Data Grooming is one of the most important features of our service.
Clients readily appreciate the benefits of resolving classical composer names, making “Greatest Hits” and “Best of” relate to the relevant artists, but much of the other work we do simply doesn’t show up. Our clients see the “after”, not the “before” chaos upon which we impose order. So here’s a great example of Data Grooming in action.
Back to Mine
We’ve just finished 300+ CDs for a client who has the most complete collection (so far) in the “Back to Mine” series. Each CD is understandably called Back to Mine followed by a qualifier, either the name of the performing artist or the person who collated the collection of tracks. The problem is when ripped you can easily end up with one album called “Back to Mine” with 200+tracks. Exactly the same as happens with Greatest Hits and Best of. Why? Because even the best online album databases lack rigour. We use what we think is the best and I’m afraid in some areas it is lacking. This is one.
In this case he has 28 CDs from the series. What we do is append the relevant name to go from “Back to Mine” to “Back to Mine – Nick Warren” or “Back to Mine – Morcheeba” and so on. This means our client can effectively make sense of his music library. In digital format it looks close to the physical arrangement he has now, except that he can make playlists to better reflect the way he wants to enjoy these tracks.