• The_Beatles. over 3 years ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    If we can push it, maybe on round 2. For now, I want to get these updated and settled.


    Thanks for the reply re: UK tax codes.
  • vinyljunkie66 over 3 years ago

    isidroco
    Sort order must be same order drop down menu is shown. This could be enforced by system

    I strongly disagree too, for the same reasons as Showbiz_Kid.
    On LP submissions, and not only, runouts are by far the most important identifiers.
    Once again, it would be nice if the BaOI section could be split in two separate ones, one for runouts and matrices, the other for the rest of the identifiers, but it ain't going to happen, at least now.
  • julass over 3 years ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    5.2.a. Barcodes(...)
    Usually, the human readable code will include spaces, dashes, or other characters. These characters only serve to make the barcode easier to read, they are not necessary for computers to parse.


    it should be pointed out to include all those extra characters while entering the printed version as it may be very iportant indicator as mentioned here: https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/750332?page=2#7454925
  • GroovingPict over 3 years ago

    I dont understand why the most "important" field should be at the top; it's not like the BaOI list will be pages long. The entire thing can usually fit inside one screen anyway.

    I find it more practical to put the runout at the bottom for the fact it's the one thing where people might add various variants. By having it at the bottom, adding a new field will naturally append itself to the end without having to drag it anywhere.
  • vinyljunkie66 over 3 years ago

    GroovingPict
    I find it more practical to put the runout at the bottom

    Again, I disagree with this, not only for the aforementioned reasons, but also because:
    1) a lot of the supposed 'variants' are incorrect, typically added by inexperienced users who have little (if any) clue about pressing/mastering variations; many are reverted but some are not – countless releases in database are actually a conglomerate of two or even more different versions;
    2) when someone adds supposed runout variations, you never know if they come from the exact release or from a very similar one – I made this error myself in the past;
    3) for this reason, since unfortunately Discogs will always allow this mess and never forbid the addition of variants, IMHO it would be good instead to keep the original runouts at the top and all the supposed variants at the bottom, well separated from the runouts added by the OS, that are the only ones that are 100% certified to belong to the exact release. Just for the sake of a bit of database accuracy.
  • loukash over 3 years ago

    Why, oh why does this "Sort Order" debate remind me of the Monty Python's movie Life Of Brian…?
  • GroovingPict over 3 years ago

    vinyljunkie66
    GroovingPictI find it more practical to put the runout at the bottom
    Again, I disagree with this, not only for the aforementioned reasons, but also because:
    1) a lot of the supposed 'variants' are incorrect, typically added by inexperienced users who have little (if any) clue about pressing/mastering variations; many are reverted but some are not – countless releases in database are actually a conglomerate of two or even more different versions;
    2) when someone adds supposed runout variations, you never know if they come from the exact release or from a very similar one – I made this error myself in the past;
    3) for this reason, since unfortunately Discogs will always allow this mess and never forbid the addition of variants, IMHO it would be good instead to keep the original runouts at the top and all the supposed variants at the bottom, well separated from the runouts added by the OS, that are the only ones that are 100% certified to belong to the exact release. Just for the sake of a bit of database accuracy.


    Seems a meaningless point since if two or more variants are present, they will have "Variant 1" etc in the description field. Thats hardly a good argument for wanting to keep it at the top in my view.
  • Showbiz_Kid over 3 years ago

    As I said already: the most important identifiers belong at the top of the list - the things that uniquely differentiate a release from others. A barcode is not a unique ID - it belongs to every similar release. Runouts are the opposite. Important things always go at the tops of lists, not the bottom. It’s just common sense.
  • vinyljunkie66 over 3 years ago

    GroovingPict
    Thats hardly a good argument for wanting to keep it at the top in my view.

    Instead, to put them at the bottom only to encourage the addition of supposed variants, that's notoriously just a hotbed of errors, is a good argument? Why should cover defacements like barcodes, label codes etc. stay on top? Very very seldom, if ever, they are a differentiating factor between releases, unlike the runouts.

    Runouts are by far the most important identifiers on any vinyl release (and very often matrices have the same role on CDs) so at least the runouts entered by the OS need to stay on top, as they establish a precise version.

    In my view, for the sake of a bit of database accuracy, the ideal sequence would be:
    · [Runouts/matrices entered by the OS – or by the first user who established a precise version]
    · [Other identifiers]
    · [Variant runouts/matrices]


    This sequence would make a clear distinction between the only couple of runouts that is 100% certified to belong to the exact issue and all the supposed variants, that may or may not.

    GroovingPict
    if two or more variants are present, they will have "Variant 1" etc in the description field

    I know, and this is something I would have fought if I was an active Discogs user when it was decided.
    The runouts entered by the OS are not a 'variant' of anything, they are the only ones that surely belong to the exact issue. But this is another story.
  • tele52 over 3 years ago

    tele52 edited over 3 years ago
    Showbiz_Kid
    On LP submissions, this puts the Barcode - arguably the least essential information - at the top of the list, above matrix and runouts, which are prime identifiers.


    Barcode is great to find release on database, LP or CD, even better than catalog number and less complex and prone to input error than martix/runout. Discogs app more successful feature is the barcode scanner, great to check your collection at record shops. IMHO barcode on top drop menu.
  • velove over 3 years ago

    vinyljunkie66
    In my view, for the sake of a bit of database accuracy, the ideal sequence would be:
    · [Runouts/matrices entered by the OS – or by the first user who established a precise version]
    · [Other identifiers]
    · [Variant runouts/matrices]

    This sequence would make a clear distinction between the only couple of runouts that is 100% certified to belong to the exact issue and all the supposed variants, that may or may not.

    so the first person who adds or uses the copied to draft runout has a 100% guarantee to get it right?
    that's quite far from reality in my experience on discogs.

    all runouts and their variants should stay together

    vinyljunkie66
    Why should cover defacements like barcodes, label codes etc. stay on top? Very very seldom, if ever, they are a differentiating factor between releases, unlike the runouts.

    price codes are more often a differentiating factor between releases then runouts (on certain kinds of releases). it all depends what you are submitting/editing
  • tele52 over 3 years ago

    velove
    price codes are more often a differentiating factor between releases then runouts (on certain kinds of releases). it all depends what you are submitting/editing


    Absolutely, specially in 50s, 60s & 70s Spanish and French records.
  • isidroco over 3 years ago

    Ok, at least there should be a suggested order per media.
    Same with companies, suggested order should be in order of appearance using standard image order (Front, Back, Media, Foldout, Booklet).
  • Vipasser over 3 years ago

    I don't care about any concrete order, but I do agree for a same order for everything, nor depending on the format. I would like automatic Discogs order as credits section.
    to make it easier and faster, and to avoid edits to change only order,

    I really don't see how important is to have a Label Code first or a Runout Code first.

    this :

    loukash
    "Sort Order" debate remind me of the Monty Python's movie Life Of Brian
  • _jules over 3 years ago

    As above.

    Anyways, seems pretty obvious the solution is not "I like matrix more, me, I want matrix first on top, me" but a 2-tier BAOIs section:
    One for fixed data, the BAOIs where any and all difference mean a different entry.
    One for variable data, the BAOIs that allows variants.

    So that once the fixed data section, wherever it is, on top, in the middle or slightly intended to the left, is complete and verified users can get busy adding the 20th set of largely unverifiable illegible etchings or too tiny to be sure it's 1 l or I IFPIs.

    Except this solution requires actual developing investment and won't happen.
  • isidroco over 3 years ago

    Don't change variants order (Variant 2 will always be Variant 2), seems obvious but: add Variant 1 to original matrix when adding Variant 2.
  • Diognes_The_Fox over 3 years ago

    BaOI order project is a different thread: https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/392356
  • Diognes_The_Fox over 3 years ago

    Morning everyone.

