.

1. There's been a few mentions of the raw number of albums that need to be moderated. (And I sympathize!) But restricting when an album can be added doesn't really change this in the long run. An album added 100 days before release and an album added 90 days before release still add up to one album to be moderated at release day. Even if you prevented albums from being added before release, then they would just be added after release. But it's still the same number of new albums!

2. It's also been mentioned that some albums lack details. But if so, then do something directly about that? The 90 day rule doesn't really prevent that. I'm confused that there's a flood of sloppy additions happening, and that's being used a justification to delete/prohibit my additions which are 100% complete? I'm trying, but I'm having a hard time seeing how that adds up? Other people are adding incomplete entries therefore your complete entry needs to be deleted.

I say all that with humility. I'm not in the trenches and so I can only speculate, and I'm sure I don't know what I'm talking about at some level.

I think the source field idea is great. I get why you can't require it at the user chart level, but couldn't it be an option in the album details? And that could be a factor when it's time to be moderated. And I think you should be more ruthless with just deleting incomplete additions! How notable can an album be if no user can be bothered to fill in the details? Do that instead of going after complete entries more than 90 days out! 😁

albummaster

Janitor

Gender: Male

Site Admin

Thanks for the debate, plenty of food for thought and interesting to hear new views. I agree/sympathise with plenty of what you are saying, so I'll just respond to the bits that we differ on.

asimpkins wrote:

(Not to mention, unless I missed it, this rule isn't really publicized anywhere? So it's really easy to violate.)

The rule only really applies to custom charts since future releases aren't eligible for current year, decade charts until they are released (and the next calendar year for the overall chart). I've made a note to add extra help text to the chart editor for people editing 'custom' charts to warn about future releases.

asimpkins wrote:

I do think there's some value to having new releases in the database before their actual release date, so I think there's value in making it convenient for that to happen.

Future releases are already allowed on the site, provided they have a scheduled release date in the next 90 days. Excepting those albums due for release more than 90 days into the future, it's pretty convenient already (at the time of writing this is 8th January 2026).

asimpkins wrote:

I don't want this discussion to go in circles, so I've been trying to respectfully accept the decision, but I still can't help feeling that this rule is mis-targeted.

Thank you again for putting your points across very well, I'm also finding the debate very valuable to think through current policy.

This week, there'll be ~100 albums released, next week there'll be ~100 albums released, in three months time there'll be ~100 albums per week released, in six months time there'll probably be ~100 albums released. However, finding the details for an album added today for six months in the future will take degrees of time longer (and multiply that when it's some obscure artist that doesn't even have a website yet). In addition, the longer an album is on the site prior to release, the more maintenance it will require (e.g. if any details shift prior to release etc). (For each extra month into the future, an extra ~400 albums to keep on top of).

asimpkins wrote:

2. It's also been mentioned that some albums lack details. But if so, then do something directly about that? The 90 day rule doesn't really prevent that. I'm confused that there's a flood of sloppy additions happening, and that's being used a justification to delete/prohibit my additions which are 100% complete? I'm trying, but I'm having a hard time seeing how that adds up? Other people are adding incomplete entries therefore your complete entry needs to be deleted.

It might look irrational from the outside (I'd never considered this point before, but I can see how it might look), but it's purely the site enforcing its own future release policy which wouldn't be happening if albums weren't being added more than 90 days into the future.

asimpkins wrote:

I think the source field idea is great. I get why you can't require it at the user chart level, but couldn't it be an option in the album details? And that could be a factor when it's time to be moderated.

It's possible to add an extra field for new releases to require a URL to validate a future release, but the chart creator may never see the field if they never visit the admin page for the album. BEA could look to to do this if it'll help to reduce the admin workload. In practice, this is difficult to know.

asimpkins wrote:

And I think you should be more ruthless with just deleting incomplete additions! How notable can an album be if no user can be bothered to fill in the details? Do that instead of going after complete entries more than 90 days out!

The site always tries to be fair and have the same rules for everyone to reduce friction as much as possible and clear rules are important for that. The site doesn't set out to be ruthless, it's just about creating a level playing field. All albums start off incomplete and they'd remain so if nobody added any detail. If the mods didn't moderate any future releases (but only 'released' albums) and relied purely on the people who added each album to complete the details, I'm not sure BEA would end up with as many albums being on the site (which wouldn't make a healthy database).

However, are too many new releases being added to BEA? Probably. Could some albums be deleted that don't need to be here? Probably. Should BEA unilaterally delete albums? I'm not sure (but there might be case e.g. if an album has been released for six months and doesn't appear in a year chart yet etc, but then it might get rediscovered years later and go on to be a classic, so who knows).