• venetian-guy 7 days ago

    venetian-guy edited 7 days ago
    Diognes_The_Fox, nik, andygrayrecords, Mr.Slut, stevefreeman, Myriad, sebfact

    If a label is present in LCCN more times, the system recognises only the one on top and if this one has not a cat.# then all cat.# for the same label listed below will be useless.
    Are we working for database or for our own ideas?

    Lacquer Cut At is usually submitted in LCCN by vinyl enthusiasts on top than Pressed By or Manufactured By.
    I understand the sense of this behaviour but it's negative for database.

    Recently I had some experiences of EI votes, e.g.:
    https://www.discogs.com/release/5088716-Warm/history?utm_campaign=submission-activity&utm_medium=pm&utm_source=relationship#latest
    https://www.discogs.com/release/8550406-Death-And-Vanilla/history?utm_campaign=submission-activity&utm_medium=pm&utm_source=relationship#latest

    I've switched in LCCN not for personal preferences but to allow releases appear in correct cat.# sequence in label's list of releases.

    There are lots of submitted releases in this situation.
    I think something should be done for the sake of the database.

    Opinions are welcome.
  • andygrayrecords 7 days ago

    venetian-guy
    Lacquer Cut At is usually submitted by vinyl enthusiasts on top than Pressed By or Manufactured By.
    I understand the sense of this behaviour but it's negative for database.


    Don't know about others, but those entries are the last things I add to a submission.
    I'm quite boring (methodical) in the way that I work..starting with the cover, inner sleeve, labels and then the runouts.
  • venetian-guy 7 days ago

    andygrayrecords
    I'm quite boring (methodical) in the way that I work.


    I only ask your opinion about introducing something in rules about Lacquer Cut At submitting position in LCCN.
  • _jules 7 days ago

    venetian-guy
    Amsreddevil,


    Fyi, this account has been banned from the database for a couple years.

    venetian-guy
    I've switched in LCCN not for personal preferences but to allow releases appear in correct cat.# sequence in label's list of releases.


    That's perhaps something you want to explain precisely when doing such updates? "LCCN switch for database" is a bit short, really.
    Also, aren't those part of a mass updates campaign? How many of your 21k pendings are similar LCCN fix / LCCN update / LCCN switch?

    venetian-guy
    I think something should be done


    Indeed. Here's a suggestion: How about opening a thread BEFORE doing those updates?
    I'm gonna go on a mass update campaign switching LCCN so that the plant job# gets listed on the manufacturer page instead of the release cat#. What do you guys think?
    And then linking to that thread once you get a couple LCCN switching enthusiasts' +1s.
  • venetian-guy 7 days ago

    _jules
    "LCCN switch for database" is a bit short, really.


    I've made 5-6 switches just for testing.
    Some smart guys easily understood.
    Unfortunately other guys are too touchy and leave EI vote without asking for explanations.
  • Mr.Slut 7 days ago

    Personally I always list LCCN entries in a logic sense in regards to production.
    Recorded By, Mixed By, Mastered By, Lacquer Cut By, Manufactured By, Pressed By, Distributed By etc.
    Seems to most logic to me.

    I fully grasp what you're driving at, but that is not a problem of the submissions, but rather a problem of the technical side of the database.

    In the case of Egbert - Warm, just add the BD number to the Pressed By credit as well.
    If a company wholly manufactures a release, there is no reason to regard their number only to be a lacquer cut number, unless it's known to be differently handled (e.g. when they didn't do the lacquer cut).

    I would suggest to send a support request to the tech guys to possibly look into that matter of different representations in display instead of editing thousands of entries to fit the display.
  • LolH 7 days ago

    venetian-guy
    Some smart guys easily understood.
    Unfortunately other guys are too touchy and leave EI vote without asking for explanations.

    I take great exception to your comment there. Failing to follow guidelines is, in my humble oppinion, the less smart approach. The onus is on you to explain your edit, not on me to question it.

    Mr.Slut
    Personally I always list LCCN entries in a logic sense in regards to production.
    Recorded By, Mixed By, Mastered By, Lacquer Cut By, Manufactured By, Pressed By, Distributed By etc.
    Seems to most logic to me.