    I was sick Friday. Getting caught up now.
  • Diognes_The_Fox over 3 years ago

    loukash
    And what do you do if the character is not in a circle but in a square box?


    🄰 is supported by unicode?
  • Diognes_The_Fox over 3 years ago

    Okay, one last bump with updates bolded.

    Diognes_The_Fox
    5.2.a. Barcodes can be sourced from both the barcode text (the numbers printed below the barcode) or by reading the barcode itself with a barcode scanner. If there is a discrepancy between these two sources, both barcode variations can be entered into separate barcode fields.

    Usually, the human readable code will include spaces, dashes, or other characters. These characters only serve to make the barcode easier to read, they are not necessary for computers to parse. Ultimately, the barcode can be entered both ways on the same release, please do not delete one version in favor of the other. When entering as-on-release text barcodes, please add all characters present.

    The 'Description' field can be used to indicate the source of the barcode, for example "Text" (the numbers printed below the barcode) and "Scanned" (when using a barcode scanner to read the code). In the case of multiple barcodes on a release, they can all be entered in separate barcode fields - please use the 'Description' field to provide any further information, if possible.

    5.2.b. Label Code is a four or five digit code prefixed with LC. GVL started on 1st May 1976 to allocate Labelcodes to record companies in order to uniquely identify them. Codes are currently assigned by GVL to companies engaged in music recording that are located in the countries of the EU. Please enter the whole code as it appears on the release including the 'LC' prefix, if present. An example is "LC 0125". Please be careful not confuse this with catalog or matrix numbers.

    5.2.c. Matrix / Run-Out information is often stamped in the run out grooves of records, or in the inner ring of CDs. Vinyl run out etchings can also contain mastering engineer / mastering studio / pressing plant information (often as initials), and extra text. This information can all be added to one 'Matrix number' field.

    Matrix Numbers and other run out information can also be extracted from the whole run out inscription, and added as further 'Matrix Number' fields with descriptions and / or expanded upon in the notes as the submitter sees fit.

    Matrix numbers can also be found printed on the label, often without the stamper version etc, this can be added in a separate field if desired.

    There can be large gaps between different sections of a releases run out inscriptions. Please only use a space to denote such gaps, as using other separators may cause problems for people searching for a specific data string.

    One edition of a release may have many different matrix numbers on individual copies - especially for major label releases. These are considered manufacturing variations for the purposes of cataloguing on Discogs, and not unique releases, so one Discogs 'release' may contain multiple variations in matrix numbers etc. For smaller releases, or in special cases, the matrix variation may indicate a unique release / edition, so please ask in the Database Forum Topic if in doubt.

    5.2.d. SID codes (Source Identification Codes) were gradually introduced in September 1994 by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) in order to help combat piracy. The mastering SID code is usually found in the matrix area/mirror band of a CD. The mould SID code is usually found in the mould/hub of a CD molded into the plastic of the disc.

    The mastering SID code identifies the machinery used to make the glass master. The mould SID code identifies the plant where the CD was pressed. SID codes should not be used to identify manufacturing plants or glass mastering facilities however as the codes may transfer from owner to owner of the equipment and/or pressplant.

    A SID Code consists of the letters IFPI, followed by either four or five additional characters, which may be alphabetical or numerical. A mastering SID code must always start with the letter 'L'. A mould SID code can start with any letter apart from "I", "O", "S" and "Q".

    Though untypical, some releases may have the SID codes repeated in the matrix string itself. Rarer still, a release may sometimes have more than one mould SID code. Further details about SID codes and their implementation can be found here:
    http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/sid-code-implementation-guide.pdf

    A release with SID codes cannot have been made before September 1994. If the date cannot be established with a citation or an adequate explanation, the date should be left blank.

    When entering SID codes, please do not transcribe the logo as iƒpi. Lowercase ifpi should be used instead.

    5.2.e. Pressing Plant ID is an identifier code printed on the release which identifies the pressing plant it was pressed at.

    5.2.f. Distribution Code is a certain kind of code which appears on releases in addition to one or more obvious catalog numbers. Please only use where the nature has been confirmed and do not confuse with the more frequent Price Codes.

    5.2.g. Price Code is an identifier assigned to determine the price of an audio carrier. Price codes can appear in various kinds, e.g. two letters and three digits (BA100, PM 500), circled letters (Ⓐ or Ⓦ), as "series" (Serie Azul, Série Artistique), 1 or 2 letters (M, AC), 2 or more digits, often after a dash (-213, 0812), etc.

    5.2.h. SPARS Code is a three letter code developed by the Society Of Professional Audio Recording Services (SPARS) that appears on compact discs and records.

    5.2.i. Depósito Legal or Legal Deposit is a code assigned by a government's copyright office or central library.

    5.2.j. ASIN is the Amazon Standard Identification Number. This is a unique identification number assigned by Amazon.com and its partners for product identification within the Amazon.com organization. Please provide submission notes that point to the relevant release on Amazon. This number should only be applied to releases manufactured by Amazon (CD-Rs), physical releases exclusive to Amazon, and digital files sold by Amazon.

    5.2.k. ISRC or International Standard Recording Code. As these apply to individual tracks, please use the description field to note which position it applies to. These should only be added when they are printed on the physical release or can be extracted from the release via software. Please do not add these from internet sources.

    5.2.l. Rights Society is an association that administers the rights to the artists recorded work, such as collecting royalties for radio and TV usage etc. A list of them are on our country guideline page. An example is "ASCAP"

    5.2.m. The 'Other' field can be used for any other identifying number or code on the release.

    5.3.This section has been merged into 5.2.d

    5.4.This section has been merged into 5.2.c

    5.5.This section has been merged into 5.2.j

    5.6.This section has been merged into 5.2.l

    5.7.This section has been merged into 5.2.b

    5.8.This section has been merged into 5.2.m
  • GroovingPict over 3 years ago

    The point

    loukash
    The code is not the Unicode character "Circled Latin Capital Letter A"


    is a silly one to make anyway. Of course the character on the record isnt a Unicode character: Unicode likely didnt exist (depending on when the release is from), and even if it did, it is an encoding system for characters on a computer. So that argument makes no sense in any case.

    Unicode, just like all character encoding systems, is a way to represent a set of characters on a computer. If a circled capital A exists in that set, and a circled capital A appears on a release, why on earth not use it? Why go the more cumbersome route of having to add "the A is circled" in the description field, when you can just use the character. Certainly if the way a character appears on a release is not represented in Unicode, then we have to go the cumbersome route of adding a descriptor instead. But why impose that when it is not necessary. Yes this whole discussion is starting to look Pythonesque as you suggested...
  • loukash over 3 years ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    🄰 is supported by unicode?

    GroovingPict
    If a circled capital A exists in that set, and a circled capital A appears on a release, why on earth not use it?

    Because consistent syntax is what each and every database desperately needs. Discogs first and foremost.

    Much like:
    RSG §5.2.d. […] When entering SID codes, please do not transcribe the logo as iƒpi. Lowercase ifpi should be used instead.


    Or barcodes:
    ❘❚❘❘ ❘❘❚ ❚❘❘ ❘❘❚❘ ❚❘❚❘

    In other words:
    Some "designed" special characters might be available on certain computer systems, others not.
    Some users know how to find and type those, others don't.

