Detailed tagging via tag sources

I try to add the detailed information for my albums from the internet databases.
This can be done quite comfortably via the tag sources in MP3Tag.
Since this maintenance is quite time consuming I can only work on a few albums at a time. Sometimes there are no details for certain albums in any of the known sources.
In these cases the tags of the album are untouched.
When I resume my work days later, only those albums for which I was able to enter additional information can be recognized in the processed albums.
Albums for which I could'nt find infos, I have to keep in mind and are not recognizable.

Is there a smart solution for this? :roll_eyes:

I would work with 2 main folders:


Whenever you have finished your work on one album, move it from one folder to the other.

Next time you load Mp3tag with \Albums_to_check you only see all your albums not yet finished

Really, there is no difference between before and after?
It should be possible to filter for missing fields, special modification dates, incomplete fields.
How did you know that you had to treat these files in the first place?

When information is added, it's quite clear to see:
freeDB delivers discid.
But if there is no find at all, the album is untouched.

I still don't know what the consequences should be:
do you want to deal with the untouched album later on or should that get a shrug and then be taken as it is?
Depending on that workflow, you could still touch that album and add a user-defined field like PROCESSED and the value YES.
And then you can filter for those that do not have that field.

If @Roland really want to go this way, I would suggest to write a date in PROCESSED. This show "Yes, processed" implicitly and when exactly (the last time) explicitly. So you could edit an album again only if - for example - a year has passed since then.

If there isn't more information in any external source the album has to be used as is.
I've searched for a way to see the difference to a new album without manual mark.
But I get the impression that is no smart workaround.
So I will rethink the concept of

user-defined field like PROCESSED

to make the whole workflow smarter and automatic failsave.