• jaseywacey over 6 years ago

    I'm being tugged in two different directions by different users.
    The case is a release by a major label licensed from an independent label. Logos are displayed for both but there is only 1 cat # which is distinctive of the major label.
    As far as I can discern, the norm is for both labels to be entered with using the same cat # but recently a couple of people have advised that only the # that relates to the label should be used and the space for the cat # for the licensee label should read "none" according to

    4.7.2. A catalog number is required for every label entered. Where no catalog number exists, you must enter "none" into the catalog number field (note the lower case n). For other companies on the release, leave the catalog number field blank, unless there is a catalog number that relates directly to the company.

    I tend to agree with this especially as the minor label doesn't necessarily need to be included according to

    4.1.2.Normally, listing the main label (usually the largest brand or logo on the release) is sufficient for cataloguing purposes. You can optionally list other companies mentioned on the release. Sometimes, the only way to describe a Unique Release is to mention one or more of these companies, in this case, it becomes mandatory to add it.

    Listing the minor label is a matter of personal preference and I think it makes perfect sense to just put the relevant cat #. From past experience, when there's a more than 1 cat # listed, researching the cat #s of labels represented it's quite obvious which labels they belong to.

    It's also been argued that "where no catalogue number exists" means no catalogue number at all rather no catalogue number exists for a label when there is more than 1 labal recorded.

    Any thoughts?
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    jaseywacey
    As far as I can discern, the norm is for both labels to be entered with using the same cat # but recently a couple of people have advised that only the # that relates to the label should be used and the space for the cat # for the licensee label should read "none" according to


    This is incorrect. You should only use "none" if there is absolutely no catalogue number on the release.

    "The catalog number belongs primarily to the release itself. Whatever entities (labels) the catalog number appears to fit is of secondary importance."
    http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/233124#2863759

    Feel free to link to this conversation in the threads concerned.

  • jaseywacey over 6 years ago

    Thanks Eviltoastman. I actually expected that.
  • zevulon over 6 years ago


    Eviltoastman
    You should only use "none" if there is absolutely no catalogue number on the release.

    I'd say the very same.
  • helix over 6 years ago

    jaseywacey
    Any thoughts?

    Helps if you give examples:
    http://www.discogs.com/history?release=92886#latest
  • maldoror over 6 years ago

    sometimes the entity probably shouldnt be entered as a label and just as 'licensed from', the licensing agreement may of stipulated that the logo appears.
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    It's already been established / stated that it should be entered as a label in those cases along with licensed from/to as applicable.

    http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/284020#3019871
    http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/334416#3128380

  • helix over 6 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    It's already been established / stated that it should be entered as a label in those cases along with licensed from/to as applicable.

    Rather than buried in forum topics, there needs to be a clearer guideline stating that branding can be entered as label regardless of perceived role and cat#s belong to the release.
  • jaseywacey over 6 years ago

    Agreed.
    From the links above, it looks like the powers that be are aware of this so hopefully there may be a clarification soon.
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    It is already clear "Where no catalog number exists, you must enter "none" into the catalog number field" It's in no way ambiguous. It only gets muddied when people try adding clauses which are not there. Users second guess the relationship between the catalogue number and the label when they ought to be concerned with the catalogue number and the release. Perhaos more failsafes to the rule are required as this does come up in the forums every so often.

    "Where there is absolutely no catalog number on the release, you must enter "none" into the catalog number field"

    Perhaps that will sort it.
  • jaseywacey over 6 years ago

    That's been established. It's more about whether cat #s should match the labels. But with the links you have helpfully provided, it's totally understood now and I can use them when people erroneously ask for changes.
  • XFairplayX over 6 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    This is incorrect. You should only use "none" if there is absolutely no catalogue number on the release.

    "The catalog number belongs primarily to the release itself. Whatever entities (labels) the catalog number appears to fit is of secondary importance."
    http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/233124#2863759

    Feel free to link to this conversation in the threads concerned.


    Disagree. niks comment from 10 months ago was meant for a particular case, not as a general rule. They were not even talking about using "none" but about entering a second catalog# taken from a different version of a release.

    "4.7.2. A catalog number is required for every label entered. Where no catalog number exists, you must enter "none" into the catalog number field (note the lower case n)."
    Most of the times when there is only one catalog# on the release it is clearly identifiable from which label that originates. For that label I use this catalog#. If for the second label there is no catalog# on the release I use "none". That is what that guideline says.
  • jaseywacey over 6 years ago

    Ah. Fairplay this is crux if the debate. Which of the links above are you quoting Nik from?
  • MusicNutter over 6 years ago

    If for the second label there is no catalog# on the release I use "none". That is what that guideline says.

    No it doesn't say that at all. You only use none if no catalog number is present and only a label. If you had a release that said Sony Music, Polydor and Epic, you repeat the cat number for all three.

    For example Lighthouse Family released their stuff On Wildcard/Polydor so you repeat the cat number.
  • XFairplayX over 6 years ago

    jaseywacey
    Which of the links above are you quoting Nik from?

    The link in my quotation of Eviltoastmans comment
  • XFairplayX over 6 years ago

    MusicNutter
    For example Lighthouse Family released their stuff On Wildcard/Polydor so you repeat the cat number.

    I don't know about that but let's look at an example:

    The Public (2) / See You In Hell - The Public / See You In Hell
    Here we have a whole bunch of labels and half of them mention their own catalog#, half of them don't.
    What would you use for the the labels w/o number? Just pick any? The one of the most popular label?

    Of course you would use "none". And the same goes for cases where there are less labels.
  • jaseywacey over 6 years ago

    This is the last line from the NIk quote.

    As it stands, however, the catalog number for SOM is not 'none', because a catalog number does exist on the release. I agree that this type of direct linking could be improved, and I am working on that right now, but for the moment, the cat# should be repeated.
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    XFairplayX
    Disagree. niks comment from 10 months ago was meant for a particular case, not as a general rule. They were not even talking about using "none" but about entering a second catalog# taken from a different version of a release.


    "The catalog number belongs primarily to the release itself. Whatever entities (labels) the catalog number appears to fit is of secondary importance." This is not specific. This is a general statement. You may disagree, but you'd be completely incorrect.

    And as Jaseywacey has quote:
    "As it stands, however, the catalog number for SOM is not 'none', because a catalog number does exist on the release. I agree that this type of direct linking could be improved, and I am working on that right now, but for the moment, the cat# should be repeated."

    I think that speaks for all labels, not just SOM.

    XFairplayX
    Of course you would use "none". And the same goes for cases where there are less labels.

    I've commented on that release rather than vote, it needs to be fixed. Where there is none related to the label, you repeat the primary or most common catalogue number. The catalogue number is meant to belong to the release, not the label.
  • XFairplayX over 6 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    "The catalog number belongs primarily to the release itself. Whatever entities (labels) the catalog number appears to fit is of secondary importance." This is not specific. This is a general statement.

    That was a direct response to asylum27s post and they were discussing about a specific release, and the topic even was slightly different.

    Eviltoastman
    I've commented on that release rather than vote, it needs to be fixed. Where there is none related to the label, you repeat the primary or most common catalogue number. The catalogue number is meant to belong to the release, not the label.

