• Staff 2.6k

    nik over 7 years ago

    This thread is for the collating and discussion of guideline issues and new guidelines that are still to be resolved. The current list is at http://wiki.discogs.com/index.php/Discogs_Guideline_Review_2009-Second_Round

    If there are any topics that are not included, but think they should be, please let us know. If you think that there are any topics that can be resolved and included in the full update to be announced in a couple of weeks, again please let us know.
  • mawiles over 7 years ago

    Image guidelines: Primary Image
    http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/189372

    Master release guidelines:
    The double-A-side rule is very critical, as it only depends on the title choice.
    Should releases be put in one master, although their B-site contains a different track, just because the main title only names the A-side? What if there is no title given and someone puts just the A-side as main title, whereas someone else decides to put the B-side, too?
    Example:

    Vinyl 1: "Yeah / Do It"
    A-side: "Yeah"
    B-side: "Do It"

    Vinyl 2: "Yeah"
    A-side: "Yeah"
    B-side: "Yeah (Remix)"

    Vinyl 1 has double-A-title, hence both vinyls NOT in one master.
    Now let's consider Vinyl 1 main title just as "Yeah". Then we got no double-A-title, hence both vinyls in one master. That's unlogical in my opinion, as the tracks itself are still the same.

    A concrete example with a proposal can be found here: http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/192842#2424695
  • hafler3o over 7 years ago

    hafler3o edited over 7 years ago
    (content of post now in the Beta 'Live' thread)
  • punxtr over 7 years ago

    I made the mistake prohibited in 2.5.7. myself but I noticed it quickly enough before doing any severe damage.

    Also:
    16.1.2. If either release has 2 or less users with the item in their collection or wantlist, put in a remove request for the version with the least users attached to it. Make sure to link to the remaining release so any users can update their collections.
    *removal request

    I still don't like the policy of selecting submissions for removal. Anyone who has a rare record that no one even cares about can be angry that someone might have submitted it already, then submit a better draft of his own and have one or two friends get the other one removed by this rule.

    I would like it to say remove the release submitted the latest as the newest submission should have brought attention to the submitter that it was already in the database anyway. By possibly removing the release which appeared first just because it had only one owner consequently undermines the guidelines and the integrity of the submission system.
  • Kergillian over 7 years ago


    punxtr
    Anyone who has a rare record that no one even cares about can be angry that someone might have submitted it already, then submit a better draft of his own and have one or two friends get the other one removed by this rule.


    Then they would be very foolish as that's grounds to get you banned...
  • blunted1995 over 7 years ago

    @ 2. Artist (inc ANV and joins)

    Nik sort of brought this up already with his Buddy Holly & The Crickets case, shouldn't there be some guideline on splitting artist names when a band name starts featuring a member?

    I'm thinking Paul McCartney & Wings, Smokey & The Miracles, Diana Ross & The Supremes. Currently they are all listed as one entity and i think that's the right way to do it. I would think this rule should be applied just before the 3 or 5 or how many collabs rule when deciding on an artist split.
  • punxtr over 7 years ago


    Kergillian
    Then they would be very foolish as that's grounds to get you banned...

    And yet it can happen perhaps even missed by us. My point is it undermines the submission process and we should nip it in the bud immediately.
  • Staff 2.6k

    nik over 7 years ago

    mawiles
    Image guidelines: Primary Image
    http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/189372


    Replied there.

    mawiles
    Master release guidelines:
    The double-A-side rule is very critical, as it only depends on the title choice.
    Should releases be put in one master, although their B-site contains a different track, just because the main title only names the A-side? What if there is no title given and someone puts just the A-side as main title, whereas someone else decides to put the B-side, too?
    Example:

    Vinyl 1: "Yeah / Do It"
    A-side: "Yeah"
    B-side: "Do It"

    Vinyl 2: "Yeah"
    A-side: "Yeah"
    B-side: "Yeah (Remix)"

    Vinyl 1 has double-A-title, hence both vinyls NOT in one master.
    Now let's consider Vinyl 1 main title just as "Yeah". Then we got no double-A-title, hence both vinyls in one master. That's unlogical in my opinion, as the tracks itself are still the same.


    There is a definition of what constitutes a double A side release at http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-title.html#Double_A_Sided_Releases - if that is followed, I don't see a problem.

    punxtr
    I still don't like the policy of selecting submissions for removal. Anyone who has a rare record that no one even cares about can be angry that someone might have submitted it already, then submit a better draft of his own and have one or two friends get the other one removed by this rule.

