• mrformic 2 months ago

    I think adding release year thru cat# system is not correct.
    Is it something different to do so from #system of pressing plant ?

    This user is adding lots of release years not mentioned on release.
    I am not sure if this is correct, so I ask here.

    2 examples, there are more:
    https://www.discogs.com/release/5363712-The-Swingin-Creeper/history#latest
    https://www.discogs.com/release/4031506-Loss-Dr-Kopp-Nit-H%C3%A4nge-De-Mama-Kritt-Schon-Widder-E-Kind/history#latest

    I also thought there should be proper submission and release notes, if we add data not on release ?
  • mrformic 2 months ago

  • loukash 2 months ago

    One thing is for sure:

    Holobiont
    But 1972 are C. Source http://www.45cat.com/record/05113382

    Bwahahaha! 45cat.com?
    Give me a break.

    mrformic
    I am not sure if this is correct, so I ask here.

    Revert everything that doesn't cite an acknowledged source.
  • mrformic 2 months ago

    loukash
    Revert everything that doesn't cite an acknowledged source.


    So you say cat# plus pressing plant # is not a valid source ?
    I just want to be sure before voting.
  • Mr.Slut 2 months ago

    catalog number and pressing plant ID CAN be used to determine an approximate date, but unless that is backed by other evidence (promotional material, ads in trade papers, label page etc.), I would strongly suggest NOT to add that to the release date field, but list it as an approximate to the release notes instead.
    If the year in question is listed on the release itself, it can be used since we have to assume it is printed on release not in error.

    The numbers from plants are unreliable because they can refer to mastering dates that not necessarily are in the same year as the release itself.
    Numbers from label are unreliable because sometimes a release is planned but delayed.
    It happens...
  • Myriad 2 months ago

    Mr.Slut
    catalog number and pressing plant ID CAN be used to determine an approximate date, but unless that is backed by other evidence (promotional material, ads in trade papers, label page etc.), I would strongly suggest NOT to add that to the release date field, but list it as an approximate to the release notes instead.

    Absolutely, and very well put. Guessing release dates from cat# or matrix# should never take place.
  • Holobiont 2 months ago

    loukash
    Bwahahaha! 45cat.com?
    Give me a break.


    Lou, Lou, Lou

    plx. write the whole context next time.

    But 1972 are C. Source http://www.45cat.com/record/05113382 and much better as per BASF cat# system and Sonopress pressing sequence.
  • Opdiner 2 months ago

    Holobiont
    But 1972 are C. Source http://www.45cat.com/record/05113382 and much better as per BASF cat# system and Sonopress pressing sequence.


    See above, none of that really counts. 45cat.com is very unreliable from personal experience (including my own releases which are often wrong). It's not peer-reviewed or sourced. It's often at best a guess - based on cat # sequences which are even less reliable. They tend to be allocated by a production manager when the project is initiated in the system, not when it is released.
  • mrformic 2 months ago

    Holobiont
    plx. write the whole context next time.


    Says the guy who uses "fixed" in submission notes, or even nothing, like here:
    https://www.discogs.com/user/Holobiont/submissions#item=%2Frelease%2F7523557-Des-Is-A-Weda%2Fhistory
    There is consensus in this thread that your edits regariding release year based on cat#s are wrong.
    Are you going to revert those yourself ?
    I think that is better then leaving EIs.
    If you have received C votes on those already, pls revert those as well.
    Thank you
  • mrformic 2 months ago

    Opdiner
    45cat.com is very unreliable


    I agree.
    I could simply go there, make a submission and then use my own submission as source :)
  • seveninch 2 months ago

    Some pressing plant info can be used, but only for tiny labels that would usually need a quick turnaround and didn't have much PR to think about. And mostly c. pre 1975. At least on US 45 pressings.

    Cat. no. is not useful for dates.
    45cat is not useful unless they cite a source like Billboard. You can then try to verify that their source is correct.
  • typoman2 2 months ago

    Mr.Slut
    catalog number and pressing plant ID CAN be used to determine an approximate date, but unless that is backed by other evidence (promotional material, ads in trade papers, label page etc.), I would strongly suggest NOT to add that to the release date field, but list it as an approximate to the release notes instead.

    +1
  • Holobiont 2 months ago

    @ mrformic
    I do have this release. Die Westfälischen Nachtigallen - Schneewalzer .On Hitparade the release date are given as 1971. https://hitparade.ch/song/Die-Westfaelischen-Nachtigallen/Schneewalzer-1225797
    On 45cat it was given as 1973.
    http://www.45cat.com/record/05118422
    In BASF cat# system it is listed here as a 1973 release.
    https://www.bilder-upload.eu/bild-5512ff-1539445269.jpg.html
    On Sonopress it is listed here as a 1973 release.
    https://www.bilder-upload.eu/bild-95248a-1539445636.jpg.html
    But there is a ℗ 1971 on labels.!

    And yes. 1973 are the correct release date.
    And yes. Sonopress pressed their records always in a row.
  • nfnshdbzznzz 2 months ago

    https://www.discogs.com/release/11364789-Kl%C3%A4rchen-Die-Ganz-Gro%C3%9Fe-Lache-Die-Ganz-Gro%C3%9Fe-Heule/history#latest
    How can you add pressing company credit and company number when no runout information has been added? These edits look a lot like others for Sonopress from another user.
  • manus-von-alles 2 months ago

    We always have to see all circumstances. The A-#### series of Sonopress follows a strong chronology. That does not mean, that there exist no represses with the initial matrix, but as long as the label design and other identifiers confirm the release date, this is a heavy hint for place a release date.
    If we use this kind of sources to date releases, we should mention this at the release notes. This is my opinion.

    Holobiont mention two sources for the dating of The Boston - The Swingin' Creeper at the history, but it should also be mentioned at the release notes.
    For De Bläck Fööss* - Loss D'r Kopp Nit Hänge / De Mama Kritt Schon Widder E Kind - just to mention: fixed - is not the way to go here. A proper update with the runouts and a clearing note for the source of the date should have been placed.
  • mrformic 2 months ago

    User holobiont thinks we are joking:
    https://www.discogs.com/release/7417574-Der-Strandkorb-Wackelt/history#latest
    https://www.discogs.com/Ren%C3%A9-Storz-La-Musica/release/11249576

    Can anyone help please with votes/comments?

    manus-von-alles
    If we use this kind of sources to date releases, we should mention this at the release notes.


    Consensus on the forums is to NOT use cat# as source for year.

    manus-von-alles
    Holobiont mention two sources for the dating

    Yes, he mentions 2 sources, but both are invalid.
  • manus-von-alles 2 months ago

    mrformic
    Yes, he mentions 2 sources, but both are invalid.