    Sorry, but that is just nonsense - especially for that release.

  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    I disagree on the strongest terms. What you are saying is against the established rule and against nik's further comment on that rule.
  • XFairplayX over 6 years ago

    Look, I agree that for jaseywaceys example that started this whole topic

    http://www.discogs.com/history?release=92886#latest

    it's perfectly fine to use the given catalog# for both labels, because indeed that seems to be a catalog# that belongs to the release, used for identification, distribution and cataloging purpose, etc...

    But in the example that I just mentioned it's simple nonsense to pick any one catalog# and use it for the rest of the labels.
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    Are you saying the rules should be ignored for that release?
  • MusicNutter over 6 years ago

    MusicNutter edited over 6 years ago
    I was told to repeat the cat number for Lighthouse Family as they released their stuff on Wildcard/Polydor.

    Maybe you need to read guideline 4.7.1 XFairplayX

    If a release has so many labels, but only one cat number, you put that number for all the labels.

    4.7.1. The catalog number is usually the most prominent number printed on the release - often on the spine, on the back cover, and on the label etc
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    I really thought the rule was self explanatory, but it looks like it might require plainer language as I stated earlier this time with an adendum:
    "Where there is absolutely no catalog number on the release, you must enter "none" into the catalog number field. When you have fewer catalkogue numbers than listed labels, repeat the what appear to be the primary catalogue number in the vacant fields.".
  • XFairplayX over 6 years ago

    MusicNutter
    Maybe you need to read guideline 4.7.1 If a release has so many labels, but only one cat number, you put that number for all the labels.

    I don't know who told you that but that's not written anywhere in the guidelines. Plz check for yourself: http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-label-catalog.html#Catalog_Number

    Eviltoastman
    as I stated earlier this time with an adendum:
    "Where there is absolutely no catalog number on the release, you must enter "none" into the catalog number field. When you have fewer catalkogue numbers than listed labels, repeat the what appear to be the primary catalogue number in the vacant fields.".

    Um yeah, you wrote that. But it's news to me that you are making the guidelines now.

    The guideline still is: "4.7.2. A catalog number is required for every label entered. Where no catalog number exists, you must enter "none" into the catalog number field (note the lower case n)."
  • Opdiner over 6 years ago

    Opdiner edited over 6 years ago
    XFairplayX
    Disagree. niks comment from 10 months ago was meant for a particular case, not as a general rule.


    No it wasn't. It was a general directive and if you look through the forums it's been repeated several times.

    Eviltoastman
    Where there is absolutely no catalog number on the release, you must enter "none" into the catalog number field. When you have fewer catalkogue numbers than listed labels, repeat the what appear to be the primary catalogue number in the vacant fields.".


    Precisely.

    In other words: none is only used when there is no cat number at all on the release. When there is one we use it. That, if you re-read the guideline, is what that says too.

    XFairplayX
    But in the example that I just mentioned it's simple nonsense to pick any one catalog# and use it for the rest of the labels.


    Not so says Nik:

    nik
    Whatever entities (labels) the catalog number appears to fit is of secondary importance.


    The catalogue number is the number applied to the release. Where is comes from is secondary once it is applied to that release. Even more of a nonsense is using 'none' when the release quite obviously has a number.

    Eviltoastman
    I really thought the rule was self explanatory


    So did I, but perhaps you are right - it may need to be put in plainer language.

  • Opdiner over 6 years ago


    XFairplayX
    The guideline still is: "4.7.2. A catalog number is required for every label entered. Where no catalog number exists, you must enter "none" into the catalog number field (note the lower case n)."


    This seems to confuse you. Simply put: if a number exists on a release then it is incorrect to use none. Shortly the numbers will be moved to the BAOI anyway and your argument will become superfluous. In the interim, the ruling has been made by Nik and it is applied pan-database that way and the consensus in this thread supports that opinion too.
  • XFairplayX over 6 years ago

    Opdiner
    This seems to confuse you.

    Not at all. My interpretation of what it means seems to differ from Eviltoastman and yours though.

    Opdiner

    The catalogue number is the number applied to the release. Where is comes from is secondary once it is applied to that release. Even more of a nonsense is using 'none' when the release quite obviously has a number.

    again, the example The Public (2) / See You In Hell - The Public / See You In Hell
    I count 7 labels with catalog# and 14 without. Which of these catalog#s do you think should be used for the labels without catalog?

    I agree that it might be best if nik clarifies the guidelines.
  • Opdiner over 6 years ago

    Opdiner edited over 6 years ago
    XFairplayX
    Not at all. My interpretation of what it means seems to differ from Eviltoastman and yours though.


    And Nik's and just about everybody else including the 5 others in this thread who also seem to get it.

    Read the rule again. It isn't that hard but you are twisting it to mean exactly what you want it to mean.

    XFairplayX
    I agree that it might be best if nik clarifies the guidelines.


    He has repeatedly - actually again as recently as a week or two back - but if you want it again...

    In the interim, given the ruling and the way it has been clarified in the past the example you quote is currently wrong.

    XFairplayX
    I count 7 labels with catalog# and 14 without. Which of these catalog#s do you think should be used for the labels without catalog?


    There is no catalogue number on the release so none may be the best option for all. External numbers are allowed, but with supporting links. These links seem to be missing and until they are supplied it should all be none.
  • sanberg101 over 6 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    it needs to be fixed

    what the hell needs to be fixed if you mean this release?
    http://www.discogs.com/Public2-See-You-In-Hell-The-Public-See-You-In-Hell/release/1745460

    ?
  • Mr.Mystery over 6 years ago


    XFairplayX
    Not at all. My interpretation of what it means seems to differ from Eviltoastman and yours though.

    What is there to interpret, exactly?
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    sanberg101
    what the hell needs to be fixed if you mean this release?


    Please watch your attitude. I believe Opdiner is now dealing. My notes although containing a typo are still self explanatory.
  • XFairplayX over 6 years ago

    Mr.Mystery
    What is there to interpret, exactly?

    "4.7.2. A catalog number is required for every label entered. Where no catalog number exists, you must enter "none" into the catalog number field."

    It still is clear to me that in a case where we have two or more labels, but only a catalog# from one label, we use this catalog# for the corresponding label and for the labels for which no catalog# exists we use "none".

    We also of course use "none" when there is no number whatsoever.

    Again - as I pointed out http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/336378#3149652 I of course agree that a catalog# can also be used for the release and be entered multiple times for different labels. That is just not useful for ALL releases (see my example).

    Besides, what could possibly be the benefit for the database (strictly technical speaking) to use the Catalog# from label A for label B as well?
  • MusicNutter over 6 years ago

    You only use none, if a release doesn't have a cat number at all.
  • Mr.Mystery over 6 years ago

    Let's take a closer look:

    XFairplayX
    "4.7.2. A catalog number is required for every label entered. Where no catalog number exists, you must enter "none" into the catalog number field."

    So... if the record has a catalog number, how can you enter "none"?

    XFairplayX

    Besides, what could possibly be the benefit for the database (strictly technical speaking) to use the Catalog# from label A for label B as well?

