rassel wrote:

Even if it's correct that 99% of all the LPs and CDs in Discogs are Albums, all these updates, adding just "Album" to each and every LP/CD turns into a nightmare.
As this update is a regular update, even this tiny update needs votes. As votes count for the whole release, not just for the updates, every voter should control once again the whole release and every updater, adding "Album" will take the responsibility for the whole release.
In the end, we have more and more releases that need votes and the "need votes" queue is getting longer and longer.
Couldn't we use the update bot to update every LP or CD into an Album, if it's not a Compilation? For those releases who are Albums AND Compilations, this can be done manually afterwards. Using the update bot wouldn't need votes and save time.
And in the meantime people should stop updates adding just "Album" to the releases.

silverleaf wrote:

That sounds Great! I'm not up on this, so forgive me if this sounds stupid, but does the update bot leave a record in the History? I've recently read on a couple of forum threads where people were looking for certain things in an sub's history and couldn't find it.

jweijde wrote:

I don't think this is easy to do automatically.. Not every LP or CD is an album, and how can the DiscogsUpdateBot determine if something is a compilation or not?



Yes it does. In the past the bot was used to move Promo from release titles to the format field for example. Those updates have an entry in the history.



That has probably got to do with the fact that many pre-v4 histories have disappeared since the v4-migration.

Mop66 wrote:

But I do understand correctly that you do not ask to not use the Album tag if you are submitting a new release, right? Then we should use the tag, if appropriate. You are just talking about the updates where just "Album" is added to an existing submission.

rassel wrote:

nik wrote several times, that 99% of all LPs and CDs here are albums. It's not my idea and if 99% of all LPs and CDs are albums, it's easier to change 99% through the update bot and manually update the few wrong ones than the other way.
how can the DiscogsUpdateBot determine if something is a compilation or not The update bot could check, if the tag "Compilation" is already in the format of the LP / CD.



Exactly

uzumaki wrote:

The same for people who just add Reissue for CDs of old vinyl but I wouldn't worry about it too much, it doesn't matter if a release doesn't have votes and there is no pending queue.

It won't be possible to do an auto update, there's no way to tell if a release is an album by it's format.

rassel wrote:

it doesn't matter if a release doesn't have votes
Sorry, uzumaki. it matters, I prefer to control new releases in the database instead of controlling the old ones over and over again. But as there are dozens of updates of releases in my collection every week, just adding "Album", I have to cotrol these too. What a waste of time.
and there is no pending queue Yes, it's got a new name

uzumaki wrote:

I can see how it can matter for you personally and sympathise, there's no solution I'm afraid, it's designed like this.

Mr.Mystery wrote:

The things people have problems with...

DS_Helder wrote:

we could have a rule saying updates with just album should not be allowed, or only with a source for that info. that would make less rank hunters.

Mop66 wrote:

Do they still exist?

ForkMe wrote:

I'd hotly dispute that 99% of LPs are albums, there are a lot of compilations out there.

DS_Helder wrote:

^^ rank hunters: what other motivation would people have for updates with just album, leaving errors and missing credits as it is?

rassel wrote:

cool down

ForkMe wrote:

Fine, but how would the bot know it's not a compilation? It's not always obvious from the title, not all compilations are called "best of" or "greatest hits".

rassel wrote:

No, but I think most compilations in here have already the tag "Compilation" in the Format field.
So the update bot could read the field Format, check if this field contains "Compilation", le voilà.
Bad luck for the Compilations without this tag.

julesparis wrote:

actually it does matter when those bloody and mostly sloppy updates re-activate all them goddam scans cause the programmer won't / can't debug his crappy image interface ;)

ForkMe wrote:

So we'd be designing a bot to put wrong info in the database.

Not very clever IMO.

sptnk wrote:

I vote to remove the 'album'-tag.
It's not very interesting.
Usually it is redundant information.

Mop66 wrote:

Doesn't make too much sense, as you never can be sure that your edit gets a vote before somebody else comes along and makes another edit. Rank hunting is useless today. If there are rank hunters out there...so be it, they just don't realize how even more stupid their behaviour is today.

DS_Helder wrote:

But it's more than just stupid. It's damaging. With a less than perfect voting system, the behaviour of adding useless info to an existing unvoted submission or edit, without caring about the quality of it, will often make it more difficult to vote and to spot errors.

JT_X wrote:

The people who add "Album" to the albums on discogs are not damaging anything. They're not contributing much, either, but it's stupid to be offended by people adding correct info to items in the database.

Goad wrote:

No thanks.

Myriad wrote:

People may not own the album but still be able to add that it's an album. I really don't see what the problem is. They're adding information that was left out the first time, helping to complete the release. What's wrong with that?

marcelrecords wrote:

In principle, nothing. The problem is that they often do not seem to realize, that by editing a small flaw they become responsible for the whole submission. I have had numerous (fruitless) discussions with users who edit something small and get angry when I point out other errors. Often they react like: do it yourself, it's not my sub, I do not own the record, I'm innocent, stop bothering me...

DS_Helder wrote:

Nothing wrong with that per se. But it is damaging with the voting system we have. More than "adding information that was left out", they are in fact "leaving out information that could/should be added". Adding "album" is more often a way of not showing you care about a submission/entry, than the opposite.