    This is your claim. As pointed above, we have to see the whole thing, not just a cat#.
    The dating is based on the matrix in both cases, not on the cat#.
  • Holobiont 2 months ago

    Thx. @ Opdiner your EMI chance was great and correct.
  • Holobiont 2 months ago

    Plx. do not teach me about German Pessing Plant's Thx.
  • Myriad 2 months ago

    manus-von-alles
    We always have to see all circumstances. The A-#### series of Sonopress follows a strong chronology. That does not mean, that there exist no represses with the initial matrix, but as long as the label design and other identifiers confirm the release date, this is a heavy hint for place a release date.
    If we use this kind of sources to date releases, we should mention this at the release notes. This is my opinion.

    No, that is not enough. Such patterns will tell you at best that the GLASS MASTER was created in approximately whatever year - probably 2000-2001 for those Sonopress A-xxxxx numbers.

    Manufacturing date =/= release date.

    The date a glass master is created can vary considerably from the actual date that the CD was released.
  • Abdelfauda 2 months ago

    Abdelfauda edited 2 months ago
    Myriad
    No, that is not enough. Such patterns will tell you at best that the GLASS MASTER was created in approximately whatever year - probably 2000-2001 for those Sonopress A-xxxxx numbers.

    Manufacturing date =/= release date.

    The date a glass master is created can vary considerably from the actual date that the CD was released.


    We are talking about two BASF 7"s from 1972, not about CDs from y2k. Manufacturing processes surely changed over decades and were dependent on the product (7", LP, CD, national/international, minor/major release etc.). Hence verifying data is easy for some products and periods, for some it's much more tricky.

    The Sonopress order pressing numbers seem to be more consistent than the BASF catalogue numbers, at least the sequences are not at all parallel in 1972.

    https://www.discogs.com/release/5363712-The-Swingin-Creeper/history#latest was a Sonopress-pressed, BASF-distributed repress of Lindström-pressed The Swingin' Creeper. A-xxxx sequence matches first half/middle of 1972. no reason why the release of a repress of a considerably successful title (TV-Theme!) should be postponed for half a year. not even the artwork had been changed. Imho it is as safe to date this to 1972 as if it featured '℗ 1972'.

    https://www.discogs.com/release/4031506-Loss-Dr-Kopp-Nit-H%C3%A4nge-De-Mama-Kritt-Schon-Widder-E-Kind/history#latest is a bit more problematic, given A-0944 is not a guess the Sonopress sequence matches late 1972, as would 05-11530-2.
    We have A-0972 - a 'collectible' album - dated to 1972 12yrs ago without using the sequence. Obviously collector's knowledge or derived from the recording date Apr./May 72 on the cover rear.
    On the other hand we have A-0940/05-11594-6 dated to 1973 by Holobiont himself.
    In this case in question I'd suggest to enter 'Released most probably late 1972 or early 1973 considering cat# and pressing plant sequence.' into notes and leave the date field blank to be on the safe side.
    Generally 7" releases during Jan/Feb of any year are a big problem as ℗ xxxx won't meet the actual release year either. Some 'Fourth-singles-ex-album' were released one and a half year after the album was recorded and still feature the ℗-date of the album
  • manus-von-alles 2 months ago

    Myriad
    No, that is not enough.


    You say it is not enough to see all circumstances? You are kidding.

    I agree with Abdelfauda - especially at the point to denote the sources of the dating in the release notes.
  • Myriad 2 months ago

    Abdelfauda
    We are talking about two BASF 7"s from 1972, not about CDs from y2k. Manufacturing processes surely changed over decades and were dependent on the product (7", LP, CD, national/international, minor/major release etc.). Hence verifying data is easy for some products and periods, for some it's much more tricky.

    Sorry, my mistake for not following the thread properly. Anyway the point remains that we discourage guessing release dates. All of your uncertainty about "this similar matrix number is dated to 1972 but this one is 1973" and "this one is from the end of 1972" and the problem of Jan/Feb releases is exactly why we don't do this.
    manus-von-alles
    You say it is not enough to see all circumstances? You are kidding.

    I'm not kidding. Don't guess release dates based on cat# sequences.
  • loukash 2 months ago

    Myriad
    Don't guess release dates based on cat[alog]# sequences.

    To be precise:
    Of course you can guess.
    But in release notes only.
  • itsgreatshakes 2 months ago

    Most release dates are educated guesses, including ones where the date is printed on the label, yet Discogs allows dates on labels to be used as release dates.

    Dates of Billboard reviews are educated guesses at release dates, as we assume they're from right around when a record was released and not a month or two earlier or later.

    We have to have some tolerance for educated guesses or most releases could never have a release date entered.
  • loukash 2 months ago

    itsgreatshakes
    We have to have some tolerance for educated guesses or most releases could never have a release date entered.

    Sure.
    But dates guessed by catalog# sequences in particular can be off by a few years.
  • Opdiner 2 months ago

    Opdiner edited 2 months ago
    itsgreatshakes
    yet Discogs allows dates on labels to be used as release dates.


    It probably shouldn't as stated in a few threads herein as it causes ongoing problems and, worse, confusion. God knows how many people edit (P) dates to the date field on existing submissions here daily thinking they are a release date that has been missed by the submitter - and then re-adding it when it has been correctly removed again.
  • itsgreatshakes 2 months ago

    Opdiner
    itsgreatshakesyet Discogs allows dates on labels to be used as release dates.

    It probably shouldn't as stated in a few threads herein as it causes ongoing problems and, worse, confusion. God knows how many people edit (P) dates to the date field on existing submissions here daily thinking they are a release date that has been missed by the submitter - and then re-adding it when it has been correctly removed again.


    I agree, although the guidelines really shouldn't be set-up assuming that people don't know what they're doing.

    Another issue is that the guideline for adding release dates is pretty vague and a lot of these supposed no-no's are only discussed in the forums. Has anyone ever attempted to put together a definitive listing of what is and isn't allowable as sources for release dates?
  • manus-von-alles 2 months ago

    itsgreatshakes
    Has anyone ever attempted to put together a definitive listing of what is and isn't allowable as sources for release dates?


    There are soo many facts that can help to find the correct date:
    Runouts
    Label design
    Price codes
    Cat#
    Companies
    Addresses of companies
    and so on.

    We hardly can say there should be a clear list what makes it possible to date a record. As I denote before: You have to see all circumstances.
  • Abdelfauda 2 months ago

    loukash
    MyriadDon't guess release dates based on cat[alog]# sequences.
    To be precise:
    Of course you can guess.
    But in release notes only.