    I fully grasp what you're driving at, but that is not a problem of the submissions, but rather a problem of the technical side of the database.

    This.

    By the way venetian-guy, tagging people in submission histories doesn't work.
    Should do,IMO, that's the one place you really do want the functionality to work.
  • venetian-guy 7 days ago

    Mr.Slut
    I fully grasp what you're driving at, but that is not a problem of the submissions, but rather a problem of the technical side of the database.


    That's why I've pitched Diognes_The_Fox and nik.
    Hope they read this thread.
  • venetian-guy 7 days ago

    LolH
    Failing to follow guidelines is, in my humble oppinion, the less smart approach.


    Thanks for good words.
  • Myriad 7 days ago

    Mr.Slut
    In the case of Egbert - Warm, just add the BD number to the Pressed By credit as well.
    If a company wholly manufactures a release, there is no reason to regard their number only to be a lacquer cut number, unless it's known to be differently handled (e.g. when they didn't do the lacquer cut).

    I would agree with this. It’s the simplest way and avoids the risk of entries being reshuffled again later.

    venetian-guy I appreciate why you’re making these edits but as other users have said some more explanatory submission notes would be more helpful for users who don’t understand what you’re doing. :) (of course we are all guilty of writing short submission notes sometimes but still....)
  • venetian-guy 7 days ago

    Myriad
    :)


    :)
  • sebfact 7 days ago

    Changing the LCCN order is generally not accepted. However, can someone please point me to the DB management manifestation of that rule again.

    Adding to that, there is no mandated LCCN order anyway, everything is preferential: by manufacturing steps, by dropdown order, alphabetically, outside-in, inside-out, etc., etc.

    Anyway, what's the use of adding LCCN numbers when they don't appear on the profile page?
    IMO, in those cases, changing the order of the LCCN is adequate and certainly not preferential. Granted that the edits have to be explained comprehensibly.

    OTOH, simply adding numbers to whatever company role is not only ignorant regarding the respective number but also wrong, e.g. when a number was added during the pressing process, i.e. after the lacquer cutting, or there is a distribution number but, ouch, the © role is coming first...

    We certainly didn't come that long LCCN way to then enter numbers wherever for convenience.
  • venetian-guy 7 days ago

    sebfact
    Anyway, what's the use of adding LCCN numbers when they don't appear on the profile page?
    IMO, in those cases, changing the order of the LCCN is adequate and certainly not preferential. Granted that the edits have to be explained comprehensibly.


    I perfectly agree with you. ++++++
  • venetian-guy 7 days ago

    Mr.Slut
    I would suggest to send a support request to the tech guys to possibly look into that matter of different representations in display instead of editing thousands of entries to fit the display.


    Recently were introduced in BaOI: SPARS Code, Price Code, Distribution Code etc.
    Seems like nobody has complained about these titanic editings.
  • LolH 7 days ago

    sebfact
    please point me to the DB management manifestation of that rule again.

    RSG §1.10.3 "Please don't do updates just to change the order of data (such as in the format or credit fields). Only do updates to correct or add information."
  • venetian-guy 7 days ago

    I can't see the necessity to submit the same label more times for Lacquer Cut At, Pressed By, Manufactured By except in situations where there's clear evidence of them on releases.
    In all other situations (large majority) is sufficient Pressed By or Manufactured By.

    For CDs we submit in LCCN 'Glass Mastered at' only when there's evidence of it. So, why for vinyls 'Lacquer Cut At' is submitted arbitrarily?
    Just because it's too cool for vinyl fanatics?

    IMHO these cahotic situations would be easily resolved by adding some simple instructions in rules.
  • thescarletpronster 7 days ago

    sebfact
    Anyway, what's the use of adding LCCN numbers when they don't appear on the profile page?
    IMO, in those cases, changing the order of the LCCN is adequate and certainly not preferential. Granted that the edits have to be explained comprehensibly.

