• kraftberg over 4 years ago

    Queen - Somebody To Love FTF - No SABAM On Label
    Queen - Somebody To Love FTF - SABAM On Label

    Can we use the Free text field in that case?
  • loukash over 4 years ago

    No, because it's not a "format".
    That's what the BAOI section is for.
  • jopla2 over 4 years ago

    It's not quite as simple as that - but still No.

    RSG §6.1.5. The Free Text field should be used to describe;
    Any non-standard color of the audio carrier
    Any notable packaging (for example gatefold sleeves, Digipak etc ( see 6.1.6)
    Any significant differentiating factor between releases (for example, sleeve or label color etc)
    (...)

    This is obviously not a 'significant differentiating factor'.
  • loukash over 4 years ago

    jopla2
    It's not quite as simple as that

    It is "as simple as that" because colors or packaging aren't identifiers, and vice versa.
    The format FTF is attached to the Format section for a reason. ;)

    But yeah, generally we agree. :)
  • 7_Sea_Cods over 4 years ago

    Why is it not a "significant differentiating factor"? Granted I'm not familiar with this particular single but judging by the two subs, it's the only way to tell them apart.
  • brunorepublic over 4 years ago

    I usually just put a note in linking to the other similar release(s) and explaining the difference, but admittedly, that sometimes gets a bit tedious to manage.
  • JeroenG8 over 4 years ago

    It seems that these releases are already edited within a few hours, so my opinion probably doesn't matter anymore, especially since it is in contradiction to most opinions here.

    IMO RSG §6.1.5 is quite clear about this:
    The Free Text field should be used to describe;
    (...)
    Any significant differentiating factor between releases (for example, sleeve or label color etc)
    (...)

    In contrary to what jopla2 states above, IMO for this specific release the presence or absence of SABAM on the label IS a significant differentiating factor, because it is the ONLY difference between those two releases.

    That said, if people seem to agree that it shouldn't be in the FTF, then so be it.

    loukash
    It is "as simple as that" because colors or packaging aren't identifiers,


    Acutally, color is:
    (...)
    Any significant differentiating factor between releases (for example, sleeve or label color etc)
    (...)
  • jopla2 over 4 years ago

    This is how I see it:
    Format means the 'physical' sound carrier and it's characteristics, both tangible/visible and technical/invisible.
    FTF is part of the format section, which is why the FTF is mainly used only for details about the format. That's why we can acknowledge there if a record is pressed in coloured vinyl: "Red"; or if the packaging is somehow special: "Digipak" (with certain conditions). The only major exception is: 'Text that isn't part of the title but distinguishes the specific release from others (for example 'Disc 1', '30th Anniversary Edition' etc)'.

    If the difference in the Queen example were the colour of labels, it could go in FTF, but not anything about the textual/printed details or contents about the release. This is why FTF entries like "First Edition" that don't actually appear on the release but are made up by users - understandably to make differentiating releases easier - are actually not allowed.
  • JeroenG8 over 4 years ago

    brunorepublic
    I usually just put a note in linking to the other similar release(s) and explaining the difference, but admittedly, that sometimes gets a bit tedious to manage.


    It indeed does :-)
    Doe Maar - 4US
    Doe Maar - De Bom

    jopla2
    If the difference in the Queen example were the colour of labels, it could go in FTF, but not anything about the textual/printed details or contents about the release.


    What about tons of USA releases that only differ by pressing plant, which are indicated only most of the times by a tiny little mark on the labels, like for example (SP), (CTH), etc
    Queen - Keep Yourself Alive
    Queen - Keep Yourself Alive
  • jopla2 over 4 years ago

    JeroenG8
    What about tons of USA releases that only differ by pressing plant, which are indicated only most of the times by a tiny little mark on the labels, like for example (SP), (CTH), etc
    Queen - Keep Yourself Alive
    Queen - Keep Yourself Alive

    Are there "tons" of those around and are these examples correctly submitted? I admit, I don't know everything about this issue... Maybe the different matrices used for these 7" vinyls are considered different "formats" or variants of format? Still, it looks like the FTF is based on the text on the labels, not the matrices - which probably would have "SP" and "CTH"...
  • JeroenG8 over 4 years ago

    jopla2
    Are there "tons" of those around and are these examples correctly submitted? I admit, I don't know everything about this issue... Maybe the different matrices used for these 7" vinyls are considered different "formats" or variants of format? Still, it looks like the FTF is based on the text on the labels, not the matrices - which probably would have "SP" and "CTH"...


    Actually I didn't know anything about this issue, until I started to add my Queen collection to Discogs (which is are quite some records as you might have found out by now :-) )
    Queen was on Elektra Records in the 70's and early 80's in the USA.
    At first I only thought there were different label variants, the 'big three' being "Caterpillar label", "Butterfly label" and "Red label".
    But then I found out that different "Butterfly labels" existed. Same turned out to be for the "Caterpillar" and "Red" versions.
    In almost all versions that I've seen the difference is some sort of code that is pressed below the cat# on the labels.
    As I understand now they are pressed at different pressing plants, and this was marked on the label by printing the code for that particular pressing plant.
    "SP", "CTH" I have seen most, but there are more variants.

    Since I assume that Queen records were not unique in this, probably most Elektra releases in the 70's and 80's had these possible variations. And possibly this wasn't even unique to Elektra releases.

    The exact naming of the FTF is indeed based on the code on the label, but the matrix/runouts in the vinyl that I own also state the pressing plant in question.
  • brunorepublic over 4 years ago

    JeroenG8
    Since I assume that Queen records were not unique in this, probably most Elektra releases in the 70's and 80's had these possible variations. And possibly this wasn't even unique to Elektra releases.


    Indeed, many American major label releases were simultaneously pressed at multiple pressing plants for logistical reasons.
  • loukash over 4 years ago

    JeroenG8
    Acutally, color is:

    Color is part of the format, yes. That's why it can go into the FTF.

    A rights society credit is not a format, it's an identifier. (Oddly, but there you go…)
    Its place is in the BAOI section.
    One version says "SABAM", the other says – correctly – "none".

    brunorepublic
    many American major label releases were simultaneously pressed at multiple pressing plants for logistical reasons

    And we're documenting them.
    The pressing plant ID goes – you guessed it – to the BAOI.

    Summed up:
    This is a display issue, not a data issue.
    E.g. the truncated MR list simply doesn't accomodate all unique identifiers of a release.
    If you open both versions side by side, you need to compare all data.

    brunorepublic
    I usually just put a note in linking to the other similar release(s) and explaining the difference

    Exactly.
    What's wrong with a difference summary in the notes?

    brunorepublic
    but admittedly, that sometimes gets a bit tedious to manage.

    Definitely.

    And is the Format FTF any "better" to manage, for that matter?
    Not really.
  • 7_Sea_Cods over 4 years ago

    loukash
    And is the Format FTF any "better" to manage, for that matter?
    Not really.


    I think its function is simply to draw attention to the significant differences between otherwise similar entries -- a shortcut rather than having to sift through the release notes.

    My understanding of it is that it is not limited to format info. I'm just going by the letter of the guideline, though.

