Discussion in 'Marketplace Discussions' started by AutomatedElectronics, Mar 27, 2019.
You're not alone. Some get disproportionately upset over the most trivial matters.
Can only repeat No, you are not alone.
I was membe at DISCOGs twice (in and out after discussion about "peanuts changes"). Had an average vote above 4,00 but lost my Interests when all this happened what is decribed above.
The real problem is there that Discogs has no stricht control as in this forum here. Its a "userdriven" database and the trolls decide how a guideline (= the Discogs rules) is understood or not. That leads to hot discussions and any group can overrule you (and your filled in data) with majority and destroy your good average rating by casting "EI = entirely incorrect.
The big egos rule Discogs and not the members trying to contibute data exact as the guidelines demand. And that is the biggest disadvantage there beside the very good Informations you can find there on wanted Items.
To those who can (Jon and Vangelis – Short Stories)
A correction which would hopefully prevent late 1980’s to current editions being listed alongside the very specific listing
for the Red Faced Polydor 01 Matrix
The above (screen grab) barcode requires correction to 3259180002725 (notes: ‘This listing is for the Red Faced Polydor edition’)
Jon And Vangelis* - Short Stories
I can upload a scan of the back cover which does differ from the discogs listed Silver 01 linked below;
if anyone on forum is able or cares to amend the entry (please specify pixel dimensions).
There is a listing for the later silver faced Polydor 01 matrix with the 3259180002725 barcode
Jon And Vangelis* - Short Stories
And there are of course numerous listing for the later 042280002725 editions.
membership at DISCOGS is free. You can register and then correct it yourself
as mentioned above, you can correct it yourself.
also, they have a forum at discogs. if you're having issues with discogs, that'd be the place to seek help:
There is a big conflict of interest with entering data on discogs. Almost everyone contributing data are well meaning but clueless, guessing by example, many of which are wrong. They also want their item to be cast in the best light, so they tend to buy into the system of overvaluation. Sellers are another set of contributors who are similar, most know little to nothing, and present data in a way that makes their item most valuable.
Discogs the company loves that people overestimate their items, it brings much higher revenue to them; they show a strong directive to keep this as the status quo. It's nearly impossible to correct anything without an onslaught of voters asking for citations in helping them to decide, yet ask for none when the original error is made. They have an overwhelming tendency to vote 'incorrect' on edits that lower an item's value. When people make corrections that lower value, they are eventually banned due to accumulating 'incorrect' votes. This is no accident, but rather the company's directive carried out by unaffiliated users.
Your description is correct. This was also the reason for me to close my account there.
The whole Idea of DISCOGS is as follows: A database system without data is a useless Instrument.
Therefore everyone can add data without any fees and in doing this you fill the empty db-shell with the necessary life. Many collectors not owning a database system themselves have the chance to build up their collections with pix and have features to sort them and more. This is a shrewd business Idea to get all data for free and then later cash in provisions from sellers.
The advantage is that the listed Items are in different folders & subfolders (jazz is separated from pop, classical and more) so a search is very useful. The disadvantage is that every member with a brainlevel from jellyfish to near Einstein can correct your data and can cast a neg. vote on your data if he is against a change. That is IMO "Kindergarten" without any control from a final decision board. IMO a third of the data are not correct in the one or other aspect.
A small amount of members try to do their best I have to admit but a great number follow only their own big ego no matter how correct the filled in data are.
A good sideline there is "Bookogs" for books and magazines. The voting system is not installed in that section. I had started to fill in my DOWN BEAT Jazzmagazine copies there. But you must have a membership of DISCOGS for participating in that section.
Thanks for your valued insights into what it seems could become a frustrating and ultimately disappointing experience.
As a green unseasoned getting embroiled within such debates/shenanigans is not something I should choose to embrace,
which is not to diminish appraisal of the site, creators and members of such a valued resource.
Anyways here is a linked image of the back;
Also to mention as common with other editions only 8 tracks are actually indexed of the 10 song titles.
The 1992 Japan POCP-2111 has a 10 track index.
Your viewpoint is correct but you have to decide to make the corrections by yourself and cannot blame others for doing it wrong if you see it differently.
All editions of the recording mentioned are found in a master release there which contains each edition even with minimal differences in the layout of the disc labels, the coverprints & liner notes and even the scriblings in the dead waxor reissue date or country where the reissue was made. That is the great difference in the Discogs philosopy compared to the forum we are here in.
