• jonnyhalfhead over 4 years ago

    I have discovered a fundamental flaw in Discogs, and I'm disappointed because Discogs is nearly there and yet is failing at the most fundamental level of detail.

    Discogs has 7 main uses :
    -Recording music related releases by artists / Labels historically accurate
    -Enabling collectors to track their collection
    -Enabling collectors to track what is missing from their collection
    -Allow market traders to sell accurately the stock they have
    -Let traders match their stock against collectors wanted items
    -Allow collectors to track the worth of their collection
    -Give traders a realistic idea of market value

    At the moment the Discogs rules allow for the level of accuracy to be one row of data per release. A release is defined in the rules as a unique release, except for stamps and matrices, see rule 1.4.4 below

    "1.4.4. Manufacturing variations should not be counted as a unique release. For example; different stampers / matrix numbers for the same edition, manufacturing tolerance based variations in the shades of label paper or ink color etc, would not constitute a unique release."

    For the 7 main uses listed above, this rule makes Discogs fall short. The example I have had problems with demonstrates this issue.
    I collect the label 4AD. A single by the band "Bauhaus" called "Dark Entries" I discovered to have 7 different variations. Unfortunately, two of these releases are matrices variations, so Discogs currently can only record 5 of these as the other two have to be subnotes in the two of the releases
    http://www.discogs.com/Bauhaus-Dark-Entries/master/2207

    Because of this, 6 of the 7 uses of Discogs listed at the top here are no longer of any use. If one release has two different matrices variations, I can no longer :
    -Track which of these I already have in my collection
    -Track what is missing from my collection
    -Be confident that a market trader is selling accurately the version I want
    -Track the version I do not have against a traders stock
    -Have any confidence that the worth of a version I have isn't distorted by mixed data from other matrices or stamp variations
    -Have any confidence that a trader is not charging over the odds for an item I want to buy because of the inaccurate valuing of mixed matrices variations

    Luckily, the latter 2 are not a problem on this release. But I imagine that on some releases, the difference in matrices can the difference of hundreds of pounds / dollars / Euros.

    If a release version with a matrices 1A sells for around 500, and the matrices 1C around 200, currently both of these are mixed into the same release. The worth of the release would be an average of 350 which would be a great exaggeration for one version and way short for the other. Traders would take advantage of these, collectors may under insure their collection and most of all, the data is wildly inaccurate.

    I feel strongly that the accuracy of the Discogs database is compromised at the final, most accurate level, because of this rule. I understand that some releases may end up with tens and tens of variations, but this must be done. My suggested solution would be to ask Discogs to add a further subgrouping level. So Artist - Master Release - Release - Subrelease(with Matrices / Stamp variations)

    Let me know your thoughts and if others agree maybe we can ask for a change

    Thanks for your time
  • Erit_Invictus over 4 years ago

    How would different manufacturers change the quality and the price of the release? If they are all sold at the same price?
  • cvalda44 over 4 years ago

    jonnyhalfhead
    If a release version with a matrices 1A sells for around 500, and the matrices 1C around 200, currently both of these are mixed into the same release. The worth of the release would be an average of 350 which would be a great exaggeration for one version and way short for the other. Traders would take advantage of these, collectors may under insure their collection and most of all, the data is wildly inaccurate.


    5.3d .... "For smaller releases, or in special cases, the matrix variation may indicate a unique release / edition"
  • AmimanPL over 4 years ago

    When I have a release and there's nothing different than the matrix, I just do an edit and add my numbers subtitled as variations. Once I had a luck and my copy was earlier pressed than the one used by original submitter :) If Your 2 copies are really special, then they should be put on debate. If it's possible, make a draft for them, share them on forum and ask for opinion. Maybe a creating a subrelease level would be good, especially when we will have a lot variations on few releases. I am currently doing a check over my collection and editing the numbers when possible.
    Anyway: nice hobby - congratulations on having so many versions of just one single. My "record" is 3x Depeche Mode's Black Celebration - 1x LP (Polish pressing) and 2x CD (France 1986 & US 1986). Though the releases are different I treat them as multiple copies. My father has a few CDs, probably even not added to Discogs (some of them are, unfortunately, damaged with a spine missing or a CD from a set so I can't use them as a release). Except a few CD, mostly from Poland (including The Beatles - I've added all which are complete, just 3 + 2 foreign. Wish he had a complete "Help" and "Please Please Me", ones of my favs from Beatles :( ).
  • swagski over 4 years ago

    Your time & energy on this excellent communiqué I trust will be noted: http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/344093#3230404

    It is true that the RSG 'permits' those with 'knowledge' to enter 'variations in matrix data' for items of a 'special significance'.

