• truedream over 6 years ago

    truedream edited over 6 years ago
    Not long ago, I got frustrated with the amount of time and clicking it required to find my version of Jean-Luc Ponty - Cosmic Messenger. I thought it would be helpful for everyone to add to the FTF the suffixes that make these entries unique. However it has now been removed from just one version at Cosmic Messenger! I also submitted a unique pressing of Cornell Dupree - Teasin' and added the suffix to the pre-existing entry. I am surprised to find this morning there is resistance to this. IMO, this meets "Any significant differentiating factor between releases" and makes the master release page much more user-friendly. I also did it for Emerson, Lake & Palmer - Emerson, Lake & Palmer (and was deleted from Emerson, Lake & Palmer!)... Opinions?
  • mossinterest over 6 years ago

    If there are dozens of releases to sort through, I agree it can be helpful. But in the case of Cornell Dupree - Teasin', there are only two U.S. by same cat#
  • truedream over 6 years ago

    Yes, only two for now. But what about when a third is added? Ok then? IMO, any more than one warrants the suffix in the FTF.
  • haiyai2u over 6 years ago

    While i can understand frustration when searching for a specific but IMO it's really unnecessary in FTF. The information could have been found in the Pressing plant profile.
    The FTF is not a "catch all". My vote is not allowed. Any by the way, it not just "Atlantic suffixes" that this pertains as this title implies. If it went your way you might put SLM, Brian Gardner, Presswell, Bearsville etc..
  • marcelrecords over 6 years ago

    discussion from a year ago here:
    http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/52151a139469733cfcfba988
    nik: http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/52151a139469733cfcfba988#3417497
    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.
  • haiyai2u over 6 years ago

    marcelrecords
    discussion from a year ago here


    Thanks marcelrecords for the link..I dont know what "non-obvious" means in this case,
    How could Monarch Record Mfg. Co. be non-obvious. Suppose the LP label has a suffix of MO but it's pressed elsewhere? I see this as a can of worms with streams of text citing the "really non-obvious".
    e.g.
    Format: Vinyl, LP, Album, Second US Pressing by MO, Metal Work by Presswell, No "GP" etch Side A etc etc etc.
  • truedream over 6 years ago

    Thank you, Marcel. I only did this so the next user wouldn't experience the same frustration I did. Hopefully someone out there will appreciate my efforts.
  • truedream over 6 years ago

    haiyai2u
    How could Monarch Record Mfg. Co. be non-obvious.

    Most people don't know what MO means or that there are two little letters in the matrix that are different on pressings that otherwise appear identical.

    Look at The Police - Zenyatta Mondatta.

    I have a US copy, and I can find which one it is just from the master release page. I think that's a great thing.
  • haiyai2u over 6 years ago

    truedream
    Hopefully someone out there will appreciate my efforts.


    I appreciate your effort! It's the catch all nature of the FTF evolution I have concerns with. .
  • truedream over 6 years ago

    truedream edited over 6 years ago
    haiyai2u
    I appreciate your effort! It's the catch all nature of the FTF evolution I have concerns with. .

    Thank you. I really don't think this is abuse of the FTF. I think it's exactly what it's for.

    edit: nevermind
  • haiyai2u over 6 years ago

    truedream
    I think it's exactly what it's for.
    edit: nevermind

    Not that it matters but I don't believe that is "exactly" what it's for. I personally find it redundant. I follow the rules, not that I agree them all (e.g. No Gatefold in FTF unless there is one which isn't a Gatefold" per Nik), which clearly isnt "Obvious". I dont know about your edit..

    edit: nevermind[/quote]
  • haiyai2u over 6 years ago

    haiyai2u edited over 6 years ago
    marcelrecords
    discussion from a year ago here:
    http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/52151a139469733cfcfba988
    nik: http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/52151a139469733cfcfba988#3417497
    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.

    haiyai2u less than a minute ago
    I didnt see a concensus anywhere in the thread referenced above and as I read it seems to trend towards it being "out of line" for a Format field. I see a vague wink and a nod in Niks statement. Words need to mean something.
  • mossinterest over 6 years ago

    haiyai2u
    I didnt see a concensus anywhere in the thread referenced above and as I read it seems to trend towards it being "out of line" for a Format field.


    Absolutely. Baffling how a company (or suffix initials thereof) can qualify as a format. Most importantly, I can imagine where some users will take that blank check, so to speak. I don't even understand why this discussion began over two copies that frustrated someone because the pressing plant wasn't in the format FTF. Two copies with the same cat#. And it goes on.
  • mossinterest over 6 years ago

    The gatefold thing hasn't even been resolved
  • truedream over 6 years ago

    truedream edited over 6 years ago
    mossinterest
    I don't even understand why this discussion began over two copies that frustrated someone because the pressing plant wasn't in the format FTF. Two copies with the same cat#. And it goes on.

    I wasn't frustrated about this. I added helpful information when I submitted a variation so users who may or may not be familiar with matrix variations would have an easier time understanding the difference. The discussion began because I was challenged and asked to back it up with a forum thread, and other edits I made were reverted.
  • mossinterest over 6 years ago

    truedream
    I got frustrated


    Excuse me, I was only quoting you. Please forgive any misinterpretation.
  • mossinterest over 6 years ago

    I had a user suggest why not 'variant center labels' to FTF..............THAT is where this will end up!
  • haiyai2u over 6 years ago

    Hi all; I found this in the midst of streams of healthy comments in the link provided by marcelrecords and it appears that there really is no conclusion in terms of FTF rule clarification or change although the problem is recognized.

    http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/53e8e031aba9e80e5eec1d83#3721777

    "Hi again everybody. I'm here to provide a final update, which has been discussed with Nik.

