I’ve Found the Worst Discogs Seller Ever

So, I just ordered a copy of a specific, older There’s a Riot Goin’ On CD.

The seller sends me a completely different edition of the CD — a newer, more common, mastering with bonus tracks and a totally distinct catalog number.

I message him saying, “Hey, you sent me a different copy than the one I bought. Can you send me the correct CD or a refund?”

His response was, I kid you not, “Why are you upset I gave you a CD with more tracks than the one you ordered?”

Does he not even understand the point of Discogs?!! And this guy has 70+ reviews. He’s not some newbie.

 

I tried buying an SACD from a guy who couldn't confirm whether it had a multi or a stereo mix. Had the disc right there. Sale couldn't go through, so I gave him an unsuccessful review.

Ever had your wife woken-up before 9am with an irate phone call from a record store she'd never heard of, insisting I change my review...?

 

Wow.

 

Too bad you didn't send him a message verifying which version it was, @JoshM , you likely could've avoided this guy altogether.
I've had 48 out of 50 Discogs transactions go well, because I'll question the crap out of them, before ordering. Oh, the other two are in shipment.

 

The trouble with Discogs is that they don't provide much/any after sale support to the buyer (or seller). You'll have to complain to PayPal if the guy doesn't make good.

 

With EBay, Amazon, etc., I always check with the seller first. But with Discogs — particularly someone with 70+ feedback — I never though that was necessary, since the entire point of Discogs is to clearly label album versions. It’s bizarre to me that he’d list a CD under an incorrect entry, then act like it’s odd that I wanted the actual disc I ordered!

 

Of course it's odd. Positive feedback can be left by those whose standards were low to begin with, or even drooling idiots. Trust no one, question everyone.
Lately I've been experiencing vinyl sellers, from right here in our own forum, that haven't clue one about packing vinyl properly. Making their own mailers from former appliance boxes, with flattened packing peanuts inside ?!?!?
My attitude was similar to yours...this place, and it's rep speak for itself, but I'm not dealing with a rep, I'm dealing with people. Individual people.
Just a few days ago I waited patiently, all day for a response from a record shop on Discogs, because I wanted a particular pressing plant, and they just so happened to have several different copies of the album I wanted.
When he found it, and verified, I pointed out how it was worth it to get it right up front, so neither of us had to go through the return crap. He agreed, esp. with 30 years experience selling records, and CDs.

 

there are far worse sellers than this. trust me.

 

There are a lot of assumptions embodied in this one sentence fragment.

 

First one being, just because the seller is seling in one of the album versions, doesn't me he's checked the entire listing to see what the other album versions are. It's not that easy...I stumbled into the listing for "Dark Side Of The Moon" once...

 

This is the first time I’ve ever had an issue with a Discogs seller not actually selling the version they listed.

I also don’t think it’s a controversial statement to say that the reason Discogs exists is to delineate different versions of albums. There’s no excuse for a seller to list their album under the wrong listing when the correct one is literally right above or below the incorrect one.

 

I agree with you @JoshM but let's face facts. Discogs can be difficult to use if you don't want to or can't invest the time to learn to differentiate between same catalog numbered pressings. Admittedly that's not much of an excuse, but Joe six-pack may not care and that's why I always ask if they're selling exactly the pressing they've listed it under no matter their feedback rating. You'd be surprised how many times I've made sellers find or create the correct listing they're selling. The same goes for their grading. Heck, even I've accidentally mis-graded on three occasions over the last 15 years of selling but I always make it right in the end by making certain my buyers are happy with the outcome. If a seller is willing to do the right thing by paying return shipment and a full refund they're still good in my books.

 

And a brand new, just installed public bathroom exists to be used properly, and kept clean, but will that be so ?
Discogs is run by the inmates, you're giving it way more credit than it realistically deserves, and this is from the guy with 48 of 50 successful transactions !

 

Very true. And, of course, I wouldn’t have been the least bit upset if the seller had apologized and offered a refund, instead of incredulously asking what was wrong with getting a CD with more tracks. I still haven’t heard back from him regarding a refund, either. May have to go to PayPal.

 

This is another assumption.

And I'm not saying this to bust your chops, but to try to be realistic about Discogs.

First, there's the problem of inaccurate data. There are releases that have runout groove info from multiple pressing plants on the same release, and there are sets of separate releases that only differ due to minor matrix number variations. Unless these belong to an artist with an active fanbase, they'll probably never get cleaned up (and even if they do, more bad data will get entered right behind it).

But leaving that aside, there's still no guarantee that you can find any database entry that matches the copy that you have in your hands.