    I would like it to say remove the release submitted the latest as the newest submission should have brought attention to the submitter that it was already in the database anyway. By possibly removing the release which appeared first just because it had only one owner consequently undermines the guidelines and the integrity of the submission system


    What would be a better way of doing it? BTW, this discussion belong in the other thread ;-)

    blunted1995
    @ 2. Artist (inc ANV and joins)

    Nik sort of brought this up already with his Buddy Holly & The Crickets case, shouldn't there be some guideline on splitting artist names when a band name starts featuring a member?

    I'm thinking Paul McCartney & Wings, Smokey & The Miracles, Diana Ross & The Supremes. Currently they are all listed as one entity and i think that's the right way to do it. I would think this rule should be applied just before the 3 or 5 or how many collabs rule when deciding on an artist split.


    I think this section needs some work still for sure, its a hard one to get to grips with though!
  • mawiles over 7 years ago

    nik
    There is a definition of what constitutes a double A side release at http://www.discogs.com/help/su...ble_A_Sided_Releases - if that is followed, I don't see a problem.


    Ok, so please explain how to handle the following example:

    Vinyl 1 (from UK): title "Yeah / Do It"
    A-side: "Yeah"
    B-side: "Do It"

    Vinyl 2 (from Canada): title "Yeah"
    A-side: "Yeah"
    B-side: "Do It"

    Vinyl 3: title "Yeah"
    A-side: "Yeah"
    B-side: "Yeah (Remix)"

    How should they be grouped:
    - v1 sepatare, (v2,v3) in MR
    - (v1,v2) in MR, v3 separate
    - all in one MR
  • 9228289 over 7 years ago

    in front off all guidelines, Help or Manual I would apreciate a wiki or dictionary with our expressions, this can also be overtaken to all languages when requested.
    I hope then I find out what we are talking about at discogs :b
  • Staff 2.6k

    nik over 7 years ago

    mawiles
    please explain how to handle the following example:

    Vinyl 1 (from UK): title "Yeah / Do It"
    A-side: "Yeah"
    B-side: "Do It"

    Vinyl 2 (from Canada): title "Yeah"
    A-side: "Yeah"
    B-side: "Do It"

    Vinyl 3: title "Yeah"
    A-side: "Yeah"
    B-side: "Yeah (Remix)"

    How should they be grouped:
    - v1 sepatare, (v2,v3) in MR
    - (v1,v2) in MR, v3 separate
    - all in one MR


    None of those (theoretical?) examples are double A sides, the 1st examples title seems wrong. They strike me as all being eligible for a MR. Are there real examples you can give that we can look at?

    9228289
    in front off all guidelines, Help or Manual I would apreciate a wiki or dictionary with our expressions, this can also be overtaken to all languages when requested.


    We have that at http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-glossary.html
  • mawiles over 7 years ago

    OK, let's look at a real and prominent example:
    Good Times, Good Times & Good Times

    This even shows the problem of an incorrectly entered title (the 2nd one).
  • punxtr over 7 years ago

    punxtr
    Also:

    16.1.2. If either release has 2 or less users with the item in their collection or wantlist, put in a remove request for the version with the least users attached to it. Make sure to link to the remaining release so any users can update their collections.

    *removal request
    You missed that in my first post.
  • 9228289 over 7 years ago


    9228289
    in front off all guidelines, Help or Manual I would apreciate a wiki or dictionary with our expressions, this can also be overtaken to all languages when requested.

    -

    nik
    We have that at http://www.discogs.com/help/su...elines-glossary.html


    Thank you! I have seen this for the first time - and my feedback says it is a good start. there are 42 expressions, how can this be filled up? ie jewel case, spine, runout groove,...
    I think of something like a subject index you work with for your study. Discogs may use 420 expressions or more...
  • Staff 2.6k

    nik over 7 years ago

    punxtr
    *removal request
    You missed that in my first post.


    Thanks, in fact, I had put up the wrong version of the 'merge' guidelines, now corrected http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-merge-release.html

    9228289
    can this be filled up? ie jewel case, spine, runout groove,...


