What are your Discogs pet peeves?

If it’s in the description that’s fine… if you say “this is a first press” and it’s not, that’s not fine.

 

Fortunately only a rare pet peeve, but there are Discogs contributors who use insulting terms about a listing they consider incomplete or incorrect. Not everyone has time to go back several years to update listings they created when they were learning the ropes. Everyone has slipped and chosen a wrong menu dropdown or link, or been unaware how important non-entered data is to buyers and sellers.

What's funny is when the clown complaining about a listing is incorrect in his assumptions...

 

were they truly insulting or are you just being sensitive because it was your contribution that required changes? odd choice to end your rant with... an insulting term.

 

Maybe not the greatest choice of words, but I wasn’t in a public forum shaming a specific contributor, a big difference. There were no errors, just not every piece of data that the user wanted to see in the listing.

Due to thousands of items in my collection potentially not being listed already on Discogs, I try to enter as much important data as possible. But time for such work is limited, so it is impossible to create a complete listing every time. I do try to include matrix / runout and SID code data every time, as that seems to be important to determine the pressing.

I try to message people directly if I think their listing is incomplete but suspect that their missing data may not match my release. I also try to avoid voting negatively unless someone has made a complete mess of a listing and it is too much trouble to remove the incorrect edits.

This guy called my listing worthless and assumed I had listed a West German pressing of the CD, which it wasn’t. Again, using such insulting language seems to violate Discogs guidelines.

 

Looking up pressing. Sometimes your record dead wax numbers can not be found on there. Esp early pressings

 

It's user driven, so in those cases the 'correct' thing to do is add your version to the database.

 

Well aware of it thanks. I will leave that up to others

 

In the same amount of time you spent complaining and responding here, you could have added those matrix numbers to the database. But I guess complaining is more satisfying, right?

 

Seems like a bit of a self-inflicted problem then. Sorry…

 

Ah, you have the ability to fix a problem but you prefer to complain pointlessly about it instead. Wow.

 

The higher the price of a Discogs listing. the more detailed it should be in order to be specific about which version the item is. I have had CD represses sold to me listed as originals, but unless there is a condition issue, I don’t worry about it. But LP collectors often want first pressings.

 

I run across this all the time. I go to the description section of a somewhat rare or sought after album only to se "N/A". Okay, if you can't be bothered to add a description with a little more detail on the grading, any defects etc on your high value item, no sale...

 

Agreed it's a PITA when that happens. It mainly happens because the company reuses the same catalog number as the original CD. This is exactly why I always make sure to contact the seller and ask for specifics to make certain it's the one I want before pulling the trigger.

 

Got some buyer feedback the other day: "dfb". Anyone know what that means?

 

was it positive or negative?

 

Positive!

 

honestly if i saw that i'd just assume it was a goof and message them to make sure everything was ok...

 

My guess is you're dealing with a very lazy buyer who didn't want to write much of anything and wrote that to mean "discogs feedback".

 

i've started to realize that while folks do want to choose a color and corresponding thumbs up, down, or sideways, they are annoyed by being forced to add comments.

 

I guess it's still more useful than the ubiquitous 1-star product reviews on Amazon because of a 1-2 day delivery delay.

 

Da ****ing Bomb, obvies

 

Inaccurate grading. VG+ and arrives barely a G.
Excuses on delayed shipping i.e. getting your lazy ass to the P o

 

Swapacd has a great policy: if you request a cd and it doesn’t match the version that you requested, such as subbing an earlier cd lacking the later cd’s bonus tracks as listed, or it’s a cdr, you get a full credit and don’t have to return the disc. Also if the disc is unplayable, omits the booklet or tray card (if requested), or there is damage to the inserts (water, mildew, writing etc., though promo stamps, sawcuts and punched barcodes are allowed), then you also get a full credit. Several times I have received credit for CDs like this.

 

Latest one was weird… made an offer on an album, one of those that’s readily available in Europe NM for $10-12, but listings in US are $20+, which is a bummer but oh well. Made on offer of $30 on one listed at $38, seller stated he would approve $35, I said that Discogs can’t make counteroffers so asked how he intended to make a counter, and he just said that he would add it to the shipping to make $35. Great, I accept, and he sends an invoice buts just for $30, no shipping costs at all.. okay, thanks I guess, I go ahead and pay the invoice. He then messaged me stating I did not pay for shipping and I must send him the $5 plus the $4 he charges for shipping in a separate transaction. I tell him I’m not comfortable with that since the transaction is linked to an invoice/tracking label, so I’d have to send friends family, and if something goes wrong I’m without recourse, so if he wanted to cancel out the order, change price, and message me, that he could do that. Basically tells me this morning to pay him the $9 or he will cancel. I know in the scheme of things we’re just talking a few dollars, but this would already be the most this record has sold for on Discogs, and this dude seems sketchy AF, so told him to cancel and asked him to process a refund. Weird guy.