    The way to fix this is not to go around meddling with the order of entered data in submissions, but to change the coding so that if a company has several entries in LCCN, a 'catalogue' number entered in one of the lower entries will appear on the company's page if the entries above it have a blank cat # field. That's something for development to fix.

    Changing data in order to make things sort or appear better on artist or label pages is forbidden. That's been discussed many times.

    This particular issue should be easy for the development team to fix, so let's put the onus on them to make this work, rather than circumventing guidelines.
  • LolH 7 days ago

    venetian-guy
    why for vinyls 'Lacquer Cut At' is submitted arbitrarily?

    Lacquer Cut At should only be added where there is evidence supporting the credit. In the Death And Vanilla submission, we can see that the vinyl was both cut and pressed at/by Optimal Media GmbH, because of the presence in the runouts of MK (11).

    thescarletpronster
    This particular issue should be easy for the development team to fix, so let's put the onus on them to make this work, rather than circumventing guidelines.

    +1
  • venetian-guy 7 days ago

    LolH
    "Please don't do updates just to change the order of data (such as in the format or credit fields). Only do updates to correct or add information."


    The rule is clear for all of us!
    But I didn't my updates just to change the order of data.
  • LolH 7 days ago

    venetian-guy
    But I didn't my updates just to change the order of data.

    Had you explained your edit fully, as per RSG §14.1.3
    "Even if it seems obvious, always try to explain your update fully using the submission notes. This will always be appreciated by other users, and is vital when we need to look back over the submission data's history."

    we probably wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?
  • venetian-guy 7 days ago

    LolH
    Lacquer Cut At should only be added where there is evidence supporting the credit.


    Exactly what I've said here:
    venetian-guy
    I can't see the necessity to submit the same label more times for Lacquer Cut At, Pressed By, Manufactured By except in situations where there's clear evidence of them on releases.


    Don't use only parts of my contributes for your advantage, please.
  • LolH 7 days ago

    venetian-guy
    Don't use only parts of my contributes for your advantage, please

    I'm not. What advantage do you think I am trying to gain? I was merely re-iterating what you stated. If you'd rather I didn't agree with you on something......
  • venetian-guy 7 days ago

    LolH
    we probably wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?


    Maybe I was too much concise in my submission note but, in any case, why did you leave an EI vote?
    This is not a community of gunners. We are gentlemen until proven otherwise.
    It's really so difficult to ask for explanation before shooting?
  • Diognes_The_Fox 7 days ago

    When adding stuff, I usually keep stuff extrapolated from the runouts at the bottom of the list with pressing plant as the bottom-most, just to put it in a place where it can be more easily seen as it's usually the key difference between submissions.

    When editing existing stuff, I leave it be usually. (ex, if that info is already on the bottom, I will keep it on the bottom and add my insert above that to prevent it from being more obscured..)
  • LolH 7 days ago

    venetian-guy
    why did you leave an EI vote?

    Because you are an experienced user who should know better. You moved data around and left too brief a submission note. The EI vote will also not harm your average, but maybe next time you will think a bit more about what you are doing, and why, and communicate that more efficiently.
    The edit was Entirely Incorrect, no matter what the intention.
  • venetian-guy 7 days ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    When editing existing stuff, I leave it be usually. (ex, if that info is already on the bottom, I will keep it on the bottom and add my insert above that to prevent it from being more obscured..)


    That's exactly what I usually do.
    But on regards to the above cases 'Lacquer Cut At' without a cat.# make useless the below cat.# associated to Pressed By. The release will never appear in correct sequence in label's list of releases.

    Those lists are very useful to discover reissues or represses and more.
  • venetian-guy 7 days ago

    LolH
    The edit was Entirely Incorrect, no matter what the intention.


    Oh my God!
  • thescarletpronster 7 days ago

    venetian-guy
    The release will never appear in correct sequence in label's list of releases.

    As you know, that is never a reason to manipulate data in a submission.

    Diognes_The_Fox what do you reckon to my idea of fixing this with what should be a pretty simple coding change, as mentioned in my previous comment? That would make cat #s appear on company pages no matter which order that company's entries are listed in a submission.
  • sebfact 7 days ago

    LolH
    RSG §1.10.3
    Bleed, where were my glasses????