    First, I want to say that we really do appreciate everyone's feedback here. We greatly value the input of the community, and we do wish for the site's information to be accessible in a favorable manner for everyone.

    Staff has discussed this issue further. The main talking points here were the following:
    1. Should the FTF be used solely to denote format descriptions?
    2. Should display of information trump ease of differentiating between releases?

    Due to the ideas and opinions expressed in this thread, staff is in agreement that it is indeed okay use the Free Text Field to describe any significant differentiating factors between releases where that difference would otherwise not be apparent when viewing two similar releases on the Artist, Label, or Master Release pages. Ideally, there would be a short explanation in the release notes as well.

    So, in the case of http://www.discogs.com/Nearly-God-Nearly-God/master/95108 , it would be okay to enter STEMRA or MCPS in the FTF.

    As there have been debates on this subject ongoing for an extended period of time, in multiple threads, we are obviously in need of an update to the guidelines to help avoid any further confusion of RSG §6.1.5's intent, from both user and staff viewpoint. Once we have a clear picture of any updates the community would like to see, Nik will be able to review suggestions and update accordingly.

    I sincerely apologize for any confusion my previous statements have caused. If there's one thing I could have done better, it would have been to foster more discussion before making a decision. I'll be sure to be better about that going forward.

    Thanks again everybody for your input and for your passion. This is what makes Discogs such a great website and resource. "
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    This is the last staff word on the issue, not the thread which was bumped and linked by the OP.
    http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/53e8e031aba9e80e5eec1d83#3721777
  • haiyai2u over 6 years ago

    Hi Eviltoastman Thanks .. what does OP mean?
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    truedream
    Yes, only two for now. But what about when a third is added?

    That's irrelevant. There were two and that;s enough and they should not have been removed.
    mossinterest
    Absolutely. Baffling how a company (or suffix initials thereof) can qualify as a format.

    It doesn't. Most of the information which is part of the format section has nothing to do with format. The point is not a particularly sound one.

    mossinterest
    I had a user suggest why not 'variant center labels' to FTF..............THAT is where this will end up!

    This is precisely where it ought to be exercised and in fact where Nik first approved the matrix identifier to be added there, the matrix was on the face label. It;s incredibly handy and in keeping with the section in general. See the link above for the last discussion with multiple reasons to add this info there and scant supporting the opposite.
  • Farjenk over 6 years ago

    haiyai2u
    what does OP mean?

    Original Poster (of the thread)
  • mossinterest over 6 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    they should not have been removed.


    Nobody removed anything that I'm aware. Another user replaced "MO" with "Monarch Pressing" which makes a lot more sense. Half the users on here (or more) would have no idea what "MO" means in format. That, to me would be more confusing to the common user than nothing at all.
  • mossinterest over 6 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    they should not have been removed.


    Nobody removed anything that I'm aware. Another user replaced "MO" with "Monarch Pressing" which makes a lot more sense. Half the users on here (or more) would have no idea what "MO" means in format. That, to me would be more confusing to the common user than nothing at all.
  • mossinterest over 6 years ago

    I have no idea why that posted twice. I only submitted it once.
  • mossinterest over 6 years ago

    The bottom line here is anyone that doesn't investigate every listing with the same cat# as the copy they hold is foolish. Whether just adding to collections or submitting. Even the ones with suffixes in the format field or matrices in BAOI does not ensure they are correct. When I first began submitting on Discogs I wasted more time researching and preparing to submit what I thought was a unique release, only to find another copy listed completely wrong. You can't even trust the catalog number was entered correctly. Which goes back to the whole reason this issue was raised again. Ease. Accuracy is not a friend of ease in an unsure environment.

    The #1 fault I find is images often do not match the matrices entered by post contributors.
  • Diognes_The_Fox over 6 years ago

    I think it's okay to add those identifiers there, but I would keep them as concise and short as possible so that they can be identified from the MR. Such a "MO/Monarch" versus "Label Variation"
  • truedream over 6 years ago

    mossinterest
    When I first began submitting on Discogs I wasted more time researching and preparing to submit what I thought was a unique release, only to find another copy listed completely wrong.

    You're not alone. Displaying the info about the variation more clearly will hopefully cut down on things like pics of a "PR" label being added to a page with no pics that says Pressed by Monarch in BAOI. So often I find release pages that are various bits of information from different pressings or that were accidentally hijacked when someone uploaded an image that didn't quite match what was in the BAOI. A lot of people don't know or don't care about these variations. For buyers who do care, this will hopefully cut down on sellers listing their copy in the wrong place. So you will hopefully be less frustrated too.
  • truedream over 6 years ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    I think it's okay to add those identifiers there, but I would keep them as concise and short as possible so that they can be identified from the MR. Such a "MO/Monarch" versus "Label Variation"

    Thank you. Is that the standard we should go by with these Atlantic labels, "MO/Monarch"? I agree they should be as concise as possible. That's why I added "MO" on Cornell Dupree - Teasin', but it has been changed to "Monarch Pressing". I see this as a personal preference edit and is also an interpretation of "MO" which is all that is on the release itself. Can we have just "PR", "MO", "RI", "SP" etc...?
  • brunorepublic over 6 years ago

    truedream
    Can we have just "PR", "MO", "RI", "SP" etc...?


    This is what I've done, as it appears on the labels that way, with notes explaining what the code means:
    Donna Summer - Donna Summer
    Donna Summer - Donna Summer
  • truedream over 6 years ago

    brunorepublic
    This is what I've done, as it appears on the labels that way, with notes explaining what the code means

    Beautifully done. Model examples, IMO.
  • 7_Sea_Cods over 6 years ago

    mossinterest
    Nobody removed anything that I'm aware. Another user replaced "MO" with "Monarch Pressing" which makes a lot more sense. Half the users on here (or more) would have no idea what "MO" means in format. That, to me would be more confusing to the common user than nothing at all.


