Discogs website Listings and Accuracy

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

  1. AutomatedElectronics

    AutomatedElectronics Forum Resident Thread Starter

    OK, here is the one I wanted to merge and a little history of the situation. The merge received lot's of NO votes and they told me that it wouldn't be merged, but lo and behold, they actually allowed it! I added the "Memories" version and of the 4 pictures, only that first faded out lo-def one is NOT mine. If you click on edit release, you can see the calamity which I had to endure. But in the end, I was obviously correct.
    Carpenters - I Need To Be In Love

    Here is another one that I added. Probably it should be merged with the main release as it was a Test Pressing of the actual promo release, but with all the resistance I received from the first one, I didn't even try. You can click on the edit release and see what they changed with my entry. I included some notes of information not generally know on my initial entry, and I would have given anything to know if I already didn't know it. They removed most of it. Atleast they haven't found any crappy pictures to replce mine with. I didn't mention it at the time, but I was given this record by Richard Carpenter himself. So, people just might come to the realization that I know a little bit about the Carpenters and A&M records.
    Carpenters - Touch Me When We're Dancing

    I had received many demands concerning format and some of the things they wanted me to change were there long before me. Although at first, I was just following the formats others used, but it seemed that everything I did or didn't do was wrong. I checked the Database guidelines and found much of what I had done was correct, but if it wasn't and it was something I entered, I changed it.
    For the Test Pressing, there are 2 more member's added to the contributors and all they did was remove most of my notes.

    Thanks for the update and link for DSOTM. When I found the release all it showed were 366 versions, but now it states 687 on the Pink Floyd page. Here's a link to what I am seeing:

    Pink Floyd

    When I click on DSOTM then now it shows 848! Here's a link:

    https://www.discogs.com/Pink-Floyd-The-Dark-Side-Of-The-Moon/master/10362
     
  2. GentleSenator

    GentleSenator what if

    Location:
    Aloha, OR
    Looking at the comments on the releases you've contributed to or tried to merge, it's clear that you have valid sentiments but also need to brush up on the Discogs Guidelines. If you disagree, start a discussion in their forums to lobby for changes.
     
    Louise Boat likes this.
  3. eddiel

    eddiel Forum Resident

    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    Your second link should be easy to merge into a master release and no one would give you grief. This is the master release for that single: Carpenters - Touch Me When We're Dancing Find the entry, click on the down arrow at the left, edit and then select your single. There are two additional singles (one is yours) not merged under that master release.

    Looking at your first example though, and maybe I got it wrong here, but it sounds like you were perhaps trying to merge two releases together when in fact you were trying to merge a release into a master release. Is the latter correct? I checked and both entries still exist but they are both listed under the same master release so a merger of the two was denied but not a merge into a master release. Apologies if I got that wrong.

    Discogs can be frustrating at times and I have a few things on a to do list I've already attempted to change but was denied and I don't have the energy to attempt again as it'll require a bigger discussion on the forum. But I'm glad it exists!

    You also have to be very careful. I added things at first just using other peoples entries as examples and unfortunately those were wrong but nobody corrected them. I made the same mistakes and what do you know, it was my mistakes everyone saw :)
     
    Louise Boat and tmtomh like this.
  4. Dave S

    Dave S Forum Resident

    A golden rule for anyone editing a database: do not repurpose releases. You can always merge two items, but you can never split them.:shake:
     
    Louise Boat and cartologist like this.
  5. AutomatedElectronics

    AutomatedElectronics Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Yes, I had brushed up on Discogs Guidelines and changed what did not conform, but it is clear that others making comments had not. I have been prevented from making further changes, even to my own original entries.
     
  6. AutomatedElectronics

    AutomatedElectronics Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Yes, it was my intention to merge my entry into the master release of the first example. I searched the information and did the best I could.
    And, I like you, at first patterned my entries after other peoples entries. Then, the comments began appearing, so I found the Database Guidelines and if I was wrong, I changed my entries to conform. And, like you, members ignored the mistakes in format which were already there and could have been easily confirmed by looking at the previous versions, plus, I got blamed for those pre-existing mistakes and they demanded that I correct them. They weren't my entries, so they weren't mine to correct. Some, according to the guidelines, were actually correct, so they apparently just wanted to attack me.
    On the second link, yes, I saw it logical to merge that with the master release, but I was so frustrated that I didn't have it in me to attempt that. Life is too short and I don't need that kind of stress in my life. I have been prevented from doing anything else, even to my own original entries.
    I would like to see that one merged and if you are willing to do it, I would be very grateful. Thank you!
     