    I would think that to be far more beneficial than to use an imaginary "none".
  • Opdiner over 6 years ago

    Opdiner edited over 6 years ago
    XFairplayX
    It still is clear to me that in a case where we have two or more labels, but only a catalog# from one label, we use this catalog# for the corresponding label and for the labels for which no catalog# exists we use "none".


    Sorry, not true. Nik has clarified this over and over. You are wrong on this. I'd like to be a little less confrontational on this but this isn't something grey and it has been long resolved.

    XFairplayX
    That is just not useful for ALL releases (see my example).


    At the moment all those numbers on your example should not be there:

    1.1.2. Sources of information external to the release itself may be added, but the physical release must always be the main source. External sources of the information (for example websites, word of mouth, books etc) must be declared in the submission notes, explained in the release notes, and be verifiable as far as possible. Unsubstantiated information may be removed or rejected.

    And the RSG does not offer an exception to the rule for 'some releases'.

  • Opdiner over 6 years ago

    Opdiner edited over 6 years ago
    XFairplayX
    Besides, what could possibly be the benefit for the database (strictly technical speaking) to use the Catalog# from label A for label B as well?


    A page full of 'none' is a hell of a lot less useful than a page with the number that was used as a catalogue number to release a record/CD.
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    Yep, forget catalogue numbers as solely belonging to the label. Our primary concern is the record.
  • sanberg101 over 6 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    Please watch your attitude


    Please stop dissecting the guidelines into pieces and making your own wrong statements and conclusions. This is not the first time and unfortunately not the last for sure.

    The release in question is a D.I.Y. hardcore punk stuff when there are usually lots of labels involved that all act independently, they only put funds together to pay for the pressing.

    Look, this was my label: Trenchcore Records. I have used printed catalog numbers only on the later releases. The first ones don't have any printed, but they have sourced one from the website. In your opinion I should remove my catalog number that is not printed and replace it with a catalog number of another label, Opdiner? You can't mean this seriously.
  • XFairplayX over 6 years ago

    Mr.Mystery

    I would think that to be far more beneficial than to use an imaginary "none".

    Err, no. If there is a clear cataloging system for a label, (like for example here Allied Recordings (US)), and if they co-released a record but didn't put their number on it (for whatever reason), then this release does not have a number for this label -> "none".
    Again, I fail to see the benefit of the number "ABC123" from a completely different 2nd label. And yeah, I think "none" is more useful. Because if there is none for this label I don't use something else. I use "none".

    Eviltoastman
    Please watch your attitude.

    The release in question (which I regret using as example) is perfectly fine the way it is.
    Your comment is complete nonsense and the reaction more than understandable.

    Maybe we let this debate rest and sleep on it until nik gives us his clear point of view.
  • Opdiner over 6 years ago

    sanberg101
    In your opinion I should remove my catalog number that is not printed and replace it with a catalog number of another label, Opdiner? You can't mean this seriously.


    No but you are required to provide links. How is that so hard? Why are you an exception?

    On that release DF02 seems to be the only number (unless there is a matrix - missing from the submission page). If that is the only number on the release it replaces the none entries as per guidelines. It doesn't matter where it came from originally.

    sanberg101
    Please stop dissecting the guidelines into pieces and making your own wrong statements and conclusions.


    He's not. It's the rule applied across the database and clarified by Nik.

    XFairplayX
    Maybe we let this debate rest and sleep on it until nik gives us his clear point of view.


    He has - over and over. This has been endlessly discussed over the years and a resolution which is applied across the database has been in effect for a very long time now. And over that period it has been clarified on several occasions.

    XFairplayX
    Again, I fail to see the benefit of the number "ABC123" from a completely different 2nd label. And yeah, I think "none" is more useful. Because if there is none for this label I don't use something else. I use "none".


    And in doing so you are wrong.

    Once again, because it still seems to confuse:

    nik
    Whatever entities (labels) the catalog number appears to fit is of secondary importance.


    The release is king here. We record the numbers on the release and once they appear on the release they become the number OF the release. 'none' is no longer a correct statement of fact.

    How is that not clear?
  • sanberg101 over 6 years ago

    Opdiner
    No but you are required to provide links.

    done that for you

    Opdiner
    On that release DF02 seems to be the only number

    no, there is also B1

    Opdiner
    It's the rule applied across the database and clarified by Nik.


    than nik should have a look at the release we are discussing, because this is pure nonsense, whoever says it
  • Opdiner over 6 years ago


    sanberg101
    than nik should have a look at the release we are discussing, because this is pure nonsense, whoever says it


    If you scroll up you'll see where Nik has already ruled in this. He also ruled on this last week, stating that we do not use none where a release has a number. He has ruled several times before.

    In the case where the above ruling was made it was not argued dissimilarly to the argument you make. The problem you seem to have is, as in that thread, not being able to discern where the balance now lies.

    As I said above, the release is king. And that is taken from Nik.

    sanberg101
    done that for you


    Thanks.

  • sanberg101 over 6 years ago

    Opdiner
    the release is king


    the king that is using wrong dictatorship regardless of what do his wise advisors say :)

    i remember, there was once (cca. in 2009) an issue with using catalog numbers sourced from the matrix when there was no other visible on a release. the guidelines at that time were written in a way when some users were claiming that using the catalog from matrix is incorrect, fortunately everything was discussed & guidelines reworked. i hope that nik understands the situation with our release in question.
  • XFairplayX over 6 years ago

    Opdiner
    The release is king here. We record the numbers on the release and once they appear on the release they become the number OF the release. 'none' is no longer a correct statement of fact.


    Look, the problem is not that I don't understand the concept you're trying to get across here. The problem is a) that the guidelines do not reflect what you're saying and b) if that really is supposed to be the solution it still is nonsense because clearly it can not be applied to all releases (as seen on my example).
  • Opdiner over 6 years ago

    XFairplayX
    Look, the problem is not that I don't understand the concept you're trying to get across here.


    That seems to be the issue really doesn't it. The fact is most others seem to and it doesn't cause an issue.

    Because no matter how many times you repeat:

    XFairplayX
    a) that the guidelines do not reflect what you're saying


    That statement is wrong as repeatedly explained to you.

    And:

    XFairplayX
    hat really is supposed to be the solution it still is nonsense because clearly it can not be applied to all releases (as seen on my example).


    Yes it can.

    sanberg101
    i hope that nik understands the situation with our release in question.


    So the whole guideline needs to be re-written, the whole DB altered, simply because you don't get it? We have a working guideline and there is the odd release, such as yours, where it is tricky to apply it. That doesn't mean the rule has to be changed, just that we need to find a way to apply it.

    Which of those labels was the primary label (i.e. arranged pressing and distribution) as that may help. Surely not every label did a tiny bit each of that?

  • sanberg101 over 6 years ago

    Opdiner
    We have a working guideline and there is the odd release, such as yours, where it is tricky to apply it.

    it is not an "odd release", hundreds and hundreds of similar multi-label releases can be found in the database.

    Opdiner
    Which of those labels was the primary label

    there is never a primary label on that kind of releases

    Opdiner
    So the whole guideline needs to be re-written, the whole DB altered,simply because you don't get it?

    this kind of multi-label releases is being submitted in the same logical way, as it still is, since i started to use Discogs 4 years ago
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    sanberg101
    it is not an "odd release", hundreds and hundreds of similar multi-label releases can be found in the database.


