• marcelrecords over 8 years ago

    concerns this release:
    http://www.discogs.com/history?release=423937#latest
    History stretches unfortunately over 2 pages :0(
    Last editor removed the FTF which read 'CT labels' in order to distinguish it from other releases, more specifically this one: http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=2280876
    which has 'MO labels'
    Those are pressing plant initials.

    IMO the use of the FTF is justified per:

    6.1.5. The Free Text field should be used to describe:
    - Any significant differentiating factor between releases (for example, sleeve or label color etc).
    Last editor does not agree, read his comment in the sub notes.
    Opinions?
  • PabloPlato over 8 years ago

    pressing plant info should go in LCCN and not FTF
  • marcelrecords over 8 years ago

    PabloPlato
    pressing plant info should go in LCCN and not FTF

    ^ that's a statement, but based on what?
    we're talking about different letters on the labels too...
  • swagski over 8 years ago

    swagski edited over 8 years ago
    PabloPlato
    pressing plant info should go in LCCN and not FTF

    It IS IN THE LCCN - the FTF assists in identifying the CT from the MO on what are otherwise extremely similar issues in other respects

    Dr. John, The Night Tripper - Gris-Gris Terre Haute
    Dr. John, The Night Tripper - Gris-Gris Monarch
    And now, thanks to the FTF edit, nothing is clear in the Master Release overview Dr. John, The Night Tripper - Gris-Gris
    And this is a Rhino repro Dr. John, The Night Tripper - Gris-Gris
    and so on.
    Please, can we have the FTFs back?!
  • Eviltoastman over 8 years ago

    The ftf can be used to differentiate labels used, for example a release with red labels and a release with blue labels. Or a release with injection moulded labels and one with paper labels. This particular release is more nuanced than that as it;s not the labels which are really differnt, but the matrix suffix which is printed upon them. This is a matter for a combination of lccns, the baoi section and an explicit explanation in the notes. The ftf is not right in my view, but it's certainly not forbidden by the guidelines.
  • marcelrecords over 8 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    The ftf is not right in my view

    Mmm, the RSG states:
    - Any significant differentiating factor between releases., so why wouldn't that be right?
  • cameosis over 8 years ago

    in my opinion -- i am the editor marcel refers to -- 6.15. and the word "any" DOES NOT pertain to differences between text/info that is printed onto the labels, in this case, the matrix numbers. they are entered into the respective fields, there is additional info in the release notes.

    these are not different formats, but different releases, i.e. pressed by different pressing plants. i will try and give another example: if there is a release with two different addresses of the record company printed onto the labels, would we add the different addresses into the format field? if yes, why?

    if we start cramming everything into the format field, things would go out of hand. the master release covers different releases -- the info is included in the individual entries, and easy to peruse.

    in short, i don't think printed matrix numbers belong in the format free text field, there are specific fields for that already.

    add-on: just to clarify, the info was not deleted, but moved from format to notes. it was already in the baoi and lccn fields.
  • swagski over 8 years ago

    So, without opening them, what is the difference between the 1st & 3rd issues in the list?
    Dr. John, The Night Tripper - Gris-Gris
    As Eviltoastman mentioned, if they were a different color, or solids, or knockouts that would be fine - so what is wrong with another significant FTF comment on an otherwise similar issue?
    There is nothing in RSG that implies such an addition is a "No no".
  • PabloPlato over 8 years ago

    why do different editions need to be differentiated from the MR view? sure it makes thing easier, but it's just as easy to click open the potential matches to the release you are searching for in different tabs and compare them when they load.
  • cameosis over 8 years ago

    cameosis edited over 8 years ago
    swagski
    So, without opening them, what is the difference between the 1st & 3rd issues in the list?

    why would you not open the respective entry?
    swagski
    if they were a different color, or solids, or knockouts that would be fine

    solids, knockouts are format-related attributes. printed text is not. i'd even go so far and not count differently-colored labels to format, but that's yet another story.
    swagski
    so what is wrong with another significant FTF comment on an otherwise similar issue?

    that significant comment has specific fields reserved for it: baoi, lccn and notes.
    swagski
    There is nothing in RSG that implies such an addition is a "No no"

    correct, but neither does it prohibit adding company addresses (see my example above) -- shall we now add company addresses into format fields?

    if the majority is fine with that, i have no problem with following through, but printed text per my definition (and from what i have gathered, a number of other users shares this view) ist not a format-related attribute. hope that clears it up.
  • marcelrecords over 8 years ago

    cameosis
    shall we now add company addresses into format fields?

    I understand that point of view, surely.
    On the other hand, why does the RSG state 'any' significant differentiating factor?
    I have filed a SR to ask management's opinion...
  • Eviltoastman over 8 years ago

    CT and MO labels is incorrect. They aren't CT or MO labels, the labels are the same. Would be better if it just said either CT or MO with an explanation in the notes advising the difference in matrices on the labels - the difference is the matrix not the label - ensuring that the difference is explain in the very first line of the release notes. Info differentiating release should in my view be the very first thing to be read, if only to help avoid duplicates and/or confusion.
  • marcelrecords over 8 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    the labels are the same

    definitely not, take another look.
    http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-423937-1263805118.jpeg
    http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-2280876-1274183761.jpeg
    Eviltoastman
    the difference is the matrix not the label

    both are different
    perhaps the wording 'any significant differentiating factor' should be re-written?
  • CykoMF over 8 years ago


    cameosis
    why would you not open the respective entry?