    While I agree that reordering is "poo" when done on it's own, it doesn't seem forbidden when other edits are done, e.g. when the respective number is added. Or is reordering forbidden by all means? I wonder if we can get some clarity on that one, Diognes_The_Fox...?

    thescarletpronster
    Changing data in order to make things sort or appear better on artist or label pages is forbidden.
    It's not about sorting or appearing "better", it's about appearing "at all", that is quite a difference, don't you agree?

    thescarletpronster
    That's something for development to fix.
    Sure, like this one or many other requests lying like dead in the Development forum...

    thescarletpronster
    That would make cat #s appear on company pages no matter which order that company's entries are listed in a submission.
    Yup, that would indeed be the optimal solution. Until then, see further up of this very post :-)
  • LolH 6 days ago

    sebfact
    While I agree that reordering is "poo" when done on it's own, it doesn't seem forbidden when other edits are done,

    In this case, it was just re-ordering.
  • thescarletpronster 6 days ago

    sebfact
    It's not about sorting or appearing "better", it's about appearing "at all", that is quite a difference, don't you agree?

    I do agree that is quite a difference; but I don't agree that's what's happening here. Without the job number attached, the release still appears on the company's page; the complaint here is that as the job number attached to one of the company's credits isn't transferred to the company's page, the release appears 'out of order'. So it is a matter of sorting.
  • stevefreeman 6 days ago

    venetian-guy
    Lacquer Cut At is usually submitted in LCCN by vinyl enthusiasts on top than Pressed By or Manufactured By.

    I'm not a vinyl enthusiast! My preference is CD.

    I generally verify information from runouts against mastering engineer profiles and sebfact's "Common runout groove etchings" thread: https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/743281
  • stevefreeman 6 days ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    When adding stuff, I usually keep stuff extrapolated from the runouts at the bottom of the list with pressing plant as the bottom-most

    Yes, I would generally do this unless the pressing plant is mentioned on the rear sleeve for instance.
  • Mr.Slut 6 days ago

    sebfact
    OTOH, simply adding numbers to whatever company role is not only ignorant regarding the respective number but also wrong, e.g. when a number was added during the pressing process, i.e. after the lacquer cutting,


    That's not what I said and meant. I only referred to the specific job number that (in this case) Optimal Media GmbH assigns to their work. The number is exactly that: their job number. If their job in the production of a vinyl ia both lacquer cutting and pressing, that number can be added to both job descriptions. The profile of the plant does not specify only to use that with pressed by or manufactured by credits.
  • Myriad 6 days ago

    So the practical use of switching two roles for the same manufacturer is to allow us to see that manufacturer’s cat# on its label page. Seems a bit more reasoned than simple preference reordering of LCCN.

    So is there any practical reason to object to such simple and logical edit summary or are we just complaining for the sake of it here?
  • venetian-guy 6 days ago

    Myriad
    So the practical use of switching two roles for the same manufacturer is to allow us to see that manufacturer’s cat# on its label page.


    That's it!

    Moreover I could say that switches in this case are not against the rules.
    These switches factually add new precious data in label page with no damages to database.
    Unfortunately there are thousands of releases in database in this ridiculous situation only because Lacquer Cut At is cool on top of LCCN.

    Diognes_The_Fox gave a neutral contribute to discussion. Why? I would expect a clear position from him.

    sebfact
    what's the use of adding LCCN numbers when they don't appear on the profile page?


    That's it!
    IMO profile pages are fundamental in database.
  • thescarletpronster 6 days ago

    I agree with your analysis of the problem but not with your proposed solution. The proper solution is to tweak the code so that job numbers show up on company pages even if they're not the first entry for that company in LCCN; not to fiddle with submission data.
  • venetian-guy 6 days ago

    thescarletpronster
    not to fiddle with submission data


    Your irony is superfluous.