    However, it is not clear how that 'significance' can be realized on a 'worldwide / universal / every collector-knows-it' basis, unless all the damn releases can have their matrix variations entered... and we all sing from the same hymnbook.

    Given the limitation, a submitter without knowledge that he is holding one of only 10 pressings ever made, simply clicks 'I've got it' into his collection (thinking it's exactly the same as the 1968 vinyl in Ogs - to which he can add nothing, other than the difference in those mysterious squiggles in the run-out that don't matter)

    Which leads us into the murky waters of disagreement - e.g.
    http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/343875
    http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/343946
    and sort of around here http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/343997#3229940
    etc., etc.
  • Music4Collectors over 4 years ago

    This needs to be cleared one way or the other. As swagski clearly shows, the guidelines leave too much to obscurity. While some can argue to the letter of the rules, distinct variations are deleted and merged and the quality of the data that sits with those entries is lost.

    I think we should firstly cnage the rules to allow matrix variations, then at some later and more convenient time, add a subgrouping for matrix variations
  • jonnyhalfhead over 4 years ago

    With the Bauhaus single, I altered and added the variation, changing the 5 entries into 7 entries. They have just been voted to be removed and have been removed quite swiftly, and I cannot argue as the rules are clear to those that wish to remove them.

    Unfortunately, I had also referenced the 7 versions in my blog and now they don't match the entries on Discogs, except for a footnote.
    http://4adfirstdecade.blogspot.co.uk/

    I think this generalisation of releases can be quite insulting to some poor collectors. Those that care about the details of different matrices would argue that treating the variations as the same releases is like never admitting that twins are seperate poeple and only ever talking about them as a collective. A Beatles or Led Zeppelin enthusiast would argue for matrices in order to help distinguish between consequent pressings of the same release.

    There's a couple more vital additions I missed out in here as well http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/344093#3230404

    Matrices pre-mid 80's are the nearest thing to barcodes for identification. Different barcodes clearly mean a seperate entry, and yet matrices do not. A release from the same country at the same time but with two barcodes are two seperate entries, and yet the same for matrices is not.

    Secondly, a different matrix generaly shows a different master used. This means the quality could be wildly different. Surely this is vital information for the collector and trader
  • cvalda44 over 4 years ago

    I collect different matrix variants and to be honest I find it much more convenient when they are handled within one submission. Master releases pages already scare me with their number of clones, but if each matrix variant will be accepted as separate sub, the MR pages will become absolutely useless. But on release page i can see a clear list with matrix variants at the bottom and which of them I have and which not at the right.
    Currently we submit separate release if matrix contains unique name or company plus we have the rule 5.3d, i think this is the point where we should stop for now. However, an attempt to specify 5.3d conditions would be useful.

    "Subrelease level", imho, can be embodied with adding additional functionality to the BAOI section, not on the entire new submission level.

  • hermanito over 4 years ago


    cvalda44
    Master releases pages already scare me with their number of clones

    That is because the MR itself is a poor implementation of what it should have been IMO
  • timetogo over 4 years ago

    AmimanPL
    When I have a release and there's nothing different than the matrix, I just do an edit and add my numbers subtitled as variations.

    That's the correct way to do it as the Guidelines stand now. The one clear exception is when the difference in matrix/runouts represents a different pressing/manufacturing location. Then it's a separate release.

    If it were up to me we wouldn't have any exceptions at all.
  • jonnyhalfhead over 4 years ago


    [quote=cvalda44][/quote]

    If one entry has 3 matrix variations, how are you tracking them and know which you have? The ones shown on the right are only against each entry and not against each matrix variation. According to the rules, if two matrix variations are against the same release, it's only one entry in the database. You cannot track which ones you have or which you still need to get.

