Instagram Links Unacceptable in Artist/Label Profiles?

Should Instagram links be accepted in Artist and Label Profiles?

This was last discussed 6 years ago, and at the time those who discussed it seemed to think it was OK:
Forum Thread #411588

However, the current Guidelines on links in Artist and Label Profile pages state:

RSG §18.3.2
18.3.2 Do not link to review pages, Label pages that do not include artist profiles (include the direct link to the artist profile when available), email addresses, shops or online stores, pages that are not directly accessible (for example, that require a log in or payment to view) or poor quality fan pages.

RSG §19.4.2
19.4.2 Do not link to poor quality fan pages, review pages, shops or online stores, pages that are not directly accessible (for example, that require a log in or payment to view) or enter email addresses in this field.

Within the past year, Instagram has completely locked out viewing all pages to those without a login. Therefore, under the current guidelines, all Instagram links are no longer considered acceptable. Either this rule would need to be updated, or all Instagram links should be removed from Discogs Artist and Label Profiles.

I can see there would be arguments for keeping or removing them, it's just a matter of deciding where the value lies.

Discuss?

bobdobolina
Within the past year, Instagram has completely locked out viewing all pages to those without a login. Therefore, under the current guidelines, all Instagram links are no longer considered acceptable.

+1 They try to force people to register, well, so they force us to remove the links. Quite simple.

Yeah, if these aren't good links, they should be removed when found.

OK, thanks - it sounds like the guidelines won’t be changed in this respect.

I generally agree with this guideline, although in the case where an artist or label really only has info on a login-based site such as Instagram, I could see that as an argument for keeping it as the only available source of information. Besides that, it seems Instagram links are no longer suitable.

typoman2
+1 They try to force people to register, well, so they force us to remove the links. Quite simple.

+1, no mercy with the b*st*rds

bobdobolina
I could see that as an argument for keeping it as the only source of information.

I'd try the long term approach: if enough people boycot Instagram because they force to use a login, they might loose "influence" and that might either make them abandon the forced login, or make artist (or fans) avoid using instagram.

If I'm not mistaken, it appears that all Facebook pages now also require a login - even those that were previously published as public (e.g. the Discogs FB page linked in the footer of this site). I'm not sure when this change occurred, but it seems Facebook doesn't want to be part of the public web anymore. I guess we'll have to disallow links there too.

bobdobolina
If I'm not mistaken, it appears that all Facebook pages now also require a login - even those that were previously published as public

I don't think so.
Some pages are now showing: "To connect with XY register today at Facebook." But you still can see the page.
No restrictions or said notation for i.e. George Harrison or George Duke …

I am able to navigate some facebook/instagram pages without logging in. Is it a case that those apps have restricted access to logged in users only in some territory/through some rolling out a/b testing, or is it that the artist themselves is restricting it through their privacy settings for their account?

In either case, any link not accessible without logging in should be removed but I don't think those which don't require logging in to view should be removed.

alan_darkside
I don't think those which don't require logging in to view should be removed.

Agree

Every Facebook page I try to view, including the 2 you mention above (and the Discogs FB page) goes to a login page that states, "Log Into Facebook. You must log in to continue."

Now, I was thinking maybe they're detecting that I had a Facebook cookie and was logged out, forcing me to log in again. However, I tried a bunch of different browsers/devices that I've never logged in to Facebook with, and they also block viewing of public pages. Perhaps the restrictions are regional?

bobdobolina
"Log Into Facebook. You must log in to continue."

Isn't there a "Not Now"-choice below (much smaller in an ordinary font, as if you can't click it...)?

Dr.SultanAszazin
Isn't there a "Not Now"-choice below (much smaller in an ordinary font, as if you can't click it...)?

No, the only options are to log in, "Forgot account?" or "Create New Account".

bobdobolina
Every Facebook page I try to view, including the 2 you mention above (and the Discogs FB page) goes to a login page that states, "Log Into Facebook. You must log in to continue."

Where are you from?
It's possible they are more cautious with such shenanigans in Europe regarding the ongoing law suits from EU … They take all data they can get without asking users to make money and share it with US agencies but don't give away data they haven't created of their own and is thought to be shared.
Well, corporate America … no comment.

Indeed, I just used VPN to connect through the US, and it's possible to see public Facebook pages again. I switched it to a few European countries and those worked too. I have no idea what they're doing with Facebook, but Instagram consistently requires a login everywhere.

typoman2
It's possible they are more cautious with such shenanigans in Europe

I'm in Europe too. Facebook annoys me with the login (a rather large bars at the bottom keeps persisting,) but I can access facebook without login.

I admit that I have also added Instagram and Facebook links to profiles. However, I always checked them beforehand to see whether they could be viewed without registering.

This discussion made me see these links from a different perspective. Rework follows little by little ...

typoman2
+1 They try to force people to register, well, so they force us to remove the links. Quite simple.

+1

I've never had a Facebook or Instagram account, but I look at these pages as well to get the latest information, especially if there is no newsletter for these artists. (Unfortunately, due to the social media sites, the actual homepages are no longer preferred or maintained with information as much. [Exceptions confirm the rule.])