    Since we're discussing secondary design elements of a code here, the only fully consistent syntax is to reduce the code to the actual ASCII characters (as in fact originally intended), and optionally note any decorative elements in the description field.
    Also, likely in most cases there will be images that would show any decoration.
  • 4theLuvOvMusic over 3 years ago

    so using ¤ to represent a circle with 4 points like is suggest here https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/759072 , is this falling under this same ideas?
  • Showbiz_Kid over 3 years ago

    For 5.2b, I continually see people entering the matrix codes printed on labels using the "Label Code" field. Obviously they don't understand, but suggest slight wording changes in the text to clarify - my changes bolded below:

    Diognes_The_Fox
    5.2.b. Label Code is a four or five digit code currently assigned by GVL which appears on music recordings manufactured in the countries of the EU, and prefixed with the letters "LC". GVL started on 1st May 1976 to allocate Label codes to record companies in order to uniquely identify them. Please enter the whole code as it appears on the release including the 'LC' prefix, if present. An example is "LC 0125". Please be careful not confuse this with catalog or matrix numbers.

    It may seem I'm splitting hairs or being the Grammar Nazi, but I think that this clarification will help newbies and casual readers better understand the use of the field.

    Thanks for your consideration.
  • tele52 over 3 years ago

    Showbiz_Kid
    I continually see people entering the matrix codes printed on labels using the "Label Code" field.


    This week I fixed about 20 or more

    Showbiz_Kid
    I think that this clarification will help newbies and casual readers better understand the use of the field.


    Yeah, that's the way guidelines should be written....thinking on a 8 years old kid ;-)
  • Rhineheart over 3 years ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    5.2.i. Depósito Legal

    Diognes_The_Fox
    5.2.k. ISRC

    Do we add these including the prefix ("D.L.", "Dep. Leg.", "ISRC", etc.) like we do with label codes ("LC", "l.c.") and SID codes ("IFPI", "ifpi"), or without?

    (I've asked that before but haven't seen an answer. Your latest draft is still unclear about it.)
  • tele52 over 3 years ago

    ^^ About Depósito legal,
    IMHO it is not so necessary than in label code. Label code without LC as prefix could be confused with cat# easilly. Depósito legal has it's own region prefix with 1 or 2 letters, and a sufix with the year with 2 or 4 numbers.
    "D.L.", "Dep. Leg." or other language variation (Galician, Catalan, Basque) IMHO should be added on description field.
  • lbamaral over 3 years ago

    tele52
    Yeah, that's the way guidelines should be written....thinking on a 8 years old kid ;-)

    Maybe you're being too optimistic ... Most people who credit matrix numbers - or any other number found on the center labels - are not even curious that an 8-year-old would have to at least find out what 'Label Code' means.

    tele52
    This week I fixed about 20 or more

    Drying ice ;-)
  • tele52 over 3 years ago

    lbamaral
    are not even curious that an 8-year-old would have to at least find out what 'Label Code' means.


    :-D
  • isidroco over 3 years ago

    Adding AAD, ADD, DDD as Spars Code examples would help a newbie (or non english speakers) to quickly understand what that means. Other examples on the rest of the fields would be helpful.
  • Diognes_The_Fox over 3 years ago

    https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/356624?page=2#7532414

    Okay! Round one complete!

    What needs to be amended?
  • aburkhart over 3 years ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    What needs to be amended?


    Typos in 5.2.l., country has two c's, need a comma after "TV usage", and you need a period after "ASCAP".

    Comments for:

    "5.2.e. Pressing Plant ID is an identifier code printed on the release which identifies the pressing plant it was pressed at. If a full plant name is used, it should be added to the LCCN section instead."

    Use Pressing Plant ID or LCCN, but not both? My argument for using both is so that it can help newer users to see the relationship of the code to the actual pressing plant. One without the other would mean that a user would need to search for the meaning of the code, if not present elsewhere on the submission.
  • tele52 over 3 years ago

    tele52 edited over 3 years ago
    ^^ Agree to add on both
  • strummin over 3 years ago

    "GVL started on 1st May 1976 to allocate Labelcodes to record companies in order to uniquely identify them."

    GVL started to allocate Labelcodes to labels, not to record companies. Hence the name. The purpose was to uniquely identify labels, as this was notoriously difficult by other means.
  • mcr1 over 3 years ago

    aburkhart
    Use Pressing Plant ID or LCCN, but not both?


    I'd say both, just as we have matrix info in BAOI and link the companies derived from that info in LCCN.
  • Showbiz_Kid over 3 years ago

    aburkhart
    Use Pressing Plant ID or LCCN, but not both? My argument for using both

    Completely agree.

    mcr1
    I'd say both, just as we have matrix info in BAOI and link the companies derived from that info in LCCN.

    Yep.
  • mikeyman66 over 3 years ago

    aburkhart
    "5.2.e. Pressing Plant ID is an identifier code printed on the release which identifies the pressing plant it was pressed at. If a full plant name is used, it should be added to the LCCN section instead."

    U̶s̶e̶ ̶P̶r̶e̶s̶s̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶P̶l̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶I̶D̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶L̶C̶C̶N̶,̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶b̶o̶t̶h̶?̶ My argument for using both is so that it can help newer users to see the relationship of the code to the actual pressing plant. One without the other would mean that a user would need to search for the meaning of the code, if not present elsewhere on the submission.


    tele52
    ^^ Agree to add on both


    mcr1
    I'd say both, just as we have matrix info in BAOI and link the companies derived from that info in LCCN.


    Showbiz_Kid
    Yep.


    +1 -> I'd agree and have to say to use both baOi & lccn for detailed Plant Identification i.e. [Sonopress Arvato (logo)]
  • mikeyman66 over 3 years ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/356624?page=2#7532414

    Okay! Round one complete!

    What needs to be amended?


    mikeyman66
    +1 -> I'd agree and have to say to use both baOi & lccn for detailed Plant Identification i.e. [Sonopress Arvato (logo)]
  • mikeyman66 over 3 years ago

    aburkhart
    U̶s̶e̶ ̶P̶r̶e̶s̶s̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶P̶l̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶I̶D̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶L̶C̶C̶N̶,̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶b̶o̶t̶h̶?̶
  • mikeyman66 over 3 years ago

    mikeyman66 edited over 3 years ago
    mikeyman66
    Diognes_The_Fox
    https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/356624?page=2#7532414
    What needs to be amended?


    aburkhart
    "5.2.e. Pressing Plant ID is an identifier code printed on the release which identifies the pressing plant it was pressed at. If a full plant name is used, it should be added to the LCCN section instead."


    TO

    "5.2.e. Pressing Plant ID is an identifier code, actual company name or logo printed on the release which identifies the pressing plant it was pressed at.
    I̶f̶ ̶a̶ ̶f̶u̶l̶l̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶n̶a̶m̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶d̶,̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶a̶d̶d̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶L̶C̶C̶N̶ ̶s̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶i̶n̶s̶t̶e̶a̶d̶."
  • tele52 over 3 years ago

    ^^^^^ agree
  • MusicNutter over 3 years ago

    Looks good. Where do we stand on a Distribution Code/Price Code

    ie here https://www.discogs.com/Clannad-Magical-Ring/release/3311335
  • lbamaral over 3 years ago

    lbamaral
    Diognes_The_Fox5.2.e. Pressing Plant ID is an identifier code printed on the release which identifies the pressing plant it was pressed at.

    Only applicable to codes shown on center labels or runout area of vinyl releases. Company names or trade names mentioned on CD matrix strings should not be listed on this field.
    Is this what has been understood in previous discussions?


    Diognes_The_Fox
    Agreed. I wouldn't consider those 'codes' by definition.

    So no companies extracted from CD/DVD matrices on BaOI's "Pressing Plant". Ok. Then now

    5.2.e. Pressing Plant ID is an identifier code printed on the release which identifies the pressing plant it was pressed at. If a full plant name is used, it should be added to the LCCN section instead.

    Which re-opened the doors to CDs/DVDs, as suggested in

    mikeyman66
    +1 -> I'd agree and have to say to use both baOi & lccn for detailed Plant Identification i.e. [Sonopress Arvato (logo)]

    I am absolutely confused about this.
  • Juanfraner over 3 years ago

    I'm reading the guidelines changelog and found this:

    "5.2.e. Pressing Plant ID is an identifier code printed on the release which identifies the pressing plant it was pressed at. If a full plant name is used, it should be added to the LCCN section instead."