    I haven't been keeping up w/ the forums so much in the last couple months so if I've missed something, I apologize. But in a thread from May: http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/5373d88aa86b6d1b05b456d3?page=1#5375295ed07b093a3058ee7e

    7_Sea_Cods
    These are the two lines I highlighted earlier:
    • Any significant differentiating factor between releases (for example, sleeve or label color etc)
    • Text that isn't part of the title but distinguishes the specific release from others (for example 'Disc 1', '30th Anniversary • Edition' etc). The free text field should not be used to describe things that are already in the Format or Description fields


    That last sentence implies (to me, anyway) that these are the only things NOT to use in the FTF: http://www.discogs.com/help/formatslist
    [edit: though I'd also add to that the information that appears alongside the title and format: i.e. Label, Cat#, Country, Year would be redundant to add in the FTF]
    I really don't think anyone should be discouraged from putting other information in there, as long as you can succinctly describe it and it differentiates that particular sub from others in the MR.


    Seemed to be confirmed by Nik: http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/5373d88aa86b6d1b05b456d3?page=1#537b2ea2432246506f9e52a1

    In other words, noting the existence of text appearing (or not) on the label would be appropriate use of the FTF because 1.) It's a significant differentiating factor between the releases, and 2.) It's not describing something that's already in the Format or Description fields. That's how I understand it, anyway.
  • loukash over 4 years ago

    loukash edited over 4 years ago
    7_Sea_Cods
    noting the existence of text appearing (or not) on the label would be appropriate use of the FTF because 1.) It's a significant differentiating factor between the releases, and 2.) It's not describing something that's already in the Format or Description fields

    But why, when the difference is already precisely noted in the BAOI fields, and – in case of Somebody To Love & Somebody To Love – it was and it even remained in the release notes?!

    Pointing out the same thing in three instances is pointless, particularly since the FTF 3-characters-truncation doesn't give much clue and you'll have to open the release page anyway to look up what it's all about…
  • 7_Sea_Cods over 4 years ago

    I dunno, I find it helpful to have a field specifically designed to identify the differentiating factor (so long as it's being used correctly). Sure you might have to click into the sub itself, but then you know exactly where to look.
  • helix over 4 years ago

    helix edited over 4 years ago
    7_Sea_Cods
    I dunno, I find it helpful to have a field specifically designed to identify the differentiating factor (so long as it's being used correctly). Sure you might have to click into the sub itself, but then you know exactly where to look.

    Exactly.

    The Free Text field should be used to describe;
    ● Any significant differentiating factor between releases (for example, sleeve or label color etc)

    Entering the differentiating details for otherwise identical releases into the FTF is valid. It is not tied to sound carrier format.

    The fact that the release may describe the difference in more detail elsewhere is coincidental and doesn't diminish the purpose of the FTF as a field to enter the distinguishing factor.

    http://www.discogs.com/history?release=23191#latest

  • Eviltoastman over 4 years ago

    The FTF is not just about the format, Loukash is incorrect when he tries to simplify it. It;s for "any differentiating factor" and is not limited to format at all as 7 Sea confirms.

    Nik went on to say that if it's not an obvious difference then things may be added there. The specific case he was discussing was one of those Atlantic pressings where the face label matrices have manufacturer suffixes "CT" and "DR" or whatever. He advised in the thread that "any differentiating factor" may be entered in the ftf which mitigated the CT or the DR being added there. CT and DR are not formats so most of what is advised about it being restricted to formatin the posts above is wrong.

    It doesn't really help that boundaries have not been drawn as to how far we may take this idea. Personally I feel that the application in the OP is perfectly fine.
  • JeroenG8 over 4 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    most of what is advised about it being restricted to formatin the posts above is wrong.

    It doesn't really help that boundaries have not been drawn as to how far we may take this idea. Personally I feel that the application in the OP is perfectly fine.


    So that means that my use of the FTF in these two subs in the OP was correct after all?
    kraftberg
    Queen - Somebody To Love FTF - No SABAM On Label
    Queen - Somebody To Love FTF - SABAM On Label
  • Mop66 over 4 years ago

    I don't know...I just don't like the overuse of the FTF, but that is probably a personal issue. I would rather look for some functionality like "Compare releases" where you could compare releases automatically side by side and have differences displayed between them. SImilar to the what you see in the history witht he "Changes" but just for different releases with differences highlighted. That would really be helpful IMO, not clogging up the FTF with stuff that you cannot identify anyhow on the artist / label page. By using this you would be able to see immeditely where a different credit is, where LCCN or BaoI are not matching.
  • Eviltoastman over 4 years ago

    JeroenG8
    So that means that my use of the FTF in these two subs in the OP was correct after all?
    kraftberg
    Queen - Somebody To Love FTF - No SABAM On Label
    Queen - Somebody To Love FTF - SABAM On Label


    Yes, it seems perfectly fine but I would go with:

    Queen - Somebody To Love FTF - blank.
    Queen - Somebody To Love FTF - SABAM On Label
    With release notes on both cross referencing (including an embedded link). I would also ensure the release note addition is the very first line of the release notes so that it;s the very first thing you read.
  • reallygood over 4 years ago

    ● Any significant differentiating factor between releases
    FTF = Free Text Field
    ^this
    and not
    ● Any significant differentiating factor between the format of the releases
    + Additional Format Notes

    if this is not the case the guidelines need amending and the FTF should have a name change
  • jopla2 over 4 years ago

    AFAIK, with sentence-like entries in FTF, only the first word is capitalized. Also, the "first three characters" principle should be kept in mind (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. (...)

    JeroenG8
    So that means that my use of the FTF in these two subs in the OP was correct after all?

    kraftberg
    Queen - Somebody To Love FTF - No SABAM On Label
    Queen - Somebody To Love FTF - SABAM On Label

    Here the first entry would result in "No", which obviously doesn't work. Also, a negation like "No SABAM" is generally not encouraged on Discogs.

    Eviltoastman
    Yes, it seems perfectly fine but I would go with:

    Queen - Somebody To Love FTF - blank.
    Queen - Somebody To Love FTF - SABAM On Label
    With release notes on both cross referencing (including an embedded link). I would also ensure the release note addition is the very first line of the release notes so that it;s the very first thing you read.

    I agree with the above, except the FTF for the second entry should be simply "SABAM". The issue is that "SABAM" appears on the release, at all. Where it appears is a detail that can be found in Notes. Simlarly, it's not specified where "45" is printed on the release.

    Also, I would replicate the exact font used on the release in Notes:
    "This version doesn't have 'sabam' and 'stereo' printed on labels."
  • helix over 4 years ago

    jopla2
    AFAIK, with sentence-like entries in FTF, only the first word is capitalized.

    The FTF should be as compact as possible. Sentences belong in the notes. For printed text differentiating factors, capitalisation may be significant, so entry should be as on release. In this case "sabam stereo".

    jopla2
    I agree with the above, except the FTF for the second entry should be simply "SABAM".

