I’ve contributed to the database for some time, adding many albums not already in the database. The biggest frustrations? Discogs’ ridiculous idea of what an album is. If it was recorded in a handful of sessions by the same musicians and no tracks have been issued elsewhere, that is an album for almost any veteran collector. But there is always the occasional nut who whines about album being added to a listing, asking what the source is. People who add styles, often dealers, who have no clue about the music. It can’t be contemporary jazz or smooth jazz if it was recorded before the style existed. I am not about to label styles if I am not well versed in them. Those who think that their stylistic labels are above being edited. Some seem to take it as a personal insult if they are altered. Contributors who hijack listings by changing the format, country of origin, etc., or add data from a later repress. People who misuse the voting. Instead of voting needs minor changes, make the needed edits and explain why you did so. But when it’s entirely incorrect with numerous bad edits, that’s another story.
Yup, life is too short to waste it doing slowwwwwww scans for the common good Of course, life is also too short to create all those listings just for the common good Anyway, I get your points and agree. And, yeah, you'll never get the dead wax etchings with a scanner. I have enough trouble getting them with a cell phone! If there's a magic way to get those easily and quickly, I haven't perfected it!
I went in tonight and marked several LPs "Unofficial Release" which can really rattle some of the sellers offering that pressing of a title (actually kill their listing). I know certain albums continue to be sold even with that in their database description. Others get blocked with that as their kiss of death. I felt ok about adding that especially when you click on the label name and it says Bootleg Label under the name and most all of the titles that they have issued have Unofficial Release next to their title.
I’m not sure when adding unofficial release causes all listings of an item for sale to be blocked, though certain labels like Lone Hill Jazz seem to be blocked immediately. From reading Discogs guidelines, it seems that an artist, his or her estate, or a designated representative has to file a complaint for sales of an unofficial release to be blocked.
I also went in and edited a Queen LP on white vinyl. I had like four different issues with the info on this LP. So I decided to do a couple of things. Message the person who created the original entry and ask them to verify just two of the issues I have with the entry, and politely explain my reasons for doubt. I did that 6 months ago and got no response. I also messaged another contributing member who has added some other info, and ask them about it. Both contributors did not reply to my questions. Then last night I went in and changed some things, but not all of the things I eventually plan on changing. I changed the release date from 1975 to 1978. And I removed a claim that the given LP was an earlier first release of the white-colored vinyl pressing compared to another entry which had no date, no pictures, and no one ever offering one for sale. In other words, they are the same LP with different dates claimed for release year and other date being slightly different. They are the same LP, and there are not two releases of this white-colored LP. Next, I plan on deactivating the pictures of the custom cardstock inner sleeve as truly was featured in the first issue of the album. This 1978 pressing did not come with anything other than a white inner sleeve. This question was asked to the original entry creator, where did the inner sleeve come from, and could it have been put inside the jacket from another copy? No answer to my message. Ok, so that tells me they don't know, or they wanted to create a special rarer version of this LP. BTW, no sellers of this item have a colored inner sleeve. They all mention just a white inner, or if they did not mention it, I messaged them asking about it. They replied "no inner." So I am going in to fix that too. Then I can list my copy for sale once I have corrected all the lies tucked into this entry.
I've seen a few things that gave me that feeling. I also check if the person submitting happens to be a seller too. But some entries are so old that, if they did sell it, it sold long ago.
You should be able to file a support request yourself. Some of the official labels have some releases unblocked, so reporting those, should get them blocked. Not sure how it works as sometimes people will mark it as unofficial when creating the submission but it's not blocked immediately. Anyway, try and filing a support request as anything that is known to be unofficial can be blocked without the requester having a copyright claim to it.
I joined Discogs in 2010 and contributed 356 entries plus 2172 images and I am still making mistakes! I either don't notice that I made a mistake, musicians names also cause a lot of problems if I don't know which artist(s) I have to use! A big problem for me is when someone goes into Edit Release and tells you everything that's to be done and doesn't do it while they are there, so these types of messages I just ignore because it might not be even me that did the original listing! People that don't see the small difference between two singles and tries to merge them, one of the best examples I can give is Queen - I Want It all promotional pack someone trying to merged it with the standard copy, I honestly don't think he looked at the pictures and if he did he would have seen the difference straight away! Now my to biggest problem with Discogs and I know I am not the only one with this issue because years ago I started a thread on it and I got people agreeing with me! When I started to collect music formats in the late 70's early 80's I always listed them as Made In followed by the name of the Country, but on Discogs it is only Market, this is what I mean, this release by Thin Lizzy - Chinatown 7" single was Made In Norway but you can't add like that you have to use Scandinavia and sometimes I find it a bit confusing not knowing which market it was for!