    I'm confused. Only printed as in center labels? No runout etchings?
  • elcholopaco over 3 years ago

    mikeyman66
    "5.2.e. Pressing Plant ID is an identifier code, actual company name or logo printed on the release which identifies the pressing plant it was pressed at.
    I̶f̶ ̶a̶ ̶f̶u̶l̶l̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶n̶a̶m̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶d̶,̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶a̶d̶d̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶L̶C̶C̶N̶ ̶s̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶i̶n̶s̶t̶e̶a̶d̶."


    +1 Yo también de acuerdo compadré
  • lbamaral over 3 years ago

    5.2.e. Pressing Plant ID is an identifier code, actual company name or logo presented on the release which identifies the pressing plant it was pressed at.

    In this way, it does not matter where in the release - cover, inlay, center label, runout, matrix string, center hub - or how it is presented - printed, etched, recorded, embossed - it can be used for all identification in all kinds of format on physical media (CDs, DVDs, Vinyl, Cassette).
  • gerjolp over 3 years ago

    GroovingPict
    Unicode, just like all character encoding systems, is a way to represent a set of characters on a computer. If a circled capital A exists in that set, and a circled capital A appears on a release, why on earth not use it? Why go the more cumbersome route of having to add "the A is circled" in the description field, when you can just use the character. Certainly if the way a character appears on a release is not represented in Unicode, then we have to go the cumbersome route of adding a descriptor instead. But why impose that when it is not necessary. Yes this whole discussion is starting to look Pythonesque as you suggested...


    Oh, you are opening a can of worms here!

    The problem is not that for some characters there is not just one variant in Unicode, but there are many. That makes comparing releases programmatically (as people I know do) very difficult without all kinds of workarounds. Just when looking at rights societies I saw that there are many variants for for example ΑΕΠΙ. In the database you will find it in all Greek characters, a mix of Greek and Latin characters, or Latin and Cyrillic. Even for rights society names such as BIEM you will find it in all Greek or all Latin, or a combination, because the characters kind of look the same.

    Or what about spaces or hyphens? Endless fun ;-)
  • mikeyman66 over 3 years ago

    BUMP
    mikeyman66
    Diognes_The_Fox
    https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/356624?page=2#7532414
    What needs to be amended?

    aburkhart
    "5.2.e.
    P̶r̶e̶s̶s̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶P̶l̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶I̶D̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶ ̶i̶d̶e̶n̶t̶i̶f̶i̶e̶r̶ ̶c̶o̶d̶e̶ ̶p̶r̶i̶n̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶l̶e̶a̶s̶e̶ ̶w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ ̶i̶d̶e̶n̶t̶i̶f̶i̶e̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶p̶r̶e̶s̶s̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶w̶a̶s̶ ̶p̶r̶e̶s̶s̶e̶d̶ ̶a̶t̶.̶ ̶I̶f̶ ̶a̶ ̶f̶u̶l̶l̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶n̶a̶m̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶d̶,̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶a̶d̶d̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶L̶C̶C̶N̶ ̶s̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶i̶n̶s̶t̶e̶a̶d̶.̶"̶ ̶

    mikeyman66
    TO

    "5.2.e. Pressing Plant ID is an identifier code, actual company name or logo printed on the release which identifies the pressing plant it was pressed at.

    I̶f̶ ̶a̶ ̶f̶u̶l̶l̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶n̶a̶m̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶d̶,̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶a̶d̶d̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶L̶C̶C̶N̶ ̶s̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶i̶n̶s̶t̶e̶a̶d̶."

    or

    lbamaral
    5.2.e. Pressing Plant ID is an identifier code, actual company name or logo presented on the release which identifies the pressing plant it was pressed at.
    I̶f̶ ̶a̶ ̶f̶u̶l̶l̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶n̶a̶m̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶d̶,̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶a̶d̶d̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶L̶C̶C̶N̶ ̶s̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶i̶n̶s̶t̶e̶a̶d̶."
  • Diognes_The_Fox over 3 years ago

    aburkhart
    "5.2.e. Pressing Plant ID is an identifier code printed on the release which identifies the pressing plant it was pressed at. If a full plant name is used, it should be added to the LCCN section instead."


    Fixed.

    aburkhart
    Use Pressing Plant ID or LCCN, but not both? My argument for using both is so that it can help newer users to see the relationship of the code to the actual pressing plant. One without the other would mean that a user would need to search for the meaning of the code, if not present elsewhere on the submission.


    Fair enough.

    strummin
    GVL started to allocate Labelcodes to labels, not to record companies. Hence the name. The purpose was to uniquely identify labels, as this was notoriously difficult by other means.


    Fixed.

    mikeyman66
    I̶f̶ ̶a̶ ̶f̶u̶l̶l̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶n̶a̶m̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶d̶,̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶a̶d̶d̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶L̶C̶C̶N̶ ̶s̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶i̶n̶s̶t̶e̶a̶d̶."


    Changed to: If known, please also add the pressing plant to the LCCN section as well.

    lbamaral
    presented


    Good call.
  • MusicNutter over 3 years ago

    https://www.discogs.com/Clannad-Magical-Ring/release/3311335

    Are these price codes or Distribution ?
  • mikeyman66 over 3 years ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    Changed to: If known, please also add the pressing plant to the LCCN section as well.


    Gratitude... ‘¥’
  • lbamaral over 3 years ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    Changed to: If known, please also add the pressing plant to the LCCN section as well.

    "If known": if a code or a name / brand can accurately indicate the factory where the item was pressed / duplicated, the code must be credited to BaOI and the company / plant must be listed in LCCN. If it is not possible to point exactly the factory where the item was pressed / duplicated, only the code must be credited in BaOI, without the name / brand being connected in LCCN. This should avoid giving the credit of manufacturing to a brand / entity, such as Sonopress or NovoDisc, companies that have factories scattered in several countries and none of them can be pointed as the manufacturer. Very different from, for example, "PR" printed on an Atlantic label, which can only point to Presswell Records Manufacturing Company, Ancora, NJ.
    Did I understood correctly the meaning of the expression?
  • Showbiz_Kid over 3 years ago

    lbamaral
    Very different from, for example, "PR" printed on an Atlantic label, which can only point to Presswell Records Manufacturing Company, Ancora, NJ.

    Not altogether true in this case either, as the US record clubs, like Columbia House or Record Club of America, were supplied label typesetting films from Specialty or Presswell for their label printing. In this case, the label might indicate a Specialty pressing, while the runouts actually show a Columbia, Terre Haute press.

    This is why it is vital to completely document releases - not just enter the information one has time for at the moment :)
  • Madturtle3 over 3 years ago

    Am I correct in thinking that Pressing Plant IDs can not be found in matrix hub area of CDs and in Runout of LPs?
    https://www.discogs.com/submissions?mode=saved#mode=saved&item=%2Frelease%2F1275281-Im-Not-Dead%2Fhistory
  • lbamaral over 3 years ago

    Madturtle3
    Am I correct in thinking that Pressing Plant IDs can not be found in matrix hub area of CDs and in Runout of LPs?

    No, the new wording of RSG §5.2.e allows it clearly. What should not be done is to extract company names from SID codes, see RSG §5.2.d "SID codes should not be used to identify manufacturing plants or glass mastering facilities..."
  • mikeyman66 over 3 years ago

    mikeyman66 edited over 3 years ago
    lbamaral
    Madturtle3
    Am I correct in thinking that Pressing Plant IDs can not be found in matrix hub area of CDs and in Runout of LPs?


    lbamaral
    No, the new wording of RSG §5.2.e allows it clearly.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    lbamaral
    5.2.e. Pressing Plant ID is an identifier code, actual company name or logo presented on the release which identifies the pressing plant it was pressed at.
    I̶f̶ ̶a̶ ̶f̶u̶l̶l̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶n̶a̶m̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶d̶,̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶a̶d̶d̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶L̶C̶C̶N̶ ̶s̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶i̶n̶s̶t̶e̶a̶d̶."\
    Diognes_The_Fox
    Changed to: If known, please also add the pressing plant to the LCCN section as well.
    Referring to the 1st mention of Pressing Plant in matrix.