For me as a collector these "differences aspects" were not important because I am a music lover and not a bureaucrat collecting physical differences in documented data on the covers and vinyl or CD's.
Thanks for your reply.
It's a shame that one's association with the group be affected by 'incorrect' votes, eventhough the entries are actually correct. One would think that those who moderate the group intercede on the behalf of the member providing the information rather than just to take the 'incorrect' vote for granted. This might be evidence that those controlling the site know very little about records are indeed only bean counters.
Personally, I would never intentionally do anything to devalue a listing, but in fact, the corrected or additional info might actually increase it's value.
Too often, people take a listed value as the absolute value. It is common to me that items listed at extreme upper values actually are only worth a fraction of that. You may find identical listed items on a website, such as eBay, but listed at a wide range of prices. For a person looking to buy something, if they have any brains at all, they will buy the cheapest item, closest to the condition of the highest priced item. Say, there are two records in identical state and condition yet priced drastically differently, the actual selling price has more of an affect on value than what the highest priced one will.
With RSD 2019 tomorrow, I never worry about being the first one in the door or missing out on getting a certain release at that time. If there is something I wanted but didn't get, when I go home, I just check eBay where there are usually many to choose from and often less than what the record store had it priced at. You can even find it without having to actually go into the store.
Your personal opinion respected.
The value of an Item fixed by a seller is something different as the value a collector is ready to pay. You know what "offer and demand" means.
The sellers at Discogs are the same as the sellers at ebay. They take what they can get.
We as collectors have the choice. But really bad is the situation if the sellers description does not meet the reality. I never bought an Item lower than "N-" or "mint". And if you hasv a well szted collection the Items will stay a long time in that stadium.
To come back to DISCOGS: its not a database for music but mainly a database describing the physical attributes of the data on the Item. Music is the runnerup. The Item may be worn out and nearly not listenable anymore. Important are the data according one of the main guidelines: Printed as on release.
That has nothing to do with the objective value of a recording IMO.
The problem at Discogs is that many Items are submitted without having the Item in hand to controll certain data. When completing these the "war" begins and often ends with an "EI" vote.. That is "the Kindergarten" we dont have here.
Yes. I know very well what you mean concerning pricing. At eBay, I've found that the sellers don't know a thing about what they are selling and in the case of records, don't even have a phonograph to test play them on. Often they grade records by sight and have no real concept of grading. Many state if you have a problem with the record, they will make it right. I've had a few problems with some of the sellers being dishonest or they just don't care. One such long time seller was Les Harris Records in Texas. For 7" records, he would just cram them into an old LP sleeve and tape it shut. When I received the shipment, I would find broken records and/or improper grading. I guess his reputation was catching up with him because he started selling at eBay under multiple names. Many other sellers also have no idea how to pack a record for shipping. Even large online retailers have no idea how to pack records, which used to be the case with Acoustic Sounds/Analogue Productions. They used to just place records on a sheet of cardboard and fold the cardboard over and over, then tape it all together. Finally, they have joined the real world. I received several LP's from them the other day and they were all shipped inside a dedicated record shipping box. Now if they just figure out how to not press a record off-center at their QRP.
I believe in only providing accurate information. This means that if I made an entry or comment, I had the record in hand and the pictures I provided were also of my records. I try to follow the rules and guidelines, plus, I am always receptive to any constructive comments or suggestions.
I was going to start a new thread, but it looks like the last couple posts from JazzcornerND and OP were about pricing, which is my (unimportant but lengthy, apparently) gripe with the website. I hope this isn't too tangential. This is more something inherently off in the marketplace and what Discogs is and does within that marketplace than any particular failing they have as a company. This is specifically to do with the supply/demand dynamic that's come up. I think that assumes a natural kind of marketplace that discogs isn't. I don't think it's wrong to say the exchange value is only what someone else will pay for it, but I think there's something else going on with the information.
Suppose there's a record which maybe 28 people have and 4 want. Let's say it's an old shellac set, actually, which makes some of the pricing and grading issues mentioned above even trickier, and makes the whole thing a bit more esoteric. So you go to the listing and see 4 versions of this shellac set being priced at over $5,000, but none have ever sold. Well, that alone makes sense because we're not talking about a multitude of potential buyers for this kind of item at that kind of price. But then you go to popsike and there's no record of it being sold for over $100 there. Google searches reveal that you can currently buy several copies off Amazon for under $100.