    If the rules were changed the current system would cope, but it would be messy. I can see why there are objections. If a collector doesn't worry about matrix variations, then one matrix per entry would leave many holes in a list and may bug some collectors

    Surely the 6 out of 7 uses of Discogs are failing here, is that disputed?
  • gboe over 4 years ago

    gboe edited over 4 years ago
    cvalda44
    "Subrelease level"

    ... is the only way out. While the addicted database oriented subbers will easily be able to handle a matrix# solution every which way, two major concerns stands in the way. We have to not only consider the release details, but also to what level we can take the community (subbers) and market (sellers and buyers) without losing more than we gain.

    The depth of details is deepening continously - latest with the label section fields - and while we the experienced ones can easyly handle another level of depth, we have to also be the voice of the lesser skilled subbers that doesn't take as much part in debates here. So - while I can only think of positive reasons database-wise to add this level - I fear that subbing will become so advanced that more people will decide not to. And more important tha going one level deeper - it is to invite more people to add those millions of releases still not in the DB. For the Jazz genre e.g. my estimate is that only a tenth of all releases are in the DB.

    Secondly I don't think that the sellers will care enough about the matrix# level, so a lot more wrongly listed items.

    To make all these interests co-exist sub-levels seems the only way - making it clear that subbing and selling at upper-level is OK - and sub-level is optional and for the affectionados.
  • jweijde over 4 years ago

    Basically what we need is some kind of Master Release within a Master Release.
  • jweijde over 4 years ago

    jonnyhalfhead
    If one entry has 3 matrix variations, how are you tracking them and know which you have?

    By using Collection Notes?
    If there are three variants, and you own only two of them, you add the item to your collection twice. Then you add a comment to both of them indicating which variant it exactly is.
    You can also add an additional comment field where you can indicate which variants you still need to have.

    When is available for sale, you can send the seller a message asking what the matrix of his copy is.
  • cvalda44 over 4 years ago

    jonnyhalfhead
    You cannot track which ones you have or which you still need to get.

    You may click "Add to Collection" on release page more than once and then use Notes section in each box. At the same time you can see the complete list of available variants in the BAOI section (and it grows each month). Very handy. Much better than 10-20 clones on MR page you need to click each after other to open for a check. MR pages are not ready for your proposal. Let discogs staff to fix some bugs and complete some highly demanded features before thinking about this again.

    gboe
    Secondly I don't think that the sellers will care enough about the matrix# level, so a lot more wrongly listed items.

    Ha! They often do not care even about cat# and country. When I want to buy an Australian version the first question I ask "Do you really sell the Australian version ?" And each 3rd seller responds with "Oh, sorry..."
  • Eviltoastman over 4 years ago

    cvalda44
    Ha! They often do not care even about cat# and country. When I want to buy an Australian version the first question I ask "Do you really sell the Australian version ?" And each 3rd seller responds with "Oh, sorry..."

    I always make the seller check his version to ensure it is the absolutely correct item. It can be dificult matching releases up to the correct version. I bet if I run through my collection I'll find that I've added the wrong version to my list on at least five subs.
  • cvalda44 over 4 years ago

    jweijde
    Basically what we need is some kind of Master Release within a Master Release

    yep and i think this sub-MR feature should affect only the BAOI section (plus optional displaying at the MR). since the Credits/Tracklist/Format and other sections are the same for all clones, those sections should be "shared". If some matrix variant brings a change to one of those sections, it is not a subject of sub-MR anymore but a unique release. this can be the criteria for the 5.3d btw

    Eviltoastman
    I bet if I run through my collection I'll find that I've added the wrong version to my list on at least five subs.

    There are still many releases I have added to my collection when I have joined discogs and haven't re-hecked since then. When I come to them finally I often discover original versions, worth unique submission even as per "old" unique artwork rules :)
  • swagski over 4 years ago

    jweijde
    When is available for sale, you can send the seller a message asking what the matrix of his copy is.

    So, (not picking on you jweijde) the onus is on me to get it right, not the seller?
    Take a look at a typical ebay headline "Rare Sploggo LP A1/B1 press"
    So, he need not put that? Maybe he can leave the cat# out, so I have to give him a call?

    If I have 2 sleeves, one with a different print credit to the other, otherwise identical - then sep sub. Nobody complains this is 'too complex'.
    2 CD's with different hub data - sep sub.
    (An 'expert' can then come along and, via discussion, merge them if need be).
    What shouldn't happen is to loose a potential sub.