    Tes, there are a few of these, there is still; absolutely no reason why they should be exepmt. It's not impossible in practice to add none, it's not even difficult.

    sanberg101
    there is never a primary label on that kind of releases


    Nonsense. They don't organise the release as a co-operative. One takes the lead and as Opdiner says "arranged pressing and distribution". They don't partake in a giant conference call for these things.

    sanberg101
    this kind of multi-label releases is being submitted in the same logical way, as it still is, since i started to use Discogs 4 years ago


    What may have been previously acceptable changes with time as the database rules evolve. There is no logical reason for these releases to be exempt from the current guidelines.
  • hermanito over 6 years ago

    sanberg101
    there is never a primary label on that kind of releases

    There is. In this case the primary label is AM:PM
    It is licensed by Metrix Recordings to A&M Recordings.
    So I think it should be like this:

    Label: AM:PM cat#:582 691-2
    Licensed To: A&M Records Ltd. London
    Licensed From: Metrix Recordings


    This is how it is but not how Discogs documents it.
    The release is heavy branded as a Metrix Recordings release and therefore that label is added to the label field.
    Personally I don't like it either and would prefer to apply the correct role to every entity on a release (although that is a really difficult task sometimes).
    Just my 2 cents on this matter.
  • sanberg101 over 6 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    They don't organise the release as a co-operative.

    They surely do, therefor it is called D.I.Y. cooperation or collaboration sometimes also printed like that on releases. Been there, done that.

    That being said, I won't change anything to your image. You know why and I won't be repeating myself.

    Eviltoastman
    There is no logical reason for these releases to be exempt from the current guidelines.

    There surely is. In my opinion there is no logical reason for your point of view to the issue. In other words that guideline needs to be re-written in order of no more ghosts coming to releases that they do not have a clue about and another putting of guidelines out of concept. I don't see any point that supports your vision anyway in the guidelines.
  • sanberg101 over 6 years ago

    hermanito
    In this case the primary label is AM:PM

    I think that we don't mean the same release. I am talking about about D.I.Y. releases with approx. 20 labels involved that cooperate together.

    hermanito
    Just my 2 cents on this matter.

    Thank you anyway.
  • Opdiner over 6 years ago

    sanberg101
    hey surely do, therefor it is called D.I.Y. cooperation or collaboration sometimes also printed like that on releases. Been there, done that.


    So everyone rings the pressing plant as a conference call, they jointly order the pressing, each one writes a part of the cheque and so on...

    Quite a unique story.

    sanberg101
    There surely is. In my opinion there is no logical reason for your point of view to the issue. In other words that guideline needs to be re-written in order of no more ghosts coming to releases that they do not have a clue about and another putting of guidelines out of concept.


    In other words you'd be keen to see a parallel set of guidelines written just for you? With adjustments to suit just you.

    It doesn't work that way I'm sorry, We have one set that applies to the whole DB.

  • sanberg101 over 6 years ago

    Opdiner
    Quite a unique story.

    Very funny. You don't know anything about that, so please better stay quiet if you want to say more similar "jokes".

    Opdiner
    It doesn't work that way I'm sorry

    It works for years, you came out of nowhere keen on messing things up without any knowledge relevant to the issue.
  • XFairplayX over 6 years ago

    hermanito
    In this case the primary label is AM:PM

    This is a misunderstanding - sanberg101 is talking about his release The Public (2) / See You In Hell - The Public / See You In Hell.
    The one you are talking about is MJ Cole - Sincere which was the original example from jaseywacey.

    And there is the difference - the first is a DIY hc/punk-release, issued between a lot of independent labels, while the second is rather a product of the music industry.

    Eviltoastman

    Nonsense. They don't organise the release as a co-operative.

    Yes, they do organize the thing as a co-operative.

    Opdiner
    So the whole guideline needs to be re-written, the whole DB altered,

    No one is saying that. All we're saying is that we should approach this issue with common sense. Yes, we should use the one catalog# for both labels with the MJ Cole release, in fact for most releases in the db this would be a good solution. However, there are many releases where it makes more sense to use "none".
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    sanberg101
    You know why

    Yes I do, but obstinacy in the face of an established and agreed guideline isn't really a valid reason.
  • sanberg101 over 6 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    They don't organise the release as a co-operative.

    "Released in the spirit of international D.I.Y. cooperation!"
    Is really printed on the release we are talking about.
  • XFairplayX over 6 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    an established and agreed guideline isn't really a valid reason.

    If this guideline would be so established und universally agreed on this thread wouldn't have been started in the first place.
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    Look around you, you're not exactly arriving with the cavalry.
  • sanberg101 over 6 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    established and agreed guideline


    4.7.2. A catalog number is required for every label entered. Where no catalog number exists, you must enter "none" into the catalog number field (note the lower case n). For other companies on the release, leave the catalog number field blank, unless there is a catalog number that relates directly to the company.

    Talking about our release in question: http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1745460#latest

    "A catalog number is required for every label entered."
    - 21 independent labels involved, 2 printed catalogs numbers, 5 sourced from relevant sources with provided links, other labels don't have a catalog number for this release, therefor are stated as "none".
    - repeating again, there are 21 independent labels involved

    " Where no catalog number exists, you must enter "none" into the catalog number field (note the lower case n)."
    - said above

    "For other companies on the release, leave the catalog number field blank, unless there is a catalog number that relates directly to the company."
    - meant for "Company" section like the pressing plant line for example

    Eviltoastman
    Look around you, you're not exactly arriving with the cavalry.

    There are some label owners that run these independent D.I.Y. labels active on Discogs and be sure that they would be shocked with your attitude to this matter the same way as I am. If there will be need for that, I will bring that cavalry to this topic.
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    sanberg101
    There are some label owners that run these independent D.I.Y. labels active on Discogs and be sure that they would be shocked with your attitude to this matter the same way as I am.


    I for one was shocked with your first post in this thread and the attitude you showed me for no good reason. I was also shocked when you followed it up with several attempts to assassinate my character. You tried to make this personal but I did not and will not respond in kind to your barbs. Keep on topic and stop with the faux shock.
  • Opdiner over 6 years ago


    sanberg101
    It works for years, you came out of nowhere keen on messing things up without any knowledge relevant to the issue.


    Actually I've been here since 2003, and was a former mod, so don't talk more nonsense please.

    sanberg101
    Very funny. You don't know anything about that,


    Can you explain how it's done? Because it really does make no sense. I understand co-operatives, and have released records that way. but one label in the grouping is usually assigned the lead role in manufacturing and so on, You are saying that it wasn't the case here - you are unique this way. I'm keen to know how it works.

    Who placed the production order?

    XFairplayX

    If this guideline would be so established und universally agreed on this thread wouldn't have been started in the first place.


    The whole point of this thread now is that there is one - everyone seems to accept this and understand this apart from you two. You, on the other hand, feel that there should be one rule for you and one for everyone else.

    Mostly, I think because you've simply decided to ignore the way the database works when it's inconvenient, and that helps nobody.

    I know this one is tricky, but the best way forward is to work which label arranged the pressing etc on behalf of the co-op and they are the primary label.