    The differentiating factor is "sabam stereo" printed on one of the releases, so this goes in the FTF on the release with it and nothing in the FTF on the release without it. The notes are used on both releases to explain the differences in more detail.
  • Eviltoastman over 4 years ago

    jopla2
    I agree with the above, except the FTF for the second entry should be simply "SABAM".

    Yes, but with a release note explaining it fully.
  • jopla2 over 4 years ago

    Should FTF follow the exact spelling on the release, or should the first word always be Capitalized? I do not know.

    "sabam" is the spelling the company appears with on Discogs. Their logo on Discogs reads "sAbAm". When you go to their site, their logo is "SABAM". The title of their main page has "Sabam". If we could agree what the correct spelling is, should that be used in FTF - or what appears on the release?
  • Eviltoastman over 4 years ago

    The information is not linked and is covered by the Discogs capitalisation guide so it would be "Sabam".
  • jopla2 over 4 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    The information is not linked and is covered by the Discogs capitalisation guide so it would be "Sabam".

    Seems reasonable to me - but what does linking have to do with this? I wasn't aware of that.
  • Staff 56

    THE_E.TremontStevieB over 4 years ago

    Hi all,

    Staff has been asked for further clarification about the proper use of the FTF. After internal discussion, we'd like to highlight the following statement in RSG §6.1.5:

    "The free text field should not be used to describe things that are already in the Format or Description fields."

    If distinguishing information belongs in the Format or a Description field, the same information should not be entered into the FTF. Release notes can be used, and are helpful for noting differences that does not belong in the FTF.

    Thanks,
    Aaron | Discogs Community Support Staff
  • jopla2 over 4 years ago

    THE_E.TremontStevieB
    Hi all,

    Staff has been asked for further clarification about the proper use of the FTF. After internal discussion, we'd like to highlight the following statement in RSG §6.1.5:

    "The free text field should not be used to describe things that are already in the Format or Description fields."

    If distinguishing information belongs in the Format or a Description field, the same information should not be entered into the FTF. Release notes can be used, and are helpful for noting differences that does not belong in the FTF.

    Thanks,
    Aaron | Discogs Community Support Staff

    But that's beside the point. The question is whether it's allowed to use "Sabam" - or other non-format-related descriptions - in the format field.
  • bobbley over 4 years ago

    THE_E.TremontStevieB
    If distinguishing information belongs in the Format or a Description field, the same information should not be entered into the FTF.

    'sabam' appears in the 'Rights Society' description field of the release

    jopla2
    The question is whether it's allowed to use "Sabam" - or other non-format-related descriptions - in the format field.

    ...so: no, it shouldn't be in the FTF as well

  • jopla2 over 4 years ago

    bobbley
    ...so: no, it shouldn't be in the FTF as well

    If you read the messages above, I think we've established quite well that FTF is not only for format. "Any significant differentiating factor between releases" in RSG §6.1.5 - and all that. Apparently someone made a request for the Staff to make a ruling, but the above message by THE_E.TremontStevieB didn't really address the issue.
  • Eviltoastman over 4 years ago

    Eviltoastman edited over 4 years ago
    bobbley
    sabam' appears in the 'Rights Society' description field of the release

    That's a barcode and other identifier description field and not a format description field.
    http://screencast.com/t/nEpJG04KJ8xX
    ;)

    Read Aarons comment with Nik's here:
    http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/52151a139469733cfcfba988#52151a139469733cfcfba974
    And the issue has been answered.
  • JeroenG8 over 4 years ago

    Bobbley has indeed edited the submission of the opening post AGAIN!
    Without reaching a consensis in this forum topic.
    I mean, it is clear that there is no clear conclusion yet, and the edit that Bobbley did (again!) thus is against the guidelines and technically an edit war.

    I am really wondering who asked management for further clarification... really, I am!
    And staff giving contradicting information on the matter absolutely doesn't help the situation here!
    I really doubt if they have really read this complete topic, because I am sure THE_E.TremontStevieB wouldn't have posted what he posted now, if he HAD read the topic.

    sigh.... Is it really neccessary to ask specific advice on this matter to management AGAIN ??
    nik's advice here was clear IMO, and seen in that light Bobbley's edit is incorrect (and should be reverted..... again... sigh)
    http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/52151a139469733cfcfba988#52151a139469733cfcfba974
  • JeroenG8 over 4 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    bobbley
    sabam' appears in the 'Rights Society' description field of the release

    That's a barcode and other identifier description field and not a format description field.
    http://screencast.com/t/nEpJG04KJ8xX


    Spot on!!
    Format Field and Description Field are in the Format section.
    Rights Society Field is in the BAOI section.
    These are two completely different things.

    So bobbley, you are COMPLETELY WRONG and you should revert your edit, before I or someone else will EI-vote it.

  • _jules over 4 years ago

    http://www.discogs.com/history?release=23191#latest

    LowEnd91 LowEnd91 Staff
    Differences in the BAOI can be explained in the release notes. The free text in the format should not be used for this purpose. Please see RSG §6.1.5
  • JeroenG8 over 4 years ago

    _jules
    http://www.discogs.com/history?release=23191#latest

    LowEnd91 LowEnd91 Staff
    Differences in the BAOI can be explained in the release notes. The free text in the format should not be used for this purpose. Please see RSG §6.1.5


    Then staff-member THE_E.TremontStevieB is wrong and should read their own guidelines once more.
    As helix clearly points out in that submission history:
    Nonsense. 6.1.5 clearly states:
    The Free Text field should be used to describe;
    ● Any significant differentiating factor between releases (for example, sleeve or label color etc)
  • _jules over 4 years ago

    _jules edited over 4 years ago
    For some reason the differentiating factors given as examples are stuff that are not covered in other fields, such as BAOI, there's actually some logic with avoiding to use format FTF to cover things already covered in other fields...

    Seeing there are also tentatives to use the format FT to list manufacturers http://www.discogs.com/history?release=170313#latest , are we also considering listing matrices variants in the FTF to differentiate otherwise similar entries?
  • JeroenG8 over 4 years ago

    _jules
    Are we also considering listing matrices variants in the FTF to differentiate otherwise similar entries?


    No, because matrix variants do not warrant a seperate submission, they are entered in the same submission as variants.
    Unless ofcourse there is a different manufacturer in the matrix, then we enter it as a seperate submission with a different manufacturer.... and then indeed the manufacturer can be entered in the FTF if you like.
  • avalon67 over 4 years ago

    As a quick (related) aside, what is the correct FTF term for a non-gatefold sleeve, when the norm is gatefold?

    Thanks
  • SeRKeT over 4 years ago

    avalon67
    As a quick (related) aside, what is the correct FTF term for a non-gatefold sleeve, when the norm is gatefold?


    good question, at minimum the fact needs to be in notes to stop it being malformed into a gatefold version, i have a non-gatefold issue of the doors - morrison hotel, an album that most issues were gatefold, however trying to find it here now on discogs is hard
    http://www.discogs.com/Doors-Morrison-Hotel/master/45415
    good luck :)
  • Eviltoastman over 4 years ago

    avalon67
    As a quick (related) aside, what is the correct FTF term for a non-gatefold sleeve, when the norm is gatefold?