    In any case you're free to not agree with me.

    thescarletpronster
    The proper solution is to tweak the code so that job numbers show up on company pages even if they're not the first entry for that company in LCCN


    Obviously this is a good proposal. Good luck!
  • venetian-guy 6 days ago

    thescarletpronster
    not to fiddle with submission data


    Your irony is superfluous.

    In any case you're free to not agree with me.

    thescarletpronster
    The proper solution is to tweak the code so that job numbers show up on company pages even if they're not the first entry for that company in LCCN


    Obviously this is a good proposal. Good luck!

    Diognes_The_Fox
    When adding stuff, I usually keep stuff extrapolated from the runouts at the bottom of the list with pressing plant as the bottom-most, just to put it in a place where it can be more easily seen as it's usually the key difference between submissions.


    Your working method is clear.

    I just want to softly point out that IMHO the Cat.#s in LCCN are in any case very evident.
  • LolH 6 days ago

    venetian-guy
    I just want to softly point out that IMHO the Cat.#s in LCCN are in any case very evident.

    And I would agree with you here. In the case of the Death and Vanilla release, you could just add the # to the Lacquer Cut At credit role field, and what you want to accomplish will be done. I appreciate that this will not be an option for all releases, but then it won't ever be the case for many locations as they do not have sequential identifiers anyway. Certainly vinyl cut at and pressed by Optimal Media GmbH can be dealt with in this way, rather than circumventing the guidelines, no?
  • thescarletpronster 6 days ago

    venetian-guy
    Your irony is superfluous.

    No irony whatever in my comment.
  • venetian-guy 6 days ago

    LolH
    no?


    Here we are not speaking about Optimal Media GmbH.
    The two releases in the entry message are only examples.

    I've never found a submission in database with Lacquer Cut At followed by a Cat.#.
    Surely you can find some of them but in any case they are very few.
    This is the problem.
  • thescarletpronster 6 days ago

    Rather than proposing to move data around, how about a discussion about whether we can add a company's job number to all roles it performs: Mastered At, Lacquer Cut At, Glass Mastered At, Pressed By, Manufactured By, etc. This was suggested above:

    Mr.Slut
    The number is exactly that: their job number. If their job in the production of a vinyl ia both lacquer cutting and pressing, that number can be added to both job descriptions. The profile of the plant does not specify only to use that with pressed by or manufactured by credits.

    I don't know of a reason why we can't do this. However, it's something that would have to be discussed extensively, because it would be a major change. We'd also need to hear from people with in-depth knowledge of the different companies involved, because in some cases there might be a reason why that company's job number applies only to one aspect of their work.

    If it is possible to enter a job number for all a company's roles, however, that would be a valuable addition to the database, and wouldn't risk going against guidelines on preference edits.
  • venetian-guy 6 days ago

    thescarletpronster
    If it is possible to enter a job number for all a company's roles, however, that would be a valuable addition to the database


    Maybe I'm wrong but shouldn't we submit credits in LCCN when there's evidence of them on release?

    Unfortunately in most cases there are not evidences and usually happens that people submit arbitrarily many credit roles: Lacquer Cut At, Mastered At, Pressed By, Made By, Manufactured By for the same Label.
    I think that a rule that permits to submit cat.# for all roles for a Label simply encourages this bad habit.

    My opinion is that in most cases submitted roles should be reduced if there's not evidence of them. All depending on Label's profile.
  • LolH 6 days ago

    venetian-guy
    Maybe I'm wrong but shouldn't we submit credits in LCCN when there's evidence of them on release?

    Clearly credits should only be entered if factually correct. Sources other than the release are permitted, but must be cited. In the case of LCCN credits, however I think that only the release itself must be the source. So, nothing printed on the release or etched/stamped in the runouts to identify cutting/pressing etc location, then it should not be in the submission.

    venetian-guy
    Unfortunately in most cases there are not evidences and usually happens that people submit arbitrarily many credit roles: Lacquer Cut At, Mastered At, Pressed By, Made By, Manufactured By for the same Label.