  • Opdiner over 6 years ago


    sanberg101
    There are some label owners that run these independent D.I.Y. labels active on Discogs and be sure that they would be shocked with your attitude to this matter the same way as I am. If there will be need for that, I will bring that cavalry to this topic.


    And we will bring the guidelines.

    You insist on mis-representing what they say - even though it's fairly clear to me that you don't quite buy your own argument. And if there is any doubt about what it's supposed to mean, scroll up and you'll find - as you repeatedly ignore - that Nik has clarified this for you.

    And that clarification - both there and elsewhere in these forums - makes your attempt to reinterpret reliably wrong.

  • sanberg101 over 6 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    You tried to make this personal

    I never did, neither intended. Your initial comment (that is how I came to this topic) to the release in question did really make me upset because of its lack of logic and no knowledge to the issue.

    Opdiner
    Actually I've been here since 2003, and was a former mod

    So why did you not argue back in years if you are not satisfied with current method?

    Opdiner
    Because it really does make no sense.

    I have explained this several times, I won't be repeating myself.

    Opdiner
    Who placed the production order?

    All the labels share the same relevance whoever placed the order in this kind of release.

    Opdiner
    everyone seems to accept this and understand this apart from you two.

    Try to make the changes that Eviltoastman wanted on all the similar releases in the database and watch the reaction.

    Opdiner
    And we will bring the guidelines.

    I did that too in a post above in order to support my argument, you did not react to that. So what do you want to bring?
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    sanberg101
    I never did, neither intended. Your initial comment (that is how I came to this topic) to the release in question did really make me upset because of its lack of logic and no knowledge to the issue.

    Lack of logic and knowledge? You show a lack of comprehension of the guideline and it's meant to demonstrate a failing in me? That's illogical. Those referrals to my disecting of rhte guidelines and the allusion to my past. That's not personal? I think you'll find comments specifically directed at an individual to the detriment of that individual in a manner that is clear not on topic or relevant is personal.

    sanberg101
    So why did you not argue back in years if you are not satisfied with current method?


    You refer to "the current method", but you allude to a mistake that is being perpetuated by a few who feel that the rules either do not apply to them or as evidenced above a complete failure to understand the rule in question. NoW it is understood, there'S a resistance where you feel that you should be exempt. DIY labels are not a special case. "The current method" is what is prescribed in the rules.

    sanberg101
    I have explained this several times, I won't be repeating myself.

    You've never explained this. One will always be the organiser or principle. Explain why this particular release is different. Joking aside, was there a big conference call to the pressing plant etc.?

  • sanberg101 over 6 years ago

    nik, could you please make a statement before we reach 100 posts here? I think that we are all repeating the same arguments over.

    Guys, Opdiner & Eviltoastman, before you will say that the statement was already done, I want nik to have a look at this particular tricky release in question. thanks a lot.
  • sanberg101 over 6 years ago

  • perlator over 6 years ago

    http://www.discogs.com/projects

    Label / Company - Should be able to add a release without a label / catalog number
    is again at the bottom of the list. Once that ticket has been completed (whatever low priority it has) it should be possible to enter a label without a catalog#. IMO it's a bit silly that we have to associate a label with a catalog#, while companies can be entered without one. For me adding 'none' makes as little sense as adding a random catalogue number from the release. It should be possible to just leave the field empty.
  • Mop66 over 6 years ago

    If a release has a cat# it is valid for all labels. There is no mixture of "none" with a cat#. I handled it differently in the past as well but this is the current rule.
  • perlator over 6 years ago

    Mop66
    There is no mixture of "none" with a cat#.

    I agree. But http://www.discogs.com/history?release=2538005#latest has only one catalogue number. Why does it have to be entered three times, instead of only entering it once (with You Study Records) and leaving the rest to be accomplished by the inner workings of the db? That labels have a unique role in having to be associated with a catalog# is a kludge, that has no bearing on reality. I know it's the only way to do it right now, but it's not a very intelligent way - especially when a catalog# is so obviously related to one particular label (in fact the release would have 'none' if it wasn't for the labels website).
  • XFairplayX over 6 years ago

    Wow, I never encountered such a very unpleasant impertinence here on discogs.

    Opdiner is now going through our subs/collections (see sanberg101s example above and mine here: http://www.discogs.com/history?release=2730748#latest ) and changing/voting on good subs/edits.

    nik, this needs to stop.
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    XFairplayX
    this needs to stop.

    Stop adding "none" to releases which clearly have catalogue numbers. If you your fellowship really wanted nik to be involved, you'd have made a submission request for him to kindly visit the thread. 19 days and no such effort was made. As things stand what you're doing is against the rules and all available explanations of the rules. Opdiner's vote is completely legitimate as per 20.2.2.
  • Opdiner over 6 years ago

    Opdiner edited over 6 years ago
    XFairplayX
    opdiner is now going through our subs/collections (see sanberg101s example above and mine here: http://www.discogs.com/history?release=2730748#latest ) and changing/voting on good subs/edits.


    What utter nonsense. I came across two subs and voted on one and changed the other. Over a period of a month! Think about it...

    There was no hunt through either of your submissions.

    XFairplayX
    changing/voting on good subs/edits.


    They're only good if they are correct. And they were not. Please see voting guidelines as well as catalogue number guidelines. Guess, what - they apply to you too.

  • jaseywacey over 6 years ago

    Hi Guys,
    I'm getting involved again because I started this forum and feel some sort responsibility for what going on here. I think the problem with these fora is that they generally tend to end with no real closure. Answers are provided but not every question is answered. Frustratingly, it sometimes ends with more questions which are in turn not answered.
    I'm fairly new to this and really enjoy the website for a bunch of reasons. I am very patient and the result is I take time to understand why people take the views that they do and in general find myself taking both sides because the debates are well argued but the problem I am finding is that when Nik does eventually get involved- because intervention has become necessary- there is no definitive "judgement" to settle the debate. I say this because I started another forum after this one about Fcom and went about trying to apply what was "decided" but upon "fixing" a couple entries, it became apparent that what seemed to have been resolved, really wasn't resolved entirely. Contributors to the forum will most probable disagree but it has happened.

    The problem with the written word is that people tend to write as they would speak, neglecting to compensate for the fact that in conversation nuance is also derived from body language. Proper punctuation is also the enemy of clarity. The problem with some of the rules is that when the language is not explicit, then by definition it is implicit and therefore things can be read into it. Let's take this particular thread as the logical example. It all revolves around this quote.

    "4.7.2. A catalog number is required for every label entered. Where no catalog number exists, you must enter "none" into the catalog number field (note the lower case n)."

    Going back to my seeing both sides I will attempt to explain what I think people are seeing in this.

    Firstly, taking the first sentence, "A catalog number is required for every label entered." this reads that for a label to qualify to be entered it has to have a catalog number, which I'm sure we would all agree on, but the implication here is that the existence of a label means that it should have a number which identifies it, which logically means that the number should be unique to that label for the purpose of identification. I hope we all agree on that too.