    There is no term. You#d be trying to describe the absense of a value. Just mention in the notes that it does not have a gatefold sleeve or that others have a gatefold sleeve. The differentiating factor then is added to the release which do have a gatefold sleeve. We discussed this in some depth about 18 to 24 months ago. It;s the same reason that "No Sabam" does not belong in the ftf but "Sabam" would. We do not describe what something doesn;t have in that field, we describe the positive not negative attributes.

    Some reading and a comment from management saying no to "non-gatefold" or similar in the ftf:
    http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/521516889469733cfcfb1a2e#521516889469733cfcfb1a02
  • avalon67 over 4 years ago

    Thanks for that ^^

    For some reason the discussions I've noticed say that we don't put 'gatefold' in FTF if that's the norm, but there it is in b/w from nik. We do
  • 7_Sea_Cods over 4 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    We discussed this in some depth about 18 to 24 months ago. It;s the same reason that "No Sabam" does not belong in the ftf but "Sabam" would. We do not describe what something doesn;t have in that field, we describe the positive not negative attributes.


    Would it be possible to point me to this discussion? (I actually think "No sabam on label" would be valid based on the fact that it's a significant differentiating factor from the other entry.)

    helix
    The FTF should be as compact as possible. Sentences belong in the notes.


    I don't think cutting "on label" from "Sabam on label" is really accomplishing anything except making the contents of the FTF slightly less clear. "Sabam on label" is not a (complete) sentence and is already compact.
  • Staff 56

    THE_E.TremontStevieB over 4 years ago

    Sorry if my previous statement was not clear enough. I've discussed this issue with other staff members, and we agree that if information belongs in other fields, BAOI included, it shouldn't be entered in the FTF. Again, the release notes are a great place for noting differences to quickly distinguish between versions.
  • 7_Sea_Cods over 4 years ago

    Huh. Well that's a surprise. I guess you can ignore my post above since it looks like it's irrelevant.
  • loukash over 4 years ago

    THE_E.TremontStevieB
    if information belongs in other fields, BAOI included, it shouldn't be entered in the FTF

    Sanity prevails. Hooray. :)
  • bobbley over 4 years ago

    ...I await your apologies....
  • 7_Sea_Cods over 4 years ago

    bobbley
    ...I await your apologies....


    Haha, OK. I mean, I'm not waiting for anyone on Discogs staff to apologize for doing a 180 on this, who cares? I'll just incorporate it into how I input data and move along.
  • bobbley over 4 years ago

    THE_E.TremontStevieB
    The free text field should not be used to describe things that are already in the Format or Description fields


    Eviltoastman
    (Rights Society is)...not a format description field


    I interpretted THE_E.TremontStevieB's response that it was...correctly, it seems

  • bobbley over 4 years ago

    7_Sea_Cods you should see the history of the release I altered, JereonG8 had a right go at me despite the 'ruling' from staff that I based my edit upon...
  • 7_Sea_Cods over 4 years ago

    bobbley
    I interpretted LowEnd91's response that it was...correctly, it seems


    BaOI fields are not format or description fields. LowEnd91 simply said two different things at different times. Which is fine, I suppose, they make the rules, we gotta follow em.
  • Eviltoastman over 4 years ago

    Eviltoastman edited over 4 years ago
    THE_E.TremontStevieB
    Sorry if my previous statement was not clear enough. I've discussed this issue with other staff members, and we agree that if information belongs in other fields, BAOI included, it shouldn't be entered in the FTF. Again, the release notes are a great place for noting differences to quickly distinguish between versions.


    So the previous decision linked here is incorrect and hundreds of edits made based on that advice needs to be reverted? CT is in the Matrix field after all (read the full thread I linked to). Did the other staff include the database manager? At the moment I'm more inclined to follow his advice and would advise all others to as well. The guidelines and the database manager seem at odds with you and your other colleagues Aaron. If we accept what you wrote as the correct way forward and ignore the guidelines and ignore database manager, hundreds of previously correct edits which followed Nik's advice would need to be reversed.
  • bobbley over 4 years ago

    bobbley edited over 4 years ago
    nik
    nik about 1 year 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.

    Eviltoastman
    So the previous decision linked here(above) is incorrect

    ...if it's in a description field of one release, be it format, baoi, lccn, and not in the other, then they are the distinguishing features ie obvious and therefore FTF should not contain dupe info.
    If two releases are exactly the same, then the FTF should be used...is my interpretation
  • Willow.the.Wisp over 4 years ago

  • Eviltoastman over 4 years ago

    bobbley
    but if it's in a description field of one release, be it format, baoi, lccn, and not in the other, then they are the distinguishing features ie obvious and therefore FTF should not contain dupe info.

    The case we were discussing was regarding matrix information from the matrix field. So you're way off and Aaron hascontradicted Nik's previous instruction. Since the guideline is still backing up what nik said and nik is Aaron;s manager, I would undo your last edit on that sub before it;s correctly EI'd.
  • 7_Sea_Cods over 4 years ago

    bobbley
    but if it's in a description field of one release, be it format, baoi, lccn, and not in the other, then they are the distinguishing features ie obvious and therefore FTF should not contain dupe info.
    If two releases are exactly the same, then the FTF should be used.
    Is my interpretation


    I don't know if your interpretation is correct or helpful here. If two releases are exactly the same, they should not be two releases -- they should be merged. That is the definition of "exactly the same" and applying any other definition is a personal standard that at least I for one don't understand.

    Furthermore, the "Description" field refers to a specific field, it's not a set of fields that includes Format, BaOI, and LCCN.

    This is already confusing enough with a Discogs staff member posting here either completely reversing the past decisions of the database manager or completely misinterpreting what's actually written in the guidelines.
  • _jules over 4 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    hundreds of previously correct edits

    Really? From my experience, having a pretty large collection with an average of a dozen of items updated daily, I've only witnessed those "bizarre" updates pretty recently, seems to me like a trend followed by users eager to push the enveloppe as far as it can go, rather than something widely accepted. I would guess this very thread confirms this too.
  • Eviltoastman over 4 years ago

    7_Sea_Cods
    Furthermore, the "Description" field refers to a specific field, it's not a set of fields that includes Format, BaOI, and LCCN.

    Precisely, Aaron has taken 6.1.5 and changed what "description field" to mean "any field" which is completely out of its context... the description field in the format section...hint: the guideline is in the format section. The only other description field is the baoi description field, which you don;t entere found data into, you add data locations there.
  • Willow.the.Wisp over 4 years ago

    _jules
    From my experience, having a pretty large collection with an average of a dozen of items updated daily, I've only witnessed those "bizarre" updates pretty recently, seems to me like a trend followed by users eager to push the enveloppe as far as it can go, rather than something widely accepted. I would guess this very thread confirms this too.
    jp ... I share your POV completly.
  • bobbley over 4 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    7_Sea_Cods
    Furthermore, the "Description" field refers to a specific field, it's not a set of fields that includes Format, BaOI, and LCCN.

    Eviltoastman
    Precisely

    I will accept if this is correct and Aaron is wrong. I'm just seeing Aaron's POV and along with my interpretation of the guidelines am going along with it.
    On the edit page of a release you have 'Description' next to the edit boxes...surely that makes the edit boxes 'Description Fields'?