    Well, almost every date not backed by a trustworthy external source is a 'guess'. 100% of the community would date a 7" release stating © 1980 CBS Schallplatten GmbH, Germany ℗ 1980 CBS Schallplatten GmbH, Germany to 1980, like e.g. Spliff - Jet Set Star was dated until today. An external source gave evience that it was released in January 1981.
    You may also question all releases based on ℗/©-dates and denote them as guesses. A sequential pressing plant order number or a catalogue number (especially when assigned to scheduled reissues) are not any worse as a dating indicator than recording/copyright dates. However I agree that blindly adding the date without thorough investigation and comparison of all other disc properties and the proper dating of surrounding releases is harmful to the database. As said frequently: when in doubt and you have to guess -> date to release notes.
    RSG §8.1.2 encourages us to do your best to find the actual date of that release. That's what I keep in mind.
  • itsgreatshakes 2 months ago

    manus-von-alles
    itsgreatshakesHas anyone ever attempted to put together a definitive listing of what is and isn't allowable as sources for release dates?

    There are soo many facts that can help to find the correct date:
    Runouts
    Label design
    Price codes
    Cat#
    Companies
    Addresses of companies
    and so on.

    We hardly can say there should be a clear list what makes it possible to date a record. As I denote before: You have to see all circumstances.


    Yes, that's true, especially of things that you can see right on the record. But I'm also thinking of external sources and what's trusted there.
  • Myriad 2 months ago

    manus-von-alles
    There are soo many facts that can help to find the correct date:
    Runouts
    Label design
    Price codes
    Cat#
    Companies
    Addresses of companies
    and so on.

    Unless a specific price code was ONLY used on items released in 1989, or each company was only at each address for one single year, how can any of those things be used to establish a release date that not a guess?

    We usually say that such things are sufficient for us to say "This company did not move to CA until 1990, so therefore this LP cannot be from 1985 but is 1990 or later." If that LP is submitted to the database today that still gives us 28 possible release years since the company changed address.
  • Holobiont 2 months ago

    mrformic
    User holobiont thinks we are joking:


    Who are we. You?

    And thx^^ for your EI votes. You are the man!
  • Holobiont 2 months ago

    Holobiont edited 2 months ago
    -----------------------------
  • manus-von-alles 2 months ago

    Myriad
    how can any of those things be used to establish a release date that not a guess?


    A label design has a period, a company credit has a period and so on. Off course you have to know all this to be sure to handle the dating correct. But it is not such a big exception to find correct dates this way.
  • djcarbines 2 months ago

    manus-von-alles
    A label design has a period, a company credit has a period and so on. Off course you have to know all this to be sure to handle the dating correct. But it is not such a big exception to find correct dates this way.


    And such sources should be used in conjunction with others. He best ones being trade magazines.

    In isolation, charting dates have no use but they do provide a "released no later than" date. Combined with a logo / address / symbol etc of a known time period, that will give a range of dates between which the release occurred.

    A sleeve with (p) 1982 but (c) 1983 and it charted in January 1983, clearly January 1983 is the release month.
    More modern trade magazines (e g Music Week) state exact release dates right down to specific formats.
  • nfnshdbzznzz about 1 month ago

    https://www.discogs.com/release/11364789-Kl%C3%A4rchen-Die-Ganz-Gro%C3%9Fe-Lache-Die-Ganz-Gro%C3%9Fe-Heule/history#latest
    seriously Holobiont?
    "Big mouth but no bullocks for this users!"
    "https://www.discogs.com/user/nfnshdbzznzz"
    "Just a sorry are ok.."
    and demanding a C vote
    And sending me PM "Clear me your doings plx"
    Is this really acceptable?
    All I did is point out your lack of proper submission notes and I get this? for somebody with almost 6000 votes and 4.43 voting average, you really should know better!
  • mrformic about 1 month ago

    nfnshdbzznzz
    almost 6000 votes and 4.43 voting average


    A lot of votes, I agree. Smells like buddies, because his edits are often not c.
    Hardly any sufficient submission or release notes. Adding data not on release all the time without valid source...
    And his language "Big mouth no bollocks" deserves to get reported.
  • mrformic about 1 month ago

    Holobiont
    And thx^^ for your EI votes.


    Most welcome, but you should thank yourself.
    EI edits produce EI votes.
  • mrformic about 1 month ago

    A second user joins in to add release year based on matrix patters.
    The good old Sonopress gang in full effect.
    https://www.discogs.com/release/11364789-Kl%C3%A4rchen-Die-Ganz-Gro%C3%9Fe-Lache-Die-Ganz-Gro%C3%9Fe-Heule/history#latest
  • Charon49 about 1 month ago

    Maybe we need an additional field for the manufacturing date to avoid in future such misinterpretations?
  • mrformic about 1 month ago

    Charon49
    Maybe we need an additional field for the manufacturing date to avoid in future such misinterpretations?


    Patterns are not a good source, no matter if its for release or manuf.
  • avalon67 about 1 month ago

    Oh my, reminds me of the saga with Mrzigzac here
    https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/401324
  • typoman2 about 1 month ago

    avalon67
    Oh my, reminds me of the saga with Mrzigzac here

    Oh, really!! Do tell!
    Don't they say history is repetitive …
  • mrformic about 1 month ago

    typoman2
    Don't they say history is repetitive


    The past has returned to haunt me (Talking Heads) :)
    Today I received a PM. A user is asking, if Holobiont is the new nick of Mrzigzac ?
  • Abdelfauda about 1 month ago

    mrformic
    Patterns are not a good source, no matter if its for release or manuf.


    As said above there is no logic at all behind accepting the ℗/©-date imprint as dating source (as pointed out by RSG) but refusing sequential order pressing numbers, especially in the case of 'minor' pop 7"s, as a valid source.

    which lies in a closer timespan to releasing a record? recording or mastering/pressing? if you are able to answer the question with 'recording', you may insist that the sequential order number is a less reliable and accurate source than the generally accepted ℗/© dates.
  • manus-von-alles about 1 month ago

    Abdelfauda
    there is no logic at all behind accepting the ℗/©-date imprint as dating source (as pointed out by RSG) but refusing sequential order pressing numbers, especially in the case of 'minor' pop 7"s, as a valid source.


    I definitely agree. We should not use C/P marks or pressing plant codes as a single source for the release date, but within all other identifiers that can confirm a dating. The pressing plant codes are usually much more correct than the C/P marks for a dating. Thats my experience. I frequently fixed dates based on C/P marks with the one that appears reasonable due to the pressing plant codes. And I frequently got confirmations by other users, for example due to chart denotings.