    Some Submissions Have Numerous Entrys. Some Submitters Have Slow Internet Connections.

    Not All Of The Submission Pages Are Filled Out The Same And You Usually Have To Load The Images For Each Sub, Then FinDout HowBad They Are Lacking.

    Honestly, FTF can Be A Hugh TimE Saver If Used Responsibly.
  • cameosis over 8 years ago

    cameosis edited over 8 years ago
    CykoMF

    Honestly, FTF can Be A Hugh TimE Saver If Used Responsibly.

    critical element being "responsible use" -- and for me it's confusing to see things in fields where they don't belong to.
    marcelrecords
    both are different

    the labels are the same, the printed text is different. thanks for the sr, look forward to seeing what the staff think on this.
  • hompahey over 8 years ago

    Catalog#'s aren't same on labels. Why not add 33-234 to the MO pressing to better display the difference?
  • cameosis over 8 years ago

    hompahey
    Catalog#'s aren't same on labels. Why not add 33-234 to the MO pressing to better display the difference?


    good looking out! we'll update the info once the issue is resolved, i believe. thanks.
  • anssisal over 8 years ago

    marcelrecords
    definitely not, take another look.
    http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-423937-1263805118.jpeg
    http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-2280876-1274183761.jpeg

    Definitely are.
    purple, white and yellow ATCO labels.

  • marcelrecords over 8 years ago


    anssisal
    purple, white and yellow ATCO labels.

    the colours are the same, yes, but that's not the point here IMO.

    cameosis
    we'll update the info once the issue is resolved, i believe. thanks.

    certainly :-)
  • anssisal over 8 years ago

    Well they are the same label, but what's different, is the text printed on them. :)
  • cameosis over 8 years ago

    here is a similar case with led zeppelin, where the text was removed for reasons mentioned in previous posts:
    http://www.discogs.com/history?release=3171845#latest
  • Eviltoastman over 8 years ago


    marcelrecords
    definitely not, take another look.
    http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-423937-1263805118.jpeg
    http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-2280876-1274183761.jpeg

    The labels are the same. The print is different not the labels. Particularly the matrices as I stated in that post I made which was quoted in half.
    anssisal
    Well they are the same label, but what's different, is the text printed on them. :)

    Yep.
  • Staff 3.4k

    nik over 8 years ago

    Any difference is eligible to enter in the FTF, when it is non-obvious. We want the site to be easy to use, and the data to be distinguishable.
  • Eastersun over 8 years ago

    Eastersun edited over 7 years ago
    .............
  • CykoMF over 8 years ago

    Here is a link to the Black Flag MR I'd mentioned.
    They laid out the variations in the MR, then used FTF for V1 or V10, etc...
    Pretty nice.
  • CykoMF over 8 years ago

  • Eviltoastman over 8 years ago

    CykoMF
    They laid out the variations in the MR, then used FTF for V1 or V10, etc...

    I'm fairly sure that's not allowed unless they're marked as such on the release themselves - just as "1st edition" is not allowed.
  • CykoMF over 8 years ago

    Wait, What..
    (Waves Hand)

    These Are Not The MR's You're Looking For
  • swagski over 8 years ago

    swagski edited over 8 years ago
    Eviltoastman
    CT and MO labels is incorrect. They aren't CT or MO labels, the labels are the same.

    They are not. The labels are specifically over-printed for the plant ID. (usually, in this case yes)
    This plant ID is also echoed in the runouts.
    Terre Haute http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-423937-1263805118.jpeg
    Monarch http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-2280876-1274183761.jpeg
    Note: There are occasions when an ATCO plant label is also used for ANOTHER plant, as evidenced in a conflicting runout on some ATCO releases I've noticed. i.e. Label ID not as runout ID.
    Edit; Also, for the 'passing reader' not aware of all the intricasies of pressing plants, runout information and the like, it is so much easier and simpler to just 'look at the Label'. Thus, they don't need any 'in depth knowledge' to make a simple sub and 'life is easier' with the process.
    cameosis
    shall we now add company addresses into format fields?

    No need - they are in the Profile of the respective Company that is submitted in its respective field. Or they SHOULD be ;)
  • Eviltoastman over 8 years ago

    swagski
    Terre Haute http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-423937-1263805118.jpeg
    Monarch http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-2280876-1274183761.jpeg

    Same base labels Swagski, different printed material. You can overlay the two images and see this is indeed a fact.
  • swagski over 8 years ago

    swagski edited over 8 years ago
    Eviltoastman
    Same base labels Swagski, different printed material. You can overlay the two images and see this is indeed a fact.