    There is a page at http://wiki.discogs.com/index.php/Packaging for trying to define packaging.
  • mawiles over 7 years ago

    nik, please reply to the MR example above:
    http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/194768#2444223
  • punxtr over 7 years ago


    nik
    Thanks, in fact, I had put up the wrong version of the 'merge' guidelines

    Hilarious, because now I like the way it is worded for the most part. But saying you should 'usually' put in Remove Release makes it sound optional.
  • Staff 2.6k

    nik over 7 years ago

    mawiles
    nik, please reply to the MR example above:
    http://www.discogs.com/help/fo...topic/194768#2444223


    Chic - Good Times seems to be entered incorrectly.

    Chic - Good Times is debatable if that is a double A side either.

    The 3 releases look like they belong to the same MR.

    punxtr
    saying you should 'usually' put in Remove Release makes it sound optional.


    "you should usually put in a 'Remove Release' request for the last submitted version" - it is optional, they are guidelines, not strict rules.
  • punxtr over 7 years ago

    Fine. But eventually someone is going to want to do it. :)
  • mawiles over 7 years ago

    nik
    Chic - Good Times / A Warm Summer Night seems to be entered incorrectly.

    Chic - Good Times / A Warm Summer Night is debatable if that is a double A side either.


    Sorry, but if even you can't definetely say how the rules should be applied, then how can anyone else?

    I plead with you to drop that double-A-side rule, where interpretations already start what a double-A-side is. Instead, common sense should apply, and I bet most users would automatically put Good Times & Good Times in one MR, and keep Good Times separate.
  • Staff 2.6k

    nik over 7 years ago

    mawiles
    Sorry, but if even you can't definetely say how the rules should be applied, then how can anyone else?

    I plead with you to drop that double-A-side rule, where interpretations already start what a double-A-side is. Instead, common sense should apply, and I bet most users would automatically put Good Times / A Warm Summer Night & Good Times / A Warm Summer Night in one MR, and keep Good Times separate.


    I can't say if they are double A sides because I don't have the releases and there isn't full scans available.

    There are already reasonably clear guidelines for what a double A side is - http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-title.html#Double_A_Sided_Releases

    The guidelines are just that - guidelines. Not everything can be a hard and fast, cut and dried rule, although I understand that would be easier for everyone, but often real life cases don't fit in with rules.
  • mawiles over 7 years ago

    I think we should have a Copy-Protection paragraph in the format section. It is sometimes hard to distinguish between a copy-protection logo and a meaningless "please don't copy" logo, so I think a chart with the logos and yes/no would be the best thing.
  • 9228289 over 7 years ago


    nik
    http://wiki.discogs.com/index....ew_2009-Second_Round

    If there are any topics that are not included,


    well I still feel in front of all there should be said what its all about.
    my dictionary translates "tonträger" as
    1.) sound carrier
    2.) sound recording medium
    3.) sound storage medium
    -
    But more than this I feel discogs is about both: the content and the carrier.
    -
    I for my part am more interested in the content, but I also know collectors will never play a record ^^
    at this point two different opinions often affect the development of discogs so as now the user-manual or guideline.
  • ahlbomper over 7 years ago

    isn't this conflicting information:
    http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-title.html#Double_A_Sided_Releases
    1:
    When a B-side title appears on the front of a singles packaging in diminished type, especially when preceded by b/w (which means 'backed with'), it generally indicates the release is not double A-sided.
    2:
    3.4.3. Two titles listed on the front but with 2nd title preceded by b/w (backed with) or c/w (coupled with): both track titles and the join can normally be entered, but again, external sources can be taken into account.

    or am i missing the point ?
  • punxtr over 7 years ago

    You are missing the point.

    When a B-side title appears on the front of a singles packaging in diminished type, especially when preceded by b/w (which means 'backed with'), it generally indicates the release is not double A-sided.


    This means that even though your release has two track names on the cover, it does not always qualify as a double A-sided release. A double A-sided release is best recognized by having A AA side designation or is marketed as one by the label.