Most artists (and large companies) deliberately leave their social media pages freely accessible, precisely to facilitate the service of information.

Dota Kehr had recently made her Facebook page accessible only with registration, but then decided after a week to make the page freely accessible again.

About 1 month ago Rainald Grebe only switched his Facebook page (until now) with registration, but at the same time updated his homepage.
I had already considered removing the Facebook link from Grebe's profile, but wanted to wait to see if this changes again.

Shortly before Christmas, there were several Facebook pages that could not be accessed without registration. However, the next day, everything was freely available again.
---------
By the way, I always use and prefer the artist profiles in Discogs to access the links to further information ...

Discogs promotes Instagram:
https://blog.discogs.com/en/instagram-101-discogs-sellers-record-stores/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=mktg&utm_campaign=mp_newsletter2101

Sophie (42) 🤬😡

I don’t see a reason not to link official sites/social media accounts even if they require a login. If one wants to view them then just log in to that site. IMO it’s better to link all relevant sites here on discogs. The more information given the better.

But as the guidelines stand now it’s not allowed

I have not realized their forced log-in got this aggressive now but I don't think it's a service to anyone to blockout one of the most visited sites on the planet. The info posted there has helped me verify data or making connections between profiles countless times so this should be reconsidered imho. Hardly anyone is doing newsletters anymore and for some artists instagram is the only "direct" channel (by their choice).
Going strict by guidelines we would also have to remove thousands of bandcamp links, etc. which will not net you any friends either...

The thread is now cited to remove the links but DTFs reply is only binding to a certain extent:

Diognes_The_Fox
Yeah, if these aren't good links, they should be removed when found.

The "lockout" was/is a staged feature so this might not affect everyone (it was more predominant in cities) and it most certainly didn't affect me just a month ago.

sp1ti
for some artists instagram is the only "direct" channel (by their choice)

I agree that this case is an argument to keep the links despite them requiring a login, if the information isn't freely published anywhere else.

It's also understandable that these links help people simply discover or follow artists on these popular sites. If Discogs felt the same, they would make an exception to allow Instagram links despite the no-login requirement of this guideline.

sp1ti
Going strict by guidelines we would also have to remove thousands of bandcamp links

Bandcamp doesn't require a login, and therefore isn't affected by this guideline from that respect. They participate freely in the open web. Instagram (at least in some regions) does not.

The guideline does also specify not linking to online stores, so I see your point there. Although Bandcamp does sell music, it also provides free access to information (tracklistings, artist info, etc.) and even listening to full tracks. You aren't obliged to register or buy anything. It's obvious there's a benefit to linking here from a factual point of view, but perhaps Discogs doesn't want to drive traffic to commercial sites. It's worth noting that Discogs is also a vendor/marketplace of music sales, so they probably don't want to drive traffic to competitors.

I think the general point of this guideline is that people shouldn't need to create an account (and especially not a paid account in the case of paywalls) for linked third-party web sites just to access or verify information. It's a user-hostile experience and this guideline seems to uphold this view. Even if creating an account is free, Instagram (and thus Facebook) are pushing visitors towards registering in order to track them.

Bandcamp is 98% a storefront and not a discography page which is in RSG §18.3.2 Do not link to review pages, Label pages that do not include artist profiles (include the direct link to the artist profile when available), email addresses, shops or online stores, pages that are not directly accessible (for example, that require a log in or payment to view) or poor quality fan pages.

https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/386857#3580627 actually touches a bit on this but that would still imply that it isn't valid for most artists. I mean theoretically they can have links and bios on spotify too and it's not directly a shop (bandcamp did the marketing right I guess ;))?

Yeah, sorry I missed that point about stores - I updated my post above.

... that's even funnier because when you enter a ...bandcamp.com URL in the Artists' & Labels' pages, Discogs ends up displaying it as "Bandcamp" (not just the web domain as regular links...)

^^

bobdobolina
Within the past year, Instagram has completely locked out viewing all pages to those without a login. Therefore, under the current guidelines, all Instagram links are no longer considered acceptable.

I'm able to view Instagram pages that have been directly linked, and the same with Facebook, without an account.

I cannot then follow links from that Instagram page without registering, and Facebook shows splash screens suggesting I sign up when I start scrolling down, but these can be removed, and individual posts can be viewed without signing up.

So although the functionality is limited and the UX rather clunky (I assume it's better if you're signed in, but I haven't tried that), Instagram and Facebook pages linked directly from Discogs profiles are accessible without signing in – to me, at least.

This has just come up in another discussion at https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/860740 and someone linked to Diognes_The_Fox's comment in this one, so I thought I'd add this information here. Instagram and Facebook pages that are accessed directly from links in a Discogs profile are accessible without being signed in. An example given in the other thread is https://www.instagram.com/slipknot/ and https://www.facebook.com/slipknot

sp1ti
Bandcamp is 98% a storefront and not a discography page which is in RSG §18.3.2 Do not link to review pages, Label pages that do not include artist profiles (include the direct link to the artist profile when available), email addresses, shops or online stores, pages that are not directly accessible (for example, that require a log in or payment to view) or poor quality fan pages.