So, what's going on in the above scenario? Is it some joker who sees what they can get away with, and then the listing lasts long enough for others to see it and figure it's not unreasonable for them to price there's in accordance with that one current listing? Or, is it that 78 rpm genre buyers do have and require esoteric knowledge from their sellers? That is, they expect discogs will have more experienced and professional graders/sellers/shippers than Amazon or Ebay? And, accordingly, these sellers just recognize that they are catering to a clientele that will pay 50x what they would on another site because they believe the sellers are more creditable on Discogs? That seems hard to believe.
I guess the problem that I'm pointing out is that Discogs is primarily a marketplace, secondarily a price history archive. But the pretty unreliable price history leads buyers who only ever have partial knowledge to make assumptions off of (sometimes) deceptive numbers. Now, I'm not shedding any tears for the buyer who plunks down 5k without doing any research or having any preexisting sense of the market rate on that item (I might even take my hat off to the seller). But I do think there are bad actors who know that there is an imbalance between the weakness in the reliability of the information itself and the seductiveness of relying on it because it's easy to access (to the degree you don't even have to click enter to see the lowest priced item as you're typing into the website's search bar). There's a false sense of centralization of information on the market, when in fact it is a pretty fickle one in the short-run and mid-run. No moral panic here, but I think it's a weakness--that gap between the credibility of the prices themselves and a larger picture you can paint on any given release--that it could be (an albeit small) contributing factor to a market bubble on physical media.
An analogy that might make sense to some, and I think is instructive: my dad always used to say about baseball cards and the Beckett price guide that it's only worth what someone will pay for it. That's true, but it leaves out the reality of Beckett's: once you have that supposed guru guiding what you think value is, that changes not only what people who hold an item think something might be worth, but also potential buyers. It comes to be a meaningful estimate that shapes exchange. Baseball cards are not records so the baseball card bubble is therefore limited as a point of comparison for records, but I think there are lessons there.
I don't really see a solution, and maybe there doesn't need to be. It's just something that gets at me, a little pet peeve. I'm not an experienced enough seller or buyer online to really put this in perspective overall. And when you walk into a record store, pre-smart phone, especially, you're relying on even more monopolized pricing information: just what's in front of you (sometimes only what's given at the register once the seller has looked you up and down). But at least then everyone is operating on the same assumption of the price being relative to their rent, the area, their knowledge/avariciousness/circumstances, and so on. With Discogs you just get all that flattened into an index price, the high, low, median numbers. Sorry for the length. TLDR version: even though what buyers will pay is effectively all that matters, the way things are priced and the pricing history in front of them also shapes what buyers might pay.
As to the segment of your posting:
Well thanks for your many words and thoughts but DISCOGS is an unfinished system which processes incomplete data. That is the index described by you above means only that an Item is sold somewhere. The Index price does non count in those Items which are in collections and displayed in the database but which are not available on the market right now.
When I was member there and had typed in half of my collection many of my stock never had a "Discogs value added" because those vinyls were not on the marked (neither as originals or reissues). So I suggest do not take this Discogs data (price Index) as for real. Its just an average from available data but not a real market price for an existing collection unless there is a real trade.
Try to sell your complete collection and you will soon learn the real worth.
This thread is NOT about PRICING!
I started this thread about LISTINGS AND ACCURACY.
Discogs also is a marketplace, if you are looking to buy something. Pricing is only relative and is subject to what the seller lists an item for. The pricing may or may not be reflective of the market or even established values from the many different price guides. If you are looking for a certain item, and Discogs is the only place you have found it, if you are OK with the price, buy it.
There are other threads in the SH Forums concerning pricing and prices listed on Discogs.
As an update, as I go through my person collection and look for basic information, I have still found hundreds of mistakes and errors. I could have easily made corrections or even added missing information at the time, but I am still prevented from making any entries, still being locked out. I don't have the time or will to go back, so Discogs has lost the ability to improve on their listings.
fix your errors on existing entries. ask for "correct" votes. start contributing again.
That is the theory. If you know the Discog rules then it is known to you that someone in CIP can do only 3 Items and has to wait for "C" votes. If noone cares to vote on your corrected Items you can wait up to "doomsday" to become a n ormal member with all rights again.
I was overruled 2 times then I quit but rejoined with a different name in the book section which is great without that voting circus. the IMO wrong "majority" decisions still stand there. Its a big "Kindergarten" there sand some big egos make the pace. Support is NOT interested.
OTOH its a good Information source for track titles and rare Items. Each coin has to sides.