    I get you here, although I think there's no perfect solution. I think the best that we can hope for is the contents of the FTF identify the differentiating factor, and if the user doesn't know what it is, they'll at least know to check the release notes for more information (which will hopefully be there). In other words, ideally the FTF concisely notes the differentiating factor, the release notes explain what it is in detail.

    "MO" on its own is a bit ambiguous (just my opinion); I think in one of the related threads nik advised "MO pressing" which is a little more descriptive. Also, as someone who's more familiar with the suffixes themselves than the specific plants, "MO pressing" is more helpful to me than "Monarch pressing" especially since it's the MO that's on the label itself, not the plant name.

    Just my two cents.
  • mossinterest over 6 years ago

    truedream
    So you will hopefully be less frustrated too


    Respectfully, you missed the point...no suffix in format is going to keep me from checking each and every release in the MR before adding or submitting and I would recommend that to everyone concerned with accuracy.
  • haiyai2u over 6 years ago

    truedream
    . I see this as a personal preference edit and is also an interpretation of "MO" which is all that is on the release itself. Can we have just "PR", "MO", "RI", "SP" etc...?


    In the absense of a clear rule all you can expect to get are personal preferences. Words need to mean something. Just look at the many threads on this topic full of only opinions and preferences.
  • haiyai2u over 6 years ago

    truedream
    Thank you. Is that the standard we should go by with these Atlantic labels, "MO/Monarch"?


    This topic, although titled "adding Atlantic suffixes to free text" , is not related to only Atlantic, it's related to the FTF usage.. Wording such as "significant differentiating factors" are prone to produce personal interpretations.
    There is no standard being created here. What may be significant to you may not be significant to me etc.
  • haiyai2u over 6 years ago

    I used to believe that ranking points gave the clout to set the rules right but over the years I can see that has not worked out that well. Maybe the guys who make the most money for discogs should have the votes on how things move forward..
    That wouldnt be me as I dont sell.
  • 7_Sea_Cods over 6 years ago

    haiyai2u
    Just look at the many threads on this topic full of only opinions and preferences.


    Not only opinions -- several statements from staff explicitly approving adding pressing plant info to the FTF.

    haiyai2u
    Wording such as "significant differentiating factors" are prone to produce personal interpretations.


    Realistically, it's not possible to come up with a complete list of differentiating factors that would be OK to use in the FTF. I think the guideline is useable as it stands. I mean, does anyone disagree that the plant that pressed Atlantic SD 19189 for the US is a significant differentiating factor between Cosmic Messenger, Cosmic Messenger, Cosmic Messenger, and Cosmic Messenger? And the way to identify the plant is the matrix number suffixes?
  • mossinterest over 6 years ago

    haiyai2u
    Maybe the guys who make the most money for discogs should have the votes on how things move forward..


    LOL...I have found mostly those of whom are hear to sell are the least likely to care about data. but they will certainly hijack a sub to fit their item for sale. I've said it before and I'll say it again...database and marketplace are two different beasts.
  • mossinterest over 6 years ago

    7_Sea_Cods
    And the way to identify the plant is the matrix number suffixes?


    But what is objectionable to Monarch Pressing as opposed to just MO? MO will mean nothing to most of the users or visitors to Discogs. I just think if we're gonna do it, may as well do it so it makes sense. Not that big of a deal, is it?

    And as I said before, it's not going to keep me from checking every sub in the MR either way.
  • 7_Sea_Cods over 6 years ago

    7_Sea_Cods
    as someone who's more familiar with the suffixes themselves than the specific plants, "MO pressing" is more helpful to me than "Monarch pressing" especially since it's the MO that's on the label itself, not the plant name.


    truedream
    "MO" which is all that is on the release itself.


    brunorepublic
    it appears on the labels that way


  • haiyai2u over 6 years ago

    7_Sea_Cods
    I think the guideline is useable as it stands.


    Yes, this thread attests to that.
  • 7_Sea_Cods over 6 years ago

    haiyai2u
    7_Sea_CodsI think the guideline is useable as it stands.

    Yes, this thread attests to that.


    Perhaps you'd like to suggest an improvement to the guideline?
  • mossinterest over 6 years ago

    7_Sea_Cods, I thought I asked at least a fairly legitimate question - What is objectionable to Monarch Pressing as opposed to just MO, which won't make sense to most users and visitors. I presume my answer was quoting 3 users that object? I didn't ask who objected. I asked what is objectionable about it.
  • 7_Sea_Cods over 6 years ago

    My interpretation of the reason people object is because the plant name is one step removed from the suffix itself, which actually appears on the label itself. Sorry, I thought that was clear from the posts I quoted, I wasn't trying to be a jerk.

    I agree that "MO" on its own isn't ideal, but I think removing the suffix makes even less sense. In other words, if "MO" doesn't make sense to a user, I don't think "Monarch pressing" is going to, either. But maybe "MO/Monarch pressing" is a good compromise?
  • frekvens over 6 years ago

    One idea would be to add an extra column "Pressing plant" to the master release listing, in addition to label, cat#, country, etc. But that would require changes to be made to the site. And for most releases the pressing plant isn't known.

    Adding pressing plant to the FTF seems like the next best thing. Maybe we could agree on some convention for how it's to be entered. Atlantic matrix suffixes are nice because they are short. But how about Monarch pressings which weren't released on an Atlantic affiliated label and thus no "MO" suffix. Do we enter "MO" there as well?
  • mossinterest over 6 years ago

    frekvens
    But how about Monarch pressings which weren't released on an Atlantic affiliated label and thus no "MO" suffix. Do we enter "MO" there as well?