I have a small collection (< 500 LPs) and I'm not a dealer, and I rarely buy multiple copies of the same album, and I've found many examples where I couldn't find the exact version of some release in their database. Like, the runout groove on one side of the record would match one release and the other side would match some other release, or the runout groove numbers would match one release, but the record company address on the label would match a different release.

Due to the insane way they've structured their database, all these are supposed to be entered as distinct "releases". And much of the important differentiating data isn't even searchable (e.g. the record company address on the label). So it's incredibly tedious to try to find the correct version even if it's just a "normal" album and not some Pink Floyd record with 250 million variations in the database.

In my case, where I'm just tracking my collection, I usually just assign the album to one of the releases that matches it most closely and move on.

But even if I were a dealer, there is no way in hell I would ever enter it as a new release. It would be on nobody's wantlist, and most people wouldn't even notice that I had it for sale unless they were searching across the entire Master Release.

So, again, I would pick an existing release that resembled it closely -- preferably one on lots of people's wantlists -- and list it as that.

Now, obviously, these aren't super-high-value items where the minor difference in matrix numbers or packaging can make a huge difference in the value, but I think the principle applies across the board. Unless you have a specific high-value item, there's no real incentive to track down the exact match -- especially if that match isn't on a lot of people's wantlists.

In a lot of cases, the buyer probably won't notice or care, unless the difference is obvious.

In most of the remaining cases, the buyer will probably be willing to take a partial refund to spare themselves the hassle of repackaging it and paying to ship it back to the seller. So the end result to the dealer is essentially no different than if they had listed it under the "proper" version... they still wind up selling it, at a slightly reduced price.

The cases where they have to do a return and refund are probably a tiny minority of the total cases where they mis-label a particular release.

The fact that your seller could have 70+ transactions and still not care about selling anything close to the correct version (or understand why you might care) suggests that most of his buyers don't care, either.

So while the original intent of Discogs certainly was to track every variation of every release, it's now a for-profit website operated by a private company. Its purpose is to facilitate the selling of music, and it makes money whether the listing is "correct" or not.

 

It’s actually not an assumption. The one he sent me has its own listing. We’re also talking CDs, which are much easier to identify than vinyl. So maybe you’re the one making the assumption (and not reading my first post clearly!).

I understand your point about Discogs, though, and I won’t make this mistake again. But as I said above, I wouldn’t have cared if he was nice about the mistake. That’s what makes this seller awful, not the intital incorrect listing (even if in this case it really was just laziness on his part, not due to the complexities of vinyl, etc.).

 

Sure, I got that. But I thought the conversation had developed into a more general discussion of Discogs. I was treating your statement about "...the correct one is right below it" as more of a general aphorism.

In any case, though, the fact that he would list it under a completely different catalog number and then act baffled that you even cared just shows how wide the gap is between Discogs' original intent and the way it's commonly used in practice today.

 

you should go through paypal regardless. it's the only real way to guarantee your recourse.

 

I wouldn't have a problem paying with Visa. You wanna see a vendor stand up and salute you rather than screw you over? See what happens when suddenly the credit card company tells him make it right, or risk losing ability to make Visa transactions.

Also, there's another benefit of using the Post Office, because misrepresenting a purchase sent through the USPS is a Federal offense, prosecutable through the FBI. How many small-potatoes dealers want to worry about that...!

 

I want to be there when you try to get the FBI into a interstate commerce dispute over a EX- versus VG+ disc rating.........

 

But Agent Jones... it was a different catalog number!!

But it had more songs than the one you ordered!

D'oh!

(All in good fun.)

 

You don't tell the FBI; you tell the vendor how much trouble it's going to be for him, trying to continue doing business through the Post Office with the FBI up his butt.

 

Just curious, why do you think he deserved an unsuccessful review because he couldn't answer that question? I have seen record store owners that can't answer that question either. The whole multi channel thing sorta went over a lot of people's head. But, why not just move on instead of the bad review?

 

Fair enough. By definition the purchase was unsuccessful. He actually stated he had a disc with specific qualities, but when I asked for specific proof, he was clearly making an assumption about it, he was not interested in pursuing for the sale.

The story gets "better", though. He actually called me back a few days later, to ask why I hadn't changed my review yet. So I went online while on the phone with him, and told him he hadn't changed his claim about his product, and, whasn't that wyat reviewing is all about in the first place.

So, just how "unsuccessful" does a purchase have to be when you can't buy the product from the seller...he's still offering it to the public with the same bad claim, AND he's called your house out of the blue...TWICE! And had the temerity to ask me to fix MY correct report on his dicey product "because a bad review like this can cause a lot of lost business for a seller"...while HE's still trying to lure the next poor sap who will be willing to believe him.

Does that answer your question...Mark?