• jopla2 2 months ago

  • cheebacheebakid 2 months ago

    Yes, as mentioned in the sub comments by multiple users.

    Full string and then extract what you want after that "Matrix Numbers and other run out information can also be extracted from the whole run out inscription, and added as further 'Matrix Number' fields with descriptions and / or expanded upon in the notes as the submitter sees fit."
  • Silvermo 2 months ago

    I think it is up to the submitter, but it is prefered to enter it in one field.

    there is no gl saying it must be entered in one field, but to do that is the prefereed way. If there is many variants splitting the matrix/runout into many different fields makes the submission unreadable. So it is better with one field and explaining the different things in the discription field.

    I might have missed some forum concensus that says it should be entered in one field only (that is the only consensus that is logical to reach) so dont take my word as gospel
  • Silvermo 2 months ago

    cheebacheebakid
    Yes, as mentioned in the sub comments by multiple users.

    Full string and then extract what you want after that "Matrix Numbers and other run out information can also be extracted from the whole run out inscription, and added as further 'Matrix Number' fields with descriptions and / or expanded upon in the notes as the submitter sees fit."


    This. Add this to my coment
  • velove 2 months ago

    it isn't mandatory to add any matrix info.
    But if you do you should add it in one string and then extract parts of it. Apart from the GL and threads that nudge you in that direction there is also something known as common sense which when used will tell you that it's easier for other users to find the correct version if the matrix string is entered in one line.
  • OLDFRIENDSFORSALE 2 months ago

    nobody think this is very - very - confusing?

    https://keinundaber.ch/media/cache/f7/a4/f7a40357d588e2ef01fe1e79c0f3bfcd.jpg
    [on the left is the original release, on the right what is entered in the release page]
    now imagine this BaoI with variants...
  • narcisco 2 months ago

    velove
    But if you do you should add it in one string


    +1

    OLDFRIENDSFORSALE
    nobody think this is very - very - confusing?

    https://keinundaber.ch/media/cache/f7/a4/f7a40357d588e2ef01fe1e79c0f3bfcd.jpg
    [on the left is the original release, on the right what is entered in the release page]
    now imagine this BaoI with variants...


    Well put. :-)

    One string divided into 5 parts is not the pinnacle of clarity IMO.
  • Martin_H_Unzon 2 months ago

    Martin_H_Unzon edited 2 months ago
    Is better to put all the runout info into only one row, on the blank tag for description could put something like... "Etched side A (part stamped)" and is more functional than to use two or more rows to describe only one side of runout... but is not an error as you did, neither the correction... except for the text "runout" (redundant and unnecessary IMO).
  • leeving 2 months ago

    Martin_H_Unzon
    (redundant and unnecessary IMO).


    It's not really redundant, just more accurate, as the line is "Matrix/Runout" - it is good to specify as matrices can also appear on the label.
  • leeving 2 months ago

    My opinion is that we don't really need to know if something is written sideways.

    12 lines for 1 variant is a bit much.
  • Earjerk 2 months ago

    Full string.

    +1
  • chillyboy64 2 months ago

    This is fecking ridiculous. We are all disappear up our own backsides at this rate. I've never seen soemthing so ludicrous. Before someone says "it's in the guidelines" please take a second to think about this stupidity.
    -1
  • leeving 2 months ago

    leeving edited 2 months ago
    +1 for full string

    Matrix / Runout (Runout side A): F TY1 DAMONT MT. YZ-363T-A-1
    Matrix / Runout (Runout side B): C TY1 MT. DAMONT YZ-363T-B-1

    -1 for the rest of whatever all this is...

    Matrix / Runout (runout, side A, etched - sideways): F
    Matrix / Runout (runout, side A, stamped): TY1
    Matrix / Runout (runout, side A, etched - facing label): DAMONT
    Matrix / Runout (runout, side A, etched): MT.
    Matrix / Runout (runout, side A, etched): YZ-363T-A-1
    Matrix / Runout (runout, side B, etched - sideways): C
    Matrix / Runout (runout, side B, stamped): TY1
    Matrix / Runout (runout, side B, etched): MT.
    Matrix / Runout (runout, side B, etched - facing label): DAMONT
    Matrix / Runout (runout, side B, etched): YZ-363T-B-1

    All this isn't necessary and just makes for a cluttered sub when the next variant comes along.