    MusicNutter
    Looks good.


    tele52
    ^^^^^ agree


    +1 Agreed
  • mikeyman66 over 3 years ago

    lbamaral
    Madturtle3
    Am I correct in thinking that Pressing Plant IDs can not be found in matrix hub area of CDs and in Runout of LPs?


    lbamaral
    No, the new wording of RSG §5.2.e allows it clearly.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    lbamaral
    5.2.e. Pressing Plant ID is an identifier code, actual company name or logo presented on the release which identifies the pressing plant it was pressed at.
    I̶f̶ ̶a̶ ̶f̶u̶l̶l̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶n̶a̶m̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶d̶,̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶a̶d̶d̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶L̶C̶C̶N̶ ̶s̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶i̶n̶s̶t̶e̶a̶d̶."\
    Diognes_The_Fox
    Changed to: If known, please also add the pressing plant to the LCCN section as well.
    Referring to the 1st mention of Pressing Plant in matrix.

    MusicNutter
    Looks good.


    tele52
    ^^^^^ agree


    +1 Agreed
  • mikeyman66 over 3 years ago

    - Apologies for the duplicate post ^^^above^^^

    ‘¥’
  • Madturtle3 over 3 years ago

    Madturtle3 edited over 3 years ago
    lbamaral
    No, the new wording of RSG §5.2.e allows it clearly


    I've not been following this thread and see the guidelines were changed yesterday.

    Observation:

    Ref: RSG §5.2.c. Matrix / Run-Out information is often stamped in the run out grooves of records, or in the inner ring of CDs. Vinyl run out etchings can also contain mastering engineer / mastering studio / pressing plant information (often as initials), and extra text. This information can all be added to one 'Matrix number' field.

    While updating a number of releases recently I've observed that many users break up the matrix string into various components. and enter them separately.

    If a logo or other Pressing Plant ID, SID code, Mastering initial or symbol, etc. is present in the matrix string or runout it is still part of that string or runout and should not be removed and isolated on it's own, even if it is added as a Pressing Plant ID etc on it's own in the BAOI.

    Can we add clarification to 5.2.c that ALL info in the matrix / runout area is to be entered in it's entirety? This gives context to the data.
    Eidit: Edited last sentence for clarity.
  • lbamaral over 3 years ago

    Madturtle3
    Can we add clarification to 5.2.c that ALL info on the area be entered in it's entirety? This gives context to the data.

    The 'extracting' of parts of a same line is allowed at the discretion of the submitter, this is also in the RSG §5.2.c text. I believe that this freedom of choice must be maintained, because in certain cases the full line credit may show unnecessary redundancies (mostly on CD matrix strings), while in other cases the splitting of information in different fields could lead to a profusion of entries as variants that would only cause more confusion and difficulty in reading the information (mostly on vinyl runout etchings).
  • mikeyman66 over 3 years ago

    lbamaral
    The 'extracting' of parts of a same line is allowed at the discretion of the submitter, this is also in the RSG §5.2.c text.


    +1 Agreed
  • elcholopaco over 3 years ago

    lbamaral
    5.2.e. Pressing Plant ID is an identifier code, actual company name or logo presented on the release which identifies the pressing plant it was pressed at.
    I̶f̶ ̶a̶ ̶f̶u̶l̶l̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶n̶a̶m̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶d̶,̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶a̶d̶d̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶L̶C̶C̶N̶ ̶s̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶i̶n̶s̶t̶e̶a̶d̶."\
    Diognes_The_Fox
    Changed to: If known, please also add the pressing plant to the LCCN section as well.
    Referring to the 1st mention of Pressing Plant in matrix.[/quote]
    lbamaral

    The 'extracting' of parts of a same line is allowed at the discretion of the submitter, this is also in the RSG §5.2.c text. I believe that this freedom of choice must be maintained, because in certain cases the full line credit may show unnecessary redundancies (mostly on CD matrix strings), while in other cases the splitting of information in different fields could lead to a profusion of entries as variants that would only cause more confusion and difficulty in reading the information (mostly on vinyl runout etchings).


    elcholopaco
    +1 Yo también de acuerdo compadré
  • Madturtle3 over 3 years ago

    lbamaral
    The 'extracting' of parts of a same line is allowed at the discretion of the submitter,

    I'm in agreement with this.

    But, It should not be removed from the string if it is entered on the release.
    RSG §5.2.c. This information can all be added to one 'Matrix number' field.

    I believe the " Can be " should be changed to " Should be "

    Without images or with poor images it is difficult to try to piece the string back together, not to mention time consuming.
    lbamaral
    in certain cases the full line credit may show unnecessary redundancies

    The full line credit shows where the information came from, allowing it to be analysed, showing where the extracted info came from..
    It is no more redundant that adding clarification in notes to copyrights, publishers etc.
  • lbamaral over 3 years ago

    Madturtle3
    I believe the " Can be " should be changed to " Should be "

    The guidelines in Discogs seem to have been formulated with a spirit of greater freedom to choose if and how a given entry should be made. Maybe there are situations where the option should become mandatory - such as improving the creation of artists and labels - but not this, IMO.
  • Madturtle3 over 3 years ago

    I am not alone in my thinking.
    In the following RSG §5.4. is now RSG §5.2.c. and in the Runout Thread 1) is now 2), but nothing has changed.

    mossinterest
    everything in the runout should be placed in one string for each side, like reading a sentence. This was also the desire and adamantly advised from nik. Oftentimes, the order of the runout scribings are significant. It tells a story. More often Discoggers break it all up in separate fields. I don't understand the logic. But, the BAOI is a free-for-all, with no real guidance, so all can do as they like. When I see a scrambled mess in BAOI I don't even attempt to decipher it.

    berothbr
    Well said mossinterest. I 100% agree with this and just want to echo that RSG §5.4 is often a source of frustration and would be significantly improved if it provided some examples that link to the preferred formatting for the description field.

    berothbr
    one byproduct of RSG §5.4's lack of firm guidance is that the 'how to enter' examples in the runout forum are wildly inconsistent —some prescribe entering the stamps on separate fields, some use numbers to designate the sides, e.g., Side 1, some releases show 'etching' in the description field even though it's really a stamp, and etc. This becomes problematic when there are multiple identifiable etching/stamps in the runouts, e.g., engineer + mastering studio + pressing plant, etc., because the examples are often impossible to reconcile.

    sebfact
    IMHO, § 5.4. is creating inconsistency, states to extract into 1 field, but in the subsequent paragraph allows to do whatever you want. The runout thread though clearly states "1) S, H or HS don't mean to split the runout strings up into stamped or etched parts. It's preferred to leave the runout string in one line."

    CykoMF
    I support consolidating runout strings to a single line.


    (Above quotes from https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/693848#preview )
  • Madturtle3 over 3 years ago

    From another thread:

    CykoMF
    I support consolidating runout strings to a single line. However I sustained some NMC votes from equally passionate but oppositely minded members for having the info listed in 2 places. That's why I move it now.

    There is no written rule and it seems to be another 'might makes right' situation. Some users go even further by listing the plants in the FTF as well.

    The Matrix/Runout field was also intended to cover other formats to like CD's.
    SID codes, IFPI numbers, get their own field and it appears the PP ID tag is headed for that level of usage.