    We should not concentrate on single signs for a dating - and we should try to denote the source for the dating.
  • avalon67 about 1 month ago

    mrformic
    A user is asking, if Holobiont is the new nick of Mrzigzac ?

    Mrzigzac
    over 4 years ago
    ^^^^thx.


    Holobiont
    8 days ago
    And thx^^ for

    Uncanny....
    nfnshdbzznzz
    somebody with almost 6000 votes and 4.43 voting average,

    That's only 7 C/C&C votes per day since they joined.
  • typoman2 about 1 month ago

    mrformic
    A user is asking, if Holobiont is the new nick of Mrzigzac ?

    But … but … wouldn't that be strictly forbidden? Circumventing a ban by management?
    That can't be. Everybody could have inherited Mrzigzac's collection, old buddies and misconceptions by accident … surely just a coincidence.

    avalon67
    That's only 7 C/C&C votes per day since they joined.

    Naah, more. He was at 4,67 AFAIR before all these EI votes …
  • Abdelfauda about 1 month ago

    manus-von-alles
    there is no logic at all behind accepting the ℗/©-date imprint as dating source (as pointed out by RSG) but refusing sequential order pressing numbers, especially in the case of 'minor' pop 7"s, as a valid source.

    I definitely agree. We should not use C/P marks or pressing plant codes as a single source for the release date, but within all other identifiers that can confirm a dating. The pressing plant codes are usually much more correct than the C/P marks for a dating. Thats my experience. I frequently fixed dates based on C/P marks with the one that appears reasonable due to the pressing plant codes. And I frequently got confirmations by other users, for example due to chart denotings.

    We should not concentrate on single signs for a dating - and we should try to denote the source for the dating.


    avalon67
    Mrzigzac
    over 4 years ago
    ^^^^thx.

    Holobiont
    8 days ago
    And thx^^ for


    if you are not able to comment on reasonable statements, would you then mind to transfer your private investigations to a new thread...please?
  • Myriad about 1 month ago

    Abdelfauda
    As said above there is no logic at all behind accepting the ℗/©-date imprint as dating source (as pointed out by RSG) but refusing sequential order pressing numbers, especially in the case of 'minor' pop 7"s, as a valid source.

    I agree. We should leave the release date field in all cases unless we have an external source (not interpretation of patterns or anything else) for the release date.

    Then we would never experience these issues again.

    And of course we should never be using the manufacturing date, glass master date, or approximate release date based on circumstantial IDs and assumptions as the release date.
  • manus-von-alles about 1 month ago

    Myriad
    We should leave the release date field in all cases unless we have an external source (not interpretation of patterns or anything else) for the release date.


    That's no solution either, cause we frequently find variations, but hardly the clear answere to which variation the external source is refering to.
    The only reasonable solution I see is to mention the source of the dating, so everybody can decide whether they trust into the date / source or not.
  • Myriad about 1 month ago

    manus-von-alles
    That's no solution either, cause we frequently find variations, but hardly the clear answere to which variation the external source is refering to.

    So isn’t it more accurate to not enter the dates since we aren’t certain whether they refer to these variations?

    How can you justify adding a release date without an external reference?
  • mrformic about 1 month ago

    Abdelfauda
    if you are not able to comment on reasonable statements


    This is about the guidelines and edits conflicting with them.
    As long the guidelines and decisions in forums are what they are, you must follow them.
    Easy, isn't it ?
    Abdelfauda
    would you then mind to transfer your private investigations to a new thread.


    Why ?
    It looks like a banned user has returned under a new name, doing the same "I do what I want I know it better)" edits and receiving C votes from the same buddies.
  • loukash about 1 month ago

    manus-von-alles
    The only reasonable solution I see is to mention the source of the dating, so everybody can decide whether they trust into the date / source or not.

    Nope.
    If you're guessing the release year by means of a numbering sequence, the only reasonable solution for the time being is to use the Release Notes while leaving the Release Date field empty. Period.

    That said, the most reasonable solution would be the introduction of a Fuzzy Date Field, as requested already years ago.
    E.g. by adding a 2nd date field, you would be then able to enter "released between [####] and [####]" based on educated guesses. That would allow for at least approximate date display and sorting on discography pages.
    Programming such a field is no rocket science requiring a professorship in quantum physics.
    Unfortunately, the Discogs developers are apparently too busy developing, uh, other "things" anyway, so what's the point of even asking for it again… :P
  • manus-von-alles about 1 month ago

    loukash
    Fuzzy Date Field


    To be true, we already have such a field, cause most of the dates mentioned at the field at the moment lacked a real proof.
  • loukash about 1 month ago

    manus-von-alles, either you don't understand, or you don't want to understand, or you're just trolling.
  • Abdelfauda about 1 month ago

    loukash
    If you're guessing the release year by means of a numbering sequence, the only reasonable solution for the time being is to use the Release Notes while leaving the Release Date field empty. Period.


    As said above, the guidelines do not at all discourage dating a release and (p)/(c) dates are denoted as sufficient. Guessing at best, educated or not.
    Once more I must ask the participants: Is mastering/pressing at the plant closer to the release date than recording or not?
    Just an example (of thousands): Pointer Sisters - Neutron Dance and https://www.discogs.com/label/127651-Planet-Records-5 - showing also that cat# FB 3951 matches the year of release and not the (p)-date.

    manus-von-alles
    loukash
    Fuzzy Date Field

    To be true, we already have such a field, cause most of the dates mentioned at the field at the moment lacked a real proof.


    This is what it is about, for a.m. reasons. wrong dates everywhere. or the external release date source is used for various versions...
  • mrformic about 1 month ago

    Using catnumbers or matrices to guess a release date is not allowed on Discogs.
    The reasons have been repeated many times.
    If you want to guess, you are welcome to do so in notes.
    Abdelfauda
    This is what it is about


    As soon you have convinced management and community to apply new rules, we will follow them.
  • mjb about 1 month ago

    Abdelfauda
    Is mastering/pressing at the plant closer to the release date than recording or not?

    Usually the mastering and pressing dates are very close to each other, and are about 3 to 6 weeks in advance of the street date, except at the end of the year, when schedules tend to slip due to holidays and last-minute budget constraints. But usually is not always. And I strongly disagree with using mastering or pressing dates as release dates anyway.