    The other quote governs entering track titles. Not determining if it is a double A-side or not.
  • _jules over 7 years ago

    _jules edited over 7 years ago
    I'd like to see the "list group memberships under real name" rule re-addressed
    IMO there should be a provision allowing for groups memberships to be listed under the alias entry when the group name is Alias 1 & Alias 2 or is including an Alias or when the alias is consistently used as performing artist name (eg. Bono, Adam Ant etc.)

    we have the real name field in artist profiles to catter for the real names of group members

    having Caroline Hervé and Michel Amato as members of Miss Kittin & The Hacker is too counterintuitive
    same for Siouxsie & The Banshees or DJ Jazzy Jeff & The Fresh Prince etc.

    it would also allow for greater consistency and stability across the database (no need to update artist profiles to shift group memberships around when the real for real full birth name pops up via an odd songwriting compilation credit)

    the Siouxsie & The Banshees current and former members is a rather messy-looking mix of "really for real real names" and artistic aliases because some of those artists, like Sid Vicious, have no real name entry in the database yet (or rather, no one noticed he has already: John Beverley )/ loads of Hip Hop acts are also riddled with those funny looking line ups mixing up real names and aliases - see Public Enemy for instance
  • SeRKeT over 7 years ago

    _jules
    mixing up real names and aliases

    for this very reason in some of the examples you have given it looks damn messy and for ex i think Chuck D would serve much better specially as that's the name he is more well known as.. his real name he uses for production and writer credits usually in small print, also flavor flav is the more well known name for him , Will Smith is a tricky one as he is very well known as Fresh Prince too eh?
    _jules
    we have the real name field in artist profiles to catter for the real names of group members


    indeed, the fact it is directly below the alias/group name makes it even dafter to have to scroll down and see it again (although it is linkable there
    edit typos
  • mawiles over 7 years ago

    The label guideline
    If there is more than one brand, label, or record company on the release, list them all.
    leads more and more people to add all logos and companies as labels, no matter which role they have. Licenser, distributor, manufacturer, marketer, publisher, they put them ALL.

    As I don't think we want all CD releases having at least 3 labels each, the label guidelines should be reworked. We need simplification instead of more complication!
  • 9228289 over 7 years ago


    mawiles
    We need simplification instead of more complication!


    I do agree - and I think all discogs user will agree!!
    -
    entries to identify the records as unique release mandatory,
    the rest is 4fun and may be added later.
    when adding a release takes 30 minutes or more I prefere waiting if another discogs user adds the record. on the other side I add pictures to existing releases. this is my opinion how discogs user share the database work.
  • Staff 2.6k

    nik over 7 years ago

    mawiles
    We need simplification instead of more complication!


    I agree simplicity is best.

    I don't think the current guidelines have added more complication, this particular section of the guideline hasn't been changed.

    mawiles
    The label guideline
    If there is more than one brand, label, or record company on the release, list them all.
    leads more and more people to add all logos and companies as labels, no matter which role they have. Licenser, distributor, manufacturer, marketer, publisher, they put them ALL.

    As I don't think we want all CD releases having at least 3 labels each, the label guidelines should be reworked.


    I has been discussed previously. If there is a division between 'important' labels / companies / entities to be listed, it is really on a release by release basis. Sometimes the distributor / manufacturer etc is important to the release, and acts as a 'record company'.

    I think reworking the guidelines for this particular section would add a lot more words, and would still not be particularly helpful in solving many cases.

    For example, it could say; "If there is more than one brand, label, or record company on the release, list the ones that are important for current or future cataloguing and differentiation of unique releases. Manufacturers, distributors, and other entities may be added when they are acting in the role of a record company (definition)" etc...
  • SeRKeT over 7 years ago

    if there is more than one brand, label, or record company on the release, list them all.
    regarding this ^^
    maybe it would be better tif it were written like so :
    if there is more than one brand, label, or record company on the release, list them all.also remember to add any information to the submission notes such as the small print copyright and publishing information
    IMO the info in notes would help exlpain who did what on the release Distributor/Licensee /Marketing etc.
    even without images it maybe easier to vote on with that info present?
  • mawiles over 7 years ago

    SeRKeT
    also remember to add any information to the submission notes such as the small print copyright and publishing information
    IMO the info in notes would help exlpain who did what on the release Distributor/Licensee /Marketing etc.


    That has to be done anyway. The problem is that some companies put their logo on the release, although they're not a label brand on that specific release. That guideline 4.1 is simply taken wordly by users, they just enter all appearing logos as labels.

    Usually the label brand of a release is quite unique, and for non-unique cases we add a 2nd label. That's the way anyone outside the discogs universe would do. But our current guidelines drop the determination of the actual label completely. In real life, you'd say "I got a Polydor record", but in discogs, it will be a "(logos:) Polydor, Island Records, Universal, (fine print:) Polydor Island Group, Universal Music Group" record.