RSG §18.3.2 doesn't ban any site on which something can be bought, but sites run by retailers that happen to sell releases by the artist or label in question. Bandcamp is a platform that offers web presence to small/independent artists and labels, and individual Bandcamp sites are run directly by the artists and labels themselves. One thing they can do there is to sell their music, but Bandcamp is not only an online shop. It's not the same as linking to iTunes or another retailer. Especially as for many artists Bandcamp is their only real web presence, apart from possibly a Twitter account or Facebook page, I think it's useful to be able to link to their Bandcamp site, and I don't think it's prohibited by the guidelines as they're currently written.

andrenafulva
Instagram and Facebook pages linked directly from Discogs profiles are accessible without signing in – to me, at least.

While this may have worked for you, Instagram pages are still completely inaccessible to me without logging in. Facebook pages are just about visible without logging in but made almost inaccessible due to the highly obtrusive prompts to log in / sign up.

It appears that Instagram and Facebook are using these measures selectively based on the location of the visitor, so what may work for someone in North America doesn’t work for someone in another part of the world.

As for RSG §18.3.2 disallowing online stores, it doesn’t state any reasoning - just that they shouldn’t be included. Of course, this leaves Bandcamp in a grey area because it’s mostly a store, but also for many artists and labels it’s an official web presence. Personally, I think this guideline is too vague, and needs some clarification around underlying intent.

The fact that Bandcamp pages are maintained by the artist or label directly is an important point when it comes to establishing facts about artists, labels, and releases, which is what we (as submitters) are trying to do most of the time. Even in some rare cases, iTunes artist pages have well-written biographies (presumably from a commissioned source).

Ultimately, what is the intent of this guideline? Presumably, it’s to not link to poor information sources. That could be poor in quality (e.g. not authoritative or factual) or poor in experience (e.g. forcing visitors to register). Applying these criteria to stores like Bandcamp or iTunes wouldn’t seem to disallow them on these grounds, so what is the criteria to disallow them? Is it simply that they serve a commercial purpose, and should the other criteria be able to override this?

imho cheebacheebakid did a good summary in https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/860740#8585149 .
we can differentiate bandcamp from other storefronts due to by being artist managed with customization and having unique subdomains (artist.bandcamp.com)? but yeah, it was just meant to be an example of stretchable guidelines :).

as to the OP: funny you mention that slipknot profile - I can also open them again without having to sign in. just about a month ago that didn't work for any profile for me (and I think I'm still on the same public IP so it's not like my region changed)?! this seems like this is ever changing... so I'm still adding the IG links when I see them. if they're actually "no good" anymore they should imho be removed globally and the URL be put on a blacklist.

what kind of request is this?
https://www.discogs.com/artist/20560-Manu-Dibango/history?utm_campaign=submission-activity&utm_source=relationship&utm_medium=pm#latest
the Facebook public page is directly accessible without login so i don't see the problem...
Guidelines don't say that we should remove indiscriminately all links to Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.

tuca-tuca
what kind of request is this?
https://www.discogs.com/artist/20560-Manu-Dibango/history?utm_campaign=submission-activity&utm_source=relationship&utm_medium=pm#latest
the Facebook public page is directly accessible without login so i don't see the problem...
Guidelines don't say that we should remove indiscriminately all links to Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.

We talk here about Instagram, where you must have definitely an account and not FB.

Double post

Invite Russ.Rockwell
https://www.discogs.com/artist/25058-MF-Doom/history#latest
and berothbr who also gaves a comment there.

Also here he removes FB and MySpace
https://www.discogs.com/artist/86391-Mode-2-3/history#latest

tuca-tuca
what kind of request is this?
https://www.discogs.com/artist/20560-Manu-Dibango/history?utm_campaign=submission-activity&utm_source=relationship&utm_medium=pm#latest
the Facebook public page is directly accessible without login so i don't see the problem...
Guidelines don't say that we should remove indiscriminately all links to Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.

I do not have any facebook, instagram and twitter accounts and when visiting these pages the contents are not directly accessible without log-in.

punkergott
Invite Russ.Rockwell
https://www.discogs.com/artist/25058-MF-Doom/history#latest
and berothbr who also gaves a comment there.

Also here he removes FB and MySpace
https://www.discogs.com/artist/86391-Mode-2-3/history#latest

I have replied to berothbr and given the reasons per RSG §18.3.2. for the edit in the MF Doom profile submission's history. Which unless I'm wrong is where we generally discuss these matters and make any appropriate changes if necessary.

Again, I do not have a facebook account or a myspace account (or any social media accounts) and when visiting the pages on the Mode 2 profile the contents are not directly accessible without log-in.

For the record, these are not arbitrary or subjective edits (or requests) and to the best of my knowledge I'm interpreting the guidelines correctly and checking all links before making any edits.

I'm more than happy to stand corrected and revert any edit under instruction (and hopefully given the chance before people automatically cast votes) but I've just been following what Diognes The Fox stated above and removing links per guidelines.

