Contributing to Discogs

I bought a cheap USB handheld scanner, like you see at checkouts. Made it a lot easier as I could use it with my computer and didn't need to deal with it all through my phone.

 

Had someone remove an album cover image twice from an entry I created because the image was missing some small detail that the actual version was supposed to have. I added the image back a few months ago and just yesterday the person removed it and threatened to report me to the Discogs police if I added it back again. Would've been easier to just upload a correct image if you know it needs to be corrected instead of being a **** about it.

 

Why is your image missing a detail they are claiming it should have? Are you using a different issue of the album? I would be bothered by this if I had created the original entry, and someone came along adding erroneous pictures to my creation. Even if the picture was basically the same, but a little number on the corner of the jacket, etc. was not there.

 

I will post comments about a database issue (correction) in the forums there. And it tends to bring out folks that do not sell, nor buy items, just edit the database as a thrill. They must have pretty boring lives if that is all that they have to do. Anyway, when I post something I now know what kinds of negativity I am likely to get. So I come out swinging, and my replies are kind of bitchy and direct when someone thinks they just might dispute my assertions.

For instance, I added a promotional record the other day. And my copy (never before entered) is the real deal and all others (4 others) are fakes. I added pictures that show my item as real. I intentionally left out the run-out numbers in the dead wax. I did show them in the pictures but did not write them out in the data. The reason I left them out is so someone else can come along and fill this info in. I want someone else to fill that in and help make my entry certified as the real deal. Long story, I got folks disputing that the item is even a promotional not-for-sale item. I did state all copies without machine-stamped matrixes are "counterfeits." I f'in dare anyone to dispute this fact!

Anyway, it's all good. I have won every vote on my entries when they have been any questions. I'm a few steps ahead of them on some titles, I've been collecting long enough. So I tend to be a little blunt which is good for them, they need the quick-snap push back!

 

I'm the guy that created the entry. I used the most generic and closest version of the insert at the time because I do not have a scanner to scan my insert. I actually welcome someone uploading the "correct" version, which is my whole issue with this person. If you're that anal about the specific entry that I created because you know it so well, then you must have the same version I have and are capable of uploading it yourself instead of being a jerk and threatening to "report" me.

 

it's because what you are doing is a violation of discogs guidelines. add your own photo that you took or scanned or don't add one at all.

 

Discogs image guidelines are pretty clear "Images of physical items must be taken by you and cannot be sourced from other websites or third party sources."

 

Yep, this is clearly the problem Duke Fame ran into. Although I can understand it being frustrating, Discogs has to have this policy across the board to avoid running into issues. It's similar to adding photos to a Wikipedia entry. Every time I upload photos for entries - which I do fairly often, I clearly state "photo taken from my own copy" every time. Never had a photo taken down or any other problem. As long as you make it clear it is your own photo, you should be fine.

 

It's the same as selling here in our Classifieds.

 

I just did an edit on the French 1977 pink vinyl copy of Floyd's "Animals" LP. The person who added an additional issue of this limited edition album stated that this other one that had a different printer credited for the cover in tiny writing on the back, and was a much rarer edition that very few even know about. The price code on the other one previous listed had a "Y" up top right near cat# This one has a sticker over it with an "A". I asserted that any sticker placed over a previous # is not and cannot be considered the rarer original. So I basically rewrote the notes, and I clarified that this printer credit is on the inner sleeve as well as the back cover which the previous entry did not clearly state (only mentioned on the inner sleeve). So I basically stated clearly the cover print credit detail, and kept the mention of the "A" price code (as a sticker I said), and removed any mention of it being the rarer first pressing. It was like the person wanted to make this one the "super rare first "pink" pressing" and their writing was fairly poor as if English was not their native language.

So I am expecting some heat over this edit. But it's been 20 hours now and nothing yet. So who knows, maybe it will fly undisputed.