    This is how I would enter that runout -

    Matrix / Runout (Side A runout, etched [TY1 stamped]): F TY1 DAMONT MT. YZ-363T-A-1
    Matrix / Runout (Side B runout, etched [TY1 stamped]): C TY1 MT. DAMONT YZ-363T-B-1

    Is the positioning of how something is etched or stamped really that important that it requires its own line? Has the orientation ever made a difference in that it then makes a variant actually a different submission?
  • baldorr 2 months ago

    leeving
    Is the positioning of how something is etched or stamped really that important that it requires its own line? Has the orientation ever made a difference in that it then makes a variant actually a different submission?


    The last time this came up someone mentioned some hardcore Madonna fans that do care about orientation of etchings/stamps in a matrix. But yeah, unless the orientation is significant (ie indicates something unique about that version), then I say it’s not useful information to add.

    Anyway, I agree - as best as possible we should enter matrix strings in one field.
  • Hieronymus2001 2 months ago

    baldorr
    I agree - as best as possible we should enter matrix strings in one field.


    +1
  • jopla2 2 months ago

    chillyboy64
    This is fecking ridiculous. We are all disappear up our own backsides at this rate. I've never seen soemthing so ludicrous. Before someone says "it's in the guidelines" please take a second to think about this stupidity.

    leeving
    All this isn't necessary and just makes for a cluttered sub when the next variant comes along.

    So details are 'ludicrous' and 'stupidity'? You are at Discogs: https://www.discogs.com/about

    I am not against adding the matrix string, but are we now removing the original data? Removing valid data is clearly against the guidelines. "It's in the guidelines". What is 'important' or makes a difference is subjective. Currently there's just the one variant but there could be more in the future and the details might become relevant. It could be argued that the matrix in itself isn't important at all, there's enough other details in the sub to tell it apart from the Germany 12". All that's needed is a note that the German 12" has rows of legal text around label rim, all the rest can be deleted.
  • chillyboy64 2 months ago

    What "valid" data is being removed? Whether something is upside down or standing on it's head doesn't need to be listed in minute detail, imho. It make submissions look cluttered and confusing. I thought that this sort or anal "list every little detail to the nth degree" had passed, how wrong i was.

    "So details are 'ludicrous' and 'stupidity'?"
    That's not what i said. Details are important, describing them in the fashion that's being proposed isn't.
  • leeving 2 months ago

    leeving edited 2 months ago
    jopla2
    I am not against adding the matrix string, but are we now removing the original data? Removing valid data is clearly against the guidelines.


    There is no "valid data" being removed when you don't say how something is oriented in the runouts.

    Unless a difference is KNOWN, orientation shouldn't matter and setting up the BaOI for the possibility of a difference at a later time is not the best thing to do for a database.
  • mjb 2 months ago

    Given the
    leeving
    All this isn't necessary and just makes for a cluttered sub when the next variant comes along.

    Given the discussions in which management favors a "full set" of matrix data for each variant, even if only one of the 29 items in the split fields has changed, I'd say simplifying things / keeping as much as possible in one field is the way to go.

    Nevertheless, modifying the way the first variants were entered is asking for trouble.
  • Earjerk 2 months ago

    mjb
    Nevertheless, modifying the way the first variants were entered is asking for trouble.


    I disagree that this is always true.
    I do try to defer to the previous formatting entered.
    However, if the info is too cluttered and I can make it less so while I'm adding/updating other info, I do so.

    I do not consider it a preference edit if I'm improving the readability/usability of the DB
  • jopla2 2 months ago

    http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/373899#3589374
    nik
    Entering everything in one block under "Matrix / Runout" is fine. Splitting it into separate sections is fine. Do not remove the one block entry if you are splitting it up, and do not remove the split up entries if you are entering it in one block.


    chillyboy64
    Details are important, describing them in the fashion that's being proposed isn't.

    The details were entered that way over 5 years ago, it is not a new proposal. Orientation is a fact, a user saying it's unimportant is an opinion. What is being proposed now, however, is removing the details. See the above comment by nik, it's just not done. Considering it shows a serious lack of perspective. Details that might not be that relevant now might become so in the future. Haven't you ever come across a sub with incomplete data and wondered if your copy matches that or not? The data is factual. Removing them is EI.