Russ.Rockwell
I do not have a facebook,

Open without an account
https://www.facebook.com/ManuDibangoOfficiel/

also
https://www.facebook.com/ManuDibangoOfficiel/

also
https://www.facebook.com/people/MODE-2/100050543616698/

also
https://myspace.com/mode_2

and so on

sometimes you didn't need an account at FB, very often for commercial sites...

Russ.Rockwell
and checking all links before making any edits.

And why I can see the profiles?

Perhaps I'm wrong and we are currently doing as intended but it feels like the guidelines belong to a previous internet generation. Lots of acts don't have a presence outside Facebook, Twitter, Instagram.

I'm not sure what the good thing is that's achieved by blanket dismissing them from links. Sprawl and spread and junk I'm against - but an artist's main internet presence failing a guideline suggests to me the guideline is the problem.

AndyEvans2
Sprawl and spread and junk I'm against - but an artist's main internet presence failing a guideline suggests to me the guideline is the problem.

+1

punkergott
And why I can see the profiles?

Russ.Rockwell
I do not have any facebook, instagram and twitter accounts and when visiting these pages the contents are not directly accessible without log-in.

To explain this apparent contradiction: Web sites are not universally the same when viewed in all regions of the world. It's common for restrictions to be applied in some countries (e.g. to comply with local privacy laws), but not in others. Now, this is the first I've heard of Twitter not being accessible without a login, but if it's true, this is the same problem as I've encountered with Instagram. Therefore, following the guidelines as currently written, it should be excluded.

However, as I've said previously in this discussion, I believe there are still merits to keeping links which require a login (e.g. when those are the only web presence for an artist or label) but the way the current guidelines are written doesn't accommodate for that.

Cheers

punkergott
Russ.RockwellI do not have a facebook,

Open without an account
https://www.facebook.com/ManuDibangoOfficiel/

also
https://www.facebook.com/ManuDibangoOfficiel/

also
https://www.facebook.com/people/MODE-2/100050543616698/

also
https://myspace.com/mode_2

and so on

sometimes you didn't need an account at FB, very often for commercial sites...

Thanks. But I'm aware of the URL's because I've already visited them.

punkergott
Russ.Rockwelland checking all links before making any edits.

And why I can see the profiles?

I can't answer that.

But can you to the same question in reverse?

Why can't I see the profiles?

bobdobolina
punkergottAnd why I can see the profiles?

Russ.RockwellI do not have any facebook, instagram and twitter accounts and when visiting these pages the contents are not directly accessible without log-in.

To explain this apparent contradiction: Web sites are not universally the same when viewed in all regions of the world. It's common for restrictions to be applied in some countries (e.g. to comply with local privacy laws), but not in others. Now, this is the first I've heard of Twitter not being accessible without a login, but if it's true, this is the same problem as I've encountered with Instagram. Therefore, following the guidelines as currently written, it should be excluded.

Cheers

+1

Then the guidelines should be written to include universal standards so that they apply to all regions of the world.

Perhaps if the guidelines mentioned that sites requiring payment would be excluded that would capture the original intent? I'm guessing.

And, if they really want to exclude all sites which require a login, perhaps one of the not a few people listed as having programming responsibility could take the five minutes it would require to deal with 99% of the problem? Or is that too easy?

I posted a comment after Russ.Rockwell ‘s edit to MF Doom
That was dead wrong - they removed links to the official websites from the artist’s various record labels and projects, but then they left in place all of the websites that are supposedly not allowed like Whosampled.

AndyEvans2
Sprawl and spread and junk I'm against - but an artist's main internet presence failing a guideline suggests to me the guideline is the problem.

This was a really good post. The only thing that I have to add is that as a community, we are extremely inconsistent. A huge number of profiles contain prohibited links, which indicates that the Guideline does not reflect reality.

I can see the MF Doom Facebook and Twitter pages and I don't have accounts on either, same applies to many other artists/labels that I'm interested in. I can usually see artists Instagram pages without an account too.

So these pages don't require a login, the fact that some users can't see them is a bad reason to remove links in my opinion.

berothbr
I posted a comment after Russ.Rockwell ‘s edit to MF Doom
That was dead wrong - they removed links to the official websites from the artist’s various record labels and projects, but then they left in place all of the websites that are supposedly not allowed like Whosampled.

Copy and pasting my comments from the artist page in question for clarity.

"gasdrawls = webstore.
facebook = requires log-in to view pages / webstore.
twitter = requires log-in to view pages / webstore
bandcamp = does not link to artist profile / webstore
ello-guvnor = poor quality fan page /tumblr
lexprojects.com = does not link to artist profile
rappcatts.com =webstore
rhymesayers.com = webstore
stonesthrow.com = dead link / 404 not found

Gasdrawls is a merchandise store and so are the facebook and twitter accounts that are created for it.

Bandcamp has already been discussed in the forums by staff that it is a web store.

The rhymesayer link is to the main company page not to the artist in question.

The Stones Throw link is a 404 not found. So are you saying dead links should not be removed?