    7_Sea_Cods
    If two releases are exactly the same, they should not be two releases -- they should be merged

    ...apart from distinguishing features, of course, such as diff coloured vinyl, diff sleeve colour, diff colour of print...all of which aren't covered in any of the Description Fields for format, Baoi's. LCCN, etc etc...

  • 7_Sea_Cods over 4 years ago

    _jules
    Eviltoastmanhundreds of previously correct edits
    Really? From my experience, having a pretty large collection with an average of a dozen of items updated daily, I've only witnessed those "bizarre" updates pretty recently, seems to me like a trend followed by users eager to push the enveloppe as far as it can go, rather than something widely accepted. I would guess this very thread confirms this too.


    You can call these edits "bizarre" or not widely accepted, but (at least until a couple days ago) they were correct.
  • 7_Sea_Cods over 4 years ago

    I mean, this should be an easy thing to sort out, right? Information is either eligible for the FTF or it isn't.

    Up until a few days ago (and still actually in the guidelines) the only information not allowed in the FTF was: "things that are already in the Format or Description fields"

    Now a staff member (after discussions w/ other staff members, which I would imagine would include Nik) has posted that information not allowed is: "information [that] belongs in other fields, BAOI included"

    TBH "information [that] belongs in other fields" is a little too open-ended to be helpful here. Technically something like the color of the vinyl "belongs" in the release notes. It would make things easier if someone were to say: "Information that does not belong in the FTF is that which goes in the Format, Format Description, LCCN, or BaOI fields." Bang, problem solved, no more arguments.

    I don't have a stake in whether or not I can add the rights society to the FTF, really -- I would just like to know what is eligible for the field and what isn't, and proceed accordingly.
  • Staff 56

    THE_E.TremontStevieB over 4 years ago

    This has been a great discussion thus far, and we do appreciate everyone's input. This is really tough to sort out, as I do see validity on both sides of the debate.

    At the heart of the issue is whether or not non-format related descriptions belong in the Free Text Field of the Format. From the submission form: "Format - This is where we enter the physical details about the release (for example if it's a record or a CD), and other general details...The Free Text field next to the Add description button can be used to denote other features like vinyl color."

    The debate that sparked this conversation revolves around whether or not distinguishing BAOI information should be allowed in the FTF. The FTF falls under the Format. BAOI is not part of a release's format. Previous statements from staff, and even parts of RSG §6.1.5 lends credence that some non-format descriptors are allowed in the FTF. What non-format information should be allowed in the FTF? Should information be repeated across a release's page? And what seems to be the biggest sticking point here: How wide should the net be cast? It's obviously debatable, as we're seeing here, and in other threads, and has not been explicitly agreed upon by the community or defined by staff.

    I fully recognize and appreciate how using the FTF for non-format descriptors can be helpful in differentiating between versions. However, I see this debate continuing ad infinitum, with disagreement after disagreement over what information does or does not belong. Due to this, as there have been many discussions on this issue, and a consensus amongst the community is not really coming about, I'm recommending that, at this time, any information that explicitly belongs in the Artist, Title, LCCN, BAOI, Format, Format Description, Country, Release Date, Tracklist, Credits, Genres, or Styles is best left out of the FTF, while using the Release Notes to note explain any non-obvious differences. I think this is the best way to handle this until there is either a guideline update or explicit definition of what is allowed in the FTF.

    Thanks again, I appreciate everyone's input.
  • bobbley over 4 years ago

    bobbley edited over 4 years ago
    Thank you for that confirmation and clarification.
    Consider this forum bookmarked, saved etc to be quoted for long while to come until the guidelines are tweaked....
  • Willow.the.Wisp over 4 years ago

    bobbley
    Thanks you for that confirmation and clarification.
    Indeed.

    This latest statement also makes clear that this edit here:
    http://www.discogs.com/history?release=23191&diff=51
    was correct.
  • 7_Sea_Cods over 4 years ago

    THE_E.TremontStevieB
    at this time, any information that explicitly belongs in the Artist, Title, LCCN, BAOI, Format, Format Description, Country, Release Date, Tracklist, Credits, Genres, or Styles is best left out of the FTF


    Crystal clear, thanks.
  • Eviltoastman over 4 years ago

    Not quite. The database manager has given a contrary opinion on this. I would be reluctant to ignore the guidelines and the database manager until either the guideline is tweaked or it is confirmed that the database manager is on board with the proposed change in position and the consequences which are the reversal of hundreds of edits based on previous comments from Nik and the loss of important differential information which was very useful in the MR view and of course has lost sight of the reason why nik made that decision which was "We want the site to be easy to use, and the data to be distinguishable." What changed? When did Discogs decide that it no longer want the site to be easy to use? When and why have staff elected not to value distinguishing releases in the MR? have they never gone into an MR dozens and dozens of almost identical albums within it? It seems laughable that since now what were variants are now new submissions, with up to six or seven production plants producing the same album with the same artwork by and large with tiny differences are not clearly marked out in the very page you go to to select or search for the version you have or to search to see if your version needs to be added.

    Other consequences of not using the ftf in such a way is that marketplace sellers with list on incorrect pages. 828 401-2 has 22 different versions on the db. Only some have had the differentiating factors attached to them. I recently bought a copy I did not own, guess what, wrong CD arrived. Why, sellers find it hard picking through all the data. In fact this happened twice with two different versions of 828 401+2 being ordered, neither were the correct or ordered item. (22 of 99 versions in that mr have a cat# of 828 401+2). This is an example of where applyign Nik's earlier logic would help.

    In addition to marketplace finding it hard with so many versions that seem identical on first view, we have the issue with incorrect merges, as the differences whilst listed in the submission are often missed by over zealous merging parties. Diognes has suspended several people who have incorrectly merged items in my collection on at least four occasions over the last six months following a support request. And of course these issue cause more SRs, a greater burden on staff.

    A solution imo is to continue with what nik has already stated. To keep it brief with an explanation on the first line of the release notes to draw attention to the difference. Don;t use it for the absence of something. It should be used for positive not negative attributes. A guideline amendment could solve the issue of people adding negatives (non gatefold, no sabam logo etc).

    I've asked via SR that Nik confirm that he agrees that the staff member above's advice should stand as a present we have contradictory advice and of course it's natural to respect the authority of the database manager over what staff might say.
  • JeroenG8 over 4 years ago

    bobbley
    7_Sea_Cods you should see the history of the release I altered, JereonG8 had a right go at me despite the 'ruling' from staff that I based my edit upon...


    Actually, at the time of writing, that is before the last statement of THE_E.TremontStevieB, I was 100% correct in my comment, which is as a matter of fact still in accordance with the guidelines.
    However, it seemed that management itself has changed their vision about it, so the particular guideline needs updating to
    THE_E.TremontStevieB
    at this time, any information that explicitly belongs in the Artist, Title, LCCN, BAOI, Format, Format Description, Country, Release Date, Tracklist, Credits, Genres, or Styles is best left out of the FTF

    and preferably as fast as possible, to prevent more cases like this.
    As long as the guidelines state the opposite as what management ruled here, people will go on using the guideline as it is written now.