    I'm aware of that. I did specifically say "Over-printed" :)
    I'll be even more specific in future. The company that sets the label text, to the supply of label blanks, adds the code of the plant to whom they are supplying the labels.
    If there were a butterfly overprinted on one & a wasp overprinted on another, the Labels would be different.
    As in Different Art
    Semantics = different Label Blank - No
    Semantics = different text layout & content on Label Blank - Yes (simplified as ''different label" on FTF = "CT Labels")

    Sometime ago, I was thinking of sorting all the bumph that's around on font styles used by label printers, which helps ID some labels from others. That way we might have some Label Print companies in LCCN... ??
  • Eviltoastman over 8 years ago

    swagski
    I'm aware of that. I did specifically say "Over-printed" :)

    Ah, i thought for a second you missed this:
    http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/368277#3415981
  • Kaptain_Kopter over 8 years ago

    Kaptain_Kopter edited over 8 years ago
    Hi folks,

    I have to restart this one, 'cause there seems to be a wide range for interpretation of Nik's (IMO unambiguous) comment: "Any difference is eligible to enter in the FTF, when it is non-obvious. We want the site to be easy to use, and the data to be distinguishable."

    It's about me using the FTF the following way to distinguish different versions (releases) of a box set:

    Beatles, The - The Beatles Collection.

    If you'd like to go further back in the history of this release,

    Beatles BC13 / Horrible German Box Set.

    The country of manufacturing in this case is the only possible way to indicate the difference between this and other contemporary German releases. My question: As the pressing plant seems to be an option to determine a unique pressing, why shouldn't a country of manufacturing qualify as an option for pinning a certain release (at least as long, as we cannot pin a certain plant)?

    Mark

    edit: typo
  • Staff 3.4k

    nik over 8 years ago

    "Swedish pressings" should not be repeated three times. There should be an "All Media" tag, with "Swedish pressing" as the free text field for that.

    Other than that, if that is the only differentiating factor between the releases, it is eligible for the FTF.
  • Eviltoastman over 8 years ago


    nik
    Any difference is eligible to enter in the FTF, when it is non-obvious. We want the site to be easy to use, and the data to be distinguishable.

    Is the sub below taking things a bit far, Nik?
    http://www.discogs.com/history?release=4674052
  • euroduo over 8 years ago

    nik
    Any difference is eligible to enter in the FTF, when it is non-obvious. We want the site to be easy to use, and the data to be distinguishable.


    I'm sorry nik but now you opened up a can of worms!

    ref: http://www.discogs.com/history?release=3858113#latest

    quoting MaximusMCX words .. and standing by them btw .. 100% !!

    "We will have [in the FTF]:

    AR labels
    CO labels
    C labels
    CT labels
    MO labels
    PR labels
    SP labels

    and more for Altlantic but for Polydor we'll have:

    16 labels
    26 labels
    52 labels
    72 labels

    and more

    all of the above look ridiculous, especially the numbers. It's imho this plan is not beneficial for the database. Thanks."

    Agree with the above statement of MaximusMCX. This info belongs in the BaOI and nowhere else.
    A different pressing plant is an obvious difference, especially when stated in the BaOI.
  • Staff 3.4k

    nik over 8 years ago


    euroduo
    This info belongs in the BaOI and nowhere else.
    A different pressing plant is an obvious difference, especially when stated in the BaOI.


    It's not obvious if you have a list in a Master Release etc of otherwise identical looking releases.
  • Eviltoastman over 8 years ago


    nik
    It's not obvious if you have a list in a Master Release etc of otherwise identical looking releases.

    http://screencast.com/t/0WzgLg3p0
    And when done properly it works brilliantly.
  • swagski over 8 years ago

    swagski edited over 8 years ago
    nik
    It's not obvious if you have a list in a Master Release etc of otherwise identical looking releases.

    Thank you nik
    Life can be sooooo simple really, as I mentioned;
    swagski
    It IS IN THE LCCN - the FTF assists in identifying the CT from the MO on what are otherwise extremely similar issues in other respects

    Dr. John, The Night Tripper - Gris-Gris (CT)
    Dr. John, The Night Tripper - Gris-Gris (MO)
    And now, thanks to the FTF edit, nothing is clear in the Master Release overview Dr. John, The Night Tripper* - Gris-Gris

    But, thankfully, the status quo was maintained Dr. John, The Night Tripper - Gris-Gris
    ----
    Edit;
    Meanwhile, I do think this is incorrect =
    euroduo
    and more for Altlantic but for Polydor we'll have:

    16 labels
    26 labels
    52 labels
    72 labels

    The label encoding (i.e. 73 for Columbia Records Pressing Plant, Terre Haute) should use the same common shorthand (CT Pressing)
    and in Notes just clarify that the label carries a "73" imprint code of the Terre Haute plant. The LCCN will, of course, have the full link.
  • 2tec over 8 years ago

    nik
    Any difference is eligible to enter in the FTF, when it is non-obvious. We want the site to be easy to use, and the data to be distinguishable.

    Given statements like this, could the administration also update the guidelines with the identical words so that it is not necessary to always follow every discussion in the forums in order to understand the rules? Since the vast majority of contributors cannot possibly keep up with every forum discussion, shouldn't all rulings always be placed in the guidelines?