  7. uzn007

    uzn007 Pack Rat

    Location:
    Baja Virginia
    That's actually one of the (idiotic) rules at Discogs. If you change a single field on an existing entry, and there are errors from months or years earlier, you are now responsible for them. o_O

    Perfectly reasonable policy to encourage people to research and maintain your for-profit database for free. :rolleyes:
     
    Blackie and GentleSenator like this.
  8. Dave S

    Dave S Forum Resident

    What you did was merge two versions of the same record into one listing.

    A little history. At one point, you could add different entries of the same release if the label and/or catalog number were different to an existing entry (I don't think there was a Master release at the time). Of course, it was kinda stupid because you could only add releases from different countries if the label and/or catalog number was different. Some releases got overlooked because nobody realised that the label/catalog number was different in certain locations. Other quite prominent releases could not be added (The Beatles 1987 CDs would probably fall into this category since they were mostly on Parlophone). People got around the rule by creating labels for different countries (there was a big argument over these regional labels) and the rule was eventually changed to allow different issues of the same release with same label and catalog number (even if the difference was very minor - although not simply a change of matrix).
     
    tmtomh and uzn007 like this.
  9. AutomatedElectronics

    AutomatedElectronics Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Oh, boy! Just got another notification about a comment by one of those crapping on my entries:
    Discogs Login
    Just to show how stupid and ignorant these trolls are, they question if an entry was pressed by Monarch Records. First, pressing plants could use different labels. Not all labels are printed at the same company. Second, as listed, there is an -M scribed into the deadwax, which Monarch pressings almost always have. If this person actually had a copy of the record, this person would also see the regular 'MR' stamped into the deadwax. Oh, I'm not allowed to answer it?
     
  10. tmtomh

    tmtomh Forum Resident

    The commenter you are referring to wrote, "Not sure this is a Monarch - another Monarch exists already with slightly different label. PM sent to OS to confirm."
    • How is expressing uncertainty "stupid and ignorant"?
    • How is this an example of trolling?
    • Why would you think you're not allowed to answer/reply to the comment?
    I'm a bit mystified as to why you're so upset about this.
     
  11. AutomatedElectronics

    AutomatedElectronics Forum Resident Thread Starter

    1). As I stated, the matrix number in the runout is clearly marked, -M1, which, on an A&M record, denotes a Monarch pressing. Others, such as -S, -CTH, -CP would designate a Columbia pressing, etc. This is common knowledge and easily researched.
    Also, I thought most already knew, not all labels on records originate from the same printer and also can vary from printing run to printing run. Just as a pressing from record press "A" can vary from record press "B", eventhough the stampers came
    from the same mother. Perhaps a label variation might identify which press the record came from. Making a comment as was made clearly demonstrates a lack of knowledge. Possibly an acceptable comment might have been, I see that there is a label
    variation, could there have been more than one label printed for this side of the record? Until A&M changed to the red and black or the Memories series was the pressing plant indicated on the record label, e.g. X, Y, etc.
    Companies, like Rainbo Records, have a way of identifying which press the records came from and who even inspected and handled it afterwards.
    2). How is this an example of trolling? Possibly stalking might be a better term. When a person goes over every thing you've done, follows you and makes negative comments, but never offers help, that's what I consider a troll. I see it often, if someone
    has a differing opinion of what your opinion is, they label you as a troll. An opinion is just that, an opinion. Myself, I love seeing differences of opinion, that's how we learn. Like in the Steve Hoffman forums, I've gained a ton of knowledge.
    3). Why I think I'm not allowed to answer/reply to the comment? Because, when I try to answer or reply to a comment a message pops up stating that I am not allowed to.
     
  12. AutomatedElectronics

    AutomatedElectronics Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Also, trolls and stalkers should not be confused with followers. Followers are usually nice to have. I've had lots of followers here and elsewhere. A follower looks to see what you have posted and when they like something, they comment with a pat on the back. If they see something which might be a little off, they comment with a non-offensive suggestion and a way to improve. If there are rules and guidelines which should be followed, they give you the chapter and verse.
    Now, here's what a troll does. If they see something they don't like, they demand that you change it, right now and/or they tell you to read the book , but not which section you should look at. Then, when you actually look into the information and find the section which pertains to the comment, and finding that you were correct and the commenter was wrong. As part of a reply comment, you cut and paste the section of the guidelines and/or rules, right out of the so-called book, showing that you did do the correct thing, plus suggesting to them that they read they information(which you have kindly provided for them), then they respond with the same demand as before. This shows that they didn't read the appropriate info and are just there to cause trouble.
    When the same person starts going to more of your contributions and spouts the same arguments endlessly, then that person becomes a stalker.
    This is what has happened to me.
    I'm shaking in my boots that they are going to go back to contributions I made years ago, some listing records which had never been listed before or since, using the same format that I last used and about every other listing has used, then tearing all that apart.
     
  13. Trace

    Trace Senior Member

    Location:
    Washington State
    Any time you are dealing with a database that allows user contributions, there are going to be a significant amount of errors. But, for the most part, I think it's a good tool. The longer I've been contributing, the better I am getting at being correct, but it was a pretty steep learning curve.