    Good example why we should not simply enter all brands:
    http://www.discogs.com/image/R-299793-1125067565.jpg

    Good example why we should not enter distributors as labels:
    http://www.discogs.com/release/82742

    nik
    when they are acting in the role of a record company (definition)


    This is again the problem. Definition and determination of record companies are arbitrary, and what is the benefit of having just a company name in the label field, when the company is mentioned in the notes anyway with the required context? Please just drop that record company thing, keep it out of the label field.
  • Kergillian over 7 years ago

    This is yet another reason why we need company fields...
  • Kergillian over 7 years ago


    mawiles
    Good example why we should not simply enter all brands:
    http://www.discogs.com/image/R-299793-1125067565.jpg

    Good example why we should not enter distributors as labels:
    http://www.discogs.com/release/82742


    To be fair, there is only one CLEAR brand, which is Atlantic - which is separated at the top of the back cover.
  • Staff 2.6k

    nik over 7 years ago

    mawiles
    guideline 4.1 is simply taken wordly by users, they just enter all appearing logos as labels.


    Hardly a problem compared to entering mashed up data or omitting information, is it?

    mawiles
    Usually the label brand of a release is quite unique, and for non-unique cases we add a 2nd label. That's the way anyone outside the discogs universe would do. But our current guidelines drop the determination of the actual label completely. In real life, you'd say "I got a Polydor record", but in discogs, it will be a "(logos:) Polydor, Island Records, Universal, (fine print:) Polydor Island Group, Universal Music Group" record.


    Is there an example that is entered like this?

    In any case, the determination of the 'label' is not quite straightforward for majors, as the record companies involved are also important for distinguishing a unique release.

    Add the this the fact that trying to divide them into 'labels / brands', and 'record companies', is a somewhat specialist task that I don't beleive we can force on all submitters. So what are we left with? A generic field where we enter the information.

    mawiles
    Good example why we should not simply enter all brands:
    http://www.discogs.com/image/R-299793-1125067565.jpg


    There is always going to be extreme or contrary examples.

    in any case, that's a generic company disco sleeve with all the labels logos printed on it. The record itself carries the 'label', which is also printed top right on the sleeve.

    mawiles
    Good example why we should not enter distributors as labels:
    http://www.discogs.com/release/82742


    No one is saying that we should always (or even usually) enter distributors as labels right now.

    mawiles
    Definition and determination of record companies are arbitrary, and what is the benefit of having just a company name in the label field, when the company is mentioned in the notes anyway with the required context? Please just drop that record company thing, keep it out of the label field.


    I don't understand.

    We agree record company definition can be arbitrary (as can 'label' definition).

    Record companies have been listed in the label field since day one. Kevin never defined the label field as 'only the brand' or whatever. And record company information is just as important as branding information, even if the distinction can be made.

    Bottom line is, I fail to see a problem if the data is entered as per release. The insistence that all releases can be defined by one entity is not founded. More problems are caused by too little (or too vague, or altered) information being entered than too much, or too specific, or too literal.
  • mawiles over 7 years ago

    nik
    Is there an example that is entered like this?


    Scooter - I'm Raving has the Club Tools LC, logo and catalog#. So it is obvious that Club Tools is the unique label for that release. However, user deMonne takes the guideline wordly and adds publisher Loop Dance Constructions and Club Tools parent label Edel, which is automatically the copyright owner/marketer/distributor.

    So instead of having a guideline saying "just add all you can find", there should be restrictive guidelines containing instructions like
    - Label additions have to be reasonable. The first label should always be the label brand.
    - Search for the proper sublabel, don't add its parent labels.
    - If the label brand is already determined, don't add companies, amongst copyright holders, publishers, lincensers, marketers, manufacturers and distributors, as further labels. Those have to be mentioned in notes for the time being.
  • jweijde over 7 years ago

    mawiles is spot on: this guideline leads to people entering everything, even when it's obvious what the label is.
    (I'm not saying they shouldn't enter everything, the question is where they should enter that info - see below)
    nik

    Record companies have been listed in the label field since day one

    Well, maybe it has been wrong from day one then?
    For example, I think it's kinda stupid we have a label called Mute Records Ltd. here. It's obvious the label is called Mute Records.
    nik
    The insistence that all releases can be defined by one entity is not founded

    Ofcourse a release can have multiple labels.
    nik
    More problems are caused by too little (or too vague, or altered) information being entered than too much, or too specific, or too literal.