    Very good point. Many other record companies never used the suffixes at all on the labels. So, what would be the significance then?

    P.S. edit...and if they must research the submission to find out what MO pertains to, has that not defeated the purpose of "Ease" ?
  • haiyai2u over 6 years ago

    haiyai2u edited over 6 years ago
    7_Sea_Cods
    Perhaps you'd like to suggest an improvement to the guideline?

    Hi 7_Sea_Cods Thank you for asking. If the trend is to open up the FTF then dont create a list of what is correct or incorrect for that entry. I have no vested interest in this either way and I agree the addition of an identifier makes it easier when looking thru master releases if he identifier is accurate and meaningful.

    The wording "describe any significant differentiating factors" says it all and isn't harmful to put anything in that field even though it titled "Format". But consider how challenging it will be to standardize all the variables you are looking at. Today it's just pressing plants and the dialogue on MO and MO/Monarch pressing or (MR) agreement as evidence of various opinions on what is best..

    However if you have a submission variation with a different address at the bottom of the label or there is no "®" next to Bearsville Logo etc.. It will be difficult to get agreement on the wording for the various "differentiating factors" above and beyond pressing plants.

  • mossinterest over 6 years ago

    haiyai2u
    Today it's just pressing plants and the dialogue on MO and MO/Monarch pressing or (MR) agreement as evidence of various opinions on what is best..

    However if you have a submission variation with a different address at the bottom of the label or there is no "®" next to Bearsville Logo etc.. It will be difficult to get agreement on the wording for the various "differentiating factors" above and beyond pressing plants.


    Ah! And there you are. That is what I have been dreadfully failing at trying to convey. I see a nightmare developing and lengthy arguments in the future. And I'm not even a psychic
  • discosanddragons over 6 years ago

    discosanddragons edited over 6 years ago
    7_Sea_Cods
    MO/Monarch pressing" is a good compromise?


    frekvens
    Atlantic matrix suffixes are nice because they are short. But how about Monarch pressings which weren't released on an Atlantic affiliated label


    Only three letters show up in the MR, so we should use 3 that count.
    In the MR only MO/ will show up. That seems weird to me. It will also only pertain to the Atlantic affiliated pressings.
    If Monarch were identified from the matrix, i think MR [circled] in the free text would be weird too.
    So I'd almost rather see Monarch Pressing in the FTF, however redundant it may seem to others.
    I agree, but think it's useful to tread through some of the tedious MR's we have growing here.

    I would see issues with the Columbia or RCA plants.
    It seems like there is no short way to credit the plants.
    The CTH suffix or CSM make sense, but when it's just a T or P, I, R or H on it's own in the matrix it would seem pointless to enter that into the FTF without additional info.

    I agree with mossinterest, that one way or the other when subbing, it's still best to check all submissions.
    There's bound to be copy to draft errors that people don't change.

  • haiyai2u over 6 years ago

    discosanddragons
    I agree with mossinterest, that one way or the other when subbing, it's still best to check all submissions.
    There's bound to be copy to draft errors that people don't change.

    +1
  • 7_Sea_Cods over 6 years ago

    mossinterest
    I see a nightmare developing and lengthy arguments in the future.


    The future is NOW! There's never not going to be lengthy arguments on Discogs (or the internet in general).

    The same thing happens with another free text field -- the Release Notes field. It's just the nature of the beast.

    discosanddragons
    In the MR only MO/ will show up. That seems weird to me. It will also only pertain to the Atlantic affiliated pressings.
    If Monarch were identified from the matrix, i think MR [circled] in the free text would be weird.
    So I'd almost rather see Monarch Pressing in the FTF, however redundant it may seem to others.
    I agree, but think it's useful to tread through some of the tedious MR's we have growing here.

    I would see issues with the Columbia or RCA plants.
    It seems like there is no short way to credit the plants.
    The CTH suffix or CSM make sense, but when it's just a T or P, I, R or H on it's own in the matrix it would seem pointless to enter that into the FTF without additional info.


    I don't think we should try and come up with a "one size fits all" solution -- in other words, I don't think we should remove "MO" from the FTF of one sub just because "T" wouldn't make sense in another sub. But I agree w/ you that the suffix on its own might be inscrutable for many users.
  • discosanddragons over 6 years ago

    discosanddragons edited over 6 years ago
    7_Sea_Cods
    I don't think we should remove "MO" from the FTF of one sub just because "T" wouldn't make sense in another

    I'm not suggesting removing MO becasue T doesn't make sense.
    More that MO is only relevant to Atlantic pressings, so I think if we're going to use the free text for pressing plant, then there should be something there that makes sense for all Monarch pressings, not just Atlantic ones, otherwise like I said, you would have to enter MR[circled] for pressings where Monarch is identified by the matrix.
    Just like Columbia Records Pressing Plant, Terre Haute, it's CTH on Atlantic pressings or etched in the matrix, while on others it's just a T.
    Or Columbia Records Pressing Plant, Pitman is sometimes CP or sometimes just P.
    If both identifiers are there, which will be chosen for the FTF?
    To me if we're using the FTF for descriptions, then we should enter a description. Not too much, but something that describes what this is to all users.
    The abbreviations in the FTF don't make it easier to decipher if you don't understand what they are.
    I'd rather see Monarch Pressing or Terra Haute pressing instead as they are more to the point accurate descriptions, not just a few letters that might be meaningless to many users.

  • haiyai2u over 6 years ago

    truedream
    Can we have just "PR", "MO", "RI", "SP" etc...?

