• PabloPlato over 3 years ago

    PabloPlato edited over 3 years ago
    so it seems there is nothing in the guidelines that explicitly encourages clear descriptions to be entered for the matrix/runout fields. as any seasoned user knows, it can be helpful to identify where a code can be found (label or runout/etchings/stampings) and many of us enter such descriptions.

    as information which was once entered into a Matrix field (label) and into the Other field (etchings) has now been amalgamated into one, when presenting a full string it should be encouraged to clearly identify the location of the code (so there is clear differentiation between a Matrix or Runout in the Matrix/Runout fields) as well as when a user has transcribed matrices from the label vs. deriving them from the run outs.

    does no one else agree that such clear identification of the location where found should be encouraged by the guideline?
    it would help stop such brutish voting such as this

    http://www.discogs.com/history?release=2254197#latest

    *edit: corrected link
  • syke over 3 years ago

  • PabloPlato over 3 years ago

    oh - that was quick, are you familiar with this sub or user?
  • syke over 3 years ago

    plakapum, yes, I've come across a few of his subs

    Chris too, but no lasting impression (which is not really a bad sign)
  • silverleaf over 3 years ago

    Agreed. That kind of update to the Guideline would be beneficial.
    Not everyone will find certain data useful, but not everyone has to. It only needs to be verifiable and correct.
  • PabloPlato over 3 years ago

    plakapum had been begging for votes in a vocal manner in the forums before, yes. he wasn't perfect, but he has shown himself to be eager to learn and to make corrections when asked.

    don't know this chris fellow myself. but i don't like the way he casted votes in this instance, as adding further information to the description field should not be a crime. the guidelines don't disallow it, but they also don't encourage it explicitly, which i think they should. adding clear descriptions is a good thing.
  • ChrisCrass over 3 years ago

    silverleaf
    That kind of update to the Guideline would be beneficial.


    Agreed.

    PabloPlato
    but i don't like the way he casted votes in this instance


    As I said, got a little over sensitive, which I feel is out of character without trying to sound modest. Bad day I guess.
  • yuhann over 3 years ago


    PabloPlato
    it can be helpful to identify where a code can be found

    PabloPlato
    should be encouraged by the guideline

    supported.

  • PabloPlato over 3 years ago


    ChrisCrass

    As I said, got a little over sensitive, which I feel is out of character without trying to sound modest. Bad day I guess.


    i'm glad you can see our point of view regarding the description fields, and that the additional information does no harm.
    cheers! :)
  • ChrisCrass over 3 years ago

    PabloPlato
    i'm glad you can see our point of view regarding the description fields


    I guess I always did. It was more about the manner in which it was added rather than what was added.

    I try and explain everything I have done on an edit, if I'm not correcting a 3 year old NMC vote that already has the edits needed, so as not to ruffle anyones feathers and upset the original submitter by using terms I think my offend. I think it's the least I could do after altering someelses hard work.
  • PabloPlato over 3 years ago


    ChrisCrass
    It was more about the manner in which it was added rather than what was added.


    i don't think he meant to offend - sure, instead of "corrected" he could have used "clarified", but english is not his first language.

    and he didn't alter your hard work, he added to it.
  • ChrisCrass over 3 years ago


    PabloPlato
    he didn't alter your hard work, he added to it.


    I didn't mean mine just in general.

    PabloPlato
    i don't think he meant to offend - sure, instead of "corrected" he could have used "clarified", but english is not his first language.


    Yes I realise that, as I said, caught me on a bad day.
  • Eviltoastman over 3 years ago

    Yes it would be a nice addition to the RSG but is already allowed anyway. That's one of the reasons why the description field is called the description field and we already know the matrix can be in the runout, inner or outer ring and on labels so just identifying where and how is pertinent. The rule would just remove any doubt, but probably isn't necessary.
  • PabloPlato over 3 years ago


    Eviltoastman
    but probably isn't necessary.


    it is as without it some can feel justified to give out 3 consecutive EIs to a user making an edit in good faith.
  • Eviltoastman over 3 years ago

    It was discussed and most agreed that this was poor voting as the rules do not rule against it - in fact 5.8 rules in favour of the change made. A one off situation like that should not provoke a knee jerk reaction to litigate the precise situation.