    We should not get diverted by the 'making it too complex' argument. IMHO, subbers, new & old, tend to just put in what they are comfortable with. If they decide to enter into the realms of matrices, then the DB layout is generally fine for them to put stuff in - whether they get bogged down in separating this or that, or not. By having 2 sep subs, the newly-arriving submitter is forced to examine both - thus educating & making them aware of a difference (hopefully backed-up in Notes). That said, for CDs I am pro not adding suffix variations to ifpi mould codes.

    Also, as an aside, I have often noticed that questioning listed 'Versions' of matrice data on CDs (clustered under one release) has subsequently revealed changes to CD face print & cropping, etc. Folks are often like sheep, once you start a version they add to it. No prob, if the 'experts' can sort it, in the confidence of updated matrix guide 'RSG 26262.57575.57575', for the benefit of all

  • timetogo over 4 years ago

    jonnyhalfhead

    Surely the 6 out of 7 uses of Discogs are failing here, is that disputed?

    For me, yes, I'd dispute that. Aside, perhaps, from determining when and where a pressing was made, matrix variations seem totally trivial to me. List the entry that includes yours in your collection and add a note to tell yourself which variant you have.

    Remember, matrix information is NOT required for a Discogs submission at all.
  • swagski over 4 years ago

    timetogo
    Remember, matrix information is NOT required for a Discogs submission at all

    ...yet :D

    Seriously though, if anyone DOES put it in, they need to put it ALL in!
  • alarmclockscreams over 4 years ago

    gboe
    To make all these interests co-exist sub-levels seems the only way - making it clear that subbing and selling at upper-level is OK - and sub-level is optional and for the affectionados.

    cvalda44
    yep and i think this sub-MR feature should affect only the BAOI section (plus optional displaying at the MR). since the Credits/Tracklist/Format and other sections are the same for all clones, those sections should be "shared". If some matrix variant brings a change to one of those sections, it is not a subject of sub-MR anymore but a unique release. this can be the criteria for the 5.3d btw

    swagski
    Also, as an aside, I have often noticed that questioning listed 'Versions' of matrice data on CDs (clustered under one release) has subsequently revealed changes to CD face print & cropping, etc.


    Very good points.
  • AndysWax over 4 years ago

    AndysWax edited over 4 years ago
    jonnyhalfhead
    Ha! They often do not care even about cat# and country. When I want to buy an Australian version the first question I ask "Do you really sell the Australian version ?" And each 3rd seller responds with "Oh, sorry..."


    It really sucks when that happens and I'm speaking from seller end. It sucks when you are all happy you have a sale and realize it isnt right. It's a sinking feeling. That "oh sorry" can be genuine. It can happen no matter how conscientious you are. Not only because you are human and mistakes can be made. And not only because records can sometimes be hard to identify. But mostly because the listings on Discogs are in flux.

    I had a guy ask about a record recently. He asked me "is it yellow vinyl?" When I listed the record I listed it correctly. In the meantime, someone came along and changed the entry to yellow vinyl, added pics etc. when he should have submitted a new entry. I was lucky that the buyer asked first - he could have just ordered it and then there would have been a problem. But still I said "oh sorry". And I was embarrassed. So it isn't always sellers on the take :)
  • timetogo over 4 years ago

    swagski
    Seriously though, if anyone DOES put it in, they need to put it ALL in!

    Now this is something I can agree with :)

    cvalda44
    Ha! They often do not care even about cat# and country. When I want to buy an Australian version the first question I ask "Do you really sell the Australian version ?" And each 3rd seller responds with "Oh, sorry..."

    Report the listing violation. That's a clear "Not Actual Item" case. If it isn't clear from the listing open a Support Request quoting the PM where the seller admitted the violation. That's the only way we're ever going to get a handle on it.
  • Music4Collectors over 4 years ago


    timetogo
    matrix variations seem totally trivial to me.


    Some collectors only want one of each release, some want all country variations, some want all versions including every tweak. We wouldn't want to remove the country variations because some collectors aren't interested in different countries releases.

    Discogs does need to try and be all things to all types of collector, that goes without saying, but the folk who want to add the detail, should be able to, accurately.

