Discogs - The Level Of (Passive) Aggression Gets Worse.

Community on Discogs? I wonder what community the beat to a pulp Beatles albums listed at VG+ sellers are?

 

Most of the time the problems stem from the contributor not understanding the rules (and they can be very confusing and not intuitive in a lot of cases), being told what the rule is, but continuing to argue anyway. Not saying it's the case here. I'd have to read the edits to the contribution to get a better idea as to what went wrong in this case.

My experience has been mostly positive. The negative happens when ***** shows up and does stupid stuff. That's a bit of a pain.

I've had disagreements with people on a few submissions but I/we started a thread in the database forum to get some sort of consensus as to how it should work. Problems were generally resolved amicably though there were moments of wanting to kill someone from time to time lol

This forum isn't free from it's problematic members and neither is Discogs. You have a website that is meant to catalogue releases. Chances are, there will be some very pedantic people there who will argue a point into submission.

If you disagree with how your submission has been corrected, it's worth just starting a thread in the database forum asking members to chime in. I've seen people start a thread thinking they were correct only to realise they were wrong.

 

Not too surprised at this. You have a cd but can't provide any verification as to what it is. It is not up to others to prove what you say is untrue. You have to show what you have is what you have. It can be annoying but the alternative isn't a great option either. It's also possible that, unfortunately, the artist/title you have caught the eye of someone who's invested in that artist/title, so it's attracted way more interest. I've submitted things that I thought would definitely get a reaction but nothing every happened. Either everyone thought it was fine or no one noticed. I ain't going to find out which either!

Can't really comment on (b) as I don't know what the release and member details are.

But some information on there, that is old, is just accepted as correct until someone can show otherwise. There are also inconsistencies because in some cases, they were corrected and in others they were not. So you look for examples to back up what you did and you find them, but they actually turn out to be incorrect entries anyway. Happened recently to me.

I haven't really seen this that often. Well I have seen rules I don't quite understand but if I disagree with something I'll start a thread about it, in the database forum, to get consensus. Plenty of people do. It usually results in some sort of resolution, even if it is "Yeah makes no sense but that's how we do it here". Once consensus is reached, I generally shut up, even if I think it's stupid still.

I find that if the change is actually incorrect, the forum tends to agree on that. When they don't, it's usually because someone doesn't understand how the formats work. It can be confusing. The All Media one is nonsense. No idea how that was even created or why.

 

More passive aggressiveness is happening more everywhere. It's not just you OP.

 

Any idea what that "format" is supposed to mean? I could never even find a definition for it anywhere on their site.

 

Generally anyone that starts a comment with "is it just me or...." then yes, its normally just you.

 

Quite a few responses - thanks.

Or demand that you check the rules for White Labels which changed last week but, six years ago when you submitted the release you did everything right.

Yes - mistakes happen and some people get things wrong. I get that: we've all done it and what is important is how you deal with it. Trolling is not the answer. As mentioned, the requests for moderator support often go unanswered or are overturned for even quite heinous stuff. I'm sure there are decent mods there but I don't really seem to have encountered them so far.

 

Oops - bolloxed up the formatting somehow. Given this isn't Discogs, I'm sure you can all cope without calling me a c*nt.

 

I only can care so much about Discogs cataloguing. Every single time I try to contribute to a release, someone comes along and nitpicks it to no end. I just don’t care anymore. I submit my changes and if someone else decides they don’t like it they can spend the time and get all huffy that I called a mono record with stereo labels a missprint instead of a misspress, or that I called a new mix of an album a remix when it doesn’t fit their extremely specific definition of what a remix is. Whatever. There are definitely users who take things way too seriously, but I never even bother going to their forums as I assume the people there are the same people who are nitpicking my contributions to no end. Wankers for lack of a better term.

 

Voted: Totally incorrect.