    I mean look at New Gold Dream (81-82-83-84)... a title which was in print continuously for years; new molds made as often as needed to meet demand: 8/88, 3/90, 7/90, 7/91, 9/92 and probably more not yet submitted... these are not separate releases; we are just getting a behind-the-scenes glimpse of how frequently the molds wore out. 8/88 may not even be the first pressing by this manufacturer; it's just the earliest date spotted so far. Release date field is rightly left blank here until we find a good source.

    loukash
    If you're guessing the release year by means of a numbering sequence, the only reasonable solution for the time being is to use the Release Notes while leaving the Release Date field empty. Period.

    Agree 100%.

    A blank date field means "uncertain or unknown", but for some reason, most users nowadays seem to think it just means "someone just forgot to fill this in". Solving that problem requires more than just a new field.
  • Abdelfauda about 1 month ago

    mjb
    I mean look at New Gold Dream (81-82-83-84)... a title which was in print continuously for years; new molds made as often as needed to meet demand: 8/88, 3/90, 7/90, 7/91, 9/92 and probably more not yet submitted... these are not separate releases; we are just getting a behind-the-scenes glimpse of how frequently the molds wore out. 8/88 may not even be the first pressing by this manufacturer; it's just the earliest date spotted so far. Release date field is rightly left blank here until we find a good source


    I agree that there are countless releases which are impossible to date from their mere identifiers. many others are not impossible to date but require thorough research and knowledge...all properties and identifiers have to be compared. A million-selling late 80s CD compilation for the US market and a German +/-2000 copies Schlager 7" from 1972 are two completely different things. Latter was thrown on the market immly after manufacturing (one single edition) and according to the sequence manufacturing was definitely in the first half of 1972, so why should this year be doubted.

    What is completely disturbing is the tendency towards all or nothing in this matter. Some releases can be dated safely, some not. Many seem easy to be dated within your interpretation of the guidelines but are actually wrong (see examples above).
    Just leave the decision whether or not to add the date open to those who care to investigate. A reasonably researched date based on a sequence is beneficial to the database. There are millions of subs in a lousy state where no one ever cared to verify any information. Those should be in the focus.

    'All or nothing'-rules in such a wide array of phenomena like world-wide music manufacturing over decades are definitely crap. A minority of users would stick to them anyway.
  • mjb about 1 month ago

    Abdelfauda
    A million-selling late 80s CD compilation for the US market and a German +/-2000 copies Schlager 7" from 1972 are two completely different things.

    True enough, but on neither of those releases would I be likely to use only catalog numbers, matrix codes, or 45cat to justify putting a particular year in the release date field. I have no compulsion to fill in a blank date field when the notes adequately explain why it was left blank, even if they are somewhat speculative. "Circa 1972 release based on catalog number sequence" in the notes should suffice. But most users have no such sense of nuance. :/
  • avalon67 about 1 month ago

    mrformic
    Abdelfauda
    would you then mind to transfer your private investigations to a new thread.

    Why ?


    Why indeed. If you're not interested then please Abdelfauda put me on ignore, as I have you. Is it too close to home?
    Please raise your concerns with management of your accusations here
    https://www.discogs.com/release/11364789-Kl%C3%A4rchen-Die-Ganz-Gro%C3%9Fe-Lache-Die-Ganz-Gro%C3%9Fe-Heule/history#latest
    loukash
    If you're guessing the release year by means of a numbering sequence, the only reasonable solution for the time being is to use the Release Notes while leaving the Release Date field empty. Period.


    Can't argue with that.
  • Abdelfauda about 1 month ago

    avalon67
    Why indeed. If you're not interested then please Abdelfauda put me on ignore, as I have you. Is it too close to home?

    I haven't ever put anyone 'on ignore' ;-), don't even know how to do that. And I see no reason why I should ignore you or anyone not sharing my opinion. That would prevent me from learning.

    mjb
    I have no compulsion to fill in a blank date field when the notes adequately explain why it was left blank, even if they are somewhat speculative. "Circa 1972 release based on catalog number sequence" in the notes should suffice. But most users have no such sense of nuance. :/


    The problem still is: if the 7" record in question showed '℗ 1972' anywhere on the release, not a single objection could and would be made and entering '1972' in the date field would be justified for all participants.
    For such a type of release (or e.g. scheduled reissues receiving a new number) the pressing plant sequence is in all cases closer to the release date than the commonly accepted ℗-date. If all properties (pressing plant number, label catalogue number, runout stamp shape, label and sleeve layout) match the year in comparison to releases confirmed for that year, these properties more than compensate the missing ℗-date in the dating process.

    As said, I only have a problem with this all-or-nothing fundamentalism that does not differ between cases. I clearly differentiate between releases with and without chance for proper dating and I keep the rule "When in doubt, please don't!" always in my mind.
  • mrformic about 1 month ago

  • nfnshdbzznzz about 1 month ago

    mrformic
    And now user Velove ... is the source of year, without any explanation


    velove, is this correct it was "approved" by you?
  • velove about 1 month ago

    nfnshdbzznzz
    velove, is this correct it was "approved" by you?

    of course not. btw I don't get notification when pinged in forum.

    Have reverted the year addition by EI. this needs consensus and/or guideline changes
  • Abdelfauda about 1 month ago

    velove
    this needs consensus and/or guideline changes


    I don't see necessary guideline changes at all. I just see that Holobiont's desperate (and by all means self-destructive) acting is used to spoil a reasonable discussion about the value of identifiers other than ℗/©-dates when dating a release. Lots of mobbing, few reasonable arguments, as often.
  • manus-von-alles about 1 month ago

    Abdelfauda
    Lots of mobbing, few reasonable arguments, as often.


    It is the same over and over again. A lot of user want some clear rules for a dating, but this rules are not really possible. We find so many different cases to determine a reasonable release date. One of it is the C/P mark - but it is not the most exact one. I frequently found the pressing plant codes and other identifiers improve this dates.

    The point is, discogs is a comunity. Some users are specialised in some fields and able to find a release date, cause they know the identifiers and their periods. Then other who have no clue about it come and complain.
    As I told above: we should try to declare the source of the dating.

    To concentrate on C/P marks alone for dating is not a reasonable way to go from my pov.
    And to be true, the perfect proof for a release date is commonly an illusion.
  • Myriad about 1 month ago

    Abdelfauda
    Lots of mobbing, few reasonable arguments, as often.

    It looks more to me this thread is just a vocal minority endlessly complaining that you’re not allowed to enter release dates without external sources.

    loukash’s “fuzzy release date” is a fantastic idea and would cover exactly what you want to be able to do (use investigative methods to narrow down the possible release window) but unfortunately doesn’t seem to have caught on with management.
  • Abdelfauda about 1 month ago

    Myriad
    It looks more to me this thread is just a vocal minority endlessly complaining that you’re not allowed to enter release dates without external sources.