    I do think there is some interesting psychology at work here. There is definitely no-one saying that just because someone does not collect or care about matrices that they are not collecting properly, discogs just needs to cater for those who do, IMHO
  • Eviltoastman over 4 years ago

    cvalda44
    There are still many releases I have added to my collection when I have joined discogs and haven't re-hecked since then. When I come to them finally I often discover original versions, worth unique submission even as per "old" unique artwork rules :)

    Yeah, I just checked my Breaking The Law 7" singles (two I had) and they weren't on the DB and these two had different stamper indentations to each other as well as the printing differences which allowed them to be added as a new submission.
  • timetogo over 4 years ago

    Music4Collectors

    I do think there is some interesting psychology at work here. There is definitely no-one saying that just because someone does not collect or care about matrices that they are not collecting properly, discogs just needs to cater for those who do, IMHO

    Doing so would create hopelessly large master releases where it would take forever just to figure out what release was mine. Thanks but no thanks. To me it would make Discogs an unusable mess.
  • alarmclockscreams over 4 years ago

    timetogo
    Doing so would create hopelessly large master releases where it would take forever just to figure out what release was mine. Thanks but no thanks. To me it would make Discogs an unusable mess.

    I think this is a good compromise:
    cvalda44
    yep and i think this sub-MR feature should affect only the BAOI section (plus optional displaying at the MR). since the Credits/Tracklist/Format and other sections are the same for all clones, those sections should be "shared". If some matrix variant brings a change to one of those sections, it is not a subject of sub-MR anymore but a unique release. this can be the criteria for the 5.3d btw
  • timetogo over 4 years ago

    alarmclockscreams

    I think this is a good compromise:

    That would require a major bit of programming. It's not going to happen anytime soon. It would also make the matrix/runouts a required field. I don't expect management will ever do that. Only minimal information is required.
  • alarmclockscreams over 4 years ago

    timetogo
    It would also make the matrix/runouts a required field.

    I don't think so. Somebody could enter a release, only including the minimums (artist, title, tracks, etc.). Then someone else could enter the matrix info. Then one day later, someone else could enter new matrix info, and that might qualify as a sub-release as cvalda44 mentioned. How would it make the matrix/runouts a required field?
  • drno718 over 4 years ago

    I'm pretty much a newbie here at Discogs but I've been collecting (buying) music for more than 30 years. I'm slowly entering them and I'm learning a lot from all you guys that are knowledgeable about matrix numbers and all that stuff. Whenever I'm entering a release and I find that if any of the info is different than the release already in the database I want to be able to add it as a separate release and often feel slighted when I cannot. I wonder how can I accurately track my collect compared to others if two different versions are lumped together. I really don't mind the extra work of adding all the data possible, isn't that what a database is all about. It's frustrating when I'm holding a record in my hand and can't figure out if it's the same as the one in the database because someone didn't put in all the info or a picture. I haven't started trying to sell, buy, or trade yet but as I do I'll want to know the specifics of a version. Is having to contact the other person the answer?, or should I be able to check the database and see what's available and who has which versions. I realize that the discussion is more technical and perhaps some of it goes over my head at the moment but I am a contributor and I do feel that this should be a place to get all the info possible.
  • timetogo over 4 years ago

    I don't think so. Somebody could enter a release, only including the minimums (artist, title, tracks, etc.). Then someone else could enter the matrix info. Then one day later, someone else could enter new matrix info, and that might qualify as a sub-release as cvalda44 mentioned. How would it make the matrix/runouts a required field?


    If versions with different matrix/runouts and nothing else are separate releases all of a sudden how on earth do you tell which version a release without a matrix/runout entry is? Sounds like a recipe for duplicates and triplicates to me.

    On that subrelease thing, don't hold your breath. Major structural changes to the database would be required. That sort of programming won't happen quickly and, TBH, it's hard for me to see the benefit at all.
  • alarmclockscreams over 4 years ago

    timetogo
    If versions with different matrix/runouts and nothing else are separate releases all of a sudden how on earth do you tell which version a release without a matrix/runout entry is?

    That's what I'm saying (answered that in the quote you got from me). If someone initially enters a release without a matrix number, then someone else can come along and see that all of the info on the release page so far is accurate with their copy, and they can enter the matrix info (as is already being done regularly on Discogs). Once someone else comes along, and notices that all of the info except the matrix is EXACTLY the same, they can enter their new matrix as a sub-release.
    And I agree that we can't be expecting this sub-release thing immediately, but it is a really good thing to talk about.
  • timetogo over 4 years ago

    alarmclockscreams
    I agree that we can't be expecting this sub-release thing immediately, but it is a really good thing to talk about.