    I also find it antonishing how completely confused y'all seem to be over the 'split' entries. If that is confusing, you clearly haven't seen many matrix entries. But if they are removed, this is the alternative:
    Matrix / Runout (Runout, side A, etched, "TY1" stamped, "F" sideways, "DAMONT" faces label): F TY1 DAMONT MT. YZ-363T-A-1
    Matrix / Runout (Runout, side B, etched, "TY1" stamped, "C" sideways, "DAMONT" faces label): C TY1 MT. DAMONT YZ-363T-B-1

    There is data and then there is the way it's displayed. If some data is hard to pick up from the release page, that is a display issue, the data isn't to be blamed for that. Discogs has many 'display issues'. For example, the title of a Master is taken from the title of the Key Release. Sometimes it's not possible to find a Release which presents well all releases in the master - but the Key Release Title shouldn't be changed to fit the Master. Similarly, here the data shouldn't be tampered with to make it easier to read. It is not a matter of opinion.

    chillyboy64
    "So details are 'ludicrous' and 'stupidity'?"
    That's not what i said. Details are important, describing them in the fashion that's being proposed isn't.

    I find it hard to respect the opinions a user who uses terms like 'ludicrous' and 'stupidity' (and 'anal'!) when referring to this topic and/or other users. If this is so stupid why do you respond?
  • baldorr 2 months ago

    Earjerk
    I disagree that this is always true.
    I do try to defer to the previous formatting entered.
    However, if the info is too cluttered and I can make it less so while I'm adding/updating other info, I do so.

    I do not consider it a preference edit if I'm improving the readability/usability of the DB


    +1 for support of all of this.
  • andygrayrecords 2 months ago

    jopla2
    If this is so stupid why do you respond?

    Because.
    https://www.discogs.com/release/3613941-Oh-Julie/history#latest
  • chillyboy64 about 1 month ago

    I can use what terms i like, if that's how i feel. I don't really care if you respect me or not. Please cut out the superior attitude. We are all here to contribute to the database, we don't need to be talked down to, thanks.
  • LolH about 1 month ago

    leeving
    This is how I would enter that runout -

    Matrix / Runout (Side A runout, etched [TY1 stamped]): F TY1 DAMONT MT. YZ-363T-A-1
    Matrix / Runout (Side B runout, etched [TY1 stamped]): C TY1 MT. DAMONT YZ-363T-B-1
  • Silvermo about 1 month ago

    jopla2
    Matrix / Runout (Runout, side A, etched, "TY1" stamped, "F" sideways, "DAMONT" faces label): F TY1 DAMONT MT. YZ-363T-A-1
    Matrix / Runout (Runout, side B, etched, "TY1" stamped, "C" sideways, "DAMONT" faces label): C TY1 MT. DAMONT YZ-363T-B-1


    I think this is the best way to enter the data, all the information is there, but it is confined to one entry. This will help if there are many variants of a release.

    But as nik said (quoted by jopla2 we should not remove data entered in one specific way. Unless there have been a consensus/staff decission otherwise sense that statement by nik
  • chillyboy64 about 1 month ago

    Yes to this:
    Matrix / Runout (Side A runout, etched [TY1 stamped]): F TY1 DAMONT MT. YZ-363T-A-1
    Matrix / Runout (Side B runout, etched [TY1 stamped]): C TY1 MT. DAMONT YZ-363T-B-1

    No to this:

    Matrix / Runout (Runout, side A, etched, "TY1" stamped, "F" sideways, "DAMONT" faces label): F TY1 DAMONT MT. YZ-363T-A-1
    Matrix / Runout (Runout, side B, etched, "TY1" stamped, "C" sideways, "DAMONT" faces label): C TY1 MT. DAMONT YZ-363T-B-1

    I don't think anyone really cares which way something faces. Do they?
  • jopla2 about 1 month ago

    chillyboy64
    I don't think anyone really cares which way something faces. Do they?

    You are missing the point. Once the info is submitted, it stays.