    Thanks

  • Kaptain_Kopter over 8 years ago

    +1!
  • swagski over 8 years ago

    swagski edited over 8 years ago
    2tec
    nik
    Any difference is eligible to enter in the FTF, when it is non-obvious. We want the site to be easy to use, and the data to be distinguishable.

    Given statements like this, could the administration also update the guidelines with the identical words so that it is not necessary to always follow every discussion in the forums in order to understand the rules? Since the vast majority of contributors cannot possibly keep up with every forum discussion, shouldn't all rulings always be placed in the guidelines?

    But, the guideline is quite clear;
    RSG §6.1.5. The Free Text field should be used to describe;
    • Any significant differentiating factor between releases (for example, sleeve or label color etc)
         (You are requesting that every variable & eventuality be encased in the parenthesis?)^^ common sense is all that is needed.
    RSG §6.1.7. As the free text field will be shortened the only the first three characters on the artist and label page lists, it is beneficial that the most important distinguishing feature be noted first.
    No difference between nik's =
    Any difference is eligible to enter in the FTF, when it is non-obvious...
    and the RSG, as far as I can see;
    Any significant differentiating factor between releases
  • photoguy over 7 years ago

    In what universe is a pressing plant an album/CD/Vinyl format? If you want to start adding pressing info in the "Format" field, then you should rename it to something else, because a pressing plant isn't a format.
    Maybe another field should be added and named: Variant Free Text Field.
    Just my humble opinion.
  • Myrkvi174 over 7 years ago

    photoguy
    Just my humble opinion.


    +1
    as it is not some ftf, but the ftf within the format section
  • totodecu over 7 years ago

    photoguy
    In what universe is a pressing plant an album/CD/Vinyl format? If you want to start adding pressing info in the "Format" field, then you should rename it to something else, because a pressing plant isn't a format.
    Maybe another field should be added and named: Variant Free Text Field.
    Just my humble opinion.

    +1
    two words are just three words are very...
    Ahhhhhh!!! my bad translation

  • loukash over 7 years ago

    photoguy
    Maybe another field should be added and named: Variant Free Text Field.

    Good point.
    + another 1
  • Willow.the.Wisp over 6 years ago

    photoguy
    Maybe another field should be added and named: Variant Free Text Field.
    hmm ... I'm not sure at this time if this would be a good solution.

  • haiyai2u over 6 years ago

    I don't see a concensus anywhere in this thread and if there was one I'd say that most found it "out of line" for a Format field. I see a vague wink and a nod, that's all.
  • haiyai2u over 6 years ago

    I don't see a concensus anywhere in this thread and if there was one I'd say that most found it "out of line" for a Format field. I see a vague wink and a nod, that's all.
  • truedream over 6 years ago

    Did you read what nik wrote?
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    In addition to this, we had a more recent discussion in which I got a knuckle rapping and Nik's position here was restated bu himself and other staff members. Staff's final comments in both threads are unequivocal.
    http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/53e8e031aba9e80e5eec1d83#3721777
  • seht over 6 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    http://screencast.com/t/0WzgLg3p0
    And when done properly it works brilliantly.

    After an unprecedented amount of processing and settings manipulation, my Sarcas-O-Meter 3000™ has given that a "Sarcasm" score of 5 of a possible 5, and in the optional Free Text Field appended the adjective "saturated."
  • Elukkae over 6 years ago

    Those statements by staff could not be clearer - so, it is OK to use the FTF to point out the single differentiating factor between two otherwise identical releases (but only then).
    Personally, I find this a correct solution. Master releases are often really cumbersome to comb through, there can be close to a dozen versions with the same cat.# and from the same year and country. The easier it is to see the differences the less mistakes we'll have in the DB and the marketplace.
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    seht
    Aft...

    :(
    Elukkae
    Personally, I find this a correct solution. Master releases are often really cumbersome to comb through, there can be close to a dozen versions with the same cat.# and from the same year and country.

    Yes, this is my experience too. Particularly since I won 50 copies of one particular albums, it is invaluable.
  • seht over 6 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    :(

    nawwwwww *hands tissue*
  • haiyai2u over 6 years ago

  • oceanographer over 6 years ago

    The 3 letter truncation of the FTF field serves a valid purpose of maintaining a small display string on the Master Release page but does not provide enough detail to explain what difference is “non-obvious”.

    A larger issue I have noticed is incorrect or misleading information in the FTF field. Some information seems incorrect possibly because it has been shorten to accommodate this small area.
    A couple examples:

    Joy Division - Closer
    Joy Division - Still
    Joy Division - Substance

    All three of these releases credit an inaccurate company in the FTF field. They appear like Canadian Cinram releases on the Release page but are US pressings of Cinram, Olyphant, PA. Even if they were credited correctly only ‘Cin’ would display on the FTF MR screen. This could mean many things like the record is Cinnamon in color or it is press by Cinram, Cinram, Olyphant or Cinram, Commerce

    It seems like the only practical way to add company names would be through a set list of label acronyms or abbreviations from a predetermined drop-down menu. Without this then companies like Disctronics, Sonopress, or EMI and all of their sublabels would be indistinguishable in the FTF field.
  • FromLondon over 6 years ago

    If it's a US Cinram 'style' pressing, it identifies from the non US Cinram 'style' pressing. The fact it's not an actual Cinram pressing can be explained in notes.