    No, it's not. The more complicated you make the Guidelines and the submission process the less likely people are going to be able to follow them and do correct submissions.
  • swagski over 4 years ago

    alarmclockscreams
    I don't think so. Somebody could enter a release, only including the minimums (artist, title, tracks, etc.). Then someone else could enter the matrix info. Then one day later, someone else could enter new matrix info, and that might qualify as a sub-release as cvalda44 mentioned. How would it make the matrix/runouts a required field?

    How can I confidently add my runout or hub data to an existing release,
    A) If there is no image (& no BAOI) but a date 1974 & cat#
    B) There is another, repress, a date 1975 & same cat#
    I'm often finding myself pleading for runout stuff to a subber, so I can find out where my copy lies in the stew of things.

    As I mentioned, many subscribers would simply not bother. Click "I've got it" and move on
    timetogo
    alarmclockscreams
    I agree that we can't be expecting this sub-release thing immediately, but it is a really good thing to talk about.

    No, it's not. The more complicated you make the Guidelines and the submission process the less likely people are going to be able to follow them and do correct submissions.

    Agreed. As I mentioned, the system may not be perfect, but it works perfectly well for the subject we are discussing.
    What is critical in RSG, IMHO, is;
    •The need to explain more clearly what is meant by [the red herring] the term 'Matrix' data.
    •The SID on CDs explained ie mastering/mould
    •And the importance of entering all of it clearly & completely IF you do feel inclined to begin entering it.

  • alarmclockscreams over 4 years ago

    timetogo
    No, it's not. The more complicated you make the Guidelines and the submission process the less likely people are going to be able to follow them and do correct submissions.


    Discogs gets more complicated every now and then, but the minimum requirements remain the same. There are more advanced features like entering companies that almost nobody does. I really don't understand how adding more optional features will make it less likely that people will enter correct submissions. Adding more features like this can benefit a lot of people, but will not hurt anyone if done the right way. The people who know about the special features can use them, and the people who don't don't have to.
  • Opdiner over 4 years ago


    alarmclockscreams
    Discogs gets more complicated every now and then, but the minimum requirements remain the same


    And they'll stay the same. In fact they may have been reduced as we are now no longer allowed to remove items with less than minimum requirements if there is any way it may be identified and corrected in the future.

    The minimum requirements for a CORRECT submission remain the same.
  • jonnyhalfhead over 4 years ago

    The More I think about this the more I wonder how many extra entries allowing matrix variations would actually add. A different matrix in many cases is a re-mastering or total re-pressing, which tends to come with sleeve, disc label, catalogue or other changes. I think the exception to this is usually with very large releases in America, where different stamps are used in different areas of such a large country at the same time.

    My Example of Bauhaus' Dark Entries has 6 variations and only one of them has two matrix variations. Other matrices tend to be a different country, a re-release, or a remastered re-release which are already covered. I do look for matrix variations and don't see many outside of the current Discogs remit.

    Beatles variations from the UK, nearly all come with some other change. Do folk really think it will be a massive addition of entries. Is there any proof of this where some other change doesn't already mean a separate listing under the current Discogs rules?
  • swagski over 4 years ago

    jonnyhalfheadhttp://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/344093#3232208 with the payoff...
    jonnyhalfhead
    Do folk really think it will be a massive addition of entries. Is there any proof of this where some other change doesn't already mean a separate listing under the current Discogs rules?

    Well put.
    Of course the other problem it seems can't be dealt with is that of a Company.
    If a pressing plant has 'Pressed By' in the text we have to make it an Artist. It seems we are no longer able to use common sense, despite the fact it should need to be credited by an 'at' anyway as a Company. So 'separation' by plant difference makes the scenario of 'lots of different subs' less likely!
  • gboe over 4 years ago

    alarmclockscreams
    I really don't understand how adding more optional features will make it less likely that people will enter correct submissions

    I think we all see quite a sum of incorrect subs from which you can tell that many people don't take the tour or the course before starting to sub. They wouldn't know what is mandatory.