    RSG §8.1 does not at all say that it is 'not allowed'. It encourages users to use the (c)-date (we all know that it had NOT been updated on many represses or even reissues). Facing this, the 'vocal minority' of 0,0001% of knowledgeable users who actively demand the use of more accurate identifiers than (p)/(c)-dates as a dating source counts as much as the 'vocal majority' of 0,0001% of the users, who are not able or willing to answer the question why - under a. m. circumstances - a pressing plant sequence should be a less accurate dating source than the allowed (p)-date imprint.
    Btw. not allowed to enter release dates without external sources. Please have fun and community/management/market support to eliminate 85-90% of the release dates from the date field.

    What this vocal minority demands is not to get bullied when properly dating a release where possible, as described above.
  • mrformic about 1 month ago

    I don't understand your anger.
    This is a public database with user guidelines. In addition, we have some "forum decissions" how to handle certain things.
    If you want to use this database, you must follow those rules.
    You are asking for new rules. As long the old ones apply, please follow them.
    As soon we have a new "you can enter year from cat#/matrices interpretation", you are most welcome to do so.
  • Abdelfauda about 1 month ago

    mrformic
    This is a public database with user guidelines.


    RSG §8.1 neither demands external sources, nor prohibits individual dating methods. It encourages a user to do his best to date the release.

    mrformic
    In addition, we have some "forum decissions" how to handle certain things.


    These forum decisions do not have the status of law/rule or whatsoever. Recommendations at best, ignored by 95% of 'average Discogsjoes'. I've been in the database long enough to see many 'decisions' resulting in massive errors.

    mrformic
    If you want to use this database, you must follow those rules.


    Where is the rule that prohibits dating by sequence under clear circumstances? Where are rules anyway? I see guidelines and I try to deliver submissions which are as complete as possible. Would you enter the type of sleeve paper or even runouts to make determination easier and improve data safety?

    mrformic
    I don't understand your anger.


    Just go through this thread and answer my question, please:

    Why should - under otherwise clear circumstances - a combination of pressing plant sequence, cat number and other release properties be a less accurate and less legitimate dating source than the commonly accepted and allowed ℗/©-date?

    If you can answer this question, I'll be less 'angry' ;-)).
  • mrformic about 1 month ago

    Abdelfauda
    Where is the rule that prohibits dating by sequence under clear circumstances?


    We have explained countless times, why sequences are a bad source for dating.
    There is no such thing like "clear circumstances", no matter how many times you repeat it.
    If you don't have a valid source for year, leave the field blank.
    Year is not mandatory.

    One question to you:
    Did you vote C on Holobionts year edits based on matrices ?
    Just curious.
  • Abdelfauda about 1 month ago

    mrformic
    Did you vote C on Holobionts year edits based on matrices ?


    To serve your curiosity: No. I vote in accordance to voting guidelines and also in accordance to codes of conduct to avoid unnecessary frustration. I neither use voting to support other users nor do I see it as a method of imposing pressure when discussions are in progress.

    mrformic

    There is no such thing like "clear circumstances", no matter how many times you repeat it.


    Does this apply to dating by c/p-date-dating as allowed?

    mrformic
    We have explained countless times, why sequences are a bad source for dating.


    Abdelfauda
    Why should - under otherwise clear circumstances - a combination of pressing plant sequence, cat number and other release properties be a less accurate and less legitimate dating source than the commonly accepted and allowed ℗/©-date?


    Please explain it especially for me stupid veteran, in detail. And explain why you think so in 100% of the cases, based on anything but a guideline.

    Otherwise you have to bring up management to answer this delicate question.
  • mrformic about 1 month ago

    Abdelfauda
    Please explain it especially for me stupid veteran


    Mr.Slut
    The numbers from plants are unreliable because they can refer to mastering dates that not necessarily are in the same year as the release itself.
    Numbers from label are unreliable because sometimes a release is planned but delayed.


    Abdelfauda
    Otherwise you have to bring up management to answer this delicate question.


    No, I don't. If you want to file an SR, feel free to do so.
    Its you who wants a change, so you must take action.

    @ Holobiont
    Are you Mrzigzac using a new nik ?
  • Abdelfauda about 1 month ago

    mrformic
    The numbers from plants are unreliable because they can refer to mastering dates that not necessarily are in the same year as the release itself.
    Numbers from label are unreliable because sometimes a release is planned but delayed.


    As if this would not apply to p/c-dates!

    The mastering is closer to the release than the recording. Countless Sonopress pressings with e.g. (p) 1975 but 76 in the runouts had to be re-dated using this more accurate method. A release will also not be manufactured without assigned copyright (c).

    Once again I will put my claim: Mr.Slut's statement is applicable to a certain percentage of the releases in question but not for all of them. Those release would have been dated erroneously if dated based on their p/c-date, too.
    But there is a certain percentage of safely dateable releases, like Klärchen (Die Ganz Große Lache) / Die Ganz Große Heule amongst many others.

    All we demand is freedom to let our experience and empirical database research flow into the dating process. If a certain date is doubtful to you because you have a better source or better knowledge of identifiers you may still correct or remove it. I do this frequently.
  • Mr.Slut about 1 month ago

    Abdelfauda
    Once again I will put my claim: Mr.Slut's statement is applicable to a certain percentage of the releases in question but not for all of them.


    No, it is applicable to ALL releases. These are the ground rules here, whether you like them or not.

    Abdelfauda
    Those release would have been dated erroneously if dated based on their p/c-date, too.


    That is probably right too. But unless there is evidence that the date is incorrect (e.g. pressed by a company that didn't exist in the p/c date year, or visual / haptical evidence that this is a later pressing), we use that date.

    The dates you wanna add from label continuity and/or pressing/mastering dates retrieved from the matrix, are NOT TO BE ENTERED based on only that evidence.
    Procedure in these cases is as follows: You leave the date blank and add info about the presumed year in the release notes (with explanation how that assumption came about).

    That way the info is there for all to see, but does not contradict guidelines and protocol of discogs.

    Your experience and empircal assumptions are welcome, but they need to be applied in the proper way in regards to how this is done on discogs (currently).
  • Abdelfauda about 1 month ago

    Mr.Slut
    No, it is applicable to ALL releases. These are the ground rules here, whether you like them or not.


    I always read about rules. Not a single rule visible. anywhere. just the personal opinion of a 'vocal minority' of users which is surely the correct procedure for a part of the vast array of releases, for another part it is an unnecessary obstacle on the long way into data continuity.

    Mr.Slut
    The dates you wanna add from label continuity and/or pressing/mastering dates retrieved from the matrix, are NOT TO BE ENTERED based on only that evidence.
    Procedure in these cases is as follows: You leave the date blank and add info about the presumed year in the release notes (with explanation how that assumption came about).