    I dont want to appear picky but again this thread is titled "adding Atlantic suffixes to free text" but in reality it applies to the "FTF" itself. You can see from comments discosanddragons that more knowledge is required for this. I just dont see what has been accomplished or not accomplished.
  • mossinterest over 6 years ago

    discosanddragons
    I think if we're going to use the free text for pressing plant, then there should be something there that makes sense for all Monarch pressings, not just Atlantic ones


    Absolutely
    haiyai2u
    You can see from comments discosanddragons that more knowledge is required for this. I just dont see what has been accomplished or not accomplished.


    Right on! I know someone is gnawing at the bit to start mass edits.
  • WantAndAble over 6 years ago

    I know this is not the direction it is going. But I feel like there is no reason to differentiate between releases in the master release. Sometimes there are tiny, tiny differences between releases that take a lot of describing. When you are looking at the master release, every one listed is different, or at least should be. You already know they are all different, And will have to open them to see what the difference is. Adding a description in the FTF does not change the fact that someone will have to open it to decipher the difference. Because three letters is not enough to explain the true difference.

    TL;DR: I think that this kind of information belongs in the release notes described in full detail and there is no reason to place it in format field so you can see it on the master release page when it wont be decipherable there anyways.
  • haiyai2u over 6 years ago

    WantAndAble
    Adding a description in the FTF does not change the fact that someone will have to open it to decipher the difference. Because three letters is not enough to explain the true difference.


    discosanddragons
    I agree with mossinterest, that one way or the other when subbing, it's still best to check all submissions.


    mossinterest
    The bottom line here is anyone that doesn't investigate every listing with the same cat# as the copy they hold is foolish. Whether just adding to collections or submitting.


    +1
  • truedream over 6 years ago

    mossinterest
    I know someone is gnawing at the bit to start mass edits.

    If you're talking about me, I will add this info every time. And I don't need to wait for anything. I have multiple statements from staff to support these edits, something some people still can't seem to accept.
  • haiyai2u over 6 years ago

    Please post one of those staff concurrences written with clarity and specificity.
  • truedream over 6 years ago

    haiyai2u
    Please post one of those staff concurrences written with clarity and specificity.

    I'm going to try walking through a brick wall instead.

    But I have some Genesis LPs in tomorrow's "to-listen" pile, so keep an eye on me or I might make the DB more user-friendly.
  • mossinterest over 6 years ago

    truedream
    If you're talking about me


    That was a general statement. You're getting paranoid again. :)
  • haiyai2u over 6 years ago

    truedream
    But I have some Genesis LPs in tomorrow's "to-listen" pile, so keep an eye on me or I might make the DB more user-friendly.


    Hi truedream You've lost me there.
  • 7_Sea_Cods over 6 years ago

    discosanddragons
    I think if we're going to use the free text for pressing plant, then there should be something there that makes sense for all Monarch pressings, not just Atlantic ones, otherwise like I said, you would have to enter MR[circled] for pressings where Monarch is identified by the matrix.


    The main thing the FTF needs to do is distinguish a particular release from another release in the same MR. We don't need to restrict ourselves to a single standard for the FTF any more than we do for the Release Notes. (And even if we did, this wouldn't be the thread to decide it.)

    discosanddragons
    To me if we're using the FTF for descriptions, then we should enter a description. Not too much, but something that describes what this is to all users.
    The abbreviations in the FTF don't make it easier to decipher if you don't understand what they are.
    I'd rather see Monarch Pressing or Terra Haute pressing instead as they are more to the point accurate descriptions, not just a few letters that might be meaningless to many users.


    I think it's contradictory to say you want a description that's helpful for all users, while at the same time you're pushing for the removal of information that several users in this thread find most helpful. How exactly would a compromise satisfying both the users who want the plant name and the users who want the suffix on the label itself be less helpful than a solution that only satisfies one or the other group?

    WantAndAble
    I think that this kind of information belongs in the release notes described in full detail and there is no reason to place it in format field so you can see it on the master release page when it wont be decipherable there anyways.


    Without a doubt this info belongs in the release notes. But it's not a "one or the other" proposition. When used properly, having the specific differentiating factor highlighted in the FTF in addition to being in the notes (possibly buried among other details) simply makes it easier and quicker to identify submissions. For example, if I have an LP with a CTH suffix, I don't even have to look in the release notes to know a sub with MO in the FTF is not the one I'm looking for. If you personally don't find that helpful, fine -- no harm done. But don't think that because you don't see the reason that there is no reason to begin with. I've been entering a 1500+ LP collection into Discogs over the past few months and I can speak from firsthand experience that this type of info in the FTF is helpful when you're looking through a large Master Release, even if it means clicking into the sub itself.
  • mossinterest over 6 years ago

    mossinterest edited over 6 years ago
    7_Sea_Cods
    I've been entering a 1500+ LP collection into Discogs over the past few months and I can speak from firsthand experience that this type of info in the FTF is helpful when you're looking through a large Master Release


    We are entering tens of thousands LP collections, and I'm here to tell ya, in a helpful way, if you don't thoroughly check every submission for accuracy, and don't worry about initials in the FTF, you will have a screwed up collection. And forget about submitting if you haven't checked each and every listing for all kinds of details and goofy errors. But, if none of that concerns you, then enjoy your MO's (LOL)

    P.S. edit... It may say Promo in the MR, but, you better check 'em, because if it's not really a promo and it was entered before you submitted...guess who wasted their time?
  • haiyai2u over 6 years ago

    Without trying to fuel this debate, I would be remiss in not stating that you cannot depend upon the label suffix for pressing plant accuracy. This a very nuanced area, some of which borders on an art form. I've learned this the hard way. To accept a blip in FTF for any pressing plant would encourage less analysis of the subs. We need more not less.
  • 7_Sea_Cods over 6 years ago

    mossinterest
    We are entering tens of thousands LP collections, and I'm here to tell ya, in a helpful way, if you don't thoroughly check every submission for accuracy, and don't worry about initials in the FTF, you will have a screwed up collection. And forget about submitting if you haven't checked each and every listing for all kinds of details and goofy errors. But, if none of that concerns you, then enjoy your MO's (LOL)


    Well gee thanks for the advice! Don't worry, it wasn't condescending in the slightest!
  • truedream over 6 years ago

    mossinterest
    And forget about submitting if you haven't checked each and every listing for all kinds of details and goofy errors.