    That said, I am taking my hands off the submission from the opening post now.
    This has taken already much too long and I don't want to put more energy into it.
  • Willow.the.Wisp over 4 years ago


    hmm ... for the record ...

    I was under the impression THE_E.TremontStevieB has confirmed his given advice beforehand with higher mgmt.

    I read his comment here exactly this way.
    http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/53e8e031aba9e80e5eec1d83?page=1#5419c7795e75a73165109cd9
    [time stamp: 17-Sep-14 08:40PM]

    IMO higher mgmt was involved.
    Only this was the reason for my edit here afterwards:
    http://www.discogs.com/history?release=23191&diff=51
    [time stamp: 17-Sep-14 09:06PM]

    hmm ... it would be hard for me if I should any time questioning a repeated advice given by staff members a third or fourth time. I would turn in circles inevitably.
  • Willow.the.Wisp over 4 years ago

    JeroenG8
    This has taken already much too long and I don't want to put more energy into it.
    I appreciate your decision.
  • Eviltoastman over 4 years ago

    Sadly, on four previous occasions Nik has had to come to a thread to advise that staff decisions contrary to his previous ones were incorrect and others were a decision wasn;t in the best interest of the database.

    Some off the top of my head:
    Shaped for square flexi discs.
    Cropping of record face label images so the background is white
    On compact multi disc formats versus expanded.

    As such exploring the issue and asking Nik to make sure when we receive contradictory advice is not only sensible but given the edits that have to be undone, is quite necessary. It won;t end up in circles, it will end when management either confirm or correct the advice given by staff above instead of being blown around this ocean by conflicting winds and accepting it as such.
  • jopla2 over 4 years ago

    jopla2 edited over 4 years ago
    The way I see it, THE_E.TremontStevieB made a mistake by trying to take in too hastily what's been discussed here, which made him not only miss the exact topic but also arrive at a solution which is confusing and IMO incorrect. This he tried to explain away, but the fact is that it's simply a "patch" which causes further problems, the first being that it contradicts with the guidelines. Also, if his decision is kept in force, the result is worse than the starting point. I'm with Eviltoastman that we should wait until we get a satisfactory explanation and ruling from nik.
  • Vinyl.Score over 4 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    Not quite. The database manager has given a contrary opinion on this. I would be reluctant to ignore the guidelines and the database manager until either the guideline is tweaked or it is confirmed that the database manager is on board with the proposed change in position and the consequences which are the reversal of hundreds of edits based on previous comments from Nik and the loss of important differential information which was very useful in the MR view and of course has lost sight of the reason why nik made that decision which was "We want the site to be easy to use, and the data to be distinguishable." What changed? When did Discogs decide that it no longer want the site to be easy to use? When and why have staff elected not to value distinguishing releases in the MR? have they never gone into an MR dozens and dozens of almost identical albums within it? It seems laughable that since now what were variants are now new submissions, with up to six or seven production plants producing the same album with the same artwork by and large with tiny differences are not clearly marked out in the very page you go to to select or search for the version you have or to search to see if your version needs to be added.

    Other consequences of not using the ftf in such a way is that marketplace sellers with list on incorrect pages. 828 401-2 has 22 different versions on the db. Only some have had the differentiating factors attached to them. I recently bought a copy I did not own, guess what, wrong CD arrived. Why, sellers find it hard picking through all the data. In fact this happened twice with two different versions of 828 401+2 being ordered, neither were the correct or ordered item. (22 of 99 versions in that mr have a cat# of 828 401+2). This is an example of where applyign Nik's earlier logic would help.

    In addition to marketplace finding it hard with so many versions that seem identical on first view, we have the issue with incorrect merges, as the differences whilst listed in the submission are often missed by over zealous merging parties. Diognes has suspended several people who have incorrectly merged items in my collection on at least four occasions over the last six months following a support request. And of course these issue cause more SRs, a greater burden on staff.

    A solution imo is to continue with what nik has already stated. To keep it brief with an explanation on the first line of the release notes to draw attention to the difference. Don;t use it for the absence of something. It should be used for positive not negative attributes. A guideline amendment could solve the issue of people adding negatives (non gatefold, no sabam logo etc).


    ^^ This.

    It's a nightmare telling versions apart, something needs to be finalised now!

    I propose a new field, showing in the MR and sortable, called something like "Unique Identifier", with a dropdown menu for type1, type1.1 & a FT descriptor e.g. Label, Text Size : small track titles.

    Also, IMO there should be less subs with more variations in the notes, why do we need/does anybody want? separate subs for minor differences in label fonts for example?
  • Willow.the.Wisp over 4 years ago

    jopla2
    [...] wait until we get a satisfactory explanation [...]
    hmm ... this has been done already IMO.
    here: http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/53e8e031aba9e80e5eec1d83#5419fcb5a86b6d55a485e0bf (in addition to 11.1.1.)
    knock on wood!! - but I wonder what will happen with this database if a certain staff member dies tomorrow by accident. Anarchy?
  • sebfact over 4 years ago

    Vinyl.Score
    It's a nightmare telling versions apart, something needs to be finalised now!
    Absolutely. It's no big deal when you have a handful of releases in the MR only. However, when there 20, 30 or even 50 CDs with same cat#, same country, same date, etc., adding e.g. the plant in the FTF - even with the 3 letter restriction in the MR - is a valuable means for distinction. It facilitates things largely for sellers, buyers, owners, collectors.

    This latest statement is indeed contrary to the previous "ease of use" statements by nik. Generaly, I have the impression that staff decisions are fairly "untuned" nowadays. In another case, one staff member stated that things should be done easy (wide interpretation of the guideline) and only 2 days later, a different staff member argued diametrically opposed (strict interpretation of the guideline - stricter even as stated in the guideline itself).
  • loukash over 4 years ago

    Vinyl.Score
    I propose a new field, showing in the MR and sortable, called something like "Unique Identifier"

    I'm all for this solution, of course.

    (My main point in this thread was that the Format FTF should not be misused as a substitute for that. It's attached to the Format section, thus it should accommodate only data extending the format attributes.)
  • Eviltoastman over 4 years ago

    I am also in favour of the ftf being detached on the submission form but maintaining where it displays in the MR - a superficial decoupling to appease if you will - as it is a truth about the format description options themselves are mostly made up of non-format related options but this matter slides yet a ftf which is meant to allow us a bit of license come sunder great scrutiny. Non format related tags form the majority of the format descriptions and options in that section. Album, single, ep - not format tags. limited edition - not format tag. unofficial - not a format tag, yet these things slide and rightly so and the same really should apply to the ftf, the simple solution nik advised previously was enough.
  • marcelrecords over 4 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    I would be reluctant to ignore the guidelines and the database manager until either the guideline is tweaked or it is confirmed that the database manager is on board with the proposed change in position and the consequences which are the reversal of hundreds of edits based on previous comments from Nik and the loss of important differential information which was very useful in the MR view and of course has lost sight of the reason why nik made that decision which was "We want the site to be easy to use, and the data to be distinguishable."