    The current guidelines, as I interpret them, would suggest this information can be placed in both locations and be mentioned in the notes as well.

    Is there a proper thread with detailed discussion on this matter?

    https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/750599
  • cheebacheebakid over 3 years ago

    Madturtle3
    I am not alone in my thinking.
    No you are not, I am also right there with you.
  • Showbiz_Kid over 3 years ago

    Madturtle3
    I support consolidating runout strings to a single line.

    As do I.
  • hafler3o over 3 years ago

    Showbiz_Kid
    Madturtle3I support consolidating runout strings to a single line.
    As do I.


    As do I, plus it should be noted that parts of a matrix string can only be extracted if they exist in a given (written down) matrix string in the first place. 3 unrelated bits of a matrix is no extraction.
  • aburkhart over 3 years ago

    ^^agree as above^^
  • Madturtle3 over 3 years ago

    Madturtle3 edited over 3 years ago
    Here is a good reason why all information in the matrix / runout area should be entered.
    Battered Stuff
    The string has been broken into it's components leaving only a small portion. in the actual matrix field.

    Following the logic of how this was entered:

    If I make an edit to correct the pressing plant, which is identifiable as Sonopress Arvato, USA
    I would correct the current Pressed By to Made by and leave the www.Iloveimprint.com cat.no.
    Add the pressed by credit for Sonopress Arvato, USA and add the cat. no. per profile then remove the info from the matrix field
    This would leave the field as + +
    I would then remove the + + and enter it as the Pressing Plant ID

    This leaves nothing in the matrix.

    There is no image of the matrix and no matrix string or any way for that matter to document the entries.

    Note: In this example it is assumed the entry of the made by cat. number is supported by the profile (which it currently is not) and that the + + is confirmed as a Pressing Plant ID (which needs to be discussed)

    Regarding Pressing Plant IDs
    How do we determine what is and is not an ID. Does it have to be stated on the company profile before it is used?
  • Madturtle3 over 3 years ago

    Edit: Added link to release in previous post. Jeff Dahl - Battered Stuff
  • tele52 over 3 years ago

    ^^^^absolutely agree.
    All information in the matrix / runout area should be entered and then OS or other more experience users can add more data on other fields from matrix/runout.
  • mikeyman66 over 3 years ago

    lbamaralThe 'extracting' of parts of a same line is allowed at the discretion of the submitter, this is also in the RSG §5.2.c text. I believe that this freedom of choice must be maintained, because in certain cases the full line credit may show unnecessary redundancies (mostly on CD matrix strings), while in other cases the splitting of information in different fields could lead to a profusion of entries as variants that would only cause more confusion and difficulty in reading the information (mostly on vinyl runout etchings).

    tele52
    ^^^^absolutely agree.
    All information in the matrix / runout area should be entered and then OS or other more experience users can add more data on other fields from matrix/runout.


    lbamaral
    5.2.e. Pressing Plant ID is an identifier code, actual company name or logo presented on the release which identifies the pressing plant it was pressed at.
    I̶f̶ ̶a̶ ̶f̶u̶l̶l̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶n̶a̶m̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶d̶,̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶a̶d̶d̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶L̶C̶C̶N̶ ̶s̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶i̶n̶s̶t̶e̶a̶d̶."\
    Diognes_The_Fox
    Changed to: If known, please also add the pressing plant to the LCCN section as well.
    Referring to the 1st mention of Pressing Plant in matrix.

    elcholopaco

    +1 Yo también de acuerdo compadré


    +1 Agreed

    ‘¥’
  • CykoMF over 3 years ago

    Extrapolation, sounds good actually, as long as we maintain the actual runouts strings, intact as on release, I support it.
  • svendutchmountains over 3 years ago

    Referring back to the discussion concerning listing all the info of the runouts in vinyl in the 'runout/matrix field...

    What is/should be the correct practise for codes on CD's?

    I've always assumed that in the 'matrix/runout' field you would enter ONLY the actual matrix code as well as a possible logo. Mastering SID codes and Mould SID Codes would ONLY be entered in its respective fields. Mother/stamper codes should be entered in "Other".

    My reasoning has always been that these codes are refer to/are the result of significantly different processes and are not created at the same time of the production process: they are not part of the actual matrix string, so to say.

    However, I've noticed some users have been entering all info into the matrix field: see China Crisis - Autumn In The Neighbourhood as an example.

    What is advisable?

    Pinging LolH for thoughts, comments as well!
  • p.ain over 3 years ago

    svendutchmountains
    However, I've noticed some users have been entering all info into the matrix field:

    sometimes an IFPI code may appear literally in the complete matrix string as seen there.
    IMHO, it is perfectly correct to include it on the matrix field in such cases.
    probably not so if the code appears in the usual tiny way, entirely different than the rest of the matrix.
  • Diognes_The_Fox over 3 years ago

    Madturtle3
    Can we add clarification to 5.2.c that ALL info in the matrix / runout area is to be entered in it's entirety? This gives context to the data.


    At least for vinyl, I think the full string should be added. While specific information can be added to other fields, the context should be preserved.

    I do have some concerns about CD's for stuff like mould SID codes where it's not exactly part of the matrix string, though. Thoughts on that?
  • Madturtle3 over 3 years ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    I do have some concerns about CD's for stuff like mould SID codes where it's not exactly part of the matrix string, though. Thoughts on that?


    If the info is pressed, stamped or moulded into substrate of the disc I would not consider that as part of the string. However, if it is laser etched I would. This includes Master SIDs.
  • Madturtle3 over 3 years ago

    Here is an example of where having all info is pertinent.
    Part of an ongoing discussion on profiles:
    https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/758436?utm_campaign=thread-notify&utm_medium=pm&page=1&utm_source=relationship#7541580
  • handmedownurluv over 3 years ago

    hafler3o
    As do I, plus it should be noted that parts of a matrix string can only be extracted if they exist in a given (written down) matrix string in the first place. 3 unrelated bits of a matrix is no extraction.

    I agree with this.

    Re: the pressing plant ID, I think it's a bad idea to include logos or company names in its definition because they don't necessarily refer to the company that actually pressed the item.
    A logo can refer to the manufacturer/broker or to the record company placing the order for a pressing, while the actual plant may not even be credited. That would only make the data less accurate in the end. See this recent thread where the logo doesn't refer to the actual pressing plant.

    Finally, could users please stop performing updates before the discussion has reached a conclusion? The guidelines haven't been finalized yet, so such edits are just based on personal preference and, basically, wishful thinking. Thanks.
  • mikeyman66 over 3 years ago

    CykoMF
    Extrapolation, sounds good actually

    +1 Agree

    handmedownurluv
    Re: the pressing plant ID, I think it's a bad idea to include logos or company names in its definition because they don't necessarily refer to the company that actually pressed the item.
    A logo can refer to the manufacturer/broker or to the record company placing the order for a pressing, while the actual plant may not even be credited. That would only make the data less accurate in the end

    "I Do Partially Agree" with this statement handmedownurluv. Then that's when what tele52 pointed out below is where it is best for "more experienced users can add more data..."
    tele52
    ^^^^absolutely agree.
    All information in the matrix / runout area should be entered and then OS or other more experience users can add more data on other fields from matrix/runout.


    Whilst I have seen the "Universal (logo)" or the "BMG U.S. Latin (logo)" used, it certainly is not the pressing plant. Unlike the "Specialty Records Corporation (logo)" or "Digital Audio Disc Corp. (logo)". But as tele52 pointed out that's where experience comes in.