    Goofy errors this will help cut down.

    When I did Emerson, Lake & Palmer, I found about three merges needed, and added pressing plant, note and suffix to FTF on each US copy of SD 9040. I think we'll be seeing less incorrect images and matrix info added now.
  • mossinterest over 6 years ago

    truedream
    I think we'll be seeing less incorrect images and matrix info added now.


    Dreaming...that is a "truedream" (LOL)
  • truedream over 6 years ago

    mossinterest
    Dreaming...that is a "truedream" (LOL)

    I can't do anything about your pessimism.
  • haiyai2u over 6 years ago

    haiyai2u edited over 6 years ago
    Hi truedream as one example for my point on suffix and pressing please see Emerson, Lake & Palmer - Emerson, Lake & Palmer. SP suffix but the EAST embossed really provides the clinching identifier. You will note the entry incorrectly lists pressed by Presswell which is an error. I believe the process is just too nuanced to be accurate. Nuances but important for accuracy. I wish there was an easy answer but do not believe there is unless it is on a one-off.
  • 7_Sea_Cods over 6 years ago

    haiyai2u
    Hi truedream as one example for my point on suffix and pressing please see Emerson, Lake & Palmer - Emerson, Lake & Palmer. SP suffix but the EAST embossed really provides the clinching identifier. You will note the entry incorrectly lists pressed by Presswell which is an error. I believe the process is just too nuanced to be accurate. Nuances but important for accuracy. I wish there was an easy answer but do not believe there is unless it is on a one-off.


    I suppose this concerns using the matrix number to identify the pressing plant, but it doesn't directly have to do with using the FTF field. SP on the labels would still be a differentiating factor between that press and Emerson, Lake & Palmer (MO suffix) and Emerson, Lake & Palmer (PR suffix). If there is a version of the release w/ SP labels that is in fact pressed by Presswell, then something along the lines of "PR suffix/Presswell pressing" vs. "PR suffix/Specialty pressing" would be appropriate.
  • haiyai2u over 6 years ago

    haiyai2u edited over 6 years ago
    Yes 7_Sea_Cods that was my point. IMO this usage of the FTF in the Format field isn't appropriate for your purpose and will not contribute to overall accuracy of the discogs database. As you understand there are nuances and definitions that are demanded for accuracy. I don't claim to have answers for how to ease use of the MR viewings although IMO this trend will create ongoing errors.. The MR entries are clearly problematic but this approach really doesn't enhance accuracy of the database. Possiby for a case by case situation but how could that be effectively communicated to those just beginning to submit? It's difficult enough to post correct entry's and to check drafts for carry overs. I know you understand my point. In the end the sub must be checked.
  • discosanddragons over 6 years ago

    discosanddragons edited over 6 years ago
    Edit: I'm removing this as I clearly misunderstood a few suggestions made here.
    it was long before sun-up and coffee when I read and posted.
    Sorry....not opposed to what's happening, just one who's not in love with it.
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    discosanddragons
    MO or PR or RI are initials, not descriptions. If you don't know what they, initials are not helpful.

    Which is why they must be fully explained in the release notes. We discussed this in both previous threads.
  • discosanddragons over 6 years ago

    discosanddragons edited over 6 years ago
    I understand.
    Overall, I don't like the free text being used for this as IMO, it's redundant info that can be seen in photos (when they are there) or is listed elsewhere in the sub.
    It only gives a slight inkling as to what it might be in the MR and it isn't easier to open the sub, look at the FTF then have to still go to the notes to sort it out.
    I guess it doesn't hurt.
    I'm not opposed to it.
    I just don't think there's a good solution.
    In the end, I don't feel any more or less strong about my opinion than what's suggested here as I don't think either will help that much more or less.
    Some of these MR's are so tedious, nothing will really make them easy to sort through.
  • truedream over 6 years ago

    haiyai2u
    Hi truedream as one example for my point on suffix and pressing please see Emerson, Lake & Palmer - Emerson, Lake & Palmer. SP suffix but the EAST embossed really provides the clinching identifier. You will note the entry incorrectly lists pressed by Presswell which is an error.

    I didn't touch that one. It's unique enough with the different cat. # and Reissue tag. The images of the label have SP. Are you saying this wasn't pressed by Specialty?

    discosanddragons
    it's redundant info that can be seen in photos (when they are there)

    http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1793245#latest
  • frekvens over 6 years ago

    haiyai2u
    one example for my point on suffix and pressing please see Emerson, Lake & Palmer - Emerson, Lake & Palmer. SP suffix but the EAST embossed really provides the clinching identifier. You will note the entry incorrectly lists pressed by Presswell which is an error.

    I think Presswell is correct here. The typeface/font used on the label is definitely the one used on other Presswell pressings. Strange. Maybe it was mastered at one place and pressed at the other.
  • Diognes_The_Fox over 6 years ago

    truedream
    . Is that the standard we should go by with these Atlantic labels


    Just throwing it out there. I'm probably one of the worst suited people for coming up with clean and efficient standards. ;)
  • frekvens over 6 years ago

    haiyai2u
    EAST embossed really provides the clinching identifier

    But I guess that proves it yeah. Nevermind.
  • haiyai2u over 6 years ago

    haiyai2u edited over 6 years ago
    frekvens
    I think Presswell is correct here. The typeface/font used on the label is definitely the one used on other Presswell pressings. Strange. Maybe it was mastered at one place and pressed at the other.