    The introduction of the second sentence "Where no catalog number exists, you must enter "none" into the catalog number field" allows for varying interpretations. This is straight forward enough once there is no cat # at all. Where it becomes vague for example, is if there are 3 labels present but only 2 cat #s. I will present a generic case:

    Present on a release are labels A, B & C but the only cat #s present are #s that can be identified as belonging to A & B. But to apply "A catalog number is required for every label entered." to this case, label C must be designated a cat #. But if there is no cat # for label C, which cat # do you credit to label C? Cat # A or cat # B? How do you choose between the two? This is not explained. Naturally, one goes back to "A catalog number is required for every label entered." (as it precedes this sentence) to look for answers because there should be something in there to make the second sentence make sense.

    My feeling is that interpreting the rule to put "none" for label C is entirely logical and consistent with the first sentence but for one fatal flaw. What the first sentence assumes is that there will be a cat # for every label, which is patently not the case (for whatever reason), and this assumption is where it all falls apart.

    Eviltoastman
    "Where there is absolutely no catalog number on the release, you must enter "none" into the catalog number field"


    Eviltoastman hit the nail on the head with this post when he suggests that the rule should be rewritten as such. Here, there is no ambiguity. But what we need is Nik to adjudicate that this is what is meant by the rule but that it is not communicated as best as it could be (otherwise there wouldn't be so much debate) and at the same time acknowledge that the counter-argument has legs and will be looked into by a set date.

    Personally, I think people would be accepting of such a judgement because they will feel confident that something is being done about a problem that has arisen on more than one occasion. I suggest the time frame so between now and then there is no anxiety about if there will ever be a resolution. Anxiety may seem like a strong word but there is a real sense of that here. Music has the ability to stir passions like no other art form and that is manifesting itself here in these fora. I applaud it but I would also like us all to have some perspective and to sometimes take time to give a considered response, rather than a knee jerk one that leads to aggravation and you're then left trying to save face. A suggested solution is to compel the preview button just like when editing a release. This will hopefully encourage people read to their comments before posting.

    I sincerely hope is that this makes sense to everyone and that you appreciate what I am trying to do here. Early on I stated I am relatively new to this and I am trying to give you the perspective of fresh eyes. It's sometimes hard to be objective when one is so immersed in something.

    Peace.
  • Opdiner over 6 years ago

    jaseywacey
    ut what we need is Nik to adjudicate that this is what is meant by the rule but that it is not communicated as best as it could be (otherwise there wouldn't be so much debate) and at the same time acknowledge that the counter-argument has legs and will be looked into by a set date.


    The thing is, he has done so several times. There is a link up thread, also a recent thread where we were discussing the addition of 'none' to Balkans releases, and so on. There are others too, and I think this is fairly widely accepted as correct usage across most of the database these days.

    The rule is fairly clearly defined, but a couple of users who seem to think that they can apply, bend or ignore rules and clarifications refuse to accept it because somehow they think they are different.

    The only reason that this debate has gone on as long as it has is because certain parties refuse to accept it - and I think even if Nik repeated this again - and again - they would still refuse to abide by it.

    The other rule that applies is:

    4.8.3. For each label field that is added a catalog number field will also be added. These must be completed. The sequence of catalog numbers should match the sequence of label fields, for example if three labels are listed the catalog number assigned by the label in the third label field should be added to the third catalog number field. If all labels used the same catalog number this should be added to all catalog number fields.

    In the case of the second submission that this lot are getting upset about, this is clear - it only has one number so it applies to both. It is the number of the release and it is repeated.

    In the other earlier one with multiple labels and catalogue numbers it is trickier. The obvious answer there is to work out which of the co-op arranged pressing etc. I really find the argument that nobody did - it was all done jointly - less than credible. Once we know that, it can be inserted.

    But there is a refusal to supply that information it seems.

    jaseywacey
    y feeling is that interpreting the rule to put "none" for label C is entirely logical and consistent with the first sentence but for one fatal flaw.


    The fatal flaw is that by entering none you are listing it on a page by saying there that it has no number, which is simply not true. The release DOES have a number and where it is derived from - whatever company sequence - is almost irrelevant to that simple fact: it has a catalogue number so 'none' doesn't record that fact accurately.
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    Amen.

  • sanberg101 over 6 years ago

    sanberg101 edited over 6 years ago
    Eviltoastman
    you'd have made a submission request for him to kindly visit the thread.

    The support request was sent already yesterday right after the NMiC vote by Opdiner was cast and before you typed this response. nik is invited to visit this thread and the release where the vote was cast.

    This became utter nonsense lacking any marks of logic what you two want. I don't have a clue where did that guidelines suddenly arise from but they can clearly not be applied to all releases. I am not going to make unreasonable changes requested by rsg line pickers that leave the logical thinking behind. As the particular example I will use my own label if that will be needed, not to you two anymore, but directly to nik as I have spent a lot of time trying to make you get the point. And I was not the only one.

    Opdiner
    But there is a refusal to supply that information it seems.

    There is and will be "refusal" of your requests. Please note that you are senselessly trying (and as I can see you are already doing) to plough what works here for long years completely by your weird guidelines understanding.

    Feel free to cast more negative votes, I will maybe end on CIP one day :)

    As nik is already invited here you can save your time on responding.
  • sanberg101 over 6 years ago

    One more reply to keep the submission history of http://www.discogs.com/history?release=2538005#latest clean as possible:

    Opdiner
    Or - perhaps it is a genuine mistake and the phrase "where no number exists" really causes a comprehension problem? If so think about it... does a number exist on this release? If the answer is yes (and it seems to be since you added one) then you've just out argued yourself by quoting 4.7.2.


    I have explained this to you in this thread already, the same did XFairplayX.

    The label with catalog number has some kind of cataloging the other two do not so they should carry the one used by another label just because they cooperated on this release? Or they would carry another one just because of another label with another catalog number involved? The labels act independently here. If I don't use any catalog numbers for my label at all or I just forget to print one for a release, I should carry some random that appears first listed just because you keep on quoting the sentence that can not work in practice for everything?
  • Opdiner over 6 years ago

    sanberg101
    I have explained this to you in this thread already, the same did XFairplayX.


    And nobody outside your touch team duo agrees with you. Read up the thread.

    You didn't explain anything, you simply misstated over and over what you hoped the guideline meant, and decided that if it didn't mean that you'd ignore it regardless. That is not how this site works.

    The simple fact is that we do not use none when a release has a catalogue number because none means no number exists on the release and that is incorrect data.

    sanberg101
    There is and will be "refusal" of your requests


    I guess that confirms that you were not exactly being honest with your earlier statement, and you're not interested in resolving the matter unless it conforms to the way you want it and to hell with everyone else.

    It was a reasonable request. Which label arranged the pressing on this and paid the pressing plant? You seem to know the answer and it's relevant, so why refuse to answer?

    Rather than simply editing these subs, I've tried to resolve it taking into account both the guideline as written, and the way Nik has interpreted it for us on several occasions - and the way it has been applied across the database in recent times. Others have been reasonable and polite too.

    Instead of trying be a part of that you are simply being belligerent and insisting that your small corner be treated differently.

    I've got no gripe with you - beyond the fact that you wilfully simply refuse to listen and then repeat the same thing over and over again, and you're being what I think is unreasonably aggressive - but we have one rule which is applied a certain way across Discogs and you are not the exception as much as you seem to think you are.
  • sanberg101 over 6 years ago

    Opdiner
    And nobody outside your touch team duo agrees with you.