One of the reasons musician names cause problems is that so many labels make mistakes in names of artists or songwriters, while artists themselves vary their names from one release to the next. David or Dave Liebman is an example. The biggest issue is for people to load enough images to give others an idea what was listed. It's always a headache when I'm unsure if the original listing is what I own, since there is no rear or tray card image, no disc image, matrix / runout, etc. Minor edits of a Discogs listing should be handled if possible by the person mentioning them, but not everyone has time to make massive edits to an incomplete or wildly incorrect page. There are some who think they are cute by voting "needs minor changes" when it is a simple fix they can make themselves. Make the edit and mention why, then move on.
I found this 1979 Let It Be Purple Dome done at an Indiana plant known as EMW...Electrosound Group Midwest. So it looked like a contract pressing and I found there was no entry in Discogs so I made one. So of course people either told me to correct it or did it themselves. My impression as that it seemed to be an effort to make my entry to look the same as all the other ones for that album...i.e. an effort at uniformity. Since some of the Capitol Purple Domes are pressed on translucent vinyl (Quietex?) I mentioned that the EMW Let It BE was not see through and that comment was edited out but I don't know why it upset someone.
That’s the time to vote the edits to your listing or edits as entirely incorrect so they will automatically revert to what you added or changed. Of course, it helps if you add disc images when you create a new listing to prevent or discourage edits or merge requests.
Never seen a Capitol (purple, orange, black, or otherwise) on translucent vinyl. Always a thicker stiffer hard black slab. But ok. The only time one needs to mention that this is not a see-through type pressing is when most of them are. And I am not sure most or, or any are.
Some are apprehensive about making the changes due to possibly hostility, or that they may be wrong. But no excuse to not show the back tray card of a given CD when cell phone photography has advanced so much in the last few years. It takes a second in addition to the front cover pic.
I don't see "market" I see "Country" as the place of pressing. What am I missing? But I know Holland is stated as Netherlands if that was what you meant about Scandinavia as the country.
The 1983 Beatle pressings done on the Rainbow label are on translucent vinyl. Some of my 1978 Purple Domes (Something New and Abbey Road) are done on translucent vinyl. They are not as translucent as 1970s MFSL vinyl but you can shine your IPhone flashlight through them. You may want to do some research before you go off making statements that don’t reflect reality. Look up any 1983 Beatles Capitol LP reissue release page and read the notes when they are compared to the 1986 reissues.
Well, I went in just now and did the editing that may be controversial, but only from the original creator and not any current sellers. I decided that the best way to approach this was to first add something missing. I got the dead wax matrixes from two copies of the LP that I own (both same #s). I added them and added a picture of them. Then I went in and deactivated a bunch of pictures of the incorrectly entered color inner sleeve (taken from another issue of the LP), and I added six pictures of labels, back cover, sharper close up of cat# on back cover, and picture of the Dutch round-cut white inner sleeve, and close-up picture of the number on that white inner sleeve. So while I am combing this listing and correcting bad data, I am at least adding a ton of new info w/ pix.
You were saying Capitol translucent vinyl didn’t exist. Some collectors care. I wasn’t really that upset about it. Anyway maybe you are the reason this thread exists.
Here is the two threads on the Discogs forum I was involved in regarding Market (Is Country) or Made In Feature request: "Country" section major revamp proposal UK Is Only 50% Correct
Here is another one I completely forgot about Scandinavian Music Club box sets not been allowed! They sell for big money even over here in Sweden but you can read the thread I was involved in 4 years ago and again I had to give up the fight! Scandinavian Music Club Box Sets The list that is only allowed on the Discogs listings Scandinavian Music Club
That one sounds like straight repackages LP, which are not allowed apparently. Is that assessment not entirely correct? Were they in fact specially pressed for the S. Music Club sets?
I got a headache after reading about 8 or 9 posts in that thread. LOLOLOLBut I do think country of release needs some sharpening up. Released and pressed are usually the same. It's the lack of details they need to fix, "Europe" does not cut it, now does it.