All you have to do is interpret a bunch of vaguely-written, incomplete guidelines through the lens of a bunch of self-appointed content moderators whose opinions often contradict what's in the guidelines. Then spend hours wrestling with the data entry form's tedious user interface and the site's useless search engine and poorly-organized data so you can beg for votes from a bunch of strangers who are only looking for an excuse to give you another downvote.
Hard to understand why anyone wouldn't jump at the chance to go through this process for zero pay to help improve a for-profit business.
Thats pure Irony.Your own average results just shows that either you are not faultless or that you had your own experience in that organisation (as I had made myself).
The main rule "as printed on release" is clear and should help to avoid wrong data. Not more and not less.
To repeat myself: Discogs has its good sides and some really questionable.
Same situation here.
Exactly. Just like the OP, I had vindictive users stalking me across the site and negging me for trivial errors that weren't even my own fault in some cases. Who has the time to deal with that kind of ********?
Sure, "as on release", except for year, country, capitalization, genre, style, format, etc.
I really do understand this. I do agree it is quite silly to issue a rule the one who touches the last this Item is responsible for everything and bears the risk for negative votes. The shrewd ones at Discogs never correct something themselves but issue only warning and/or Nmic or Nmac votes. If someone isnt certain about data its better to leave those out and let others find them.
The "country" data are the most idiotic ones. Who can guarantee today in the times when selling on the Internet that some Item is meant only for a certain (closed) market? Discogs is far behind with updating the guide lines to the real world of today.
The drop down menues for style and genre are ridiculous.
- Jazz has many great vocalists but you wont find "vocal" as style under Jazz.
- The majority in Jazz ist instrumental. But you will find this style only under "Hip-Hop".
- Jazz is NOT easy listening but you do find this style under Jazz.
As mentioned before Discogs has its good sides but is OTOH extremely wrong.
It is also not monitored the narrow way it happens here. Quite a wide topic to be discussed.
i think you and i have contributed the same sentiments here multiple times.
i guess my point is that complaining here over and over again and not discussing there with site users (yes some are rotten, but many are very helpful) or actually trying to understand their guidelines (yes some seem vague, but updates are regularly made) isn't really productive.
Not sure if this was addressed in this thread, my gripe is when you submit a release and get a poor rating due to mistakes (fully accept this was my fault), correct everything to be 100% compliant with Discogs rules then wait for the person that voted poor on your submission to vote it is acceptable and they never bother to do this. And for months you can still see them as active and down voting other releases and they ignore messages saying the submissions have been corrected. One such weird Discogs rules is the all capitalization, even when certain words are not capitalized ie a title like "Le mal du plays" must be "Le Mal Du Plays". IMO it is a good idea to make it so voting is restricted to certain people, but these people should have a check if all they do is down vote submissions.
The problem is far greater than a failure to keep up with the modern world. Their system would have been just as incorrect in 1989 or 1959 as it is today.
The problem is that they don't actually know what they're attempting to catalogue. Is it musical recordings? Is it the packaging of musical recordings? Or is it the marketing of those packages of musical recordings? Some fields on the "Release" page refer to the actual musical recording (i.e. the master or the stamper). But there can be any number of "Releases" with identical musical content. Some of those differ due to recording medium (e.g. CD vs. cassette). Some of these differ due to physical packaging (e.g. gatefold vs. non-gatefold LP sleeves). Some of these differ due to information that appears nowhere on the physical release itself (year of release [not copyright], country that the release was marketed or promoted in [not the country it was manufactured in], whether the release was promoted by the label as a "Compilation" or a "Sampler", etc.).
None of this release-related data is organized into any kind of hierarchy. Items that differ on the most trivial differences (e.g. style of cassette shell) necessitate separate releases, while information that matters to a large number of serious collectors (e.g. stamper information) is stuck into free-form text fields and added onto existing releases.
So the actual database design is a disaster, and it's compounded by the way newbies are encouraged to enter new releases with zero training and ambiguous documentation (not that anyone reads documentation anyway). If you search for a release and can't find it, you're encouraged to add a new release, which just copies over the old information verbatim and sends you on your merry way. Newbies are obviously going to assume that the "Year" being requested is the Year printed on their release, and that the "Country" being requested is the country of manufacture printed on their release. The guidelines explicitly contradict this, but why would you even check the guidelines for a field that seems as obvious as "Country" or "Year"? Add in the fact that any given release can be modified by anyone, and there's no way to guarantee or verify that two people editing the same Release record are actually basing their edits on the same physical release, and it's basically a coin-toss whether any given datapoint in the database is ever accurate.
Separate names with a comma.