The majority of posts on Rappcats are for items for sale so it's more exclusively a webstore than it is to the artist and profile in question.

With all due respect, I don't think I'm reading the guidelines badly I'm just reading them and applying changes where there is nuance."

Please can you direct me to the guideline that forbids Whosampled.com or the staff ruling on this decision.

Russ.Rockwell
https://rhymesayers.com/artists/mfdoom This consists of a multiparagraph bio, his discography on that label, and contact info. Clearly valid.
https://www.rappcats.com/category/mf-doom/ Multimedia posts about his official releases, performances, events, etc. Clearly valid.
https://lexrecords.com/artists/mfdoom/ Official label discography with 3 paragraph bio. Clearly valid.
https://ello-guvnor.tumblr.com/ Multimedia blog. Clearly valid.

berothbr
Russ.Rockwell
https://rhymesayers.com/artists/mfdoom This consists of a multiparagraph bio, his discography on that label, and contact info. Clearly valid.
https://www.rappcats.com/category/mf-doom/ Multimedia posts about his official releases, performances, events, etc. Clearly valid.
https://lexrecords.com/artists/mfdoom/ Official label discography with 3 paragraph bio. Clearly valid.
https://ello-guvnor.tumblr.com/ Multimedia blog. Clearly valid.

re: Rhymesayers, Rapcatts, Lex Records.

So a webstore that includes these additions is now no longer considered a webstore?

But they are valid if they profile the artist when selling commercial products? OK.

You avoided my question about stonesthrow.com and if dead links should not be removed.

Ello guvnor.tumblr consists of only 7 copied and pasted web sourced images, 3 gifs and 2 youtube videos. It is not an official MF Doom website nor does it include an artist profile.
According to RSG §18.3.2. that would qualifiy as a "poor quality fan site".

And again, you avoided my question about whosampled.com. Citation needed please.

Russ.Rockwell
So a webstore that includes these additions is now no longer considered a webstore?

An artist or record label website is not ineligible just because it happens to sell some merch. If that were true, then nearly all official artist/label URLs would be disallowed, which is obviously not the case. If the website contains useful original content about the artist/group, then you should exercise some discretion and keep it.

Russ.Rockwell
You avoided my question about stonesthrow.com and if dead links should not be removed.

Yes dead links should be removed.

Russ.Rockwell
And again, you avoided my question about whosampled.com. Citation needed please.

Yeah I avoided that question because I didn’t want to spend an hour trying to find a needle in a haystack clicking through threads. I thought there was a post somewhere, but I didn’t find anything on point. I personally would not object to removing Whosampled, Last.fm, Allmusic, 45cat, etc. URLs.

berothbr
Russ.RockwellSo a webstore that includes these additions is now no longer considered a webstore?An artist or record label website is not ineligible just because it happens to sell some merch. If that were true, then nearly all official artist/label URLs would be disallowed, which is obviously not the case. If the website contains useful original content about the artist/group, then you should exercise some discretion and keep it.
Russ.RockwellYou avoided my question about stonesthrow.com and if dead links should not be removed.
Yes dead links should be removed.
Russ.RockwellAnd again, you avoided my question about whosampled.com. Citation needed please.Yeah I avoided that question because I didn’t want to spend an hour trying to find a needle in a haystack clicking through threads. I thought there was a post somewhere, but I didn’t find anything on point. I personally would not object to removing Whosampled, Last.fm, Allmusic, 45cat, etc. URLs.

This is becoming an issue of semantics.

You say "it happens to sell some merch" nullifying, simplifying its intention.
Well, I say that's the MAIN reason and purpose for the website's whole existence. And that being true then I say that's the definition of a web STORE.

I'm looking at quantitative data, you're looking at qualitative data.

Cool, the dead Stonesthrow links goes. Thanks for clearing that up.

You say Whosampled is not supposedly allowed but don't provide any reference so I'm genuinely confused because going forward it's hard to adhere to a guideline if it doesn't exist.

So you then say you "personally would not object" which is not the same thing as it not being allowed.

And we don't apply personal standards, right?

In all fairness and at the end of the day etc, I want to conform to the consensus but you keep moving the goalposts and avoiding direct statements and questions, when breaking down each individual edit. I haven't made any reference to Last.fm, All music 45cat etc albeit examples let's stick to the individual edits in hand.

For example, what I presented about elloguvnor being a poor example. Again, just ignored.

In the sub you said it was clearly ENTIRELY incorrect but won't change your position when given evidence to the contrary.

How am I supposed to know what stays and what goes? Shall I just revert everything?

Russ.Rockwell this isn’t hard - just leave official artist and label URLs alone.

If you are going to edit an artist profiles solely to remove URLs that link to quality sources of factual information including social media, then you should expect to deal with a bunch of objections.

berothbr
Russ.Rockwell this isn’t hard - just leave official artist and label URLs alone.

If you are going to edit an artist profiles solely to remove URLs that link to quality sources of factual information including social media, then you should expect to deal with a bunch of objections.