    Common sense is currently prevailing. What happened yesterday, all agree was out of character for the individuals concerned and monitoring the thread until its demise, there was hardly a voice advising what was added was somehow against the rules and so the votes in question were simply wrong.

    The current parameters are fine and there are bigger fish to fry, but if it was specifically ruled in I would not complain. Rule 5.8 in my view already adequately covers this issue so management time on this would be wasted.

    "5.8. The description field to add any further information regarding the identifier, such as the identifier type, any descriptive text associated with it, its location on the release, or anything else that seems significant. If an identifier is associated with only a subset of the total labels on the release, you can include the exact label name/s it is associated with."

    Some stated that perhaps reason for the votes was because the voter may have considered the update as "not significant". You'll note that this is only one of the qualifiers given above and does not justify a negative vote. In fact the update qualifies specificcally under the caluse "it's location on the release" - that right there is very precise. Also, the vote used and its consequences are strongly ruled against when considering the type of matter at hand. The consequence of the vote was the removal of valid information, something which is forbidden ([/url=http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-updating-a-release.html#updating_release_data]14.1.4.[/url]). The matter of significance is not a consideration. If it's factual and helps complete the submission, it stays.
  • ChrisCrass over 3 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    In fact the update qualifies specificcally under the caluse "it's location on the release" - that right there is very precise.


    I'm sorry I'm a little confused, maybe I am reading it wrong but how is this interpreted in to how it is recorded on the release. Surely 'Etched' or 'Stamped' refer to HOW it's recorded not WHERE it's recorded.

    I have shown remorse for the event, publically, in this thread but it seems to be becoming a little witch hunt against me now as users are desperate to misinterpret guidelines in order to ridicule me even more.
    The initial thread has been removed and management are obviously aware of the situation and it should be left to them to take action if they feel it needed.
  • narcisco over 3 years ago

    ChrisCrass
    I'm sorry I'm a little confused, maybe I am reading it wrong but how is this interpreted in to how it is recorded on the release. Surely 'Etched' or 'Stamped' refer to HOW it's recorded not WHERE it's recorded.


    I think it's a question of location, because matrix numbers can be listed on the labels as well. 'stamped' or 'etched' means the information can be found in the run out section, so in that way it not only means how it's listed but also where it's listed.
  • Eviltoastman over 3 years ago

    Chris, it is not a witchhunt, it is about the issues, not you. Don't be so sensitive.

    My post is very clearly and distinctly about the reasons why further rulings are unnecessary. I deliberately avoided naming you and the others involved so that we can concentrate on the facts and the situation which evolved yesterday is as I said a one off.

    I assure you that I am not misrepresenting the guidelines and no one is ridiculing you.
  • marcelrecords over 3 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    Rule 5.8 in my view already adequately covers this issue

    I agree with that. The wording ''or anything else that seems significant'' clearly leaves room for any specification.
    ChrisCrass
    Surely 'Etched' or 'Stamped' refer to HOW it's recorded not WHERE it's recorded.

    That specification would also include ''how'', if this seems significant to the submitter.

    ChrisCrass
    in this thread but it seems to be becoming a little witch hunt against me now as users are desperate to misinterpret guidelines in order to ridicule me even more

    That certainly does not apply as far as I am concerned, or AFAICS to anyone involved here. If you feel above is a misinterpretation of the guidelines, then I would be open to hear in what way you think it is.
  • ChrisCrass over 3 years ago

    PabloPlato
    it is as without it some can feel justified to give out 3 consecutive EIs to a user making an edit in good faith.


    Come on, that's a dig if ever I saw one.

    It seems the topic is getting a little off course as it's more about trying interpret what's already there and not trying to discuss what the criteria should be for the input of this information.

    My ten pence worth:-

    This information should be treated the same as free text and only added if it makes the submission unique to previous submissions. For example if a one press has an Etched matrix and another press has a stamped matrix. I have seen it already on here that this happens, wish I could remember the release to link it.

    The record in question has only been pressed once so anyone that owns that record will know HOW the matrix is recorded just the same as they will know the colour of the record is black (Another peice of information that has been deemed unecessary to record for the obvious reason).

