Discogs.com

[TVeye77]

Doesn't stop me from making these kinds of edits where needed.

Yeah but that's different, you actually know what you're talking about.... 

After adding a bunch of shit it seems I'm not playing by the rules. Say the Flaming Wombats 7" single "Fuck Rock" was released in the US with the B-side "Nerdy Virgins" but it was released in the UK with the B-side "Bloated Prick," these are supposed to be two separate entries? Then if the US promo is "Fuck Rock" (Mono) / (Stereo) this is supposed to be a different thing too? In other words it would be 3 separate entries, as opposed to a master release of "Fuck Rock" with the 3 versions??

Is that so? Someone is insisting that to me. If that's so, then every other band's page is totally fucked!

[denkinger]

In the case of indie releases, you are probably right, it's all messed up. There should be multiple entries, a separate one for every possible variation, including if the only difference is the color of the pressing! If the record is re-released years later with everything the same but the catalog # BAM! New, separate entry.

Now would be opportune for us to discuss the dreaded "Master Release" concept they use:

http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-master-release.html?f=popup


Follow this to add a variation to an existing release. The problem is you have to create it THEN double back with the # that generates, find the Master, and link 'em up. If you are a mercenary seller, this makes sense if you possess some sort of super-limited variation and you want to differentiate to MAKE BANK.

[CollectorScum]

16.2.1. Releases that match two or more of the following will probably be eligible to belong to the same Master Release:

• Has the same artwork (including derivatives)
• Has the same tracklisting
• Has the same release title (including translations)
• Is a re-release, promo, colored vinyl edition, special edition, instrumental version, remix, or other such variation

So you could easily match 2 or more of the above without the same tracklisting.  I'd say it's ok, and as a collector, if I'm trying to get every version of the Ramones "Rockaway Beach", I want to see them all together, B-sides be damned.  But I also understand the argument the other way.

[CollectorScum]

I very much like the Master Release concept, but it breaks down when there are >10 variations.  Ever try to find a specific version of a Led Zep album?  Good luck.  They should display more than 3 characters of the format free text field in these listings to make it easier to see what's what.

[TVeye77]

I can't win.

http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1871148#latest

...so I change them & I get....

http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1194698#latest

[CollectorScum]

I usually only apply EP to 7"s with 4 songs or more.  3 is kind of ambiguous.  Although it looks like the commenter is correct:

6.10. Album, Mini-Album, EP, Maxi-Single and Single tags should only be used where it is factual. If there is no reference that the use of the tag is correct, the tag should not be used. References can include; a) mentioned on the release, b) declared by the label or artist, c) charted in a relevant chart that corresponds to the tag, d) generally regarded as such by independent sources (fan sites, music industry publications etc). Do not guess at or attempt to apply personal standards to these tags. If you are going to do multiple edits regarding these tags, remember to follow guideline 14.1.2.

[TVeye77]

Well I have two members quoting the same link to "6.10." saying "it's not a single"
and the other one saying "it's not an EP."


So is a 3 song 7" an EP or a single? In the UK they say 4 tracks 7" = EP...

while I recall reading in an Osbourne guide or goldmine that "more than 2 songs = EP."


Whatever, all I know is I have 12 of the fucking things & still need one on red vinyl. 

[icki]

Well I have two members quoting the same link to "6.10." saying "it's not a single"
and the other one saying "it's not an EP."


So is a 3 song 7" an EP or a single? In the UK they say 4 tracks 7" = EP...

while I recall reading in an Osbourne guide or goldmine that "more than 2 songs = EP."

I've always followed the Osbourne rule of any 7" with more than two songs = EP.

I think that holds up pretty well going back to when 45s were first released in the '50s, with one song/side and if there were any more songs, it was an Extended Play 45.

That said, the Discogs rules seem relatively clear that the release needs to state that it's an EP somewhere on it. It's something I think is a fine line, especially know the lackadaisical way a lot of art for records is put together.

That said, that person commenting/voting on that release is being a dick about it. Entirely Incorrect because you included EP in the format???

Discogs needs a FAQ for common questions that come up. Searching the forums takes forever sometimes to figure out the right way to do stuff -- or how certain guidelines are interpreted on there.

[icki]

Can anyone explain the value of telling someone on Discogs that something they entered is wrong rather than just going in and changing it? Shit like, "Tracklisting should only be labeled A and B, not A1 and B1." It seems like the amount of time it takes telling someone to fix something takes longer than just fixing it.

Just curious.

Glad I did a search of the board. I was just going to post the same exact thing.

I think mostly because you're only supposed to edit a record if you own it (or otherwise have it in front of you.)  Doesn't stop me from making these kinds of edits where needed.

I make these changes myself all the time now too, despite not having the record sometimes.