    This is still a statement without cause and ignores the fact I repeatedly posted. if dating by p/c-dates is allowed and dating by plant sequences/other methods is not expicitely prohibited in the guidelines, where do you get the authority to claim that there is a 'rule', capable of 'prohibiting' something?

    A thorough dating process without (c)/(p)-date consists of: Pressing plant sequence, label cat#, optical and haptical inspection and comparison with confirmed releases from that year. not a superficial 'one identifier's enough'-dating.
    Again, mastering/pressing is always closer to release than (p) and (c) assignment.

    I see no reason to obey to whatever desicion based on the completely illogical assumption that p/c dates are more qualified and accurate as dating instruments than a combined pressing plant sequence/label cat#/disc property evaluation.

    All responses so far were unsatisfying as they do not explain this paradoxon - the more inaccurate method is allowed, the more accurate in your opinion 'prohibited'.
    I'd be satisfied with a bit more openness and case-to-case differentiation. If possible: yes - if in doubt: no. simple as that.
  • manus-von-alles about 1 month ago

    mrformic
    There is no such thing like "clear circumstances", no matter how many times you repeat it.


    That's correct and also depends on the C/P marks. And to clear this point once again, C/P marks are usually even more questionable than some wellknown sequental pressing plant codes,

    Not every cat# series is chronologic, but some are. Same with printer companies, and so on. You need a lot of experience to date some releases, and you have to include as much identifiers as possible. That's the meaning of
    RSG §8.1.2. you should do your best to find the actual date of that release.

    And to be clear, there is no guide that demands external sources for a dating. This is just a wild speculation of some user who think only in one dimension.
  • loukash about 1 month ago

    manus-von-alles
    Not every cat# series is chronologic, but some are.

    You do understand the basic concept of assigning a sequential/chronological number, right?
    And that assigning a sequencial number often has nothing to do with the actual release date, right?

    1st-hand example:
    I've been assigned the Munster Records catalog# MR 304 / MR CD 304 in March 2010, for a compilation we've planned to produce for release in February 2011.
    It still hasn't been released as of today. (Not sure if it ever will, but I've not given up hope.) The catalog# MR 304 / MR CD 304 is still vacant.

    Sequencial numbering can give you a clue, but that's all.

    manus-von-alles
    You need a lot of experience to date some releases, and you have to include as much identifiers as possible.

    More power to you.
    In the Release Notes!
  • Holobiont about 1 month ago

    thx.Lou. but a sonopress matix have to seen different..
  • manus-von-alles about 1 month ago

    loukash
    Sequencial numbering can give you a clue, but that's all.


    That's fine and true and that's why I repeat that we have to see more than one identifier. If we have for example a matching cat# series and a matching pressing plant code, there should be no doubt anymore that this is a basic for a dating.

    It is the same again and again. I say we have to see all circumstances, and the detractor reduce there arguments to only one identifier.

    So once again, I agree that we should not date a release depending on one identifier alone, but have a look whether all identifiers match the dating.

    And there is also more knowledge necessary sometimes. For example a budget release with the same matrix as the initial full price release should of course not use the mastering date for the release date, while we could use this mastering / lacquer cut date pretty sure for the initial full price release for a dating. That's what I mean when I say that we have to see all circumstances.
    This includes, that we not only have to see the release in question, but also corresponding releases.
  • Myriad about 1 month ago

    manus-von-alles
    That's fine and true and that's why I repeat that we have to see more than one identifier. If we have for example a matching cat# series and a matching pressing plant code, there should be no doubt anymore that this is a basic for a dating.

    I still don't think anyone else in this thread would agree with you. You're guessing a RELEASE DATE from patterns in number sequences which as loukash has already said are indicative of when these numbers were assigned. That means we can use them to identify an *earliest possible release date*, not THE release date.
  • mrformic about 1 month ago

    manus-von-alles
    This includes, that we not only have to see the release in question, but also corresponding releases.


    I thought this is one of the huge "NoNo's" on Discogs ?
    Releases do not correspond, at least here.
    We do not copy timings, credits....from one release to another.
    Why would we use other releases to date one ?
  • mrformic about 1 month ago

    Holobiont
    thx.Lou. but a sonopress matix have to seen different


    I have asked a simple question, would you mind to answer ?
    Are you Mrzigzac ?
  • manus-von-alles about 1 month ago

    Myriad
    I still don't think anyone else in this thread would agree with you. You're guessing a RELEASE DATE from patterns in number sequences which as loukash has already said are indicative of when these numbers were assigned.


    Once again, RSG §8.1.2. don't demand a 100 % proof, but to do the best we can do.
    You can doubt anything, even every external source.
    We need to go with the reality, and it is usually not perfect white or black, but in a big scale of greys.
    You can always say, no this is not really black, but a very dark kind of grey.
    This thread is just about this kind of definition, while the guides are clear the rule and demand to do the best. That's what I ask for, when I demand to care for all identifiers, not just one source for a dating.

    @ mrformic - releases are very well corresponding, that's why we collect them in Masters. You are obviouly not able to understand what I mean, so it is useless to discuss with you. I never demanded to give them the same timing or things like that, but to distinguish them, and try to not confuse special identifiers for wrong interpretation.
  • perlator about 1 month ago

    Myriad
    That means we can use them to identify an *earliest possible release date*, not THE release date.

    This is the problem, in a nutshell. It also means that timing the entire sequence of manufacturing or contract numbers (like those Sonopress catalog numbers) depends on these release dates. Few of which will be exactly known in the first place - I checked many of these early BASF releases made by Sonopress and usually the date has been entered without further comment and without any evidence from the release itself. If users now start to fill in guesstimated release dates based on the position in the sequence they will further obfuscate the few positions that the entire series of numbers hinges on.
  • Myriad about 1 month ago

    manus-von-alles
    Once again, RSG §8.1.2. don't demand a 100 % proof, but to do the best we can do.

    The guidelines do not allow you to enter unsourced information because it’s “the best you can do”.

    Enter an official release date or nothing at all.

    If you don’t think C/P dates deserve to be allowed as release dates we can have that discussion separately.

    But you can’t keep arguing that “because C/P is allowed in release date I should be allowed to enter whatever I like”
  • Myriad about 1 month ago

    perlator
    If users now start to fill in guesstimated release dates based on the position in the sequence they will further obfuscate the few positions that the entire series of numbers hinges on.