    The more information entered, the better. Question is though, where that information is put. Really, things would be so much easier if we had separate fields for copyright holders, manufacturers, distributors, etc. and went by logo/brand for the label. Link the companies together as parents/children and link the brands to the companies. This, in my view, would solve the whole major label mess. We wouldn't need to have endless discussions anymore about whether or not EMI/EMI Records/EMI Records Ltd or Universal/Universal Music are the same. For example, EMI would be listed on release pages as label brand, and EMI Records Ltd. as copyright holder. Exactly as on release.
    We really need to name things what they are. And specifically ask submitters to supply it. Not via the RSG, but via the subform. Otherwise some will do it and some won't and voters will end up having to verify it with every submitter on every submission. Which is a lengthy and frustrating process.

    But hey, since this guideline does not change in this round apparently, maybe it's better to discuss this elsewhere?
  • Staff 2.6k

    nik over 7 years ago

    jweijde
    But hey, since this guideline does not change in this round apparently, maybe it's better to discuss this elsewhere?


    This is the right place:

    nik
    This thread is for the collating and discussion of guideline issues and new guidelines that are still to be resolved.


    jweijde
    I think it's kinda stupid we have a label called Mute Records Ltd. here. It's obvious the label is called Mute Records.


    Right, but that is legacy issue really, it doesn't derive from the current guidelines.

    mawiles
    instead of having a guideline saying "just add all you can find", there should be restrictive guidelines containing instructions like
    - Label additions have to be reasonable. The first label should always be the label brand.
    - Search for the proper sublabel, don't add its parent labels.
    - If the label brand is already determined, don't add companies, amongst copyright holders, publishers, lincensers, marketers, manufacturers and distributors, as further labels. Those have to be mentioned in notes for the time being.


    Ok, how about:

    4.1. This field is used for the label or record company involved in the release. If the required label is not in Discogs yet, it will be created when you submit.

    4.1.2. Normally, listing the main label (brand or logo) on the release is sufficient for cataloguing purposes. For major label releases, listing the record company branch as well as the label may be necessary to describe the unique release - the record company branch is entered as another 'label' for the moment. Do not add manufacturers, distributors etc unless they were acting as a record company on the release, and this information is important for describing the unique release. In all other cases, this information can be entered into the release notes.
  • mawiles over 7 years ago

    Yeah, that sounds good.
    I think we shouldn't wait for the end of round in a few months, but try to make this label guideline live as soon as possible, so we can immediately start to sort out the mess that grows more and more.
  • loukash over 7 years ago

    A user has pointed out this:
    zin

    quote JT_X: This format is never correct: "Arranged [Horn] By".

    why ? is that stated somewhere in the guidelines that box brackets have to be at the very end of the credit ? never noticed that anywhere...

    Obviously it is missing from the guidelines. It should be probably in section 9.2.3.

    cheers
  • jweijde over 7 years ago

    I was just looking at http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-general-rules.html#Required_Fields_For_A_New_Submission , 1.1.3.a, last bullet:
    If any further information is needed to distinguish a Unique Release, that information is required to be entered as well. For example, if two releases share the same cat#, label etc, but can be distinguished by their country, then the country field becomes required.
    .

    This might make people think that just changing the country is enough proof for a unique release. However, it is more important to know where they base that on. I know its mentioned somewhere else in the RSG, but it should be made more clear that people should check that section.
    I'd remove the link from the first sentence ("If any further information is needed to distinguish a Unique Release") and add a sentence saying something like "see the [link]guidelines for submitting Unique Releases[/link]".
  • 9228289 over 7 years ago

    sometimes it takes longer to give feedback, so as now.
    -
    I do not like most of the title guidelines.
    3.1.3 - why not take the title from center label when there are different titles on release? some say there is less space to put the whole title on a center label, but this is a poor opinion. I feel to find out if we talk about one and the same release you have to look at the label on the vinyl or on the CD or on the tape and not on its envelope.
    when the title of a release is a mandatory entry it should also charge its place. I feel at discogs the weight is put on how a volume sounds and not how it looks like. I feel 99% volumes without original cover are sold to a higher price than the cover without its record - please tell me when I am wrong.
    Now, if you now want to submit a release you need the original cover. Who knows if there is any original cover to this release?
    What happans? You may decide not to submit a release when you don´t have the cover. You may submit and earn "minor changes" you are not able to adjust. You might put it to notes that you own this volume but you have no cover. Otherwise I can submit a unique release just because I have no cover and there may be a different title on it.
    I tell you, the fingerprint is on the release and any data that we put into the database should have fingerprint value.
    we find out different whitelabel records by scribe from runout groove.
    selling records we first select condition of the item and then of its sleeve. A Mint item "Certainly never been played" does not mean the cover or jewel case was never played.
    And at this point to all those who submit Mint sealed records, how do you know what is inside? what format: 33 or 45, black or white vinyl, single sided,... we know sometimes there is not the same written as it appears Fred Wesley - House Party....
    of course you have to put this to notes when you do not go to open this.
  • Kergillian over 7 years ago