    ^ expresses my feelings

    Eviltoastman
    A solution imo is to continue with what nik has already stated. To keep it brief with an explanation on the first line of the release notes to draw attention to the difference. Don;t use it for the absence of something. It should be used for positive not negative attributes. A guideline amendment could solve the issue of people adding negatives (non gatefold, no sabam logo etc).

    ^ gets my vote

    Eviltoastman
    I've asked via SR that Nik confirm that he agrees that the staff member above's advice should stand as a present we have contradictory advice and of course it's natural to respect the authority of the database manager over what staff might say.

    ^ awaiting the outcome eagerly

    Vinyl.Score
    I propose a new field, showing in the MR and sortable, called something like "Unique Identifier"

    ^ would be fine, but seems unlikely ever to be implemented
  • brunorepublic over 4 years ago

    Vinyl.Score
    Also, IMO there should be less subs with more variations in the notes, why do we need/does anybody want? separate subs for minor differences in label fonts for example?


    Sometimes these minor differences can indicate the difference between a first pressing and a later repress, or which specific pressing plant was used (important because some are better than others). Just talk to a few Beatles collectors if you need evidence of how important that can be. :)

    Even if the exact meaning of the differences is not immediately determinable, sometimes later on an expert can come along and say one particular sub was pressed by pressing plant X or another was pressed before or after a certain date.

    The only problem I see with a "unique identifier" field is that often these minor changes are incremental (see the Jean-Michel Jarre example earlier in this thread).

  • jopla2 over 4 years ago

    jopla2
    wait until we get a satisfactory explanation

    Willow.the.Wisp
    hmm ... this has been done already IMO.
    here: http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/53e8e031aba9e80e5eec1d83#5419fcb5a86b6d55a485e0bf (in addition to 11.1.1.)

    No, you're referring back to what I called 'simply a "patch" which causes further problems' by the same THE_E.TremontStevieB who here made the first ruling that's causing the problems. I'm wishing for a satisfactory explanation from Nik.

    sebfact
    Generaly, I have the impression that staff decisions are fairly "untuned" nowadays.

    That's exactly my impression as well. It's worrying when you have to consider twice before filing a SR, in case you get a ruling that's clearly based on insufficient investigation to the matter at hand.

    Eviltoastman
    I am also in favour of the ftf being detached on the submission form but maintaining where it displays in the MR - a superficial decoupling to appease if you will - as it is a truth about the format description options themselves are mostly made up of non-format related options but this matter slides yet a ftf which is meant to allow us a bit of license come sunder great scrutiny. Non format related tags form the majority of the format descriptions and options in that section. Album, single, ep - not format tags. limited edition - not format tag. unofficial - not a format tag, yet these things slide and rightly so and the same really should apply to the ftf, the simple solution nik advised previously was enough.

    Agreed 100%.
  • Staff 56

    THE_E.TremontStevieB over 4 years ago

    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.

    Aaron
  • bobbley over 4 years ago

    ...and in the case of the Queen single at the top of this post that I edited after your decision, I need to re-edit and put the reference to 'sabam' back in?
  • Staff 56

    THE_E.TremontStevieB over 4 years ago

    Re-entering the information would be allowed. My apologies.
  • loukash over 4 years ago

    loukash edited over 4 years ago
    [never mind]
  • 7_Sea_Cods over 4 years ago

    In this case:

    kraftberg
    Queen - Somebody To Love FTF - No SABAM On Label
    Queen - Somebody To Love FTF - SABAM On Label


    Where "sabam stereo" is printed on one label, and not printed on the other -- in the interest being in line with this:

    THE_E.TremontStevieB
    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.


    1.) Is this a valid use of the FTF on the first sub: "no sabam stereo on label"

    2.) Is this a valid use of the FTF on the second sub: "sabam stereo on label"

    If "We want the site to be easy to use, and the data to be distinguishable" I don't see the value of removing the entire contents of the first FTF, and the second half of the contents of the second FTF.

    In other words, how does having nothing in the FTF instead of the significant differentiating factor (the fact that there's no "sabam stereo" printed on the label) make the site any easier to use? Similarly, how does removing the location of the significant differentiating factor on the record itself (the fact that it's on the label) make the data more distinguishable?

    If I'm missing a past decision, by all means point it out to me. But otherwise if we're being encouraged to use the FTF to clearly point out the differences between subs, it seems wrong to remove helpful data in the interest of shaving a few characters off.
  • helix over 4 years ago

    THE_E.TremontStevieB
    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.


    THE_E.TremontStevieB

    Joined March 3, 2014
    Releases
    Marketplace
    No seller rating
    No buyer rating
    Contributor Stats
    Rank Points 0

    Another thing you could do is try using the database before quoting guidelines that don't exist.
  • helix over 4 years ago

    More annoying is the sheep like users who follow the ramblings of 'staff' when it's clearly contrary to existing guidelines.

    Why would anyone think that a field designed to differentiate almost identical releases should not be used to differentiate those releases.
  • Amsreddevil over 4 years ago

    7_Sea_Cods
    I'm not waiting for anyone on Discogs staff to apologize for doing a 180 on this, who cares? I'll just incorporate it into how I input data and move along.


    I think a lot of people care. If management can't get on one line about something, how the hell are we supposed to figure things out? Sorry, but this looks like amateur hour, please, can we have involvement of staff that have been here a while and actually know how the database works from an oggers point of view? One month it is this, the next month it is that because staff member decides one thing, and another something else. Really not impressed.
    Willow.the.Wisp
    but I wonder what will happen with this database if a certain staff member dies tomorrow by accident. Anarchy?


    Or less dramatic, if a certain member of staff decided to quit? Probably not much difference, it's been a mess for years now, and is only going to get worse if staff can't get their act together on their end.

    So now 'management' states one thing, will we be having this discussion again in 6 months and they decide something else yet again?

    helix
    Another thing you could do is try using the database

    This. It should be compulsory for all staff members to spend at least a month as an ogger, so they know what the hell we are taking about in the first place. Do they realize all the crap we have to put up with? If it isn't problems with functioning of the site, it is interpretation of guidelines. Think of it this way: if even experienced oggers can't agree, how are those newbies supposed to know how to handle certain parts of the database? If they searched the forums, they would find several decisions made opposing what was said earlier, and not only on this point. 180s by staff have happened a lot in the time I have been on this site.

    I would like to "hear it from the horse's mouth" so to speak, please could nik chip in here?
  • drivebybird over 4 years ago

    helix
    Another thing you could do is try using the database before quoting guidelines that don't exist.


    Our staff create new admin accounts when they join. But the bulk of our staff, THE_E.TremontStevieB included, have years of experience across Discogs ; we focus on this when we look for new staff to join our team. This is just to say that an admin member's stats won't necessarily reflect their full experience on the site.

    Amsreddevil
    Think of it this way: if even experienced oggers can't agree, how are those newbies supposed to know how to handle certain parts of the database? If they searched the forums, they would find several decisions made opposing what was said earlier, and not only on this point. 180s by staff have happened a lot in the time I have been on this site.