    I made this up as an example of the other extreme, all the details crammed into the Description field:
    Matrix / Runout (Runout, side A, etched, "TY1" stamped, "F" sideways, "DAMONT" faces label): F TY1 DAMONT MT. YZ-363T-A-1
    Matrix / Runout (Runout, side B, etched, "TY1" stamped, "C" sideways, "DAMONT" faces label): C TY1 MT. DAMONT YZ-363T-B-1

    I think best is the way they're currently listed, the string without descriptions and then the extracted parts with descriptions.
  • chillyboy64 about 1 month ago

    I get the point, thanks. I just think it's pointless. I am allowed my opinion.
  • Earjerk about 1 month ago

    jopla2
    You are missing the point. Once the info is submitted, it stays.


    It's not so cut and dried, unfortunately. That would be assuming that the info was entered correctly. If the info is entered incorrectly, or in a way that is not clear, it doesn't stay, it goes.
  • velove about 1 month ago

    in the words of nik. we should try and do things that are useful for the users.

    Unless there are known cases of where Damont facing label has a different meaning compared to Damont facing away from label, it doesn't seem to serve a use to denote the direction.

    We could also note the font size of all the text in the booklets/covers because maybe they have been printed with different font sizes.

    Also assuming that one has entered the full runout string as such:
    Matrix / Runout (Side A runout, etched [TY1 stamped]): F TY1 DAMONT MT. YZ-363T-A-1
    Matrix / Runout (Side B runout, etched [TY1 stamped]): C TY1 MT. DAMONT YZ-363T-B-1

    What is then reasonable still to extract?
    e.g. lets work from concrete examples, assuming that it has been entered in full. Can you jopla2 give examples of what you would like to have extracted and why?
  • jopla2 about 1 month ago

    I can't believe we are now removing data. All the obvious features about the matrix were submitted and that should be perfectly good. That's kinda the idea of a database. I don't think it's my responsibily to prove the details have worth. What's 'important' is subjective and subject to change over time. I think it's a waste of everyone's time to ponder which might be worthwhile about them, at this particular time.

    I don't find the original 'split' entries that confusing but I don't mind adding the string version. Like I've said above, all that's needed to tell this 12" apart from the German 12" is a note that the latter has 3 rows of of legal text on the rims of label. If the matrix details are removed, all other details should be removed as well, following the same logic.

    I think there are bigger issues in question here, so I'm calling in more opinions:
    hafler3o, hmvh, typoman2, hatfulofelt, seehaas, Maherto, zevulon, sebfact, avalon67, syke, loukash, leinad, perlator, jweijde, Internaut, phallancz, ladrodipolli, truedream, kotzkarnickel, ultimathulerecords, stevefreeman, orjanbirkus, Opdiner, F104G, tsivihcra, andrenafulva, matracas, Kergillian, Mop66, Fauni-Gena, choan, chn74, Poke_Mode, Diognes_The_Fox, disruptive-influence, tam89rds, Mr.Slut, djindio, obs, wintersnooze, lbamaral, isidroco, mcr1, _jules, marcelrecords, morshem, Mr-Love, nik
  • hafler3o about 1 month ago

    Earjerk
    It's not so cut and dried, unfortunately. That would be assuming that the info was entered correctly. If the info is entered incorrectly, or in a way that is not clear, it doesn't stay, it goes.


    I'd side with this.

    Single string, notes can suffice for any differentiating factors, or variance in stamped / etched / inverted / etc.

    Keep things as simple as possible.
  • orjanbirkus about 1 month ago

    leeving
    +1 for full string

    Matrix / Runout (Runout side A): F TY1 DAMONT MT. YZ-363T-A-1
    Matrix / Runout (Runout side B): C TY1 MT. DAMONT YZ-363T-B-1

    -1 for the rest of whatever all this is...

    Matrix / Runout (runout, side A, etched - sideways): F
    Matrix / Runout (runout, side A, stamped): TY1
    Matrix / Runout (runout, side A, etched - facing label): DAMONT
    Matrix / Runout (runout, side A, etched): MT.
    Matrix / Runout (runout, side A, etched): YZ-363T-A-1
    Matrix / Runout (runout, side B, etched - sideways): C
    Matrix / Runout (runout, side B, stamped): TY1
    Matrix / Runout (runout, side B, etched): MT.
    Matrix / Runout (runout, side B, etched - facing label): DAMONT
    Matrix / Runout (runout, side B, etched): YZ-363T-B-1

    All this isn't necessary and just makes for a cluttered sub when the next variant comes along.