    9228289
    why not take the title from center label when there are different titles on release? some say there is less space to put the whole title on a center label, but this is a poor opinion. I feel to find out if we talk about one and the same release you have to look at the label on the vinyl or on the CD or on the tape and not on its envelope.


    If the release has a subtitle, it's less likely to be on the label than on the cover.
    If the release has a very long title, it's more likely to be abbreviated on the label.

    If the release has two versions of the title, the most complete version is the one we should take, no matter where it is located - and the most complete version will *usually* be on the cover and not the label.

    9228289
    when the title of a release is a mandatory entry it should also charge its place. I feel at discogs the weight is put on how a volume sounds and not how it looks like. I feel 99% volumes without original cover are sold to a higher price than the cover without its record - please tell me when I am wrong.


    I'm not sure at all what you mean here...

    9228289
    Now, if you now want to submit a release you need the original cover. Who knows if there is any original cover to this release?


    Again, I have no idea what you mean...are you referring purely to techno 12"s, where generic covers are more common...?

    9228289
    You may decide not to submit a release when you don´t have the cover.


    Or you can sub the release with the record alone, say 'I don't have the jacket but can confirm the tracklisting is correct' (assuming you CAN confirm it), and then hopefully someone else will come along and update it with more info - INCLUDING the title, if it needs to be adjusted.

    And sales/condition have no bearing on submission. Correct information is more important than the value of a record.
  • 9228289 over 7 years ago

    you don´t know what I mean?
    it is now better to submit a release having just the cover than having just the medium. I feel this is the wrong way. It is a question like what comes first the chicken or the egg - and this results in clever database entries or not in our case.
    do we collect cover with artwork or mediums containing music?
    I for my part listen to music and this never comes from a cover or any jewel case.
  • Kergillian over 7 years ago


    9228289
    it is now better to submit a release having just the cover than having just the medium. I feel this is the wrong way. It is a question like what comes first the chicken or the egg - and this results in clever database entries or not in our case.
    do we collect cover with artwork or mediums containing music?


    This is wrong. In fact, it is frowned upon to submit without the disc/record, because you cannot confirm that the information is correct without listening to it.

    That has nothing to do with proper titling. Or expanded information. The covers provide expanded information, which labels cannot due to high space constraints.

    9228289
    I for my part listen to music and this never comes from a cover or any jewel case.


    You forget one important thing: this is a DATAbase, cataloguing INFORMATION, not music. It's information ABOUT music, but not music itself ;)
  • 9228289 over 7 years ago


    Kergillian
    9228289
    I for my part listen to music and this never comes from a cover or any jewel case.

    Kergillian:
    You forget one important thing: this is a DATAbase, cataloguing INFORMATION, not music. It's information ABOUT music, but not music itself ;)

    -
    please think again about:
    are there mediums containing certain music files of worth to our collectors or is the artwork (pictures and nice grafics) of main interest to our collectors?
    And I talk about this is a data base - you have to define what is a key-parameter, to find out first of all, if items are double or unique (artist, Title, label, cat#,...) -
    comparing two releases is simple, you put it side by side and find out a difference or not. as it is now you have to compare the mediums and the covers and this is simply illogical.


    Kergillian
    This is wrong. In fact, it is frowned upon to submit without the disc/record, because you cannot confirm that the information is correct without listening to it.


    and how about submitting a sealed item? I tell you my record is still sealed - you may come over and have a look at it - and now I can submit only all cover information! correct vote!
    -
  • 9228289 over 7 years ago

    I have another HELP-Suggestion... think about learning by doing!
    how about adding DUMMY-RELEASES (each language only one)
    this is a way for self explanation by adding all possible variations - also instead of "release data" a "helptext" is put
    into the database field.
    this should be a real discogs entry - not a PDF file!!