    I can't say that I see that this is a particular issue on the site. Certainly no more prevalent than any other Uncredited entries. Can you supply a few examples? I think your assertation of 'most cases' is probably a bit exaggerated. I am sure there are some, but not the majority.

    venetian-guy
    My opinion is that in most cases submitted roles should be reduced if there's not evidence of them. All depending on Label's profile.

    Definitely. If there is no evidence for the credit, remove it.
  • venetian-guy 6 days ago

    thescarletpronster
    not to fiddle with submission data


    Your irony is superfluous.

    In any case you're free to not agree with me.

    thescarletpronster
    The proper solution is to tweak the code so that job numbers show up on company pages even if they're not the first entry for that company in LCCN


    Obviously this is a good proposal. Good luck!

    LolH
    Can you supply a few examples?


    Not at all!
    This assertion is only based on my experience.
    I don't want to say that all roles are often submitted for one release.
    I want only to say that submissions in LCCN are very often redundant in roles for the same label.
  • LolH 6 days ago

    venetian-guy
    I want only to say that submissions in LCCN are very often redundant in roles for the same label.

    So, you think that entering Lacquer Cut At and Pressed By is redundant if both functions were performed at the same plant? Is that what you mean?
  • venetian-guy 6 days ago

    LolH
    Is that what you mean?


    Exactly!

    Unless Lacquer Cut At is proved.
  • LolH 6 days ago

    venetian-guy
    Exactly!

    Why on Earth? We try to record as much information as possible.
    Would you also feel that entering Recorded At, Mixed At, and Mastered At would be redundant for 2 of those roles if they were all performed at the same studio?
  • LolH 6 days ago

    venetian-guy
    Unless Lacquer Cut up is proved.

    I thought we'd already decided that Lacquer Cut should only be entered if there was evidence to back that up.
  • venetian-guy 6 days ago

    LolH
    Would you also feel that entering Recorded At, Mixed At, and Mastered At would be redundant for 2 of those roles if they were all performed at the same studio?


    Do you think I'm stupid?
  • LolH 6 days ago

    venetian-guy
    Do you think I'm stupid?

    No, not all, but I do wonder why you are suggesting that entering Lacquer Cut At is redundant when Pressed By is entered for the same location - when we've already agreed that it should only be entered if evidence on the release supports the credit
  • venetian-guy 6 days ago

    LolH
    I thought we'd already decided that Lacquer Cut should only be entered if there was evidence to back that up.


    That's obvious.

    My above answer was much concise as usual.
    I've integrated it few seconds later.
    You're too fast!!!
  • LolH 6 days ago

    venetian-guy
    You're too fast!!!

    :-)
  • thescarletpronster 6 days ago

    venetian-guy
    Maybe I'm wrong but shouldn't we submit credits in LCCN when there's evidence of them on release?

    Unfortunately in most cases there are not evidences and usually happens that people submit arbitrarily many credit roles: Lacquer Cut At, Mastered At, Pressed By, Made By, Manufactured By for the same Label.
    I think that a rule that permits to submit cat.# for all roles for a Label simply encourages this bad habit.

    My opinion is that in most cases submitted roles should be reduced if there's not evidence of them. All depending on Label's profile.

    I completely agree. I meant that a job number valid for that company (e.g. in runout etchings) could be added to add roles that can validly be added to LCCN for that company for that particular release. Sorry I didn't make that more clear, and thanks for challenging it.

    I included a list of roles that might be entered for a company that did the manufacturing; but each one should only be included if there is evidence for that role on the release. Of course, Lacquer Cut At and Glass Mastered At wouldn't usually be valid for a single release!

    Just as you said later: My above answer was much concise as usual(!)

    Thanks for helping to clear it up.

    My only point was: if a job number is valid to be entered into LCCN for one of a company's roles on a release, could we be justified in entering that job number for all roles that can validly be entered into LCCN for that company?

    Therefore, we wouldn't end up with the problem of:
    Lacquer Cut At – Optimal Media GmbH
    Pressed B – Optimal Media GmbH – BG123456

    and the job number therefore not showing on the company page.