    Thanks frekvens See Emerson, Lake & Palmer - Emerson, Lake & Palmer I read it as a Specialty pressing due to embossing but you illustrate my point very well. The label suffix SP and your reading are different as you see nuances that directed you there.. But there is conflict. thanks for this comment. My point was that the matrix suffix by itself is not always accurate.
  • haiyai2u over 6 years ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    Just throwing it out there. I'm probably one of the worst suited people for coming up with clean and efficient standards. ;)


    Your'e an honest man Diognes_The_Fox
  • haiyai2u over 6 years ago

    truedream
    I didn't touch that one. It's unique enough with the different cat. # and Reissue tag. The images of the label have SP. Are you saying this wasn't pressed by Specialty?


    frekvens
    I think Presswell is correct here. The typeface/font used on the label is definitely the one used on other Presswell pressings. Strange. Maybe it was mastered at one place and pressed at the other.

    Yes I believe it's Specialty because of the embossing but you can see others have other factors that lead them elsewhere.

  • haiyai2u over 6 years ago

    I dont know specifically what has been resolved although I've learned more about the Master Releases than I'd previously known so its good for me. It seems the FTF is just open game and just one more thing to check to see if it matches up with the various LCCN, BAOI etc fields.
  • discosanddragons over 6 years ago

    frekvens
    One idea would be to add an extra column "Pressing plant" to the master release listing,


    what would be nice is a feature where the notes could pop up the way a small profile of an artist does in the search.
    You'd be able to see descriptions for differences in art, design or layout matrix....what ever......so long as they were listed.
    I realize it probably won't happen, but it would be cool to be able to peek at a sub in an MR without fully opening it.
    Same would go for photos.
  • mossinterest over 6 years ago

    discosanddragons
    what would be nice is a feature where the notes could pop up the way a small profile of an artist does in the search...Same would go for photos.

    That would be kewl
  • Madturtle3 over 6 years ago

    Eviltoastman

    discosanddragons
    MO or PR or RI are initials, not descriptions. If you don't know what they, initials are not helpful.

    Which is why they must be fully explained in the release notes. We discussed this in both previous threads.


    +1

    I am late to this discussion but want to voice my opinion that cryptic letters in the free text without description in notes is totally useless and even confusing except to those who create them.
  • haiyai2u over 6 years ago

    Madturtle3
    Eviltoastman
    discosanddragons
    MO or PR or RI are initials, not descriptions. If you don't know what they, initials are not helpful.

    Which is why they must be fully explained in the release notes. We discussed this in both previous threads.

    +1

    I am late to this discussion but want to voice my opinion that cryptic letters in the free text without description in notes is totally useless and even confusing except to those who create them.


    +1
  • Farjenk over 6 years ago

    Farjenk edited over 6 years ago
    Madturtle3
    I am late to this discussion but want to voice my opinion that cryptic letters in the free text without description in notes is totally useless and even confusing except to those who create them.


    WantAndAble
    I think that this kind of information belongs in the release notes described in full detail and there is no reason to place it in format field


    discosanddragons
    Overall, I don't like the free text being used for this


    mossinterest
    Half the users on here (or more) would have no idea what "MO" means in format. That, to me would be more confusing to the common user than nothing at all.

    haiyai2u
    IMO this usage of the FTF in the Format field isn't appropriate for your purpose and will not contribute to overall accuracy of the discogs database. ... how could that be effectively communicated to those just beginning to submit? It's difficult enough to post correct entry's and to check drafts for carry overs. I know you understand my point. In the end the sub must be checked.

    haiyai2u
    +1


    +1!!!

    This is a ridiculous use of the FTF... It should at least be made more understandable by the laymen... Maybe "MO on labels" would be more clear and helpful to the average user?

    I do know a bit about records, but even I was confused by a "PR" I saw in the FTF, recently. In no way does this make anything easier/more intuitive/helpful/or LESS confusing.

    Explaining it in the release notes is NOT the solution. How does that help at all when the average user is perusing the listings? They will not know that the definition of the FTF is explained in the release notes and may never click on and open the release page in the first place.

    PLEASE nik, reconsider!
  • Farjenk over 6 years ago

    Double post
  • 7_Sea_Cods over 6 years ago

    Farjenk
    Maybe "MO on labels" would be more clear and helpful to the average user?


    I just finished scanning over this thread and despite the variety of opinions I think most people would agree that "MO on labels" is more helpful than simply "MO" -- no one is stopping you from adding that to the FTF.

    Farjenk
    Explaining it in the release notes is NOT the solution. How does that help at all when the average user is perusing the listings? They will not know that the definition of the FTF is explained in the release notes and may never click on and open the release page in the first place.

    PLEASE nik, reconsider!


    If there's someone perusing the listings who is too afraid to open a release page because of a three-character abbreviation in the MR, that's their problem. We shouldn't rearrange everything on that person's behalf.

    The FTF is by nature going to be brief and succinct. You just have to use the release notes to expand sometimes. Differences between releases can be too complex to fit into a single-line field.
  • Showbiz_Kid over 6 years ago

    Revisiting just a little. (Hope a new crop of worms don't crawl out of the can!)

    I've been seeing this in effect for a while now, and I think it has proven useful, BUT.... <wait for it>

    As noted, only the first 3 letters of the FTF appear in the MR, which is where most folks start their search. I agree that these label suffixes used by Atlantic, London, the Polygram numbers etc. are most useful in the FTF to experienced Oggers who know the codes pretty much by heart, or the more experienced novice who's come to recognize them as identifiers (and found sebfact's runouts thread.