  • Staff 2.6k

    nik over 7 years ago


    9228289
    are there mediums containing certain music files of worth to our collectors or is the artwork (pictures and nice grafics) of main interest to our collectors?
    And I talk about this is a data base - you have to define what is a key-parameter, to find out first of all, if items are double or unique (artist, Title, label, cat#,...) -
    comparing two releases is simple, you put it side by side and find out a difference or not. as it is now you have to compare the mediums and the covers and this is simply illogical.


    9228289 - there has already been a lengthy discussion regarding this subject. You appear to be the only user of the database that has (or sees) a problem, everyone else seem able to enter the information using the cover *and* the medium, following the guidelines that outline what to do if there are discrepancies. Therefore, I have to request that this discussion be dropped from this thread. If you must, you can start a thread or reply to the old thread about it, but I have to warn you that I don't think your point of view will get much understanding, and it is very unlikely to result in any changes to the site.

    9228289
    I have another HELP-Suggestion... think about learning by doing!
    how about adding DUMMY-RELEASES (each language only one)
    this is a way for self explanation by adding all possible variations - also instead of "release data" a "helptext" is put
    into the database field.
    this should be a real discogs entry - not a PDF file!!


    I don't fully understand this, but it seems to be a feature request instead of a guideline discussion. Please make a new thread for that.

    Thanks!
  • Staff 2.6k

    nik over 7 years ago

    mawiles
    that sounds good.
    I think we shouldn't wait for the end of round in a few months, but try to make this label guideline live as soon as possible, so we can immediately start to sort out the mess that grows more and more.


    I have added it now.
  • Staff 2.6k

    nik over 7 years ago

    jweijde
    I'd remove the link from the first sentence ("If any further information is needed to distinguish a Unique Release") and add a sentence saying something like "see the [link]guidelines for submitting Unique Releases[/link]".


    That's a good idea, I have gone ahead and done that - http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-general-rules.html#Required_Fields_For_A_New_Submission
  • jweijde over 7 years ago

    nik
    I have added it now.

    nik
    That's a good idea, I have gone ahead and done that


    Great, thanks :)
  • 9228289 over 7 years ago

    well nik, I placed this opinion also some month ago.
    the question is if someone wants to think it over.
    I do not at all feel I am wrong.
    and if discogs has no interest to beeing perfect you
    may turn this discussion it off.
  • 9228289 over 7 years ago

    nik
    9228289
    in front off all guidelines, Help or Manual I would apreciate a wiki or dictionary with our expressions, this can also be overtaken to all languages when requested.

    We have that at http://www.discogs.com/help/su...elines-glossary.html


    I just have the problem not to know hoe to exprss...
    1.) vinyl records have a whole in the middle (...any certain expresion?)
    2.) 99.9% LPs have a little whole See IMAGE but only 30%(??) of 7", all the other 7" need a adapter Also see IMAGE (because they are for Wurlitzer use)(...any certain expresion?)
    -
    By the way I feel this should be in the "Format" list of the drop down menue (Format)
  • Mop66 over 7 years ago

    ^^You are talking about Jukebox or "dinked" 7" vinyls. Has been discudded in detail: http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/174573
  • 9228289 over 7 years ago


    Mop66
    http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/174573


    OMG ...This topic is older than 90 days and cannot be replied to.
    there are hundreds of posts and I see no result *hate*
  • exdeath over 7 years ago

    In my personal opnion, i think that inside master releases, only releases with the same number of songs, with the same song names, and with the songs in the same order, should be included inside the same master release.
  • 9228289 over 7 years ago


    exdeath
    In my personal opnion, i think that inside master releases, only releases with the same number of songs, with the same song names, and with the songs in the same order, should be included inside the same master release.


    correct!
    now you have a master release showing 1-2 tracks but most of the releases within this master release have up to 6 tracks or differ...
    need a sample?
  • rassel over 7 years ago

    9228289
    correct!
    now you have a master release showing 1-2 tracks but most of the releases within this master release have up to 6 tracks or differ...
    need a sample?

    This seems wrong to me, we shouldn't lump singles and albums together in one MR.
    But it's a different case if these 6 tracks are just different remixes of the two basic songs, then IMO it's fine to put it in one MR.

Log In You must be logged in to post.