There is another, a white vinyl pressing of Queen's "Night at the Opera" which is entered twice. Each one has some data that is incorrect. I I am going in first to correct the data on each. Add pictures to the one with no pics. Then merge the two into one, stating that these are in fact both the 1978 Dutch white vinyl, no 1975 pressing from this country was ever done on white vinyl despite what is claimed. And that the sticker on the one stated as 1975 is the dead giveaway that it is 1978. Most of these had stickers on the shrink and not the jacket anyway.

But both Pink Floyd and Queen have fanatical followers, and both have potential to get heated over edits and merges.

 

can you share links to the submissions you're referencing?

 

This is the Animals which I had to remove some hype from about first rarer pressing, and that a sticker A is placed on it, the previous contributor stated the "A" was printed as the price code. I went and stated it is a sticker place over the "K".

Nobody has come after me on any of my edits thus far.

Pink Floyd - Animals
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and claims of this Dutch Queen album is 1975 original:
Queen - A Night At The Opera

and that this one is (claimed to be) similar but a later pressing:
Queen - A Night At The Opera

Both Queen LPs of this title on white vinyl from Holland are 1978 issues and are the exact same release.

I think the way to keep the hounds off my trail is to go in first with fresh pictures that are not already provided. Hit a title that is missing something major like the year of release is not there, or deadwax # is missing. Once you've dropped in something like those missing items, it gets harder to dispute the other info you add, and when you go to merge later, you "appear" more sure about it. Take it in baby steps first before you do the Grand-Slam merge a week later. I will ask for a vote on the merge first, just so folks have a chance to add their voice. But I expect no dispute on this Queen LP.

I also will ask a previous contributor about something that they added that I believe to be false or erroneous. And I am nice about it, just looking for confirmation - when really I am looking to blow their info right out of the Discogs water. I am currently in talks with a guy about a "Lilac" colored (again) Dutch copy of Band on the Run. The current listing says 1973 (wrong it is a part of the 1978 series of EMI from Holland on colored vinyl. The color is stated as purple, again wrong, it's a pinkish tone, and lilac is the exact color, same as a Zeppelin 4th pressed the same year.

And then the real clue that this needs an edit, is that these 1978 reissues from EMI on colored vinyl did not ever come with inserts. The Wings LP shows a poster and card stock inner sleeve just like standard copies come with. So I contacted the contributor that added these pictures 5 years after the original entry was created. He does not want to discuss the inserts but keeps saying that yeah, it is likely a 1978 and not a '73 issue. And when pressed on the photos he provided, he says I'll check with the Dutch PM fan club guy he knows. As if he entered info and pictures he did not know were correct. Something tells me he will stay silent when I go in and fix the info, date, and disable the wrong photos he up'd.

Paul McCartney & Wings - Band On The Run

Now the reason I am going in and letting the chips fall hard on these is that I own them and will eventually be selling them off, and with Mint and NM copies, I will be asking for higher prices than the highest shown in the sales history. So I feel the data needs to be sharp and clear (with good pictures) on what I will be listing. It is not that my ego can't stand letting little things go.

 

doesn't look like there'd be any issue with you cleaning up the notes on animals to make them more coherent.

as for the queen submissions, the one without photos very clearly claims to have a different catalog number. if you have it and have photos of it then you should provide it. if not, don't try to "hijack" the submission to make it something else or something like another just for a merge. that'd be bad news.

you should probably try and start a discussion with contributors via PM or the forum on the mccartney.

 

1. The Queen has but one mentioned difference
Queen – A Night At The Opera
Label: EMI – 5C 062-97176
Format: Vinyl, LP, Album, Limited Edition, White
Country: Netherlands
Released: 1975 NOT 1975 as I own it and bought it new

Queen – A Night At The Opera
Label: EMI – 1A 062-97176 this may be the plates with an early cutting of the same pressing, a matrix variation and not a later issue.
Format: Vinyl, LP, Album, Reissue, White
Country: Netherlands
Released:

But here is the kicker, the 5C (said to be earlier, is not earlier as I bought two copies of it in 1978 fresh import along with my other Holland 78 cv titles (Wings, Deep Purple, Pink Floyd, etc.) and the sticker is the dead giveaway, they did not use that sticker on Dutch cv until 77/78.