    This is how I would enter that runout -

    Matrix / Runout (Side A runout, etched [TY1 stamped]): F TY1 DAMONT MT. YZ-363T-A-1
    Matrix / Runout (Side B runout, etched [TY1 stamped]): C TY1 MT. DAMONT YZ-363T-B-1

    Is the positioning of how something is etched or stamped really that important that it requires its own line? Has the orientation ever made a difference in that it then makes a variant actually a different submission?


    +1 for full string, always.

    -1 for only the extracted 10 lines. It's hard to read, and variants would not be easy to add.
  • velove about 1 month ago

    jopla2
    I don't think it's my responsibily to prove the details have worth.

    I was trying to get some dialogue going regarding this in general by using a specific example because that makes reasoning easier. You don't HAVE but prove anything but if you want to help to move this discussion forward, feel free to contribute your reasons.
  • hmvh about 1 month ago

    Not sure if there's anything I can add to the conversation other than that the following echoes my approach and understanding of the guidelines.

    it isn't mandatory to add any matrix info.
    But if you do you should add it in one string and then extract parts of it. Apart from the GL and threads that nudge you in that direction there is also something known as common sense which when used will tell you that it's easier for other users to find the correct version if the matrix string is entered in one line.

    It's also the least error-prone, and most useful and likely to be found by search engines.

    If the orientation and type of individual characters and symbols in the runout is so important (what may be banal now might be useful later) then take a closeup photo or explain the detail in the release notes. But let's keep the matrix strings exactly that: a string of characters.

    Here's a wild thought: Anyone got an idea how best to enter whitespace? Is that one or two or five blanks between one letter and the next?
  • orjanbirkus about 1 month ago

    hmvh
    Here's a wild thought: Anyone got an idea how best to enter whitespace? Is that one or two or five blanks between one letter and the next?


    RSG §5.2.c.
    Only use 1 space. I've corrected many when doing other updates. I've seen releases with strings entered with a lot of spaces everywhere, but release page only show 1 space between letters and numbers, always.
  • chn74 about 1 month ago

    hafler3o
    Single string, notes can suffice for any differentiating factors, or variance in stamped / etched / inverted / etc.

    Keep things as simple as possible.

    And readable.
  • baldorr about 1 month ago

    velove
    Unless there are known cases of where Damont facing label has a different meaning compared to Damont facing away from label, it doesn't seem to serve a use to denote the direction.


    Agreed. If one has the "F" normal, and one has the "F" sideways, does that indicate anything? Does it even indicate a variant within a single release?
  • Fauni-Gena about 1 month ago

    velove
    it isn't mandatory to add any matrix info.
    But if you do you should add it in one string and then extract parts of it. Apart from the GL and threads that nudge you in that direction there is also something known as common sense which when used will tell you that it's easier for other users to find the correct version if the matrix string is entered in one line.

    +1 It used to be required to enter it on one line but that last revision of RSG 5.2.x did away with that requirement. It's something the Guidelines have gone back and forth on over the years. I still believe one line is preferred and is probably clearest with the possible exception of mirrored vs. not on CDs.
    mjb
    Given the discussions in which management favors a "full set" of matrix data for each variant, even if only one of the 29 items in the split fields has changed, I'd say simplifying things / keeping as much as possible in one field is the way to go.

    Nevertheless, modifying the way the first variants were entered is asking for trouble.

    I also agree with all of this. Put me down for +1 for full string. I'm also not a fan of extracting and parsing matrix data at all.
  • TopCats45s about 1 month ago

    hmvh
    the least error-prone, and most useful and likely to be found

    +1 full string. Also, in my small experience the Rockaway "R" & Pitman "p" are likely to be found going various directions including upside down.
  • andygrayrecords about 1 month ago

    orjanbirkus
    and variants would not be easy to add.