    See the last paragraph of my last response - you have never replied to this. You keep on ignoring any logical approaches you just keep on quoting statements that can not be applied to everything.

    I am tired of this. But if I would be pushed to use bogus "guideline number" for labels that actually have another on a website and just didn't put it on a release I find relevant to explain that the "catalog" number belonging to another label is just a reason of imperfect non-appliable guidelines in the release notes.
  • Opdiner over 6 years ago

    sanberg101
    See the last paragraph of my last response - you have never replied to this


    It has been replied to over and over but you are not interested in a reply that doesn't fit your re-interpretation of the RSG.

    Why you think you are a one off special case I don't know, but that seems to be your argument now.

    As I understand it catalogue numbers are to be eventually removed from the labels and placed in the BAOI anyway - and that will resolve it. The numbers will the number of the release. Where they come from will be secondary.

    sanberg101
    But if I would be pushed to use bogus "guideline number" for labels that actually have another on a website and just didn't put it on a release I find relevant to explain that the "catalog" number belonging to another label is just a reason of imperfect non-appliable guidelines in the release notes.


    You could place a note in the notes explaining where the number comes from, but using the notes to criticise the guidelines is not allowed I'm sure.
  • sanberg101 over 6 years ago

    Opdiner
    catalogue numbers are to be eventually removed from the labels and placed in the BAOI anyway - and that will resolve it.

    It could be interesting.

    Opdiner
    You could place a note in the notes explaining where the number comes from

    I meant this for sure

    Opdiner
    but using the notes to criticise the guidelines is not allowed I'm sure.

    and not this.
  • Opdiner over 6 years ago

    And we seem to have a resolution. Thank you sanberg101, that hopefully helps sort this. I'm tired of it too :)

  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    Great stuff.
  • sanberg101 over 6 years ago

    sanberg101 edited over 6 years ago
    Opdiner
    I'm tired of it too :)

    indeed, thank you :)

    Nik answered my support request so I did an edit as per his instructions, please check it out if I understood the instructions correctly:
    http://www.discogs.com/submissions#item=release/2538005

    thanks a lot!
    _____
    edit: done, thanks again!
  • XFairplayX over 6 years ago

    I was not at home yesterday and obviously missed something here... so, the only response on this whole thing from nik was
    "Hi,
    A catalog number should be entered for every label if there is a catalog number on the release.
    Many thanks,
    Nik | Discogs.com" ?
  • sanberg101 over 6 years ago

    there is also another response regarding http://www.discogs.com/Public2-See-You-In-Hell-The-Public-See-You-In-Hell/release/1745460 :

    The alphabetically 1st catalog number should be added to the other labels.
    Thanks,
    Nik | Discogs.com

    I won't be discussing this further as I was told this directly by the database manager and have marked the support request as Resolved. Maybe the planned transferring of catalog numbers will work better. Please be tolerant when seeing simiral cases put in the database over the years. I will try to edit it somehow in the upcoming time to match the guidelines when I will get used to this. Peace out everybody.
  • XFairplayX over 6 years ago

    sanberg101
    The alphabetically 1st catalog number should be added to the other labels.
    Thanks,
    Nik | Discogs.com

    Lol, with all due respect nik, but this does not sound as if a lot of thought went into it... to put it mildly. Is it so hard to acknowledge that the existing standards can not be applied in all cases and that there are always exceptions to a rule?
    I still fail to see why "none" should be worse than a random number from some other label, but whatever... it's your database.

    One last word to Opdiner though:
    In my "discogs-career" I have encountered lots of other, more experienced users, and I gladly follow good advise and respect their seniority. Your condescending, arrogant attitude diminished that rather quickly however. I am beginning to understand why you had these problems with your old account... oh btw, you registered in 2003 and ranked "28,155 (not that it really matters)" - not that impressive really.
  • Opdiner over 6 years ago

    Opdiner edited over 6 years ago
    And your inability to discuss, failure to grasp simple logic and refusal to even try and see another side is also less than impressive. I'm beginning to understand why I had a bunch of PMs saying that you were notoriously difficult, irrational and in-transient. Perhaps those other people you "respect" don't quite have the good feelings, huh?

    And to accuse the database manager of "not putting a lot of thought" in to this when it's been discussed in many threads over the years kinda sums you up, right?

    The difference between you and sanberg101 was that he was able to resolve this and put this behind him, as I did. I gave him a few C votes and we moved on. You, on the other hand seem to be endlessly belligerent and rather bitter (other threads you're in confirm this) with some sort of self-entitled chip on your shoulder which I can't be bothered with (you're on ignore now).

    You can switch your brain off now and go back to whatever it is you do day to day where I'm sure it's not required. Bye.
  • 1skinnylad over 6 years ago

    Mop66
    There is no mixture of "none" with a cat#.

    Vote +1 that this is basically the essence of a now long-established rule, that does not need changing now, despite other logics that request it was another way (till perhaps Nik declares otherwise or the database updates to a new version).
  • Staff 3.1k

    nik over 6 years ago

    Hi folks, sorry I haven't been 'in this thread' till now, bus as has been stated, I replied to a couple of support requests about the issue at hand.

    Having cat#s tied to labels all the time on a 1:1 relationship is a problem. The site has developed this was because it seemed obvious to do this back in the day before we had examples of where it breaks down. The easyest way forward is to divorce cat#s from labels, and have them in another part of the data - the Barcode And Other Identifiers section - and only tie them to labels where it is clear that they should be. In all other cases, the cat# applies to the release itself, and we don't need to tie it to all labels (in the same way as we use the cat# now for companies, wiithout needing to state it).

    That punk release is obviously extreme, and impossible to resolve in a satisfactory way right now. In fact, I'd take the lowest cat# alphabetically, and copy that to all labels that didn't have a cat# for the release. It does seem needlessly complicated though, with hindsight the releae itself should have just been given one cat# and that would be that :-)

    Cat#s from website etc is ok as long as it is official and it is not replacing information already on the release.

    Finally, please be nice to each other, stuff like this isn't worth falling out about.
  • XFairplayX over 6 years ago

    Thanks for your statement, and it's perfectly understandable that you're not available 24/7.

    The solution to use a catalog# for both (or more) labels if there is only one printed on the release is perfectly fine in maybe 99% of the cases, because - as stated before and not disputed by me or sanberg101 - what you proposed in earlier discussions around this topic is true: the catalog# belongs to the release and is used to identify it, for distribution purposes, etc... so, no problem there.

    nik
    In fact, I'd take the lowest cat# alphabetically, and copy that to all labels that didn't have a cat# for the release. It does seem needlessly complicated though, with hindsight the releae itself should have just been given one cat# and that would be that :-)


    The aforementioned example http://www.discogs.com/Public2-See-You-In-Hell-The-Public-See-You-In-Hell/release/1745460 is indeed an extreme case with 21 labels involved, but in general this concept is not exceptional in that diy hardcore/punk scene.
    I guess since this kind of music has not been allowed on discogs in the earlier years this problem did not occur before.

    In the last years lots of releases have been subbed to discogs with exactly the now disputed pattern (Label 1 - Cat1, Label 2 - Cat2, Label 3 - none), and not only by me or sanberg101 but by many others. Even if opdiner did not notice it, this has become an established solution.