    It comes down to "experience & knowledge" over "self promoted common sense". BTW - This is where we all started from. *-)

    ‘¥’
  • GroovingPict over 3 years ago

    GroovingPict edited over 3 years ago
    This will probably be met with opposition, but I want to have it said anyway:

    I would like a change in rules such that, if you do decide to add runout information, you must add the complete information rather than just parts of it. So many users add only the main matrix string even when more information is available in the runout, for example stamper letters/numbers, various symbols, signatures, etc etc. If a user just adds partial information, someone else coming along can never be sure if that is because that little information was actually all there was in the runout, or because they simply didnt bother adding the rest. Which means it can be difficult to determine whether the version you have in your hand is the same as the one already in the database or a unique variant that needs to be its own submission.

    So thats why I want the rule to be, if you decide to add runout information, you must include all of it. And Im sure many people will disagree with that approach, but I wanted to have it said in any case.

    Just to be clear: Im not saying adding runout information should be made mandatory, but rather if you *do* choose to add it, it must be added completely and not partially.
  • mikeyman66 over 3 years ago

    GroovingPict
    Just to be clear: Im not saying adding matrix information should be made mandatory, but rather if you *do* choose to add it, it must be added completely and not partially.


    +1 Agree... Well Said Sir
  • loukash over 3 years ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    5.2.g. Price Code is an identifier assigned to determine the price of an audio carrier. Price codes can appear in various kinds, e.g. two letters and three digits (BA100, PM 500), circled letters (Ⓐ or Ⓦ), as "series" (Serie Azul, Série Artistique), 1 or 2 letters (M, AC), 2 or more digits, often after a dash (-213, 0812), etc.

    Brent, can we please also specifically mention in that guideline that actual printed retail prices are also fine? Otherwise some Overzealot Guideline Disciples will continue to argue that a price is not a literal "price code".
    See also my post https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/693089?page=4#7526547
    Thanks
  • stevefreeman over 3 years ago

    stevefreeman edited over 3 years ago
    loukash
    Brent, can we please also specifically mention in that guideline that actual printed retail prices are also fine?

    + 1
  • Diognes_The_Fox over 3 years ago

    Madturtle3
    If the info is pressed, stamped or moulded into substrate of the disc I would not consider that as part of the string. However, if it is laser etched I would. This includes Master SIDs.


    Okay, I agree. I'd like to potentially open it up for word-smithing because there's going to be slightly different interpretations for vinyl / CD if that's okay?

    GroovingPict
    I would like a change in rules such that, if you do decide to add runout information, you must add the complete information rather than just parts of it. So many users add only the main matrix string even when more information is available in the runout, for example stamper letters/numbers, various symbols, signatures, etc etc. If a user just adds partial information, someone else coming along can never be sure if that is because that little information was actually all there was in the runout, or because they simply didnt bother adding the rest. Which means it can be difficult to determine whether the version you have in your hand is the same as the one already in the database or a unique variant that needs to be its own submission.


    I agree strongly with this. Incomplete runout etchings are a huge pain, but I can also understand stuff being printed too faintly to be noticed or is printed on the opposite end of the runout than the core matrix blob (ex. Pitman p's, Indianapolis I's) getting missed accidentally.

    I think for these cases, it might be worthwhile to consider removing incomplete matrix strings entirely to reduce the potential for DB corruption when the person who adds them isn't able to update?

    loukash
    Brent, can we please also specifically mention in that guideline that actual printed retail prices are also fine? Otherwise some Overzealot Guideline Disciples will continue to argue that a price is not a literal "price code".


    Sure, any suggestions on wording?
  • GroovingPict over 3 years ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    I think for these cases, it might be worthwhile to consider removing incomplete matrix strings entirely to reduce the potential for DB corruption when the person who adds them isn't able to update?


    I agree.

    There are also users who deliberately dont include for example stamper letters/numbers, because they dont see it as important information. Ive even seen one user go out of their way to remove stamper letters from another user's submission because they considered such information "not appropriate or useful". Which boggles the mind. Which is why I hope a rule change as I suggested could at least stop such destructive behaviour in its tracks, and also "force" such users to include that vital information in their own submissions as well. It is one thing to accidentally miss faintly stamped letters/numbers, it is another to deliberately omit them, without any possible recourse because according to current rules that is perfectly OK.
  • The_Beatles. over 3 years ago

    GroovingPict
    So thats why I want the rule to be, if you decide to add runout information, you must include all of it. And Im sure many people will disagree with that approach, but I wanted to have it said in any case.

    Just to be clear: Im not saying adding runout information should be made mandatory, but rather if you *do* choose to add it, it must be added completely and not partially.


    GroovingPict
    it is another to deliberately omit them, without any possible recourse because according to current rules that is perfectly OK.

    While I agree with this in principle how exactly are we going to police this?

    I see a Beatles sub with the runout matrix but no Mothers and Stampers, after requesting from the submitter an update none follows.

    What exactly happens then?
  • GroovingPict over 3 years ago

    The_Beatles.
    I see a Beatles sub with the runout matrix but no Mothers and Stampers, after requesting from the submitter an update none follows.


    Diognes_The_Fox
    I think for these cases, it might be worthwhile to consider removing incomplete matrix strings entirely to reduce the potential for DB corruption when the person who adds them isn't able to update
  • Showbiz_Kid over 3 years ago

    Showbiz_Kid edited over 3 years ago
    Diognes_The_Fox
    I think for these cases, it might be worthwhile to consider removing incomplete matrix strings entirely to reduce the potential for DB corruption when the person who adds them isn't able to update?

    I have already pursued this course of action in several cases where users added "naked" runout matrices to releases with complete runouts, established as having been pressed by an identified presser.

    1 - Ask for a completed runout.
    2 - Allow a week or so.
    3 - Subber completes runout? Great!
    4 - Subber ignores request? Remove.
  • MusicNutter over 3 years ago

    Is the distribution codes on the Clannad submission distribution codes or price codes as im confused
  • svendutchmountains over 3 years ago

    Showbiz_Kid
    Diognes_The_FoxI think for these cases, it might be worthwhile to consider removing incomplete matrix strings entirely to reduce the potential for DB corruption when the person who adds them isn't able to update?
    I have already pursued this course of action in several cases where users added "naked" runout matrices to releases with complete runouts, established as having been pressed by an identified presser.

    1 - As for a completed runout.
    2 - Allow a week or so.
    3 - Subber completes runout? Great!
    4 - Subber ignores request? Remove.


    The problem is (as others have also mentioned) you do not know what you do not know. How do you know the matrix/runout string is incomplete? How do you know whether the user simply omitted something, overlooked something or that it had been worn away and was no longer visible?

    Also - being relatively new to Discogs I have seen people act extremely rude in addressing submissions where something was misspelt. Having been confronted with such behaviour I can imagine a new user would baulk at adding info which is (partially) illegible.

    Removing the information would seem to be the most silly thing to do. I cannot imagine why someone would prefer No information to having INCOMPLETE information.

    The best way around this issue would be to ensure proper training and having the information easily available (with photo's, illustrations etc). It could be preferable to set up a mandatory training if someone wants to start submitting or editing information. Perhaps a process which presents each paragraph of the guidelines to the user which they need to read and agree to before moving onto the next screen. This type of process is used to train people in SOP's at companies everywhere so why not here?
  • Showbiz_Kid over 3 years ago

    svendutchmountains
    Removing the information would seem to be the most silly thing to do. I cannot imagine why someone would prefer No information to having INCOMPLETE information.

    You put words in my mouth. I said that I used this course when users add an incomplete runout to a sub that already has a complete one. I did not say I prefer no information over incomplete information.

    How do you know when a runout is incomplete? I cannot speak for the rest of the world, but WRT American releases, the majors - and some indies - usually had a uniform way of doing things. When you see a Columbia, Capitol or MCA pressing with a runout string entered which lacks a plant code, spotting the omission is simple. MGM, A&M and Stax also had a pretty uniform way of working. This knowledge comes over time.

