Discogs website Listings and Accuracy

Discussion in 'Marketplace Discussions' started by AutomatedElectronics, Mar 27, 2019.

  1. AutomatedElectronics

    AutomatedElectronics Forum Resident Thread Starter

    I joined Discogs years ago and have recently added listings from my own collections and missing information from current listings. Though I have not tried buying or selling there, I have read of many problems on threads here with the sellers and mis-represented information.
    What I found is that other members there don't like some of the additions I've made, claiming that they do not fall into the "Database Guidelines". Upon checking, many did fall within the guidelines. Some of the comments made were for entries which were there before I did anything, but they blamed them on me.
    I'm just wondering if I am the only one with issues from Discogs?
     
    Exit Flagger, Luisboa and abzach like this.
  2. abzach

    abzach Forum Resident

    Location:
    Sweden
    No, you're absolutely not alone, like on most websites (and elsewhere) there's plenty of jerks with loads of issues around there thinking they rule the world - in 99% of the cases, like usual, the problems lies within them.
     
  3. Kevin Sypolt

    Kevin Sypolt Forum Resident

    Location:
    Rocklin, CA
    I have had good luck finding obscure titles on discogs. Certainly, for purchasing specific versions, I have found it much better than fleaBay or Amazon, but YMMV. The few issues I have had were handled well by the sellers. Cheers!

    Kevin
     
    greelywinger, Dave and jeffreybh like this.
  4. Luisboa

    Luisboa Forum Resident

    Location:
    Coimbra, Portugal
    Happens to me all the time. I dont care. Its ridiculous annoying someone for adding something with some inacuracy like that was our job. I think that is better to add something incomplete than nothing at all.
     
  5. Yost

    Yost Always Wondered How Other People Did This

    Discogs keeps a history of every edit on every entry. Use it to your advantage. And good pictures of your item will help too. I’ve been corrected on Discogs also. Sometimes the “corrector” is right, sometimes I am. Stay nice, most people are just trying to make it better.
     
  6. MYKE

    MYKE Analog Upstairs, Digital Downstairs

    Asked and answered .
     
    tmtomh and GentleSenator like this.
  7. Vaughan

    Vaughan Forum Resident

    Methinks this belongs in the Marketplace Discussions

    That said, the one thing that strikes me about Discogs is pricing. Let's just say that it's not a place you go to find a bargain. In fact, some things I come across on there are horribly bloated price wise. I don't buy much from there for this reason. It's not like I expect everything for a $1, but if you're charging 25%-50% more than Amazon, then we have an issue. :D

    There is also the thing beyond peoples control - the cost of shipping. Man that's gone sky-high over the last decade. It stops me buying stuff all the time. I don't like the way Discogs have it set up, where you usually don't know what the shipping will be until after you've contacted the seller. I'm mostly talking about box sets here, they do sometimes have (long) lists of charges for every part of the world - it's just not simple enough. I'd always give preference to people who roll the shipping cost into the price of the CD, and have it as "free shipping". Alas......
     
  8. Exit Flagger

    Exit Flagger Forum Resident

    Location:
    New York
    I've had people add incorrect info to some of my Discogs entries. When I first joined Discogs it was a while back and I found myself having to add releases all the time. Sometimes sellers just want to sell something quickly and can't be bothered creating a new release so they will simply go in and make changes to an existing release so it matches the one they want to sell. It can be pretty annoying to sort through the various revisions and clear it up.
     
  9. The Lone Cadaver

    The Lone Cadaver Forum Resident

    Location:
    Bronx
    I've made over a dozen purchases on Discogs and every seller was dead-on with the condition of the albums and all were reasonably priced. I've only had one shipping issue and that was the UK postal service losing a package. The seller refunded my money right away. One interesting thing, the shipments from France and Germany arrived on average faster than domestic ones.
    On the other point, I've never tried updating their listings so no opinion there.
     
    dman23 and tmtomh like this.
  10. vinylontubes

    vinylontubes Forum Resident

    Location:
    Katy, TX
    I've been told that my 180g Classic Records are the 200g later releases. It annoy me. They highjack my entries for their records because they are too lazy or ignorant about creating new entries. I just call them out in the comments. The data is like Wikipedia. I have fights about this kind of stuff. Anybody can make changes. The changes are well documented. And you can revert if somebody make erroneous corrections.
     
    AutomatedElectronics likes this.
  11. AutomatedElectronics

    AutomatedElectronics Forum Resident Thread Starter

    I didn't create this thread about buying or selling at Discogs, this thread is about the Discography listings and the information about those releases. As I stated, I have not tried buying or selling there but I have read lots of comments about those who have. It never really dawned on me that there was any buying or selling there. I need another record like I need another hole in my head. This thread doesn't belong in the Marketplace Discussions because it has nothing to do with sales.
    Thank you for adding to this discussion though. Prices are another reason to stay away from Discogs, besides having to deal with numbskulls there who don't even follow the database guidelines and rules themselves.
     
    uzn007 likes this.
  12. AutomatedElectronics

    AutomatedElectronics Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Of the corrections and new additions I made, I had my own copy of that record in my hands when I did it, so I never entered any incorrect information.
     