    This was the point behind my initial request, asking jopla to add the full string on one line - a simple request i thought...
    However if Jopla then wants to extract the etched and stamped parts then that's fine, however I don't think there should be 3 or 4 lines for this - one line is sufficient, if anything needs elaborating on then you can use the description or the release notes.
  • hatfulofelt about 1 month ago

    Wherever one is, TG for football.
  • MarquisSmith about 1 month ago

    I don’t think it’s the burden of those wishing to retain all the correct info entered, but the direction of DAMONT could indicate a different pressing, and it might even be possible that copies with differently oriented constituents have other meaningful differences. You can’t possibly know so you can’t remove it.

    As an example, I have looked extensively at the handwriting on a half dozen turnouts of Exile on Main St trying to see if there is any info to be gleaned about the mastering. There are several different hands at work and differences are in the formation of certain letters. Someday Inmay learn what can be construed from these. Maybe different people controlled the lathe for different cuts. I haven’t entered any of this info but if I did it would be wrong to remove it just because you don’t understand why I care.
  • chillyboy64 about 1 month ago

    A Damont pressing is sinply that. Which way it faces changes nothing. If there's no other "different" information etched on the runouts then they are all the same pressing. Simple. Why make things more complicated than they need to be. Say, for instance, a release has 10 runout variants is it really plausible to have each element list individually. I don't think so.
    Let's keep it simple, folks.
  • ultimathulerecords about 1 month ago

    orjanbirkus
    +1 for full string, always.


    Anything else is just to fiddly and pedantic, and any comments about sideways letters, etched and stamped parts can be added in description or in notes.
  • Mr.Slut about 1 month ago

    IMHO the submission as it stands now is excessive.

    I would certainly split etched and stamped content on each side. That adds to the overall info.

    I would list this as follows (side A info only for demonstration reasons):
    Matrix/Runout (Side A - etched): [sideways "F"] DAMONT MT. YZ-363T-A-1
    Matrix/Runout (Side A - stamped): TY1

    If "Damont" is etched upside down (I don't really get the "Facing label" info), then that should be added in brackets too - similar to the sideways "F".

    Adding "Runout" to the line is - in my opinion - obsolete info. Would be only useful, if there are "on label" matrix numbers listed in the BAOI additionally or if there are additional etchings in other areas on the vinyl (e.g. run-in area or between tracks). Otherwise that's the standard position and not really in need to be listed.
  • velove about 1 month ago

    Mr.Slut
    Adding "Runout" to the line is - in my opinion - obsolete info.

    it isn't at all. I often come across releases where the added matrix either matches a partial runout or somewhat the label matrix. Which ones was meant? was there a typo or only half the runouts entered?
    it really helps if it is always entered to make it clear. And not sure why you think that the runouts are the standard position. or have I missed that somewhere in the guidelines?
  • leeving about 1 month ago

    If we had separate Matrix and Runout drop down options, this wouldn't be a problem.
  • baldorr about 1 month ago

    Mr.Slut
    I would list this as follows (side A info only for demonstration reasons):
    Matrix/Runout (Side A - etched): [sideways "F"] DAMONT MT. YZ-363T-A-1
    Matrix/Runout (Side A - stamped): TY1


    My only comment on this is that now we don't know where the TY1 slots in with the etched portion. Maybe that doesn't matter as we're pointing out, but I don't see why it can't still be on one line with the descriptions used.
  • velove about 1 month ago

    baldorr
    we don't know where the TY1 slots in with the etched portion. Maybe that doesn't matter as we're pointing out, but I don't see why it can't still be on one line with the descriptions used.

    +1
  • Mr.Slut about 1 month ago

    baldorr
    but I don't see why it can't still be on one line with the descriptions used.


    Because etched and stamped info is usually separated. At least I was instructed like that in recent years and have practiced it ever since.
  • isidroco about 1 month ago

    Fauni-Gena
    with the possible exception of mirrored vs. not on CDs.