    3 letter abrieviation is fine as is.
  • uzumaki over 6 years ago

    I find the latest trend of free test field usage for obscure pressing data information unhelpful, like here: http://www.discogs.com/history?release=337636#latest

    How many people would know what SP or ST means - 0.01% of discogs users probably. Personally I wouldn't even use the free text field for this, the distinction is in the release notes but if it is used then it's better to put 'Specialty Pressing' in the free text field rather than the obscure 'SP' if you want to be helpful to the other 99.99%.
  • slur over 6 years ago

    Another case : http://www.discogs.com/history?release=6535560#latest
    I think this leads more to confusion than it helps but is certainly not forbidden currently.
    This detailed difference should be placed in the notes clearly not in the FTF imho.
  • TopCats45s over 6 years ago

    I have only been involved in records for 6 months and know the difference between SP and ST. Anything to distinguish when looking at the master release is helpful, if accurate, and if ALL the releases are marked similar in the master. It can be extremely annoying going through the master and clicking every single release and reading every single line looking for your version. And of course, it's always the 20th and last one that fits :) Without pictures (don't go there right?) use of FTF should be used. Clarify: if you are going to mark one - mark them ALL and with short diff. After a new user clicks the FiRST and reads what the marking means and difference is, will be easily able to skip right to the 20th.
  • Showbiz_Kid over 6 years ago

    I just don't understand the animus being shown about something so simple.

    It's additional information, meant to help. Just because you find it un-helpful doesn't make it so for everyone else. Why so antagonistic?

    uzumaki
    How many people would know what SP or ST means


    That's a meaningless question with no possible quantification. it's like asking "What... is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?"

    The origin of this idea was to help choose among the many different variations of Atlantic (U.S.) LP pressings made by different pressing plants, when browsing the Master Record. Before, you had 6-8 different subs to individually examine - some with pix but no matrix, some with matrix, some with runouts, others not, and all looking the same in the MR.

    This simple change helps you narrow down the sub you're looking for when using the MR browser. It is not meant to supplant any other form of information, just an additional "index card" to help differentiate.

    I have been supplementing this by adding a note regarding the pressing in the Release Notes, with the link to the pressing plant Label page, just to make it clear.

    If you don't know what "MO" means in the FTF, you're going to click on the sub to find out.
    If there were NO "MO" in the FTF, you'd have to click on the sub to see what it was, anyway.

    And once you know, you know! So where's the harm? Why be so stubborn? Some folks are just opposed to any change, I guess.

    TopCats45s
    I have only been involved in records for 6 months and know the difference between SP and ST. Anything to distinguish when looking at the master release is helpful, if accurate, and if ALL the releases are marked similar in the master. It can be extremely annoying going through the master and clicking every single release and reading every single line looking for your version. And of course, it's always the 20th and last one that fits :) Without pictures (don't go there right?) use of FTF should be used. Clarify: if you are going to mark one - mark them ALL and with short diff.


    ^^ What she said :) This is what I have done with the U.S. Cotillion releases of Sister Sledge - We Are Family. If you look at them all, you can see what matrix suffix is used on each one. Again I ask, where's the harm?
  • uzumaki over 6 years ago

    Because it's too obscure and the information is already in release notes. Useful to 0.01% of people who are enthusiastic and knowledgeable about these particular pressing plants and needing to differentiate releases in master releases all day long. Baffling to 99.99% of people who think WTF.
  • discosanddragons over 6 years ago

    This has recently been discussed a lot. While there may be debate on whether or not it's useful or how the information should be presented, it's an acceptable practice and the general consensus is add to the FTF and explain in the notes, even if it's redundant.

    http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/691331
    http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/690461
    http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/410402

    We're all entitled to an opinion, but the one that would seem to matter is in this post.
    http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/368277#3417497
  • Showbiz_Kid over 6 years ago

    discosanddragons
    This has recently been discussed a lot. While there may be debate on whether or not it's useful or how the information should be presented, it's an acceptable practice and the general consensus is add to the FTF and explain in the notes, even if it's redundant.

    <snip>

    We're all entitled to an opinion, but the one that would seem to matter is in this post.
    http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/368277#3417497


    Thank you, and +1, discosanddragons.
  • Showbiz_Kid over 6 years ago

    uzumaki
    Useful to 0.01% of people


    On another topic, 112.74% of people who quote statistics make them up on the spot.
  • uzumaki over 6 years ago

    My point is that In your glee to add obscure references like PK or XK in a non-related view you will confuse the majority of users. Therefore, I suggested you put a fuller description in the free text field, like Specialty Pressing, so that it may not be obscure and may be useful.

    My personal view is that it isn't needed to discern pressing variations in the free text field, you can just navigate to the release and look at the release notes where the space for this information is, as well as in the matrix fields.
  • TopCats45s over 6 years ago

    On the master release "Specialty Pressing" will show as "Spe". That's not a good idea.
  • Showbiz_Kid over 6 years ago

    uzumaki
    My point is that In your glee to add obscure references like PK or XK in a non-related view you will confuse the majority of users. Therefore, I suggested you put a fuller description in the free text field, like Specialty Pressing, so that it may not be obscure and may be useful.