    I'm in favor of two separate submissions forms - one for the beginner/mandatory sub and one for skilled/advanced sub - with an accordingly "mandatory" and advanced subission view,
  • jonnyhalfhead over 4 years ago


    gboe
    I'm in favor of two separate submissions forms - one for the beginner/mandatory sub and one for skilled/advanced sub - with an accordingly "mandatory" and advanced subission view,


    Now that is a genius idea. If the beginner adds a new sub with minimal inputs, and it matches an existing sub, Discogs can stop the new sub right there. With fewer fields to check the new submission check would be more accurate.

    Genius gboe
  • hermanito over 4 years ago


    jonnyhalfhead
    Genius gboe

    This has been suggested many times before ;)
    But, yes, it is an excellent idea.
  • jweijde over 4 years ago

    jweijde edited over 4 years ago
    I don't think we should start accepting every single matrix variation as a unique release.
    Take a look at this for example. 60+ variations. Mind you, that's only the first UK issue.
    That would result in a giant Master Release page. And it's big already:
    Pink Floyd - The Dark Side Of The Moon

    Ofcourse it would make a massive BAOI section aswell. It just shows the current system isn't suitable for these things.
  • Staff 2.6k

    nik over 4 years ago

    The Dark Side Of The Moon is the standard example for this. It shows that there can be many run out variations per edition. The nature of vinyl manufacture means that one edition can carry a lot of different run out variations, since each stamper is only good for a few thousand presses, and stampers can carry different (additional) run out information.

    To take a bit of a step back, it should be noted that Discogs has evolved quite a lot in the not-to-distant past. The two major changes were to allow all unique releases (in 2007), and to have a Master Release function (in 2009! Only 3 years ago) to fold them all together.

    I feel that interest in creating multiple versions for every matrix variation (especially of big selling releases) is not strong enough at the moment to devote development time to, nor to open the guidelines for. I'm not sure that most collectors will have, or be interested in having, 60+ versions of DSOTM, for example. This doesn't mean that important variations (1st issues etc) can't be a unique release. The system is at the moment, and will probably always be, a compromise that tries to keep 99% of the users happy with the information available.

    Regarding sub-releases... I doubt we would spend time developing this in the near or even mid-term future. I'd guess we'd be looking to expand the BAOI functionality so we could add each variation to collection / wantlist, and sell them as well. There would be a considerable number of issues regarding that, plus it would make things much more complicated. Something to consider, but don't hold your breath!

    Regarding the submission form - as you may know, we are currently working on it. There are a lot of changes to do. We have discussed doing a 'wizard' type interface, and doing different forms for new users and for advanced ones. For the moment, we want to focus on making the existing form much better on a basic level, and also to start getting deeper error checks in place. Ideally, one form should be able to cater for everyone, and that makes it easier for everyone to discuss, help each other with etc.
  • swagski over 4 years ago

    I've had a look through Pink Floyd - The Dark Side Of The Moon and can't find any 'variations in matrix run outs' inside any issue that are causing that large list.
    Yes, there are a lot of subs - but also for other reasons than matrix variant.
    My 'campaign' was not for stampers (which can be important, but can go inside as variations), but for separating runouts/hub data that have date changes, plant changes and cutting engineer changes/differences.
    "Variations" can be read as a nebulous word, with some claiming SID code changes are 'just variations' (I'm not talking SID mould suffixes)

    Also, by religiously following 'Rules' conflicts occur via runout data.
    I'll give you a scenario:
    A release says "Mastered By Masterdisk" or "Cut by Masterdisk"
    Yet, in the BAOI for that release we see the runout contains "RL"

    Now, if you make Masterdisk the Artist (following the 'by' rule), then what role did Bob Ludwig perform?
    Clearly 2 Artists can't cut one lacquer.
    Bob cut the lacquer. Masterdisk was where he cut it.

    Lacquer Cut By - Bob Ludwig (Artist)
    Mastered At - Masterdisk (LCCN)

    The end result is more accurate. Everyone still gets credited. Actual text in Release Notes. Rules 'interpreted' using common sense (which is why they are actually 'guidelines').
  • cvalda44 over 4 years ago

    swagski
    but for separating runouts/hub data that have date changes, plant changes and cutting engineer changes/differences.

    i think these were allowed already ?

Log In You must be logged in to post.