    Instead, we could enter:
    Lacquer Cut At – Optimal Media GmbH – BG123456
    Pressed B – Optimal Media GmbH – BG123456

    and the job number would therefore show on the company page without having to reorder data or wait for a coding change.
  • thescarletpronster 6 days ago

    venetian-guy
    thescarletpronster: 'not to fiddle with submission data'

    Your irony is superfluous.

    Why do you keep posting this? That's three times now. Are you using the 'back' button on the browser to post comments? That can lead to the comment box being pre-filled with previously entered text.
  • venetian-guy 5 days ago

    venetian-guy edited 5 days ago
    Diognes_The_Fox, nik, Mr.Slut, Myriad, sebfact, LolH

    I've found an escamotage to allow cat.# to be listed in label profile.
    I can submit 'Manufactured By' with the cat.# on top of the other submitted roles for the same label.
    In most cases 'Manufactured By' is not submitted in LCCN. The preference go to Lacquer Cut At and Pressed By in this sequence.
    In their profiles labels in most cases are firstly described as manufacturers.

    This is not against the rules, no?
  • venetian-guy 5 days ago

    venetian-guy edited 5 days ago
    thescarletpronster
    Rather than proposing to move data around, how about a discussion about whether we can add a company's job number to all roles it performs: Mastered At, Lacquer Cut At, Glass Mastered At, Pressed By, Manufactured By, etc.


    Seems a good solution but works well only for releases composed of only one element.

    In many cases releases are composed of 2 and sometimes many more elements with different cat.#s in runouts.
    In these cases we can submit in LCCN many cat.#s for the same label.
    In these cases your proposal is a disaster. The same release will appear in label list many times.

    And in any case the system recognizes only the sub on top for the same label independently from the role.

    What's your opinion Mr.Slut?
  • _jules 5 days ago

    venetian-guy
    The same release will appear in label list many times.


    That's not true. There's only just one cat# that gets listed on the label/company page. The first one that's associated.
    A release gets listed only once on a label/company page even if that label/company is credited 2 or 3 or 7 times in the entry.
  • venetian-guy 5 days ago

    _jules
    A release gets listed only once on a label/company page even if that label/company is credited 2 or 3 or 7 times in the entry.


    You're right. My mistake.
  • venetian-guy 5 days ago

    My apologies to thescarletpronster and Mr.Slut
  • thescarletpronster 5 days ago

    No problem; I was half-way through replying to the ping I got from your previous comment when I noticed that it had been resolved!
  • Myriad 3 days ago

    venetian-guy
    I've found an escamotage to allow cat.# to be listed in label profile.
    I can submit 'Manufactured By' with the cat.# on top of the other submitted roles for the same label.
    In most cases 'Manufactured By' is not submitted in LCCN. The preference go to Lacquer Cut At and Pressed By in this sequence.
    In their profiles labels in most cases are firstly described as manufacturers.

    I'm not a fan of this idea personally. I would say the Manufactured By role is a more generic duplication of the Lacquer/Pressed By role when it is not printed directly on the release.
  • venetian-guy 3 days ago

    Myriad
    I'm not a fan of this idea personally. I would say the Manufactured By role is a more generic duplication of the Lacquer/Pressed By role when it is not printed directly on the release.


    Maybe it's generic but how many times did you find Lacquer/Pressed By printed directly on the release?
  • venetian-guy 3 days ago

    venetian-guy edited 3 days ago
    Myriad, Obviously I'm not speaking about cases where Lacquer/Pressed By is printed directly on the release.
    In those cases rules must be correctly submitted with their cat.#.
    The problem is that Lacquer is more or less never accompanied by a cat.# in LCCN.
    And in any case Manufactured By is very clearly printed in matrices in Optimal Media releases, anyway.
    If most of submitters don't submit it in BaOI...that's another question.
    This is more related to CDs but why things should be so different for vinyls?
  • thescarletpronster 3 days ago

    Manufactured By (like Made By) is intended for use either when that exact wording is printed on the release, or when no specific manufacturing role can be determined from the information on the release.

    When 'Manufactured by' is used on a release, it often refers to a company that did no actual manufacturing, such as a broker, or one that did the packaging/assembly of the different parts of the release.