 

This reminds me of the time I added "Compilation" to a CD listing and got grief about it because it doesn't say anywhere on or within the packaging that it's a compilation. I showed that the same individual tracks were scattered among the artist's earlier releases by pointing to those other listings. And in the end, my update got voted "Entirely Incorrect". I suppose it's not really a compilation if it's not presented as one. Maybe that's really the rule; I don't know, I never checked. But if it is, then it's a stupid rule. But as you said: Whatever. It doesn't affect my life, you know?

 

It's confusing. This is one of the better descriptions I have read:

i.e. release includes 2 cds. One cd is an album, the second is a compilation and both are special editions.

Here's an example: Daniel Johnston - The Early Recordings Volume 1

Each cd is an album and a compilation so you tag it as All Media (ie both cds) are compilations.

I have no idea how it came about or what benefit it provides but it's just one of those weird Discogs things.

Annoyingly, when the All Media tag is used, the shipping policy you set up automatically defaults to the All Formats policy as it treats it like a boxset. So that Daniel Johnston cd, for example, can be mailed to the US for $8. But because my All Formats policy is set to $25 (to deal with lps), the postage displays as $25 for the 2 cd set.

 

Exactly. As long as I can add the releases to my library and have them be mostly accurate, I couldn’t care less if the made up very specific rules state the release is a comp or not. I do find it kind of funny how specific the rules on discogs for submissions are. It almost seems deliberately confusing and too specific. I know that not reading them makes me look like a jerk, but even when I’ve read then in the past I still don’t understand why what I’m doing is wrong.

Another really goofy and IMO dumb rule is that the photos added must match the release EXACTLY and MUST be your own photos and not official marketing photos, or photos where the jacket is identical to another version, etc. Who actually cares lol? If it’s identical, why does it matter that the photos aren’t that specific?

 

Thanks. Yeah, I think I sort of understand it now. But my understanding is probably wrong because, yes, it's confusing. And probably unnecessary besides.

Yep, and others agree because I occasionally see the same photo or scan over two different listings of the same title in the same format. And as long as they really are the same over those different pressings or issues, SO WHAT?

 

There lies the problem with many interactions on there. People haven't looked up the rule, when they are told the rule, instead of just saying "well that's dumb but ok" they argue about the rule.

However, in your example, what release were you trying to tag as a compilation? I ask because you don't need the word compilation to appear on the release to use that tag per se as some releases that say "Compilation of.." wouldn't necessarily qualify as a compilation e.g. album reissued with bonus tracks with credits reading "Release compiled by..."

 

I find that rule 100% logical. Why would you want to allow photos that are actually of a different release or taken from some web source?

 

Maybe that's the rule. Exactly. You failed to comply with the rules and got voted accordingly. That's how it should work.

And I agree, that rule about compilations is ridiculous. But what would be the alternative, everything is a compilation if some (or all?) of the tracks have appeard before on a different release? Are remasters with bonus tracks compilations? Twofers? Country specific variations of albums with changed track listings, e.g. the UK Are You Experienced? If you care, start a discussion and find some allies to change and improve the rule. If you don't care, accept the "entirely incorrect" vote.

 

One thing I've learnt over the years using Discogs is that a lot of people really do not understand what it actually is, what a database is or why data integrity is (based on the definitions used by that database) is important.

A lot of people just show up expecting to do things the way they think it should be done without really understanding that if we all did that, it would be an even bigger mess than it actually is.

The photos situation mentioned above, is a good example. It should be pretty obvious why the photos should be ones taken by you/scanned by you rather than taken from other sources, etc.

A good portion of it's users shouldn't be allowed to actually contribute at all since they really don't get it/don't want to get it and just upload whatever they want, photos and all regardless of whether it matches the actual release or not. They only care that what they have is represented in the way they want it represented.

Don't even get me started on the morons who show up and say stuff like "I've been in the business for 50 years and I knew Mike Most..." Yeah maybe you did, but you are still an idiot incapable of understand this isn't your personal database.