    Users with knowledge should give new Oggers the chance to learn by engaging them. But some don’t wish to learn and don’t engage. If, when given the chance, a subber will not complete an obviously incomplete runout, it should be stricken. IMO.
  • mikeyman66 over 3 years ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    I think for these cases, it might be worthwhile to consider removing incomplete matrix strings entirely to reduce the potential for DB corruption when the person who adds them isn't able to update?

    GroovingPict
    Just to be clear: Im not saying adding matrix information should be made mandatory, but rather if you *do* choose to add it, it must be added completely and not partially.

    mikeyman66+1 Agree... Well Said Sir
    ‘¥’
  • mikeyman66 over 3 years ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    Okay, I agree. I'd like to potentially open it up for word-smithing because there's going to be slightly different interpretations for vinyl / CD if that's okay?

    elcholopaco

    +1 Yo también de acuerdo compadré.

    lbamaral
    5.2.e. Pressing Plant ID is an identifier code, actual company name or logo presented on the release which identifies the pressing plant it was pressed at.
    I̶f̶ ̶a̶ ̶f̶u̶l̶l̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶n̶a̶m̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶d̶,̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶a̶d̶d̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶L̶C̶C̶N̶ ̶s̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶i̶n̶s̶t̶e̶a̶d̶."\
    Diognes_The_Fox
    Changed to: If known, please also add the pressing plant to the LCCN section as well.
    Referring to the 1st mention of Pressing Plant in matrix. (i.e. James Horner Performed By The London Symphony Orchestra - Braveheart (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) or James Horner Performed By The London Symphony Orchestra - Braveheart (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack))

    mikeyman66+1 Agreed

    ‘¥’
  • mikeyman66 over 3 years ago

    BUMP

    CykoMF
    Extrapolation, sounds good actually

    +1 Agree

    handmedownurluv
    Re: the pressing plant ID, I think it's a bad idea to include logos or company names in its definition because they don't necessarily refer to the company that actually pressed the item.
    A logo can refer to the manufacturer/broker or to the record company placing the order for a pressing, while the actual plant may not even be credited. That would only make the data less accurate in the end

    "I Do Partially Agree" with this statement handmedownurluv. Then that's when what tele52 pointed out below is where it is best for "more experienced users can add more data..."
    tele52
    ^^^^absolutely agree.
    All information in the matrix / runout area should be entered and then OS or other more experience users can add more data on other fields from matrix/runout.


    Whilst I have seen the "Universal (logo)" or the "BMG U.S. Latin (logo)" used, it certainly is not the pressing plant. Unlike the "Specialty Records Corporation (logo)" or "Digital Audio Disc Corp. (logo)". But as tele52 pointed out that's where experience comes in. (i.e. Jennifer Peña / Pilar Montenegro - Juntas Con Sus Exitos or Various - Super Estrellas Del Pop)

    It comes down to "experience & knowledge" over "self promoted common sense". BTW - This is where we all started from. *-)

    ‘¥’
  • mikeyman66 over 3 years ago

    mikeyman66 edited over 3 years ago
    svendutchmountains
    Also - being relatively new to Discogs I have seen people act extremely rude in addressing submissions where something was misspelt. Having been confronted with such behaviour I can imagine a new user would baulk at adding info which is (partially) illegible.


    I also understand and deeply symphasize with the backlash you receive from what is supposed to be a "Fun" & "Entertaining" Past Time.

    Since this is a user built database; it is ashame that sometimes Discogs Leadership needs a soft reminder that all detail information whether from a fresh perspective or not; deserves a respectful Forum. Unfortunately are the recipients of rather compulsive individualistic comments with attempts to taunt and frustrate newbies and others (not part of their clicke) to abandon this database...

    svendutchmountains
    The best way around this issue would be to ensure proper training and having the information easily available (with photo's, illustrations etc). It could be preferable to set up a mandatory training if someone wants to start submitting or editing information. Perhaps a process which presents each paragraph of the guidelines to the user which they need to read and agree to before moving onto the next screen. This type of process is used to train people in SOP's at companies everywhere so why not here?

    +1 ~> I really like your idea you have outlined above from the business model you mention. Coming from that background also I highly agree with this. Whether or not it ever comes to attrition from Discogs Management is another thing. "I truly do understand how you must feel..."

    svendutchmountains
    Removing the information would seem to be the most silly thing to do. I cannot imagine why someone would prefer No information to having INCOMPLETE information.

    This is a double edge sword since for example "Removing Dates" from the back of releases; even though guidelines mention here RSG §8.1.2 & RSG §8.1.3; have become "MASS EDITS" in many circumstances. No "Forum Discussion"; just a blanket copy / paste to dozens of releases and if you try and revert then an immediate "EI Vote" as either a self-vote or a (clicke vote) is the response.

    Diognes_The_Fox has recently on (SR #436182) responded that I include him on this Forum Discussion with hopes of addressing these issues. Fingers Crossed...

    Gratitude,

    ‘¥’

    cc: nik, teo, drivebybird
  • loukash over 3 years ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    any suggestions on wording?

    For example:
    [5.2.g.] […] Actual retail prices (¥2,500 or Kčs 44,—) can be added if printed on cover or on labels.

    The thing e.g. with the Czechoslovak prices vs. price codes is that some release versions actually differ in having either price codes, or retail prices, or both printed on the respective version. E.g. on 7 inches, one pressing has "h" on cover and on labels, another version has "h" on cover but "Kčs 12,-" on labels, whereas a later repress may have "Kčs 12,—" on cover and "Kčs 12,-" on labels (also note the m-dash — vs. hyphen - ).

    It doesn't make sense to tag the price code with "Price Code" and the retail price with "Other", especially if the "Kčs" currency (Czechoslovak Koruna) doesn't even exist anymore. De facto it is already a code.

    ~~~

    Also, I'm still not happy with this:
    Diognes_The_Fox
    circled letters (Ⓐ or Ⓦ)

    My argument still stands:
    Some characters can be displayed using Unicode, others cannot.

    For data consistency, transcribing decorative elements such as boxes (that includes circles, too!) should be avoided.

    In the past few days I've already witnessed several edits to my old contributions, with rank hunters attempting to "fix" things that don't need any fixing at all, by changing e.g. my "Other (Price code, circled): J" into "Price Code: Ⓙ".

    It's the "J" character that defines the code. The surroundig box is just a design element, to find it more quickly on the cover. Some boxes are square, others are round, others are rounded, others have dividers in the middle. On the other hand, some codes may have two or more characters while they appear in exactly the same boxes like the one-character codes, too.
    This all results in a Unicode data mess for the sake of the "as on release" mantra.
  • GroovingPict over 3 years ago

    svendutchmountains
    The problem is (as others have also mentioned) you do not know what you do not know. How do you know the matrix/runout string is incomplete?


    There are many cases where one would know if something was incomplete. Anything pressed by EMI/The Gramophone Company in the UK before the late 70s (all the way back to the 20s I think, or at least the 30s) *will* have stamper letter(s) and mother number(s). Same with Decca's UK pressings. When a UK HMV/Columbia/Harvest/any other EMI label submission is missing such information, you can know it is incomplete.

    svendutchmountains
    I cannot imagine why someone would prefer No information to having INCOMPLETE information.


    Incomplete is one way to describe it, another way to describe it is wrong. If you want to detail the runout information of a release in order to distinguish it from other versions, then an incomplete string is worse than no string at all. Maybe one version does have less information than the other (for example maybe one has a signature by a mastering engineer while the other doesnt, or any other such difference). If something is illegible, then there is submission notes or description field to detail that, for example "there is also a signature on each side in the runout, but I cannot make out what it says" or "there are also additional letters in the 3 o'clock position in the runout, but it is too faint for me to see which letters they are supposed to be". A much better approach than "meh, I cant make out what it says so Ill just not mention anything about it at all".

Log In You must be logged in to post.