    For those who want something for nothing without putting in the work, it's probably not a good place. As @Giorgio said above, you have to have patience and some knowledge.
     
    dman23, cartologist and Giorgio like this.
  14. uzn007

    uzn007 Pack Rat

    Location:
    Baja Virginia
    I'm not sure why you're characterizing this as "wanting something for nothing." OP is attempting to contribute to the database and being stymied by the crazy rules and content cops. I'm not sure what the "something" is that he's supposed to be getting for his troubles. The only ones getting "something for nothing" are the Discogs owners, who have an army of volunteers doing research and data entry into their for-profit website for free.
     
  15. Trace

    Trace Senior Member

    Location:
    Washington State
    Sorry, maybe you misunderstood or maybe I wasn't clear. I was not referring to anyone specifically with my comment, it was just a generic statement. I just meant that in General, many people complain about not finding their specific release in Discogs and then complain about it. But if you ask them if they added it for future users, they say, "Oh no, it's too much trouble". That's what I meant by saying some people want something for nothing. They want everyone else to do the work for them.
     
    Dave and eddiel like this.
  16. Kevin Sypolt

    Kevin Sypolt Forum Resident

    Location:
    Rocklin, CA
    Yes, something for nothin', and your chicks for free! ;)
     
    MYKE likes this.
  17. cartologist

    cartologist Not the world's foremost expert

    Location:
    Boston, MA, USA
    To that point, images can't be displayed or downloaded at any resolution higher than 600 pixels per side. Anything larger is scaled down to max 600. There is no way to download your larger sized images.
    I doubt Discogs will ever display larger sized images.

    They never delete images, except obvious pornography/gross pictures that have nothing to do with a recording. There are some pretty raw actual record covers out there...
     
    Louise Boat likes this.
  18. AutomatedElectronics

    AutomatedElectronics Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Well, all the pictures that I downloaded were sharp and fine label detail was easily seem. In many cases, my pictures were many times better than what was already there. As an example, one of the A&M entries on it's 'Memories' re-issue label is a basic white background with 'Memories' printed repeatedly in pink across the label, top to bottom. The picture that was already there looked like a solid pink label. Whereas, with my pictures, you could clearly read every letter of every 'Memories' printed on the label. Maybe not hi-def then, but definitely better than what was there. Not sure of if or what pictures they might delete, but when adding pictures, I found many that had been disabled. Plus, you can delete your own pictures.
     
  19. cartologist

    cartologist Not the world's foremost expert

    Location:
    Boston, MA, USA
    I can only delete them before I post them. I've posted over 3400 images and can't delete any of them.

    I'm not being argumentative. I've seen people post 1500 x 1500 pix that look no better than the one already there. Anyway, I would never disable an image, no matter what size, unless it was wrong.
     
    GentleSenator likes this.
  20. Dave

    Dave Esoteric Audio Research Specialistâ„¢

    Location:
    Greater Vancouver
    :agree: My experience exactly although I will delete less quality images because they just make the site look sloppy.
     
    MYKE likes this.
  21. AutomatedElectronics

    AutomatedElectronics Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Of my previous example, I disabled the poor quality picture and added sharp and clear pictures. They enabled the poor quality picture back again, but they did keep mine. The problem is that when you click on that particular record, the poor quality one is the first you see. For me, having that poor quality picture is an insult to the integrity of the website.
     
  22. Dave

    Dave Esoteric Audio Research Specialistâ„¢

    Location:
    Greater Vancouver
    Check it again. ;)
     
  23. AutomatedElectronics

    AutomatedElectronics Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Thank you! The original picture of the company sleeve looked faded. It's always good to put your best foot forward. Hope you don't get in trouble for changing things, especially when they have my name on them.
     
  24. Dave

    Dave Esoteric Audio Research Specialistâ„¢

    Location:
    Greater Vancouver
    :tiphat: Any time Dan. Nope, I've earned my stripes on Discogs. They pretty much allow me to change anything because I'm always able to back up why I did it. If I'm wrong and it is proven so, I humbly apologize and thank the correcting poster.
     
  25. AutomatedElectronics

    AutomatedElectronics Forum Resident Thread Starter

    I was always able to back up anything I did also. Had the dang record in my hand. Many of the comments I received were concerning guidelines. Either I didn't understand what they were talking about or they didn't either. I looked up the guidelines found I was correct and posted them so they could learn too. Many of the things they were talking about was stuff that was already there before me. There were a few things I did wrong, so I gladly changed them. Sometimes I would add in the notes section explaining a little more about a certain release, information that I would have died to get if I didn't know it already. Oh, well. I'm in the doghouse.
    Thank you again!
     
    Dave likes this.

Share This Page