    Lacquer Cut At/Pressed At, and similar roles, where not printed on the release, are in most cases based on research that has determined that when a company's mark is e.g. etched into the runout area of a record, that means that they cut the lacquer or pressed the disc. In many cases that has been confirmed by contact with the company itself or, for defunct companies, but contact with engineers who used to work there.

    If the specific role(s) a company performed on a release can be credited, my understanding is that we shouldn't add a generic role such as Manufactured By as well (unless that wording is used on the release). That would be duplication. Even if there's not an explicit ruling that a generic role shouldn't be added, I don't think it's a good idea.
  • typoman2 3 days ago

    thescarletpronster
    If the specific role(s) a company performed on a release can be credited, my understanding is that we shouldn't add a generic role such as Manufactured By as well (unless that wording is used on the release). That would be duplication. Even if there's not an explicit ruling that a generic role shouldn't be added, I don't think it's a good idea.

    Same here +1
    That would be like adding Record Company each time although both LCCN © roles and Manufactured and Distributed By already have been added as per release. Redundant.
  • venetian-guy 3 days ago

    thescarletpronster
    Lacquer Cut At/Pressed At, and similar roles, where not printed on the release, are in most cases based on research that has determined that when a company's mark is e.g. etched into the runout area of a record, that means that they cut the lacquer or pressed the disc. In many cases that has been confirmed by contact with the company itself or, for defunct companies, but contact with engineers who used to work there.


    Really?
  • venetian-guy 3 days ago

    typoman2
    Redundant.


    Absolutely not. It adds data in label profile.
  • venetian-guy 3 days ago

    thescarletpronster
    we shouldn't add a generic role


    Optimal Media Production
    Profile:
    German full service media manufacturer.

    Optimal Media GmbH
    Profile:
    German full service media manufacturer
  • LolH 3 days ago

    thescarletpronster
    If the specific role(s) a company performed on a release can be credited, my understanding is that we shouldn't add a generic role such as Manufactured By as well (unless that wording is used on the release). That would be duplication.

    Yes, this.
    venetian-guy
    Really?

    Yes. As I've mentioned above, I think your belief that there is much incorrectly, unsubstantiated, data entered with regards to Lacquer Cut By and Pressed By is somewhat exaggerated. I believe the issue os nowhere near as bad as you think it is.
    venetian-guy
    Absolutely not. It adds data in label profile.

    It would be incorrect data, though, wouldn't it, if the Manufactured By credit did not appear on the release and we already had the other roles pinned down. Adding a further Manufactured By role would be redundant, and incorrect.
  • venetian-guy 3 days ago

    LolH
    It would be incorrect data, though, wouldn't it, if the Manufactured By credit did not appear on the release and we already had the other roles pinned down. Adding a further Manufactured By role would be redundant, and incorrect.


    I quit. Wasted time.
  • thescarletpronster 3 days ago

    venetian-guy
    Really?

    Either that or I decided to lie for no reason.

    Have a read of the thousands of contributions to the 6 different editions of the Runout etchings list if you like. The latest and current one is here: https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/743281

    venetian-guy
    Optimal Media GmbH
    Profile:
    German full service media manufacturer

    That doesn't mean they should be credited for things in submissions that they're not credited for on releases.

    The approved roles for use based on e.g. runout/matrix marks have been proposed based on evidence gathered, discussed and agreed. They differ for different companies because of the way that different companies work.
  • sebfact 2 days ago

    My personal conclusion:
    0. Change the coding so that the numbers appear on the profile page regardless of their position in the LCCN "list" --> @ Diognes_The_Fox: what are the developers saying?
    1. Only add numbers to the specific identified roles (e.g. Pressed By, Distributed By) but do not use "generic" (i.e. uncredited) Manufactured By / Record Company roles just to enforce something.
    2. Sort the LCCN roles (like credit roles) alphabetically (not that I'd like it but it would prevent any future "order" discussion and also any personal preference order).
    3. The LCCN order can be changed only when other edits are necessary (we shouldn't be too strict on that Guideline, really).

Log In You must be logged in to post.