    The FTF field is truncated to a 3-letter display in Master Release view. So more than that does no good for the intended purpose. It's meant, as I've already explained multiple times (apparently not well enough, since you still don't get it), as a sorting aid for folks looking to pick their particular pressing out of a large pool of possibilities.

    uzumaki
    My personal view is that it isn't needed to discern pressing variations in the free text field, you can just navigate to the release and look at the release notes where the space for this information is, as well as in the matrix fields.


    Your personal view, unyielding, unwavering, and apparently immune to any rationale anyone might send its way, is already well stated - again, and again, and again. Your personal view also doesn't really matter - this one matters, and it was stated two years ago already.

    nik
    Any difference is eligible to enter in the FTF, when it is non-obvious. We want the site to be easy to use, and the data to be distinguishable.


    Like it or don't like it, I don't care. Just quit tilting against windmills.
  • uzumaki over 6 years ago

    Your wisdom knows no bounds, I will certainly sway my opinion to your view now.
  • loukash over 6 years ago

    Showbiz_Kid
    The FTF field is truncated to a 3-letter display in Master Release view.

    As a side note: this is a display issue, nothing more. If the programmers want, they can change the display to 5, 7, 12 characters at any time. (It would be actually useful to have a switch or a roll-over to expand truncated data on discography and MR pages.)

    But the data in the field should be descriptive enough on its own, regardless how it is displayed elsewhere. RSG §6.1.7. just notes that "it is beneficial that the most important distinguishing feature be noted first". The total character count isn't limited per guidelines, and I don't even know if it's hard-limited per field.
  • 7_Sea_Cods over 6 years ago

    uzumaki
    Therefore, I suggested you put a fuller description in the free text field


    I don't think this could hurt, really. "SP suffix on label" (for example) rather than just "SP" would be a little more descriptive / less cryptic.

    But admittedly splitting hairs at this point, since there's a good description of what "SP" means in the notes.
  • Showbiz_Kid over 6 years ago

    7_Sea_Cods
    "SP suffix on label" (for example) rather than just "SP" would be a little more descriptive / less cryptic.


    Actually, that's a good idea, since it's descriptive and also wouldn't look weird in the (current) MR view.
  • Showbiz_Kid over 6 years ago

    uzumaki
    Your wisdom knows no bounds, I will certainly sway my opinion to your view now.


    OK, props... that's pretty funny.
  • BarnyardOrbit over 6 years ago

    nik
    Any difference is eligible to enter in the FTF, when it is non-obvious. We want the site to be easy to use, and the data to be distinguishable.


    YES YES !!
    Showbiz_Kid
    Thank you
    No thanks you, looks good

  • BarnyardOrbit over 6 years ago

    We took time to edit all the US LP's that needed "MO" "RI" "PR" etc added to FTF http://www.discogs.com/Roberta-Flack-First-Take/master/82337
  • BarnyardOrbit over 6 years ago

    BarnyardOrbit edited over 6 years ago
    Showbiz_Kid
    , as a sorting aid for folks looking to pick their particular pressing out of a large pool of possibilities.


    Yes this is a very useful tool... for buyers AND sellers to kwiky help sort through them all....because as it stands currently IT is a rather nauseating amount of time without the FTF... to say the least

    PERHAPS a new forum thread needs to be started to shift this topic to a NEW page and specifically target the Elektra / Atlantic labels plant variations. It might allow other users in on the edits and help understand the meaning of all of this ?? IMO this topic just my 3 cents
  • BarnyardOrbit over 6 years ago

    We also edited and took time to add FTF to all the "USA pressing variations" for this LP http://www.discogs.com/Eagles-The-Long-Run/master/59516
  • BarnyardOrbit over 5 years ago

    nik
    We want the site to be easy to use, and the data to be distinguishable.


    Yes ... easier for others and anyone

  • BarnyardOrbit over 5 years ago

    7_Sea_Cods
    "SP suffix on label" (for example) rather than just "SP"


    SP / MO / RI / PR ....IS good enough IMO seeing the "FTF" and ability to view them now is IMO superb. like to kwikly see the difference in the MR cheers !
  • Madturtle3 over 5 years ago

    There is a thread recently where nik said to enter pressing plants in FTF as "xxx Pressing" and put followup info in the notes. xxx represents the pressing plant code..
  • Diognes_The_Fox over 5 years ago

    Madturtle3
    There is a thread recently where nik said to enter pressing plants in FTF as "xxx Pressing" and put followup info in the notes. xxx represents the pressing plant code..


    I think I've stated something to that effect to. I think it's the best method of working it out.
  • Showbiz_Kid over 5 years ago

    Yes, I've been putting the code into FTF and also at the start of the RN. No complaints so far :)
  • NoidsAreUs over 5 years ago

    NoidsAreUs edited over 5 years ago
    no complaints so far?

