• PabloPlato over 6 years ago

    is this ok?
    http://www.discogs.com/history?release=3097150

    the current release seems eligible, but the release history is completely messed up now, as the earlier iterations refer to a completely different and ineligible release.
  • hafler3o over 6 years ago

    Hmmm! As it's only a small amount of history I suppose there's no real harm done.. I have never come across that before, a release with a long history I would suspect is better copying to draft then being deleted (for good!)
  • goncalobcunha69 over 6 years ago

    I had that happen to me once. I really don't remember if the owners of the previous release were transferred into the new one as well. I just deleted it and made a fresh sub, as I was advised by senior members.
  • swagski over 6 years ago

    It looks like the Draft was used to save time.
    IMHO, effectively, the result is no different to a release gradually morphing into a correctly-subbed presentation. (e.g. a work originally Spain and CD might have been corrected to Italy and vinyl...). If it's correct NOW then the history is simply history. The old draft is still 361674
  • PabloPlato over 6 years ago


    swagski
    IMHO, effectively, the result is no different to a release gradually morphing into a correctly-subbed presentation. (e.g. a work originally Spain and CD might have been corrected to Italy and vinyl...). If it's correct NOW then the history is simply history. The old draft is still 361674


    i dont think you're following. they copied release 361674 (a cd by artist A) to submit release 3097150 (an ineligible studio DAT by artist B) which was removed, then they revisited the draft, changed it to the current state of 3097150 which is now an LP for artist C.

    goncalobcunha69
    I really don't remember if the owners of the previous release were transferred into the new one as well. I just deleted it and made a fresh sub, as I was advised by senior members.


    now, while this sub does not present any such issues with regards to peoples collections, lists, wantlists, or sales listings, such a practice leaves behind a very messy submission history and this method of inputting data and reusing a deleted sub's draft is neither ideal, and likely not preferred - right?
    should anything be done? i dont think management can sweep up the old history entries that don't apply to this release, can they?
  • Clogwhistle over 6 years ago

    Clogwhistle edited over 6 years ago
    I have done this myself, knowing of no good reason not to do so. I've had three submissions merged recently and the unwanted drafts have been sitting in my Drafts folder unloved and unwanted. Rather than have them sit there I have replaced the old content with a new, unrelated product, reasoning that I'm not likely to find another version of the merged release and I don't want to hang onto the draft on the off-chance of finding a unique variation of that product.
    Perhaps it's best if I find out now if I am transgressing so please let me know through this Forum if I should undo that work (two have been done so far).
    What is the point of discarded, unwanted and unusable Drafts?

    EDIT: OK. I can see what I should have done. The Delete button was there if I only took the time to look for it.
    Here's one of my recycled subs: http://www.discogs.com/10cc-Classic-Album-Selection/release/4055408
    ...and here's the other: http://www.discogs.com/Ravi-Shankar-Ravi-Shankar-In-New-York/release/4065987 .

    EDIT: Finally, I have done it once before: http://www.discogs.com/Enid-Invicta/release/4012176 . Removal request to follow shortly.
  • silverleaf over 6 years ago

    Clogwhistle
    What is the point of discarded, unwanted and unusable Drafts?
    And they are so expensive too.

    Something is removed from the db, then morphed into something else to retain the baggage of it's previous incarnation... eh... no. Full delete and move on.

    Shouldn't this fall under [the probably unwritten rule of] keeping Histories as clutter free as possible.
    Which is why discussions on something go to the Forum with links.
  • Clogwhistle over 6 years ago

    Clogwhistle edited over 6 years ago
    silverleaf
    Full delete and move on.

    OK. Please advise me what to do with my flawed submissions. Shall I copy to draft, resubmit and then merge to remove the bad sub?
  • silverleaf over 6 years ago

    Links?
  • Clogwhistle over 6 years ago

    Clogwhistle edited over 6 years ago
    silverleaf
    Links?

    Please see my earlier post. I was up-dating it when you replied.

    EDIT: I've just checked the Guidelines and it looks like we wouldn't avoid the damaged sub being retained. I will seek to remove those two subs because of the flawed Histories. Please vote Yes.

    EDIT: Both have now been deleted and clean submissions made. I'll check through my old submissions and make sure there are none outstanding.
  • Tarantxon over 6 years ago

    thank you guys for the advice but I'd just like to say one thing to justify the steps that brought me to use that "dead" draft for a new sub: I work with a mobile connection to connect to the internet, the building in London where I live has no landline and even the mobile connection [restricting my usage to 15GB monthly] leaves a lot to be desired.
    Everytime I click on a Discogs page I have to wait up to a minute for it to load and like Clogwhistle I've not deleted a bunch of Drafts in case they might come in handy at a later stage - saving time is my priority and didn't think the comments inherited would cause a problem.
    I'll definitely avoid this in the future but I feel the suggestion of resubmitting from scratch the LP in question is only because Discogs has decided to not Remove entries in favour of using the Merge option - this is only justifiable because it would be preferable to retain the info that in this case we want to lose.

    Can't I just copy to draft this and resubmit it and then ask to Remove release=3097150?

    Do we have the same problem on this sub or is it a glitch with the database?
    http://www.discogs.com/Paul-McCartney-The-Very-Best-Of-The-Best/release/3985545
    In my experience it is the only time that the previous sub has been retained in the header string and I have to admit that it has left me somewhat perplexed.
    On other occasions the "ghost" of the previous entry gets lost but on this one it hasn't... it's not because it has not been voted but perhaps it's because there hasn't been any input from another user.
    IMHO it's a db issue rather than a subbing mistake or we'd have to scrap the copy to draft option.
    Just checking before I have to spend my time redoing the same work again for the sake of losing the irrelevant comments or whatever info the db retains.
    Thanks for your input and keep up the good work!
  • Clogwhistle over 6 years ago

    Tarantxon
    Can't I just copy to draft this and resubmit it and then ask to Remove release=3097150?

    I guess that you could. I just see potential for another user to oppose Removal in favour of a merge and that would lead to the messy History being retained. I guess this scenario is unlikely but let's see what others think.
  • SeRKeT over 6 years ago

    unless the admins delete the previous rls history the only way to remove that info is the to add a dupe and merge the two keeping the better one
  • PabloPlato over 6 years ago

    Tarantxon
    Can't I just copy to draft this and resubmit it and then ask to Remove release=3097150?


    copy to draft but do not submit. remove the other release first, then submit your draft. that way no one will be tempted to intiate a merge (which would retain the earlier submissions messy history).

    Tarantxon
    Do we have the same problem on this sub or is it a glitch with the database?
    http://www.discogs.com/Paul-McCartney-The-Very-Best-Of-The-Best/release/3985545


    thats an odd database issue, but far less inconsequential. you could fill that section of the address with anything and it would still lead to the correct page.

    for example:
    http://www.discogs.com/Boy_George_Likes_To_Smell_His_Macro-Biotic_Farts_For_Shits_And_Giggles_-_The_Album/release/3985545

    so no, i wouldnt bother to delete that one.
  • Tarantxon over 6 years ago

Log In You must be logged in to post.