    Exit Flagger likes this.
  13. Giorgio

    Giorgio Forum Resident

    Location:
    Varese Italy
    As soon as I joined Discogs (January, 2015), I uploaded what I have in my collection (LP only), and for each title I started adding info where they were missing and corrections where I found the wrong info.
    As we all know, 90% of information that vinyl collectors have (like me), are not supported by official documentation, from proven sources, but are the result of years of research and experience, exchanges of opinions among other collectors, logical conclusions based on history of that certain record label in the years in which it was in use, and so on ...
    All this is not allowed by Discos' rules.
    Rules that in many cases are very stupid, and absurd.
    Users often refer to these rules to contest obvious things that have always been recognized throughout the collecting world, e.g. information that in this SH Forum the most experienced and respectable members have taught us for years ... but not supported by official documentation.
    I insisted with very long discussions, but the result was only to be taken for a "troublemaker", I was also "insulted" several times ...
    I've been banned and put under CIP for months.
    Since I was "rehabilitated", I decided to give my contribution ONLY in those titles in my small collection, and if I consider correcting or adding information, I try to do it by strictly following the rules, or I write it in the way the rules cannot challenge it, so that I don't have to argue needlessly for days ...
    I think it's a database where if you have patience and know what to look for, you can find answers to your questions and good information.
    But my experience is that it is also full of errors and inaccuracies that, by applying the rules (and thanks to the "obtuse brain" of many users), will be truly complete and correct, maybe 1000 years from now ... maybe more :D
     
  14. Exit Flagger

    Exit Flagger Forum Resident

    Location:
    New York
    Obviously any hobby that involves collecting objects or information will attract a certain mindset that may be a little obsessive at times. I put myself into that category as well. These days though I can barely be bothered to respond to all the "changes to your submission" messages I get on Discogs. It usually Involves sorting through some obscure back and forth that gives me a headache and results in some vote over merging two data records. I'm not as obsessive as I thought I guess.
     
    dman23 and Eyedok like this.
  15. Quakerism

    Quakerism Monk

    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    My humble collection is cataloged on Discogs. I find data entries to be tedious so I have never tried to correct, clarify or note an error. I take the pricing merely as a suggested value based on purchasing history, condition and rarity. It’s also free. I have no complaints.
     
    Adam6437 likes this.
  16. GentleSenator

    GentleSenator what if

    Location:
    Aloha, OR
    in like 6 different threads.
     
    MYKE likes this.
  17. uzn007

    uzn007 Pack Rat

    Location:
    Baja Virginia
    No you're not.

    The guidelines are ambiguous, unclear and incomplete.

    The rules are often idiotic.

    The "regulars" are intolarable.

    And much of the data in the database is garbage.
     
  18. tmtomh

    tmtomh Forum Resident

    This is a wild overstatement in my view. Discogs is an enormous database, and as with any collection that is that huge and based on crowd-sourcing, there are going to be mistakes scattered all over the place. But as a percentage of the sheer number of pieces of information in the database - artist names, album titles, song titles, song durations, musician credits, production credits, release years, release countries/markets, mastering credits, barcodes, matrix/runout variants, photos, and much more - I would say the egregious errors are a small proportion. And I think there's some good evidence to back up my opinion, namely the fact that so many people find that discogs is accurate enough for them to be able to catalogue their collections there (using the My Collection feature), and by the fact that so many transactions take place there based on the descriptions in the database, and all but the very worst-rated sellers have feedback ratings above 95% (and many of the negative feedback comments are not a result of errors in the database, but rather errors, shipping problems, or bad service by the sellers).

    None of this is to say that discogs is perfect. I have only a small collection (about 500 items), and I've had to add several entries to the database that weren't there, and initiate merge or split requests because existing entries were duplicates or combined two releases that should be separate. I've also had a couple of times when someone has incorrectly edited an entry I'd created, or had posted a comment telling me to change my entry in a way that I knew was wrong.

    But just because there are errors in the database, and just because some other uses make mistakes or try to tell you the wrong thing, doesn't mean discogs is trash or that it's a terrible place. That's what crowd-sourcing is: an always-flawed thing, but one that's generally moving towards more accuracy and detail through the collective efforts of the group (just like Wikipedia - also flawed, but undeniably useful).

    To put it more simply, for folks to be so dismissive of a resource that has managed to identify, in detail, 600+ different versions of Dark Side of the Moon, is silly. A tremendous amount of work has gone into it, and still does. It's demonstrably a useful resource.
     
  19. Christian Hill

    Christian Hill It's all in the mind

    Location:
    Boston

    This is a wild Understatement.
     
    Raynie and uzn007 like this.
  20. tmtomh

    tmtomh Forum Resident

    What is your evidence for that claim?
     