    Just add a text in description for Mirrored part like: The Beatles - Revolver
  • sebfact about 1 month ago

    Management has clearly positioned themselves towards "1 string".
    However, some people want to distinguish the etched and the stamped parts (for whatever reasons), which is tolerable/ tolerated to some extent. Unfortunately, so far there is no 100% satisfactory solution for the runouts but I think we shouldn't get too upset about it.
    And yet, the way it has been done here is too excessive, confusing and definitely not helpful for searches. Additionally, we now don't know how the matrix is "constructed" (i.e. where each part is located in the runout). I wonder why that isn't considered important when breaking strings up. Sometimes the positioning of a an element within the string is more explanatory than the orientation of a letter/ number (which for certain plants like DGG is specific anyway).
    Combining the runouts into 1 string is NOT removing valid data (valid descriptions only).
    Runouts that are entered in a certain manner, definitely don't have to remain so for eternity. Normally, runouts shouldn't be edited just for personal preference or just on their own. But when they are confusing or not compliant, they ought to.
  • typoman2 about 1 month ago

    typoman2 edited about 1 month ago
    sebfact
    Management has clearly positioned themselves towards "1 string".
    However, some people want to distinguish the etched and the stamped parts (for whatever reasons), which is tolerable/ tolerated to some extent. Unfortunately, so far there is no 100% satisfactory solution for the runouts but I think we shouldn't get too upset about it.
    And yet, the way it has been done here is too excessive, confusing and definitely not helpful for searches. Additionally, we now don't know how the matrix is "constructed" (i.e. where each part is located in the runout). I wonder why that isn't considered important when breaking strings up. Sometimes the positioning of a an element within the string is more explanatory than the orientation of a letter/ number (which for certain plants like DGG is specific anyway).
    Combining the runouts into 1 string is NOT removing valid data (valid descriptions only).
    Runouts that are entered in a certain manner, definitely don't have to remain so for eternity. Normally, runouts shouldn't be edited just for personal preference or just on their own. But when they are confusing or not compliant, they ought to.

    Very well put, sebfact, thank you.
    As well I don't see the reason for all the ado about "removal of data" as no data has been removed here obviously – but some added for better readability and handling of later to be added variants. A submitter should be able to add details as he sees fit but not force others by that to go the same way.
    I for one wouldn't add Variant 2 at all if I'm forced to add 10 lines matrix for that … there are limits.
  • cheebacheebakid about 1 month ago

    sebfact
    Additionally, we now don't know how the matrix is "constructed" (i.e. where each part is located in the runout). I wonder why that isn't considered important when breaking strings up.
    It's like trying to eat the recipe instead of the prepared dish.
  • Showbiz_Kid about 1 month ago

    jopla2
    I can't believe we are now removing data.

    Says the man who objects to Runout variants being added in pairs: "Data shouldn't be duplicated. Having matrices bundled makes it clear the data is identical. If you separate them, it suggests there's a difference."

    Here is what Brent has to say about it:
    Diognes_The_Fox
    for variants, full "sets" should be posted

    Diognes_The_Fox
    Variants should be grouped by set and not split up


    Seems pretty definitive to me.
  • jopla2 about 1 month ago

    Showbiz_Kid
    Says the man who objects to Runout variants being added in pairs: "Data shouldn't be duplicated. Having matrices bundled makes it clear the data is identical. If you separate them, it suggests there's a difference."

    Don't jump to conclusions, that is one case. With that particular release IMO it makes sense to bundle the B-side matrices together. It lets you know instantly that the entries are identical, without every user having to compare the two and failing to find a difference. I don't see what it has to do with this. It's other users that want to add something, not me.

    Showbiz_Kid
    Seems pretty definitive to me.

    What can you say about a topic that was started 5 years ago and has 1,199 replies? That ruling you quoted can be found halfway, on page 5 of 12. 600-700 messages have been posted after it and the guideline hasn't been changed, so obviously it's unresolved.
    https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/392356?page=6#7594993
  • Showbiz_Kid about 1 month ago

    And yet the opinion is there.

    I was unaware that there was an expiration date on Staff rulings. What exactly is that cutoff? 5 years? 1 year? 6 months?
  • Earjerk about 1 month ago

    sebfact
    Management has clearly positioned themselves towards "1 string".
    ...
    Combining the runouts into 1 string is NOT removing valid data (valid descriptions only).
    Runouts that are entered in a certain manner, definitely don't have to remain so for eternity. Normally, runouts shouldn't be edited just for personal preference or just on their own. But when they are confusing or not compliant, they ought to.