I really think this guideline needs reviewing extensively. One tiny paragraph containing just four lines of text does not allow for the nuances and context in a multitude of situations which are constantly changing.

At this point only Instagram has been confirmed as not allowed, and that was the reason for this whole thread was created.

I'll revert my edits, put everything back how it was.

Thanks for your feedback.

Hello,

So, at the end of the day, are IG links allowed or not?

Because I am removing some, some of them repeatedly, using this thread and Björk's entry history as proofs, and I have a hard time with some users degrading my rating by no-voting every single update I do that goes that way.

So, back to square one: IG links, stay, or leave/remove?

I would not remove official social media pages.

Violent-Power
I would not remove official social media pages.

+1

Another +1 for not removing artist/label official pages.

Violent-Power
I would not remove official social media pages.

+1

Violent-Power
I would not remove official social media pages.

+1

Violent-Power
I would not remove official social media pages.

+1 ... pretty obvious (yawn)

Leave Instagram links alone!!!!

You guys are priceless
Today no, tomorrow yes for the same thing...
https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/830974#8259673

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_intelligence

before at least I could still see the person's page, now it goes straight to the login page for instagram, so basically completely useless unless logged in. Am for removal of these from profiles

I can still view Instagram pages without being logged in. Regardless, these are valid links. Removing them because some users are hit with the minor inconvenience of logging in seems absolutely silly. Doesn't make them any less valid IMO.

Definitely leave Instagram links. I’ve used them as proof for release dates for some albums.

zin
Definitely leave Instagram links. I’ve used them as proof for release dates for some albu

+1

flipresistor
I can still view Instagram pages without being logged in.

I can see Instagram pages not logged in today, but on some days I can't, seems to go back and forth.

But regardless of not being able to see these pages on occasion I still say leave 'official' Instagram links.

zin
Definitely leave Instagram links. I’ve used them as proof for release dates for some albums.

Using as a source in submission notes is different from entering them in an artist profile.

I just can't bring myself to remove valid, official links without querying the diktat that says we have to. In the absence of a coherent (or indeed any) explanation [I don't have to agree with it, it just to make some kind of basic sense], stuff the guideline.

zin
I’ve used them as proof for release dates for some albums.

how? I couldn't see anything but pics before, and now cannot see anything any more. Where were things like release date mentioned on there?

showmetheway
how? I couldn't see anything but pics before

I could (and still can) click on those images and see the full posts, which often include release dates and such.

is that if you are logged in on instagram?

showmetheway
is that if you are logged in on instagram?

You could still view full posts (at least for me) without being logged in. The full post usually has a caption for the image, and the date it was posted.

that is odd, I have never been able to see anything more than the pics and then only the first 2 lines because if I toggled down it would pop up the log in window, same if I tried to click on any pics, has been this way ever since I can remember checking instagram pages

Yeah you need to log in now to see the caption, but when Instagram was less popular it wasn't like that.

• 🤣 • 🤣 • 🤣 •
jump on bandwagons: within 24 hours all +1 are now the opposite... priceless

no.signal
• 🤣 • 🤣 • 🤣 •
jump on bandwagons: within 24 hours all +1 are now the opposite... priceless

and what's the point of your posts? it feels like you're having a laugh about something that isn't actually occurring in front of you...

sp1ti
and what's the point of your posts?

the point is the discogs mob change the mind for the same thing faster than the Queen her underwear, look the timeline of this thread...

sp1ti
it feels like you're having a laugh about something that isn't actually occurring in front of you...

actually it is "in front of me" because certain users requested (and voted NMIC) to ME for present FB/Insta links (which other users added before) in the name of, yes...: this thread.

things like this are ridiculous

I can view the following facebook and instagram links posted above without logging in (the facebook ones have pop-ups that request log-in which can be dismissed):
https://www.facebook.com/georgeharrison
https://www.facebook.com/GeorgeDukeMusic
https://www.facebook.com/people/JD-Kehr/100000555369577/ (only as far as photos)
https://de-de.facebook.com/rainaldgrebeoffiziell/
https://www.instagram.com/explore/tags/rainaldgrebe/?hl=de
https://www.facebook.com/msmsmsmsophie
https://www.instagram.com/sophie_msmsmsm/ (only one post visible)
https://www.instagram.com/slipknot/
https://www.facebook.com/slipknot
https://www.facebook.com/ManuDibangoOfficiel/
https://www.facebook.com/people/MODE-2/100050543616698/

In addition, it seems that after viewing a few facebook pages in a row, it starts limiting how many posts you can see. I can only see the first couple of posts of the last two facebook pages, having clicked on all the preceding ones.

alan_darkside
Is it a case that those apps have restricted access to logged in users only in some territory/through some rolling out a/b testing

This seems to be the case. I'm in Australia.

AndyEvans2
I'm not sure what the good thing is that's achieved by blanket dismissing them from links. Sprawl and spread and junk I'm against - but an artist's main internet presence failing a guideline suggests to me the guideline is the problem.

I share this view. My formula: [When the community has voted with its feet] + [breaking the guideline doesn't break the database] + [breaking the guideline enhances the data in the database] = [change the guidelines].

no.signal

With respect...