    Louise Boat likes this.
  21. AutomatedElectronics

    AutomatedElectronics Forum Resident Thread Starter

    uzn007 gave a pretty good description of what's going on at Discogs and was a bit restrained by not adding more details about the website. Bravo! But, that being said....
    Discogs is a good resource for doing research, but like anything, may be lacking in available information and entries. That is where I came in, trying to help. With a recorded media collection numbering in the thousands, covering recordings dating back to Edison cylinders, I have found the website is missing some entries. Plus, the information on the listings is often incomplete. They may even have pictures which are crappy or no pictures at all. Some listings should be merged with other ones to make them easier to find.
    Here is what I tried to do and what the result was:
    1). Corrected and added missing information. It was met with much resistance and a lot of the my changes were reverted back to the incorrect ones.
    2). I added many hi-def pictures of pristine record labels, adding to or replacing crappy ones. They put the crappy ones back, even some that were disabled years ago, but did keep some of my pictures.
    3). I tried to merge 2 listings together, like other listings, of a record from the same record company, with the same exact catalog number, from the same pressing factory, but the labels were of a different style, like many other listings.
    The newest of the 2 listings, I had added. Well, most everyone voted no on the merge, so it didn't happen and now there are 2 listings for what should have been only one.
    4). I added listings, including hi-def pictures of the labels, which had not existed before in the database. I had all the records in my collection to work from. I think they left those.

    These people who attacked me are the ones trashing the website and only offering criticism but not offering help.
    Thanks for bring up Pink Floyd's DSOTM. Somebody must have cleaned house because all they indicate are 366 version. Maybe there are more errantly listed elsewhere. I'm going to have to look through all the listings, especially for a version from Capitol that was supposedly pressed using quadraphonic stampers. Well, I can tell you that it definitely not quadraphonic. I have a copy of that LP. I can tell just from looking at the groove pattern that it is not quad. Incidentally, I do have 3 different genuine SQ quadraphonic versions from 3 different foreign countries and the Capitol version ain't quad.

    Discogs has a Facebook page and it would be nice if others would post comments of both their personal positive and negative experiences with Discogs. Maybe they will wake up and pull in the reins before it gets more out of control.
    Here's a link to Discogs' Facebook home page:
    Discogs
     
    uzn007 and tmtomh like this.
  22. MYKE

    MYKE Analog Upstairs, Digital Downstairs

  23. GentleSenator

    GentleSenator what if

    Location:
    Aloha, OR
    can you share a link to the release you tried to correct? yeah there are some pain in the rear folks on the site, but overall i enjoy contributing, correcting, etc. but like anything else: there are rules and guidelines.
     
    Louise Boat and Dave like this.
  24. tmtomh

    tmtomh Forum Resident

    I'm sorry you've had a bad experience. The nature of discogs, though, is that it's always going to include very detail-oriented people arguing with each other over, well, details - I am one of those types of people too. I've had people tell me I used the wrong formatting for typing in hype-sticker text in the Notes section of an entry. I've had people argue with me that while the vinyl and CD versions of a new remaster/reissue campaign of a classic album should be labeled as a remaster and a reissue, the Blu-Ray Audio version should not, because the album had not previously come out on Blu-Ray. It's silly stuff, but it doesn't mean discogs is a bad place - and unless we look into the user profiles of everyone who posts in those editing discussion threads, none of us has any basis for claiming that those folks criticize but don't contribute anything - it's very likely that many of them have contributed many entries themselves.

    Similarly, for the 4 results you've called out, I have to say, number 1 is too generally described to indicate who was right and who was wrong. For number 2, I feel your pain, but the discogs community can be very picky (sometimes without justification, but sometimes with justification) about ensuring that photos are of the exact release for that entry - even the barcode or catalogue number being in a different location on the front or back cover, or an added or missing little symbol or tiny bit of text, for example, will cause a photo to be removed from an entry. For item 3, no disrespect, but it sounds like the vote against the merge was the correct one (if other listings include multiple label styles, most discogs users would say that those listings should be split then, not that yours should be merged). And for item 4, it sounds like you made several valuable contributions and they were successful.

    Finally, I just checked the DSOTM listing and I was wrong about 600 - it's now up to 848! :)

    https://www.discogs.com/Pink-Floyd-The-Dark-Side-Of-The-Moon/master/10362
     
    dman23 and Giorgio like this.
  25. MYKE

    MYKE Analog Upstairs, Digital Downstairs

    Just in the last 2 days, I saw a guy try to remove the Criterion Blu ray of A Hard Day's Night. The only way to save it was the final live performance, in the extras, after the damn credits !!! ( I was certain we were going to lose it ). Next day, I look at this guy's profile, because I'm feeling like he's some Commie-terrorist for hating The Beatles, and he's written across the top of his page how he tried to help, but the insults became too much, and he's gone.

    Oh well.
     

Share This Page