  • DIFFO over 3 years ago

    I think were finding a problem here that does not exist
  • Eviltoastman over 3 years ago

    ChrisCrass
    The record in question has only been pressed once so anyone that owns that record will know HOW the matrix is recorded just the same as they will know the colour of the record is black (Another peice of information that has been deemed unecessary to record for the obvious reason).


    You should not have to own a release to understand the submission. It should not be assumed that the general discogs audience is made up of owners of the recordings in question. It's meant to be a point of reference and one should not have to have the release in their hand to understand the information they see before them on the screen.
  • VODAR over 3 years ago

    Never knew it was a problem with that field applying to what's inscribed or stamped in the runout area by default. Every record I have has the matrix in the runout but only a small percentage have a matrix on the label. To me adding "runout" or "etching" is like writing "clear vinyl" in the FTF, something people make a big stink over.

    Another case of a personal preferences being treated as a rule?
  • DIFFO over 3 years ago

    DIFFO edited over 3 years ago
    ChrisCrass
    The record in question has only been pressed once so anyone that owns that record will know HOW the matrix is recorded just the same as they will know the colour of the record is black (Another peice of information that has been deemed unecessary to record for the obvious reason).


    Records get repressed all the time and usually with variant runouts from the original

    Hence the need for descriptive runouts. This being adding 'Etching, Stamped'

    And how do you know another release does not exist, or even to be re-released next week, bootlegged ?

    This makes your point irrelevant !
  • ChrisCrass over 3 years ago

    DIFFO
    And how do you know another release does not exist, or even to be re-released next week, bootlegged


    I am connected with the band, this is how I know there is only one press of this record.

    DIFFO
    Records get repressed all the time and usually with variant runouts from the original


    ChrisCrass
    My ten pence worth:-

    This information should be treated the same as free text and only added if it makes the submission unique to previous submissions. For example if a one press has an Etched matrix and another press has a stamped matrix. I have seen it already on here that this happens, wish I could remember the release to link it.


    I covered that point.

    I feel I'm getting nowhere.
    I'll stink to edits and submissions in future.
  • DIFFO over 3 years ago

    ChrisCrass
    I am connected with the band, this is how I know there is only one press of this record


    Bootlegs ! Also...............

    Were talking about the whole of Discogs here. Not one record

    So it still makes your point irrelavent
  • ChrisCrass over 3 years ago


    DIFFO
    So it still makes your point irrelavent


    Ok!

    Don't agree with you but I'm tired of this now.

    Let's hope we see a change to the guidelines on this!
  • DIFFO over 3 years ago

    :) Nowt like a good debate !
  • ChrisCrass over 3 years ago


    DIFFO
    :) Nowt like a good debate !


    That's one thing I will agree with. :)
  • sanberg101 over 3 years ago

    VODAR
    Another case of a personal preferences being treated as a rule?


    I do think so.
  • sanberg101 over 3 years ago

    here is a nice one for you guys:

    http://www.discogs.com/release/3416803

    Barcode and Other Identifiers

    Matrix / Runout (A & B-side): SNA
    Matrix / Runout (A-side): RISE TO THE OCCAISION
    Matrix / Runout (B-side): IM AROUND THE NEXT CORNER
    Matrix / Runout (A-side): CHERRY 24 A1
    Matrix / Runout (B-side): CHERRY 24 B1
    Matrix / Runout (A-side): A PORKY PRIME CUT

    i feel like a detective when i am trying to figure out how does the matrix on a particular side really look like.
  • haiyai2u over 3 years ago

    My suggestion would be to always indicated side, stamped/etched then side stamped/etched in the order of the marks.. e.g. A: SPL-1634 RL Etched
    B: SPL-1635 RL Etched A: Sterling Stamped B: Sterling

    Other topic what is good forum to get more information on various matrix runout meanings? thanks
  • _kerry over 3 years ago

    haiyai2u
    Other topic what is good forum to get more information on various matrix runout meanings? thanks

    Feel free to join us here: http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/324904
    or
    here: http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/231930

Log In You must be logged in to post.