The other copy provides no supporting documentation that this is a later pressing (not, there is not a later 70s pressing). No pictures to back up the odd 1A cat # prefix. And no copies have shown up in nearly four years for sale. No copies are currently listed. It is a DOA entry. But I will look through other Queen discographies. I know that there are while vinyl pressing to come out in recent years, but only one in 1978, none before in Holland.

I thought I already mentioned that I have discussions going on with previous contributors? Read about the Wings "Band on the Run" above. The poor guy can't confirm that his pictures are correct, and only states he thinks so (he says he got a used copy with inserts in it, but he can't find it now), and yeah it is probably 1978 and not 1973 which he admitted entering. I only called him out on the photos, but he implied the date was his estimation as well. So yes, I have contacted all contributors that have entered erroneous info for the Wings. And I won't do any merge without a vote.

So these Dutch cv LPs all from 77 / 78 are confusing to those that were not there buying them as they rolled out like I was.

But yes, I have hi-jacked submissions and corrected wrong things, and nobody has yet disputed me. Well, one guy whom I had disputed his mass editing, we had a beef, took others' comments, and took a vote, and 100% sided with me.

 

Straightened out the McCartney after the contributor (not original creater of the entry) could not back up his claims, nor provide sources, and dodged questions re: more details. No one disputed me there either. Fixed some other Dutch colored vinyl issues as well, not one peep from anyone.

Now about the Queen Dutch white vinyl entries. I pm'd creators of both entries asking if it was possible the data might be incorrect, and that the LPs are 1978, and that there is not a colored vinyl LP with 1A in the cat#? And could these be actually the same LP entered twice? Not any response so far from either. One of the persons has not contributed in 5 years. The other was around a couple of months ago. So I'll wait a good two weeks before I start in on those. I will tidy them up and then request a merge.

I have not gotten any disputes on my edits, and additions to entries. I've had a few insults over my writing or prose, like called hype, but nobody wants to change anything I have added or edited. So that's good. I tend to add things rather than remove anything if possible. I try and build on what is already there.

The Queen LPs are likely to be merged without issue, edited without dispute I can see that.

 

I’m finding now that my iPhone camera is sharp enough that I don’t use the scanner anymore for record and CD photos. I have a square picture setting and it’s perfect with the afternoon light in the room and table I use.

 

Still cell phone free here my friend.

 

The pics are killer for records I’m telling you. Get an old one just for the camera and don’t activate it. Lol

 

keith richards, is that you? if so, what's your fax number?

 

I did try a friends but I'm just not good at taking clear unbordered pictures with them. Doctoring them up took just as much time for me as the old tried and true scanning into photoshop.

 

That's correct, I'm a rock God passing myself off as SHFM Dave. It's 867-5309.

 

Cell phone pics aren't bad, but to get one that isn't distorted (even if you use "square picture setting") and doesn't suffer any glare loss is very difficult. I have an Epson 12000xl flatbed scanner that can scan the entirety of a 12" LP, so I use that if I want an excellent image.

If I'm lazy, I'll use a cell phone camera. But I know it's not as good in multiple ways.

 

I have a large scanner and would use it still in certain circumstances sure. But damn if it is not slow going. But for knocking out 60 pictures of 24 items, the time saved can't be beat with the iphone.

I am not seeing any distortion in any real way. It is not that I'm lazy, it is that I have thousands of LPs to list. And Discogs has not been so important that the pics need to be artistic masterpieces. Just good clear and clean ones. I'm giving these pictures away to everyone who uses Discogs. So I am not giving them my time as well. Life is too short, I am too old.

Oh and another thing. I can get dead-wax scribes in a cell pic, scanner no.

 

It really amuses me now, that at first I thought all the thing was, was a utility to help owners keep track of their collections. I never realized, it was developed as a way to sell records.

 

To buy records as well, you forgot that part. Get with it, wake up and smell the coffee. Ok!