    The Beatles - Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

    some problems seem to pop up every ten days, like Marcel's 'how to use the FTF in an intelligent way' and similar threads and staff is only too eager to chime in - cause there's no real problem, it's just a matter of certain conventions. On the other hands, we have close to 500 releases under the above MR (100 of them unidentified) and staff doesn't give a damn about the ever increasing amount of shit polluting the db. FTF is definitely not apt when identifying mass produced disks and although others have pointed out that problem years (no, it's decades by now) ago, nothing has changed. Just drillin' the wound, as Discogs doesn't care anyway.

    edit: grammar
  • Flash_82 over 5 years ago

    To add to this discussion, I recently bought Emerson, Lake & Palmer and it mentions "MO" in the FTF. Now I've been looking around in the forum (and online) what in the blazes "MO" stands for. Thanks to this thread, and this thread alone, I now know what it stands for, it also helped explain "FTF". I am a general user and seeing "MO" or "CT" or whatever in the FTF made me think it had something to do with the (type) of label or the version. It would never occur to me that it might have something to do with the pressing plant. Therefore I think it shouldn't be in th FTF and to be honest, I don't really think it matters that much, but that's just me talking of course. If it's really that important, why not add it in the dropdown in the BaOI?

    On the other hand, a lot of these items aren't used (correctly), so this has a pitfall to when people with limited knowledge of pressing plants (the same goes for distributors and rights societies and such) start adding data what they believe is correct.
  • Showbiz_Kid over 5 years ago

    Putting the plant into the FTF is a very useful thing. If you have ANY record from Warner/Elektra/Atlantic and their subsidiaries, especially, or nearly any other US major label press where multiple plants were used (Decca/MCA, Polydor/Polygram, CBS, etc.), you know it's torture drilling through a dozen or more subs with no variation in the Master Record view. Putting the plant into the FTF lets you know at a moment's glance which ones could be yours and which are definitely not.

    Flash_82, regarding your comments and objection, it's a matter of learning and understanding. As you know, Discogs is a very information-rich environment with its own shorthand for nearly everything. Sometimes things take effort to understand what they mean, but once you know, the information is useful. To be fair, anyone who puts "MO" in the FTF for a release should also note Monarch as the pressing plant in the Release Notes as well - that's on the subber, not on you, and it's good form to do so. But to say this is a bad practice because you were confused for a little while makes no sense; now that you know, you will find the info useful in the future.

    Oh, and for anyone trying to discover what all those Atlantic and Polydor plant codes mean, try looking at the Label pages: the Profile sections of ATCO Records and PolyGram are wealths of information. And if you don't know, just ask in the Forum - someone will help :)
  • uzumaki over 5 years ago

    uzumaki edited over 5 years ago
    Showbiz_Kid
    Putting the plant into the FTF is a very useful thing.


    To 0.01% of users. Just look at the releases and find the one you are looking for, how difficult can it be?

    edit: if you do add it explain it further - like Monarch Pressing, not MO which to the 99.99% of people means nothing.
  • Showbiz_Kid over 5 years ago

    uzumaki
    Just look at the releases and find the one you are looking for, how difficult can it be?


    Hm, well, let's see... how about releases like Queen - A Night At The Opera where there are 180 listed variants, 25 of which are US pressings? Or Eagles - Hotel California with 162 versions?

    Just because someone doesn't understand a particular bit of information is no reason to exclude it. That's just Luddite thinking.
  • Gorgyporgy over 5 years ago

    Gorgyporgy edited over 5 years ago
    Showbiz_Kid
    how about releases like Queen - A Night At The Opera where there are 180 listed variants, 25 of which are US pressings?


    Ok, going further... p.e I have a US CD of A Night At the Opera with Cat # HR-61065-2 Oh dear, 180 listed, which one is mine? Eureka.... I do a Advanced Search! Open up a blanc 'sheet' fill in "HR-61065-2" at Catalog # Press Search and.... http://www.discogs.com/search/?type=all&title=&artist=&label=&track=&catno=HR-61065-2&barcode=&anv=&format=&credit=&genre=&style=&country=&year=&submitter=&contributor=&advanced=1
    3 hits! How difficult can it be and how much work to open up all 3 and see if mine fits?! IMO, piece of cake and almost 100 % reliable.
    I'm against 'polluting' the FTF with rather obvious facts like "STEMRA" or "EMI Mussic"( instead of the correct EMI Music as Publisher") etc. Notes are very useful for that.
  • Gorgyporgy over 5 years ago

    uzumaki
    Just look at the releases and find the one you are looking for, how difficult can it be?


    Exactly!
    Flash_82
    I am a general user and seeing "MO" or "CT" or whatever in the FTF made me think it had something to do with the (type) of label or the version. It would never occur to me that it might have something to do with the pressing plant. Therefore I think it shouldn't be in th FTF and to be honest, I don't really think it matters that much, but that's just me talking of course. If it's really that important, why not add it in the dropdown in the BaOI?