 

But if the parts of the release that are in the photos are identical between the 2 separate releases, what’s the harm in it? For example lets say there were 2 variations of an LP, made at the same pressing plant, using the same jacket, same inner sleeve, and just the label changed, what’s wrong with adding photos of the jacket from the otherwise identical release? Obviously adding the label photos too doesn’t make sense because there actually is a legitimate difference, but given the choice between a 14 year old scan from someone’s potato quality scanner, compressed so badly that you can barely tell any details, and a fresh scan from another release where the jackets are identical, I would always choose the fresh scan that isn’t technically the same release.

The same goes for when there’s a new release, and nobody has added photos, or maybe the user added photos are of poor quality. What’s the harm in taking official photos from say the product page on the official label’s website and adding them to the release? Obviously if it’s mock-up photos, or not an actual photograph of the physical product there can be issues with that. But why on earth is an official product photo from the label not allowed, but a horrible quality user uploaded photo taken on a 9 yr old smart phone and compressed so they can send it over their slow internet connection is totally fine. I have to disagree with that.

 

Tale as old as time, apparently. Come up with a new way of making the process easier, come up with a way to game the new system before anybody else does.

I've had early-morning phone calls from a Discogs seller over a review I gave because he misrepresented his product. And again, because I still refused to change my review until he stopped misrepresenting the same product that he was still selling. The pressure these guys must face over bad reviews is ridiculous, if they are motivated to badger a customer at home in the dawn hours, just because they weren't honest in the first place. How does a vendor like that hope to make a reputation for himself, if he's too worried about one transaction that he whiffed on in the first place.

I can only regret, that there's no system in place where I can leave yet another bad review, just on the seller's bad customer skills.

 

To refresh my memory, I looked at the Discogs listing, and I made a small error recounting my story.

However, what actually happened is IMO just as stupid as what I recounted.

What I added to the listing was not "Compilation". I added "Album" - THAT'S what got voted down because I couldn't provide proof it was an album.

The CD in question compiled some previously released material in original and in different mixes along with some new tracks. So that must be why it was in my head that I was trying to add a compilation tag. But it's also an album. Both descriptions are accurate.

Having just now looked up the album tag in their rules, here's what they list as prerequisites:

a) mentioned on the release;
b) declared by the label or artist;
c) charted in a relevant chart that corresponds to the tag; or
d) generally regarded as such by independent sources (fan sites, music industry publications, etc.).

In this case, it was an artist's small-run self-release and none of those applied. But it's still an album. An album is kinda self-evident, don't you think? So much so, that it doesn't even matter if the tag isn't there. And that's one of the reasons I ultimately didn't care about the down vote.

I'm sure someone will say I was wrong for not looking the rule up at the time, so here's my response ahead of time: I agree that rules are important but I also think that rules must be sensible. And exceptions are often made to rules in the name of common sense, although apparently not at Discogs. I didn't look this particular one up at the time because I didn't see the point. If a rule is going to split hairs on something so basic, then I can't be bothered. I consult their rules only on more complex issues. If I run afoul of something so simple that common sense should be sufficient enough, then I'm not going to bang my head against the wall over it.

 

Oh, and just to clarify something: I never argued with anyone there. My tag was down voted and I dropped it.

 

Formats List

All Media:

Used to add further descriptions to a multi-media release, for example:

CD
2 x 12"
All Media, Promo

This tag is not needed when 'Box Set' is used, as the descriptions can be added to the 'Box Set' format in this instance.

 

sorry but this thread is pretty useless without specifics. seems more like the OP doesn't want to share because he knows he's wrong and/or just doesn't understand the (admittedly confusing & overwhelming) discogs guidelines.

 

Passive aggression exists here as well then...and you've pretty much missed the point of the post.

If you had bothered to read the thread, I explained why I wasn't sharing the details and admitted that I make mistakes as much as the next person. Regardless, the post was raised not to discuss whether people make mistakes, it was raised to discuss people's behaviours. Things can be wrong & things can be right but when there is an 'elite minority' who engage in appalling behaviours it creates toxicity rather than understanding.