Changing one's position when presented with information or evidence contrary to one's beliefs is a strength and not a weakness.

Perhaps those who you consider "jumping on bandwagons" or who you call the "Discogs mob" have ruminated and processed new information and now objectively view things differently.

This often takes a lot of time and introspection so those who have done it within a very short period i.e. 24 hours are actually people with merit.

Personally, I believe we should celebrate those that are willing to change their positions not ridicule or belittle them.

Ironically, your user name is free.your.mind and by changing our minds we could be freeing our minds of any cognitive biases.

So, Free Your Mind And Your Ass Will Follow? Absolutely. :-)

Can other please check if Pinterest site requires to login in order to display the content? Here for example: https://pinterest.com/g_turnau/
For me it seems to use a Google credentials, but once I've logged out, clear the caches and open the link it redirects to logon page and without asking logged me in again.

timhorton69
I share this view. My formula: [When the community has voted with its feet] + [breaking the guideline doesn't break the database] + [breaking the guideline enhances the data in the database] = [change the guidelines].

+1

I'm personally finding it silly to not allow an OFFICIAL social media pages for artists or labels just because it requires you to log in to see the full content. What social media site doesn't requires that nowadays? How come we are allowing Wikipedia pages (being quite reliable source of information HOWEVER not being official ones) but not those on Instagram?

If Facebook will change their logon policy then we would be removing all of their links from 90% of profiles? Recently I had to re-edit majority of my artists/labels profiles to remove Instagram links I've added previously. That's stupid...

After all it's a link only, those who don't have an account on Instagram or is not willing to create one won't be able to see the content. Big deal... It's a CUSTOMER / USER choice, nothing more!!! There are bigger issues with the database than this...

More on this:

I's not OK to put links for OFFCIAL Instagram profiles of artists and label... while it's perfectly OK to have such links provided inside notification e-mails from Discogs:

https://ibb.co/N3QG1Zw

Wham!!! Hypocrisy detected! Beep boop beep!!!

🤣🤣🤣

HermannDieGerman
If Facebook will change their logon policy then we would be removing all of their links from 90% of profiles? Recently I had to re-edit majority of my artists/labels profiles to remove Instagram links I've added previously. That's stupid...

why, oh... why? did you do that?

zin
Definitely leave Instagram links. I’ve used them as proof for release dates for some albums.

I second that. I also use them to prove additional credits e.g. Artwork or Mastering credits or stuff like that you don't always find on the releases themselves...

zin
Definitely leave Instagram links. I’ve used them as proof for release dates for some albums.

maxxyme
I second that. I also use them to prove additional credits e.g. Artwork or Mastering credits or stuff like that you don't always find on the releases themselves...

These are both examples of reference links that are specific to Releases, and there's nothing stopping you from referring to those links in a Release history.

However, those links are not what we're discussing in this thread: Instagram links on Artist and Label Profiles.

bobdobolina
However, those links are not what we're discussing in this thread: Instagram links on Artist and Label Profiles.

Great, but can someone please explain it to me: why I can't access label or artist OFFICIAL Instagram profile by clicking on the link placed on Discogs pages while I can access Discogs Instagram profile by clicking the link placed on Discogs pages? 🤔

bobdobolina
However, those links are not what we're discussing in this thread: Instagram links on Artist and Label Profiles.

I know, I managed to find that info because Instagram was added to artist's profile here :)

zin
I know, I managed to find that info because Instagram was added to artist's profile here :)

OK, so you’re saying it’s useful to have Instagram links in Profiles to help contributors find official release info. That’s fair. The original comments only mentioned links to prove release details, which aren’t at issue here. I see your point now.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

The guidelines clearly state it's forbidden to link to pages that require log-in to view.

RSG §18.3.2. "Do not link to [...] pages that are not directly accessible (for example, that require a log in)"

Instagram requires log-in to view.

So you until the guidelines are changed I'm adhering to them.

I'm no longer prepared to 'police' other users submissions and cognitive bias regarding this. It's too tedious and I'm not wasting my time.

You'll never see me adding an Instagram link (or link that requires log-in) to a profile until the guidelines state it's OK to do so which at present it does NOT.

As you were.

Russ.Rockwell
I'm no longer prepared to 'police' other users submissions and cognitive bias regarding this. It's too tedious and I'm not wasting my time

You're not wrong, Russ.

Guidelines fifteen years out of date. Garbage can be added of little or no value. Official social media can't. End result - users get annoyed with each other. Those who could sort it out don't.

:troll mode on: There are other things more important than keeping the guidelines up to date (and up to life for that matter).

Russ.Rockwell
Instagram requires log-in to view.

But miraculously such a link for Discogs own profile is presented on multiple occasions... on Discogs.

HermannDieGerman
There are other things more important than keeping the guidelines up to date (and up to life for that matter).

True, but it is paradoxical to say that and then still be commenting on the issue in hand, if we were all doing things that were more important in life we wouldn't be here in the first place. ;-)

So while we are here...