    I think that you just ventilated the general opinion about the use of FTF.
    + 1
  • NoidsAreUs over 5 years ago

    Gorgyporgy
    I think that you just ventilated the general opinion about the use of FTF.


    not my opinion, for various reasons given in various threads...
    -1
  • 7_Sea_Cods over 5 years ago

    Gorgyporgy
    3 hits! How difficult can it be and how much work to open up all 3 and see if mine fits?! IMO, piece of cake and almost 100 % reliable.


    Sure, if you happen to have that particular version. What about if you have A Night At The Opera? When you search for the catalog number you get 19 hits: http://www.discogs.com/search/?type=all&title=&artist=&label=&track=&catno=7E-1053&barcode=&anv=&format=&credit=&genre=&style=&country=&year=&submitter=&contributor=&advanced=1

    Easier to search in the MR in that case, and much more helpful to have "CP" in the FTF. Though I do agree it should have a corresponding explanation in the release notes.
  • Farjenk over 5 years ago

    I'll admit to not reading this whole damn thread...

    I think anything in the FTF should be easily understood. Anything ambiguous or esoteric or not immediately apparent to the layman, should be left in the notes, because it requires, well... notes!
  • NoidsAreUs over 5 years ago

    Farjenk
    I think anything in the FTF should be easily understood


    In this case, I would plead in favour of 'The record that has been pressed by Plastylite Co. in 1955' in the FTF. Of course, only 'The' would appear under the MR...
  • 7_Sea_Cods over 5 years ago

    Farjenk
    I think anything in the FTF should be easily understood. Anything ambiguous or esoteric or not immediately apparent to the layman, should be left in the notes, because it requires, well... notes!


    "not immediately apparent to the layman" is a fuzzy threshold and not really something we want to add to the guidelines. I agree that simply plunking down "MO" in the FTF with not even an explanation in notes can be confusing (and I'm still baffled by some users arguments to the contrary). But no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater — expand on the FTF by a couple words ("MO Matrix Suffix" or "MO On Labels") and explain in the notes ("This pressing has the MO suffix on the matrix number indicating it was pressed at Monarch") and bingo, it both helps advanced users and is explained to non-experts.

    We have to remember that the FTF needs to be succinct but that shouldn't mean it can't be used for stuff like this.
  • Mr-Love over 5 years ago

    7_Sea_Cods
    expand on the FTF by a couple words ("MO Matrix Suffix" or "MO On Labels") and explain in the notes ("This pressing has the MO suffix on the matrix number indicating it was pressed at Monarch") and bingo, it both helps advanced users and is explained to non-experts.

    Exactly.
  • NoidsAreUs over 5 years ago

    NoidsAreUs edited over 5 years ago
    7_Sea_Cods
    I agree that simply plunking down "MO" in the FTF with not even an explanation in notes can be confusing


    Yep, agreed. But: if we had competent Oggers, they would add 'Pressed By: Monarch...' to the LCCN section plus an additional note, either a comment in the history should be sufficient IMO.

    Don't catch me wrong, I always pleaded in favour of a smart MR display, just to prevent unexperienced or malevolent Oggers from adding dupes to the db, but staff seems to focus on the cash department within the last five years...
  • Showbiz_Kid over 5 years ago

    7_Sea_Cods
    explain in the notes


    Yes, and you'll find that ALL of my subs with pressing plant info in the FTF also have it in LCCN and Notes. This way you make sure that the information is communicated wherever the user may look.
  • Farjenk over 5 years ago

    7_Sea_Cods
    expand on the FTF by a couple words ("MO Matrix Suffix" or "MO On Labels") and explain in the notes ("This pressing has the MO suffix on the matrix number indicating it was pressed at Monarch") and bingo, it both helps advanced users and is explained to non-experts.


    Sounds good!
  • Gorgyporgy over 5 years ago

    Showbiz_Kid
    Yes, and you'll find that ALL of my subs with pressing plant info in the FTF also have it in LCCN and Notes.


    Why?
    How difficult is it to open the release in question and look/read it? One can read, can't one? So, one reads in the Notes that it was pressed by DADC Austria. Not to mention DADC Austria is also added in the "Pressed By" in the Company Section and , usually, in the Matrix. Very redundant. Oh, and there are, usualy, images to look at!

    7_Sea_Cods
    Easier to search in the MR in that case, and much more helpful to have "CP" in the FTF.


    Disagree here big time!
    You search for the US LP, normal version. 19 hits. 4 are wrong (not US). 15 hits. 2 are wrong (Casettes). 13 hits. 2 are wrong (Promo). 11 hits. Rest can be the one. I have to open all 11 anyway, because I have no idea what " LP, Album, Emb" means! And I'm done in about 5 minutes to check if mine is there. Click open...read data...open images...read images. DONE!
    Don't assume that all users know what "LP, Album, Emb" means or "Comp DA" or whatever.

    Same Queen LP: US, LP, Gatefold sleeve and , say, Reissue:
    Here's a hint: type 7E-1053 gatefold sleeve us reissue in the search bar and...voila:
    Queen - A Night At The Opera
    How difficult is that? I don't see the advantage of 'throwing' everything in a FTF if it doesn't improve the searching after the product you're looking for. Sorry, I just don't see it.

Log In You must be logged in to post.