    For the common user, a little more info may be needed.

    Use of the FTF for these codes doesn't have to be an "all or nothing" solution. Put the suffix in the FTF for easy sorting of the MR, but also include an explanation in the RN (along with the proper Pressed At in LCCN, of course). This way we've provided the information in ways that users of all ranks can understand.

    I've been adding pressing notations to the RNs of my subs for a long time now. I find it useful when other users do the same. Adding this small bit of info to the FTF is just another granular way of helping folks narrow down the hunt for what they're trying to find. More info is better!

    My two pence, FWIW :)
  • discosanddragons over 6 years ago

    I've done the same. I'm not in love with the idea of only the two letters in the FTF, but if there's notes and the company is added properly, I guess it's ok.
    There's also been these topics of late if you haven't seen them.
    http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/691331
    http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/690461

    The other problem I and others seemingly have is what happens when you have 3 different SP or MO (or whatever) pressings?
    Then it's not quite as immediately helpful.
    I just came across this when trying to sort out Jackson Browne - Jackson Browne for any US dups.
    Jackson Browne - Jackson Browne could be RE SP, but then there's Jackson Browne - Jackson Browne, which would appear the same in the MR.
    I'm guessing some sort of label description might be in order, but I'm not sure how it should be worded to be most effective.
  • BarnyardOrbit over 5 years ago

    Showbiz_Kid
    For the common user, a little more info may be needed.


    yes but right now this method IS so easier to spot RI from MO, like the development of this idea.

    Diognes_The_Fox
    I would keep them as concise and short as possible so that they can be identified from the MR


    brilliant ...all the best
  • Diognes_The_Fox over 5 years ago

    BarnyardOrbit
    brilliant ...all the best


    Ultimately, changing how MR's work to better display micro-variants would be key, but it's a start.
  • 2tec over 5 years ago

    2tec edited over 5 years ago
    Showbiz_Kid
    For the common user, a little more info may be needed.

    Perhaps if there was a link or pop up with an extended definition for any abbreviations and codes?

    Diognes_The_Fox
    changing how MR's work to better display micro-variants

    Perhaps if MR pages were more informative?

    Perhaps two linked fields are needed, one for the abbreviation and one for the corresponding full spelling or wording? As well, shouldn't a code link to its definition or to a look up table of definitions? Make these links or pop-ups, then the database could directly display more information in the same space.
  • Showbiz_Kid over 5 years ago

    Well, here are my observations from several months into this.

    LOTS of Atlantic subs now have the matrix suffixes in the FTF, and by and large most of them also have a short explanation in the RN as well. That's gone a long way toward reducing confusion. If someone looks at the MR and has no clue what "MO" or "CT" means, looking at the sub tells them that the "MO" stands for Monarch, and lets them know that those suffixes actually mean something :)

    This is the case with a lot of Capitol and Columbia and MCA pressings as well. So I think we're getting on pretty well here.

    The thought of a popup is nice, but adding a feature like that for a primarily USA userbase would, likely, be met with resistance from the dbase programmers - especially as the current method is proving itself pretty well.
  • BarnyardOrbit over 5 years ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    changing how MR's work to better display micro-variants would be key,


    FULLY Agree, we need to make it easier for anyone viewing, whether its for collectors, buyers and/or sellers, anything to help ease traffic to specific release with out all the confusion WILL likely reduce the amount of dupe listings people make, just my insight.
  • BarnyardOrbit over 5 years ago

    BarnyardOrbit edited over 5 years ago
    2tec
    Perhaps if MR pages were more informative?


    yes yes yes.... why not have a short bio at the top of the MR explaining the reasoning for MR PR RI etc and its pressing plants right next to it ? sounds good ?
  • BarnyardOrbit over 5 years ago

    hello ALL how about adding this at the top or midway (somewhere easily seen) in the MR >>>
    Note for USA LP's and the various pressing plants ID's are marked as SP, RI, PR, MO etc. These codes can be found on the bottom right on the record label:

    for example this edit on the MR >>
    http://www.discogs.com/Emerson-Lake-Palmer-Welcome-Back-My-Friends-To-The-Show-That-Never-Ends-Ladies-And-Gentlemen/master/12017
  • BarnyardOrbit over 5 years ago

    Showbiz_Kid
    LOTS of Atlantic subs now have the matrix suffixes in the FTF


    seeing the "FTF" and ability to view the SP / MO / RI / PR ...is IMO superb to kwikly see the difference in the MR cheers !
  • BarnyardOrbit over 4 years ago

    BUMP to keep the thread current regarding "PR", "MO", "RI", "SP" >>>>

    truedream
    Can we have just "PR", "MO", "RI", "SP" etc...?


    BarnyardOrbit
    brilliant YES I thought this was the new standard


    Diognes_The_Fox
    Diognes_The_Fox about 1 year ago

    Ultimately, changing how MR's work to better display micro-variants would be key, but it's a start.


    >>>>

    7_Sea_Cods
    I just finished scanning over this thread and despite the variety of opinions I think most people would agree that "MO on labels" is more helpful than simply "MO" -- no one is stopping you from adding that to the FTF.


    >>>

    truedream

    . Is that the standard we should go by with these Atlantic labels


    >>>>>

    truedream
    Can we have just "PR", "MO", "RI", "SP" etc...?


    >>>
    Diognes_The_Fox
    I think it's okay to add those identifiers there, but I would keep them as concise and short as possible so that they can be identified from the MR. Such a "MO/Monarch" versus "Label Variation"

Log In You must be logged in to post.