    This is a great point to be noted and further reason why we should only consider such dating methods to be approximations only!
  • loukash about 1 month ago

    manus-von-alles
    Once again

    Once again:
    USE THE RELEASE NOTES!
    (Yes, I'm shouting.)
  • cheebacheebakid about 1 month ago

    loukash
    Once again:
    USE THE RELEASE NOTES!
    +1

    Either that or start a forum thread for the specific release you want to add the guesstimated date to, present your case for a date in the thread, invite editors/owners of the release to the thread and gather consensus for the date you want to add.
  • avalon67 about 1 month ago

    Just to add my 20p here, because I've been looking through some old releases I was involved in....
    FREUD 8 In Excelsis - Prey 1986
    FREUD 9 Johnny Thunders - Que Sera, Sera 1985
    FREUD 10 The Neurotics* - Kickstarting A Backfiring Nation 1986
    cheebacheebakid
    gather consensus for the date you want to add.

    Don't just take it on yourself.
  • vinyljunkie66 about 1 month ago

    Abdelfauda
    What is completely disturbing is the tendency towards all or nothing in this matter. Some releases can be dated safely, some not. Many seem easy to be dated within your interpretation of the guidelines but are actually wrong (see examples above).
    Just leave the decision whether or not to add the date open to those who care to investigate. A reasonably researched date based on a sequence is beneficial to the database.

    ^ This.
    Just be reasonably sure the date you're entering is correct. Don't guess anything and explain your edit accurately, the submission notes are there for a purpose.
    And yes, if every detail on a release matches the pressing/mastering date, you can use it to set the release year. Same for the progression of the label's catalogue numbers. The burden of proving it's wrong is on the user who questions it.
    If there's even the slightest doubt, use the release notes instead.
    Remember that
    manus-von-alles
    Once again, RSG §8.1.2 don't demand a 100 % proof, but to do the best we can do.
  • Diognes_The_Fox about 1 month ago

    vinyljunkie66
    ust be reasonably sure the date you're entering is correct. Don't guess anything and explain your edit accurately, the submission notes are there for a purpose.
    And yes, if every detail on a release matches the pressing/mastering date, you can use it to set the release year. Same for the progression of the label's catalogue numbers. The burden of proving it's wrong is on the user who questions it.
    If there's even the slightest doubt, use the release notes instead.


    I totally agree. Do the best you can and explain things as clearly as possible.
  • loukash about 1 month ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    I totally agree.

    Thank you for wide opening a stinky can of worms.

    Diognes_The_Fox
    Do the best you can and explain things as clearly as possible.

    Users won't do that and you should actually know it.
  • Diognes_The_Fox about 1 month ago

    loukash
    Thank you for wide opening a stinky can of worms.


    Welcome. :)
  • Mr.Slut about 1 month ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    I totally agree. Do the best you can and explain things as clearly as possible.


    I'm not sure if you read the whole thread or not, hence my comment.

    Your statement basically ALLOWS to guesstimate a release date based on ones own investigation - in our case(s) here the assigned job numbers of pressing plants and/or catalog numbers assigned by a label.
    Generally speaking this is likely to introduce errors and misconceptions to the database.
    IMHO these dates belong to the release notes, as they are (educated, but still) guesses (or assumptions).

    To give just two examples:
    1) A CD of my own music is FâLX çèrêbRi - Trials Textures Errors. It has the catalog number "MV15" on the label Monochrome Vision. The four CDs before that all came out in 2007. The next five CDs came out in 2007 too.
    Following the logic, MV15 would most likely be a 2007 release too. But actually it only came out 2014.
    2) Schatten Unter Eis - We Might As Well Be Dead has a release date of "22-02-2017". If we would go with the approx. date by the job number of pressing plant "Schallplattenfabrik Pallas GmbH", which automatically assigns subsequent job numbers to each of their pressings, the release would be made in 2015. I know for a fact that the release had a delay of about 1 1/2-2 years for mostly financial reasons. The jobnumber was assigned in 2015, but the actual pressing happened much later (as well as the release).

    Agreed, these are somewhat extremer cases of delays in production. But these things happen all the time.

    If we would follow your statement here, we could also add e.g. dates for represses when the matrix of CD (as an example) features the glass mastering date. It's an educated guess that a CD glass mastered e.g. in June 2015 was also released in 2015.
    Yet in the past we were clearly (and I think rightfully so) instructed NOT to retrieve a release date based on this info alone, but list it as an assumped approximate date in the release notes instead.

    Would be great, if you can clarify your statement a bit.
    Otherwise it might be interpreted wrongly.
  • vinyljunkie66 about 1 month ago

    loukash
    Thank you for wide opening a stinky can of worms.

    It's not like this, if you read the whole content of what I wrote, especially:
    (1) everything on the release must match the date that is going to be added;
    (2) if there's even the slightest doubt, use the release notes instead.
    In other words, I am not suggesting at all to add dates blindly. Please don't interpret my comment as such. I am suggesting to use common sense in conformity with RSG §8.1.2.
    Also, in case of any doubt, or incomplete/inadequate submission notes, we still have RSG §1.1.2 that allows us to reject any unsubstantiated info. Don't forget this.

    Mr.Slut
    Yet in the past we were clearly (and I think rightfully so) instructed NOT to retrieve a release date based on this info alone, but list it as an assumped approximate date in the release notes instead.

    We should never assume a date based on one info alone and I don't think Diognes is approving this, as it would really open the a.m. "stinky can of worms" (I think for instance to all those Italian LPs with incorrect dates taken from the mastering date in the deadwax).
    I was only saying that, if everything on a release points to (and is consistent with) a certain year, RSG §8.1.2 allows us to use it as the release date, of course unless proven otherwise – and these three words cover the examples you just made. In those two specific cases of course there's plenty of proof to reject any earlier date, regardless of the progression of the label's catalogue numbers etc.
  • loukash about 1 month ago

    vinyljunkie66
    (2) if there's even the slightest doubt, use the release notes instead.

    I've read your post at least two times before posting.
    The thing is, those proactive users in this thread have shown many times that they don't have "even the slightest doubt".
    That's the real problem.
    And now they can claim that they also have staff's blessing.
    Thanks, but no, thanks.

    Mr.Slut
    dates for represses when the matrix of CD (as an example) features the glass mastering date

    vinyljunkie66
    incorrect dates taken from the mastering date in the deadwax

    Using actual dates or well documented date codes, for example, is an issue that I object the least. Because at least they denote a real date, as in "a unique and precisely defined point in time". We may never get closer to an actual release year (note that I don't say "release date") than that.

    But I have an issue with simple sequential numbers. That's just a no-no, although it can give a clue. Clues go into the release notes. Period.

Log In You must be logged in to post.