Yes, Discogs has an Instagram link on their profile but if you look at the history it was added by a user and not staff, was voted correct and has not been removed by other users. You or I could easily remove it and cite RSG §18.2.3 as a legitimate reason for doing so. So we can't blame Discogs admin or staff for something they haven't done.

For me, the path of least resistance is to follow the guidelines as they currently stand and not interpret them to suit my own subjective needs or for convenience (unlike some other users).

Again, as AndyEvans2 correctly stated, it's yet another minor issue left for the users to debate when staff could easily bring the guideline up to date concerning specific social media links and put this to bed so we can all get on with more important things on Discogs and in life.

"Yeah, if these aren't good links, they should be removed when found." That is all that has been by staff. This is not specific enough.

What we need is to see in the guidelines (so we are all on the same page) is exactly which online platforms are allowed and which are forbidden. Name them. Don't just allude to them.

Pinging Diognes_The_Fox and nik to request an amendment to RSG §18.2.2. and RSG §18.2.3. or give a definitive answer concerning this.

Russ.Rockwell
What we need is to see in the guidelines (so we are all on the same page) is exactly which online platforms are allowed and which are forbidden. Name them. Don't just allude to them.

Pinging Diognes_The_Fox and nik to request an amendment to RSG §18.2.2. and RSG §18.2.3. or give a definitive answer concerning this.

I agree, and echo this request to Discogs staff Diognes_The_Fox / nik.

We've discussed this as a group for 10 months or so and it would help everybody if these guidelines (actually RSG §18.3.2 and RSG §19.4.2) were updated to reflect the reality of the web today. That reality is that many artists and labels increasingly have their only/primary web presence on hosted sites like Bandcamp, Instagram, and Facebook, where useful and factual information can be found (not to mention the other discovery benefits).

The fact that these sites may require a login and make money from people going there is an inescapable fact of how the web operates. The millions or billions of users who already have accounts on these sites means that most people on Discogs will already be able to visit them. People who cannot access or choose not to access these sites can easily avoid those links. The domain names are clearly displayed so they'll know what to expect.

The general rules written in the guidelines may have had a valid underlying intent, but are proving to be too restrictive. They need to allow these sites to be linked to from profile pages so that people can find them even if they require a login. If you need to set a high bar, then set a high bar, but 'sites without a login' or 'non-commercial sites' is not realistic. Make an "Allow list" and/or "Block list" if you have to, but be prepared to update them from time to time.

I hope the Discogs staff can amend the guidelines so we can all go back to other things and not debate this issue further. Thanks!

bobdobolina
I hope the Discogs staff can amend the guidelines so we can all go back to other things and not debate this issue further. Thanks!

It would take half an hour to make a decision on the the (say) twenty sites that predominate this debate.

Personally I'm much more irked by the users (one in particular i seem to run across) adding factual but trivial sites. It's hard to justify removing them because an artist factually has one minor credit at imdb.com but they're just filling up space meaninglessly most of the time.

bobdobolina
People who cannot access or choose not to access these sites can easily avoid those links. The domain names are clearly displayed so they'll know what to expect.

+1

AndyEvans2
It would take half an hour to make a decision on the the (say) twenty sites that predominate this debate.

+1

Russ.Rockwell
I've said it before and I'll say it again...

The guidelines clearly state it's forbidden to link to pages that require log-in to view.

RSG §18.3.2. "Do not link to [...] pages that are not directly accessible (for example, that require a log in)"

Maybe that's a time for revising such guidelines...

Russ.Rockwell
Yes, Discogs has an Instagram link on their profile but if you look at the history it was added by a user and not staff, was voted correct and has not been removed by other users. You or I could easily remove it and cite RSG §18.2.3 as a legitimate reason for doing so. So we can't blame Discogs admin or staff for something they haven't done.

I didn't had that in mind, but the fact that the Instagram links are all over the Discogs (not only on their "label" profile: I didn't even took a look there tbh, I don't care): in "Follow Us" at the bottom of the page & inside the notification mailing you receive on a daily basis. Suddenly those are fine there, i.e. there's no concerns about the page being accessible without providing personal credentials, but no no no my friends: it's strictly forbidden to have such links on artist / label page. This is an academic example of hypocrisy: do what I say, not what I do.

HermannDieGerman
This is an academic example of hypocrisy: do what I say, not what I do.

This argument isn't nearly as clever as you think. How Discogs operates as a business with its links is entirely separate from what is allowed in profiles (unless Discogs was banning Instagram for some ethical reason - which it isn't).

I agree with you that official Instagram links should be allowed but a flawed 'gotcha' that a child could see through doesn't make the case.

AndyEvans2
I agree with you that official Instagram links should be allowed but a flawed 'gotcha' that a child could see through doesn't make the case.

The conclusion is that this "ban" set on Instagram is as stupid as it cannot be even more. If one doesn't wish to have an account there, so be it: he won't enter there and see the content. Is Discogs some kind of an internet advisor, guardian or what? If Facebook or Youtube change their "logon" policies at some point then all of those links won't be allowed either?