    I take your point here very well re: there being confusion with interpretations of guidelines, and I definitely sense the overall frustration throughout this thread, and elsewhere, with sometimes conflicting advice. We're working with nik here to put together a strategy for providing a little more clarity and guidance, as increasing volumes of request for support on database issues mean the CS staff are trying to step in and provide assistance more frequently. Any time there's concern about a staff response, we really appreciate a direct SR or PM first -- we're more than happy to try to provide clarity or perhaps re-communicate an idea when requested.

    We love the passion the community have for accuracy and clarity, and we don't want to get in the way of that. We're here to dialog, mediate, and assist where we can.

    Amsreddevil
    I would like to "hear it from the horse's mouth" so to speak, please could Nik chip in here?


    nik has been notified the community are requesting a response.

  • Amsreddevil over 4 years ago

    drivebybird
    But the bulk of our staff, LowEnd91 included, have years of experience across Discogs


    You wouldn't know it from the way many things have been handled on this site. I know you won't tell us, but would be interested to see the standard of their subs made on those accounts. Can't imagine they were extremely active users as they would have understood our frustrations and handled things completely differently.

    I do think however, that you guys need to work on bettering your internal communication behind the scenes. I have called you out several times on replies to SRs when one staff member states one thing, and the next refutes that, much as seems to happen in the forums. Get on one line BEFORE you communicate with the rest of us, we have enough to deal with as it is.

    Why do we need to keep having these types of conversations with you guys? Not talking about this thread in particular, but in general? Get your house in order, please.

    I have a proposal which might solve all of this, part of it already requested umpteen times:
    Have a menu section in format for standard packaging, AND have a separate choice of field for free text for any other distinguishing features such as RS, distribution code etc, separate from the standard free text field.
  • jopla2 over 4 years ago

    I understand people's frustration of the turns and reversals that have happened during a very short time period, but I'm very happy about the outcome. Common sense prevails and now it's established firmly that FTF is not for format-related data only.
  • Staff 3.1k

    nik over 4 years ago

    nik edited over 4 years ago
    Amsreddevil
    I do think however, that you guys need to work on bettering your internal communication behind the scenes.


    We are all about continual improvement, and we are working on improving this aspect of things for sure.

    Amsreddevil
    Why do we need to keep having these types of conversations with you guys? Not talking about this thread in particular, but in general? Get your house in order, please.


    The guidelines are deep, and being consistent is hard. Heck, I have (rightly) been called out before giving conflicting advice. If that happens with one person, imagine what happens with multiple people, over the space of months or years.

    Amsreddevil
    Get on one line BEFORE you communicate with the rest of us, we have enough to deal with as it is.


    The guidelines are not perfect. They are used by humans, who are not perfect. It is important to accept imperfection in the course of human endeavour, for the sake of productive calm if nothing else.

    We try our best, and to be frank, I am not happy about some of the personal attacks made in the course of this incident, and will be reviewing things over the next day. I would like to request that everyone ensures that their communication is not pejorative, as that helps and solves nothing and just creates bad feeling. This is a community built database of music, it should be fun.
  • bobbley over 4 years ago

    nik
    This is a community built database of music, it should be fun.

    First & foremost

    nik
    I am not happy about some of the personal attacks

    All staff are trying to help us. nik isn't the all-seeing eye, all the time & other staffs' opinions/decisions should be respected, as far as I'm concerned.
  • syke over 4 years ago

    nik
    We try our best


    maybe it's time to invest development time into things that could be useful for all of us? Like a "dev tracker" or a seperate folder that collects management decisions for something through tags added to forum posts. For example:
    A forum post about the free text field would get the Tag "FTF" and that post would then be saved in a folder with all other mangement posts with the tag FTF?

    Maybe that would not be wasted time, like other development projects in the (recent) past...
  • Staff 3.1k

    nik over 4 years ago

    nik edited over 4 years ago
    syke
    maybe it's time to invest development time into things that could be useful for all of us?


    Choosing the best things to focus development on is one of the hardest things to do for any project. "Useful for all of us" is often not the same as "useful for those that are vocal".

    syke
    Maybe that would not be wasted time, like other development projects in the (recent) past...


    Wasted time only in your (and perhaps some other peoples) view, but perhaps not fact. We all can't be the project manager, and there are a lot of complicated decisions to make, many of which only come into focus after in depth research of the numbers. Even then, balancing that against other development projects is really really hard, believe me.

    I understand when people are passionate about a certain point of view, and see a pressing need for some feature or other. But we can't do everything, and sometimes even the smallest change has large impacts or needs a lot of behind the scenes work.

    A wee bit off topic for this thread though...
  • syke over 4 years ago

    nik
    Choosing the best things to focus development on is one of the hardest things to do for any project. "Useful for all of us" is often not the same as "useful for those that are vocal".


    I somewhat doubt that a "database" or a "folder" that collects management decisions is only "useful for those that are vocal". Or are those decisions only applying to "those that are useful"?

    nik
    Wasted time only in your (and perhaps some other peoples) view, but perhaps not fact.


    I'm fairly certain that vinylhub is not a roaring success given the "activity" displayed there (a whopping 20 new additions in the last 3 days and exactly 4 new forum posts in the last 2 weeks)

    nik
    I understand when people are passionate about a certain point of view


    I'm not passionate about anything here at all, I haven't even chimed in the topic itself. Being passionate about discogs is a dying sentiment about longtime users anyway these days.

    nik
    and see a pressing need for some feature or other.


    We do have a pressing need to straighten things like guidelines and management decisions out. Too much is said (by management) on the forums that are de facto guidelines that are nowhere to be found (and please don't tell me the forum search works well, we both no thats not the case).

    nik
    But we can't do everything


    no one is asking you to make wonders happen, so to speak. What some of us would like to see is development not spent on projects like Vinylhub, Filmogs or Gearogs but instead on fixing whats broken here first. (and thats coming from someone who isn't actually opposed to the concept of filmogs or gearogs like others here are. In fact I do like the idea of filmogs to a certain degree and done in the 'right' way)

    nik
    and sometimes even the smallest change has large impacts or needs a lot of behind the scenes work.


    I do appreciate that you guys are putting a lot of work in on the backend of things and I don't doubt that for a minute. imvho it's time better spent to deliver stuff that has been long promised (unification of label and artist profiles; or is long overdue (label name variations).

    nik
    Even then, balancing that against other development projects is really really hard, believe me.


    It is your job and you get paid to do that and to make the tough decisions, I get that and I wouldn't want to do it, to be honest, but on the other hand, you should also take into account that it's got a lot to do with this very site (and the volunteer work done by a lot of people; a couple hundred very dedicated) that you have this job when you are balancing the various projects. But maybe it's my very own opinion that expanding a company should not happen if there are still big lingering problems at the foundation. I don't think it's good policy to more or less abandon one project for the sake of one (or more) others.

    I dunno, but sometimes I really get the feeling that you actively try to push longtime users away (and I've heard similar statements from about a dozen other longtime users in the last 4 or 5 months). Thats worrying, but maybe it's just time to lay off the forums and fixing others crap submissions and simply only mind my own collection here

Log In You must be logged in to post.