    The point and main difference here is that for these kind of releases catalog#s have no meaning at all. They are not used to identify the release, they have no significance in distribution whatsoever; if they exist, their only purpose is an internal one for the label, nothing more.
    Here's a link to the wholesale-list of the worlds biggest distributor of DIY hardcore/punk releases, Ebullition Records (2): http://ebullition.com/listwhole.html - you will notice a curious absence of Catalog#s, they don't even use them for their own or their exclusively distributed labels. And that's the same with all DIY distributors/labels. I have been running a distro/mailorder with 6-figure revenue myself for 8 years, I looked through countless wholesale-lists, sold thousands of records and personally knew many labels, bands and other distros - I dare say I know what I'm talking about (and so does sanberg101).

    So again, since there is no catalog# for the release (unless we make one up), it is the logical and common sense solution to use "none" (if that doesn't conflict with some technical database issues) and this would actually more accurately reflect what is printed on the release too. That is the reason why we think that "none" would be a better solution in these cases that have more labels than catalog#s.
    In fact we were both rather surprised about your replies to the support requests, especially when considering that the general approach here seems to be very much different from
    nik
    However, in these 'messy' or imprecise cases, I think it is important to allow a little bit of slack, to represent things as they appear on the releases as much as possible, rather than try to tidy everything into one profile, when it is contentious and difficult to agree on, and also may make submitting harder.

    - a statement that you posted in the GZ-vinyl thread.

    However, it is not my intention to discuss this until eternity - if the solution is supposed to be the one you posted above then so be it :)
    Cheers
  • PawelScream over 6 years ago

    Just came across this thread (and issue) and although it seems that XFairplayX and sanberg101 already gave up on it I also wanted to say that in my opinion this interpretation of the guidelines is wrong and, more important, the guidelines are also subject to change (they were changed numerous times and probably will be even more with time) - and THIS THREAD SHOWS US ABSOLUTELY RIGHT REASONS TO CHANGE/CORRECT THEM. The Public/See You In Hell 7" is just the tip of an iceberg and we'll be flooded with requests to change otherwise correct subs by assigning other labels' cat #s to the ones who didn't provide them (= we'll have to enter FALSE info in order to get the C vote - which is completely opposed to common sense in my opinion).

    It was brought up a few times that only XFairplayX and sanberg101 had problem with what Opdiner and others wrote here but I guess it's just because most of people involved in this thread (and that's also not an impressive number by the way - only a few people) don't really understand how the international DIY hardcore punk scene operates so they may not see the need to adjust the guidelines. And also it's pretty obvious that this kind of music is a small fraction of DB so there's only a few of us. But can anyone of the opponents answer this simple question:

    - Why (except "because that's what the Guidelines say") should we enter false info? Doesn't it make more sense to adjust the Guidelines so they don't expect submitters to twist the truth? Or at least (before adjusting them) just "allow a little bit of slack, to represent things as they appear on the releases as much as possible" as suggested in nik's quote above?

    Well, that's my 2 cents, sorry for digging this thread up again ;)
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    PawelScream
    Why (except "because that's what the Guidelines say") should we enter false info? Doesn't it make more sense to adjust the Guidelines so they don't expect submitters to twist the truth?


    I'd rather take the chance of mis-representing the label than the release. That's an aside anyway because the catalogue number belong to the rleease, not the label.
  • PawelScream over 6 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    I'd rather take the chance of mis-representing the label than the release. That's an aside anyway because the catalogue number belong to the rleease, not the label.

    How do you mis-represent a release which back cover has for instance 5 label logos/names with 3 of them having catalogue numbers below and 2 without it, by specifying the 3 given numbers and clearly stating the other 2 don't provide these numbers? It's way closer to the actual release than choosing one of these 3 provided and assigning it also to the 2 labels who didn't provided them.

  • Opdiner over 6 years ago

    Opdiner edited over 6 years ago
    PawelScream
    It's way closer to the actual release than choosing one of these 3 provided and assigning it also to the 2 labels who didn't provided them.


    I worked in record retail on and off for a decade and then was the owner a record store for another decade - we specialized in indie vinyl. Every release we ordered we ordered by the catalogue number listed by the wholesaler. That was the number of the release and it performed the core function of a catalogue number.

    Where it came from was irrelevant. It may have meant something to the trainspotters but the reality was that didn't matter to us. The number was primarily the number of the release. And that's the reality we record here too. It is incorrect to list a release as not having a catalogue number to keep a labels' page tidy when the fact is it does.
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    There are hundreds of these indie label submissions still using none, all are subject to a needs minor changes votes. It would be prudent of those practising this folly to start updating their releases to conform to the guidelines as soon as ius possible. I took these steps last year for the same reason.

    Many are voted correct by other users who are part of that circle, so as explained before the lack of "outsiders" voting on these DIY releases means the same incorrect practices perpetuate.
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    Cases in point, I just went to the first DIY label and found these all subject to a needs minor changes vote within seconds:

    Active Minds (2) - Dis Is Getting Pathetic... - Incorrectly voted correct.
    Active Minds (2) - The Lunatics Have Taken Over The Asylum - Incorrectly voted correct, has a comment from DonHergeFan warning against using "none".
    From The Depths (2) / Next Victim - From The Depths / Next Victim
    From The Depths (2) / Next Victim - From The Depths / Next Victim
    Government Flu - Demo 2008
    Government Flu - Demo 2008 - Voted complete and correct. Images do not show cat#, no explanation where they were derived from. If from an external source, this information should be in the release notes.

    One click to one of the other DIY lables on each release would show dozens more examples for each.
  • sanberg101 over 6 years ago

    Well, you can see that the majority of users use logic and common sense, dear guidelines regulators with answer to everything :)

    Anyway, I am starting to enjoy writing release notes like: "Catalog numbers not stated on the release are sourced from the relevant label websites.
    Beer Is Not Drink Records, Satan's Punk Records, Ultima Ratio, Hluboká Orba Records, Svart Hav, Towerviolence Records, Malarie Records, K.A.Z., Rock Against Religion, Optimism Is Delusion Hate Is Reality, Sharapov Sound System, Where's Your Anger, Zero Budget Productions & Punks Before Profits don't have a catalog number for this release."
    It is very practical and clear :)
  • sanberg101 over 6 years ago

    i did not see this when i was writing my last post, but i have to react again and for the last time to this thread

    Eviltoastman
    Cases in point, I just went to the first DIY label and found these all subject to a needs minor changes vote within seconds

    Eviltoastman
    Many are voted correct by other users who are part of that circle

    what are you on? since many many years numbers of other experienced users came across these releases, voted them and no one has ever found them incorrect by any means, "the circle" spent months or even years to make these submissions complete and correct. fortunately, you were probably more playing video games at that time that ruining discogs. 4-5 years ago all that releases had crappy information entered, me and some other users involved in the hc/grindcore/punk scene (who actually know how do the things work in real life) did a perfect job of fixing everything. so please watch you words, attitude and arrogance.
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    sanberg101
    Well, you can see that the majority of users use logic and common sense, dear guidelines regulators with answer to everything

    No, what we see is an extremely small group of people ignoring the rules.

Log In You must be logged in to post.