Having spent a fair amount of time on Discogs now, I somewhat see the value in requesting the original submitter to make those kind of changes -- it helps them learn the guidelines, see what mistakes they're making in entering information. I make a comment first though, I don't vote on them as needing minor changes...that usually seems unnecessarily petty.

[erickelric]

I've only put a couple of things up. It's a headache.

The other day something I had up for sale got removed. It is the CD version of an album that is only listed on vinyl. So I wrote in clear language with CAPS on key words for the slow-witted that is was the CD and described it. I've seen people do this many times, and I think I've even sold something before like this. Now, I suppose I could create the entry for it, wait for it to be approved, then finally sell it, but fuck that. So, it was up for a few weeks and then I get an email saying I violated this and that and if it happens anymore I could get suspended and/or banned.

Now, someone buy my fucking Rowland S. Howard record.

[icki]

I've only put a couple of things up. It's a headache.

The other day something I had up for sale got removed. It is the CD version of an album that is only listed on vinyl. So I wrote in clear language with CAPS on key words for the slow-witted that is was the CD and described it. I've seen people do this many times, and I think I've even sold something before like this. Now, I suppose I could create the entry for it, wait for it to be approved, then finally sell it, but fuck that. So, it was up for a few weeks and then I get an email saying I violated this and that and if it happens anymore I could get suspended and/or banned.

Now, someone buy my fucking Rowland S. Howard record.

It doesn't have to get approved before you can sell something under an entry you create.

Also, you can copy the information from the vinyl version and make the few changes to reflect that it's a CD version (format, track numbering, etc). Takes less than five minutes.

[k.]

Yeah, I've made entries and used them to sell something right away.

[CollectorScum]

Having spent a fair amount of time on Discogs now, I somewhat see the value in requesting the original submitter to make those kind of changes -- it helps them learn the guidelines, see what mistakes they're making in entering information. I make a comment first though, I don't vote on them as needing minor changes...that usually seems unnecessarily petty.

This makes sense if you can remember to come back in a week and make the change if the original person did not.  I just find way too many entries with the last thing being a totally ignored 2 year old comment to fix the track list format.  I'd rather fix that shit in 10 seconds and be done with it.

I've had voting power for a while now, but never use it.  It seems only to exist to empower assholes to mess with newbies.  I'd like to see it go away.  There's all kind of stupid stuff related to this, like you can't edit an artist/band until one of their releases has been voted correct.  So if you have to specify that a new artist is an alias (which is not an ANV -- confused yet?) you can't do so until the release is voted correct.  But unless you have a friend with voting power to direct them there, it just sits forever.  The fact they need to have a whole forum of people saying "please vote on this thing I did" shows it's a broken system.

[icki]

This makes sense if you can remember to come back in a week and make the change if the original person did not.  I just find way too many entries with the last thing being a totally ignored 2 year old comment to fix the track list format.  I'd rather fix that shit in 10 seconds and be done with it.

I've had voting power for a while now, but never use it.  It seems only to exist to empower assholes to mess with newbies.  I'd like to see it go away.  There's all kind of stupid stuff related to this, like you can't edit an artist/band until one of their releases has been voted correct.  So if you have to specify that a new artist is an alias (which is not an ANV -- confused yet?) you can't do so until the release is voted correct.  But unless you have a friend with voting power to direct them there, it just sits forever.  The fact they need to have a whole forum of people saying "please vote on this thing I did" shows it's a broken system.

Completely agree.

[hubblebubble]

Doesn't stop me from making these kinds of edits where needed.

Yeah but that's different, you actually know what you're talking about.... 

After adding a bunch of shit it seems I'm not playing by the rules. Say the Flaming Wombats 7" single "Fuck Rock" was released in the US with the B-side "Nerdy Virgins" but it was released in the UK with the B-side "Bloated Prick," these are supposed to be two separate entries? Then if the US promo is "Fuck Rock" (Mono) / (Stereo) this is supposed to be a different thing too? In other words it would be 3 separate entries, as opposed to a master release of "Fuck Rock" with the 3 versions??

Is that so? Someone is insisting that to me. If that's so, then every other band's page is totally fucked!

I guess there no general answer to that question, i mean look at the Eddie & The Hot Rods catalog of 45's:
Get Out Of Denver has Teenage Depression as the B-Side on the US issue, while
Teenage Depression is paired with Shake in other countries, but
96 Tears is paired with Get Out Of Denver for the UK/France issue 
then the US version Do Anything You Wanna Do - has a Diff B-Side  (Ignore Them, was the B-Side for the I Might Be Lying Euro issue)
goes on and on... so how many masters?
btw. just noted that the US Version of Do Anything You Wanna Do (which is on styrene!) sounds better than the euro pressing!