    +1
  • Showbiz_Kid about 1 month ago

    sebfact
    Management has clearly positioned themselves towards "1 string".
    However, some people want to distinguish the etched and the stamped parts (for whatever reasons), which is tolerable/ tolerated to some extent. Unfortunately, so far there is no 100% satisfactory solution for the runouts but I think we shouldn't get too upset about it.
    And yet, the way it has been done here is too excessive, confusing and definitely not helpful for searches. Additionally, we now don't know how the matrix is "constructed" (i.e. where each part is located in the runout). I wonder why that isn't considered important when breaking strings up. Sometimes the positioning of a an element within the string is more explanatory than the orientation of a letter/ number (which for certain plants like DGG is specific anyway).
    Combining the runouts into 1 string is NOT removing valid data (valid descriptions only).
    Runouts that are entered in a certain manner, definitely don't have to remain so for eternity. Normally, runouts shouldn't be edited just for personal preference or just on their own. But when they are confusing or not compliant, they ought to.

    Here here.
  • kkuenz56 about 1 month ago

    Management has clearly positioned themselves towards "1 string".

    +1
  • jopla2 about 1 month ago

    sebfact
    Management has clearly positioned themselves towards "1 string".

    Many support this here but what's it based on?

    sebfact
    we now don't know how the matrix is "constructed" (i.e. where each part is located in the runout).

    This is resolved by adding the 'string' version (which has already been done).
  • Showbiz_Kid about 1 month ago

    jopla2
    Many support this here but what's it based on?

    Aside from the reference I already gave you? Diognes endorses single-line Lp runout entries in the Forum discussion starting here and ending here, and also in the discussion beginning here and ending here.
  • jopla2 about 1 month ago

    The previous forum topic you posted was about submitting full sets of matrices (variants not bundled), very little to do with this.

    Showbiz_Kid
    Diognes endorses single-line Lp runout entries in the Forum discussion starting here and ending here

    This is about breaking up the original string and removing it, that's not what's happening here.

    Showbiz_Kid
    also in the discussion beginning here and ending here.

    This from the second bit looks more like it:
    Diognes_The_Fox
    At least for vinyl, I think the full string should be added. While specific information can be added to other fields, the context should be preserved.

    I haven't objected to adding the full string string for a long time now, but I am against removing the details:

    jopla2
    What is 'important' or makes a difference is subjective. Currently there's just the one variant but there could be more in the future and the details might become relevant. It could be argued that the matrix in itself isn't important at all, there's enough other details in the sub to tell it apart from the Germany 12". All that's needed is a note that the German 12" has rows of legal text around label rim, all the rest can be deleted.
    jopla2
    If some data is hard to pick up from the release page, that is a display issue, the data isn't to be blamed for that.
  • obs about 1 month ago

    obs edited about 1 month ago
    And this is why Discogs has gone to pot for me. Time for me to back away.

    I would put it in one field because it is the most organized. The way it is now is garbage, due to TMFI. But it is allowed, so what can you do? I can't believe there are so many fields just for one Variant :-D .

    The problem with trying to please everybody is that you just end up pissing everyone off. It happens in real life and it is happening at Discogs.
  • Showbiz_Kid about 1 month ago

    obs
    The way it is now is garbage, due to TMFI.

    Yep. Michael Jackson and Beatles Lps with 10+ runout variants and no end in sight. People obsessed with the degree of rotation of stamped characters. And don’t forget the endless discussions about whether or not to fully capitalize hyphenated titles 8’!
  • sebfact about 1 month ago

    One other trend here is that you often deal with people that have to prove their omniscience and even ignoring management statements by i) refusing the context, ii) denying the relevance, iii) producing other irrelevant examples.

    Breaking the string up like it has done here is misleading and impedes searches. This is just information overkill, definitely neither endorsed by the Guidelines, nor by Management, nor wanted by the community here.

    The 10 last lines should be removed, eventually, and comments added: "All etched, except TY = stamped" (or so).

    This could be revisited once a variant appears that has significant differences.
  • Coincidence_vs_Fate about 1 month ago

    sebfact
    The 10 last lines should be removed
    +1

Log In You must be logged in to post.