ForkMe wrote:

Personally, I'd agree with getting rid of the album tag altogether. If most are albums, then just tagging compilations as such should be enough - in the same way that we tag coloured vinyl but don't write "black vinyl" on any normal release.

Jayfive wrote:

What about albums thats arent LPs? Like on CD, tape, mp3, 8-track cartridge etc etc

ForkMe wrote:

Same difference.

Any CD that isn't an album is a single/EP/Maxi-single/compilation or whatever. As long as the others are there, album is suprfluous to requirements.

Jayfive wrote:

? Thats just plain bizarre.

So how do you indicate that something is other than a single/EP/Maxi-single/compilation? Ie a single-artist album?

As I understand it, the discussion was about using LP + Album for vinyl albums. Not removing the album tag from the format section entirely.

The reason for this being LP = Album, Album doesnt always = LP.

SmotheredHope wrote:

So we should get rid of all tags that we don't like out of personal preference? I for sure would like to see which releases in my collection are albums. And no, far from all non-album CD releases in the database has single/EP/maxi-single/compilation or whatever added to it. There are a lot of releases with just "CD" despite being one of the aforementioned.

If we should get rid of tags that we don't need personally then please remove at least Copy Protected, Enhanced, and the rpm tags, cause personally I don't have any benefit of those at all. And, following your logic one of the rpm tags could be removed because if it's not 45 rpm it's 33 1/3 rpm or 78 rpm, so why not remove one of them? Say a release has nothing specified it means it's 45 rpm. Deal?

ForkMe wrote:

The problem is that LP does not always = album any more than CD always = album. Many single artist LPs are compilations.

nik wrote:

Compilation Album is a term as well.

We shouldn't get too tied in knots with this. If something is an album, and it isn't tagged as such, let a user update the tag if they like. Such a simple update is surely fairly quick and easy to vote on.

This is a music database, surely the use of a tag such as 'Album' should be basic for most of us?

ForkMe wrote:

How do you work that one out? The general rule is that if a format is the normal one it's not used. For example we don't add 33RPM to LPs, we don't state that vinyl is black or than a CD is in a plastic case. If we're saying album is the norm, and I'd say it was for cassettes and CDs as well as LPs then as long as everything that is not an album is labelled as what it is then everything else is an album. Just as we assume that if a colour is not mentioned for vinyl, then it is black.




Then maybe this is the real problems, singles, EPs etc not being properly entered.




The problem with removing a speed entirely is that for different formats of record different speeds are the norm. For LPs the norm is 33, so it's not entered, whereas a different speed on an LP would be, for 7" singles, the norm is 45, so you wouldn't enter that, but you would enter 33. That difference doesn't apply to albums. You just don't get 7" albums, wherease you DO get LPs and singles playing at odd speeds.....


.....actually scrap that, I've just remembered I have a 7" by Jesus Chrust with several tracks on each side (http://www.discogs.com/release/568508 ) that COULD be classed as an album for that reason.

It's a difficult one, but apart from the example just above, I haven't come across any example where album is really needed.

ForkMe wrote:

Fair point. I was confused by the album tag when I first came on here, but came to the opinion (by the way it was used) that in most instances it is used merely to distinguish between compilations and straight albums.

paris75 wrote:

Today i noticed the member BeatSensor who for example adds compilation to a lot of compilation cds and adds "Metal Case, Cardboard Sleeve" to nearly all fabric retail releases http://www.discogs.com/label/Fabric+(London) .

But in my opinion there is not really a need for such an update for the fabric releases, because all retail copies came in a metal box with a cardboard sleeve. And the packaging/case should only be mentioned imo when there are different ones existing (e.g. digipak and jewelcase for the same release, with the same catalog#)

Although the packaging of the fabric releases is more special than the cases of other releases, does this lead to a future when some discogs members will add jewel case, digipak and so on to a lot of the cd rleases ?

schtel wrote:

I see this use of the Free Text Field all the time. I'm not sure if I agree or disagree. there are pros to this, but I can't see any cons, other than most of the time it isn't necessary, for the reason you stated above.
It is in contradiction with the present guidelines though.
The free text field should be used to describe the color of the item, any special packaging, or for text that isn't part of the title but distinguishes the specific release from others (for example 'Disc 1', '30th Anniversary Edition' etc).

marcelrecords wrote:

^^ That would mean that countless instances of ''gatefold'' in the free text with vinyl albums are against the guidelines, when the record was never released without one. Should we insist that this is removed from new subs when this is the case?

silverleaf wrote:

If it's non-standard packaging then why not just allow it? Is there really any harm to the database?
It would also cut down on tedious and unnecessary updates and tweeking of some submissions.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Brain Salad Surgery by ELP first came out in a unique gatefold that opened from the center.
It was then reissued later in a standard sleeve.


Do I understand this to mean that the gatefold feature shouldn't be entered until the material is reissued in plain standard packaging?
Let's just get any/all relevant data in the first time when we can. Otherwise members will be entering duplicates later because they don't know any better. How much time does that waste?

schtel wrote:

If this is correct then it helps greatly to have the use of the FTField.


Yes. But a pro to entering things like Gatefold in a release means that if it is reissued at some point later then the original submission won't need updating. Also if the reissue has no gatefold then it makes it obvious that is is a reissue because you will see gatefold in the FTF
But the con to that is if it is never reissued or if it is reissued with gatefold as the original, then why would you need it there? In can go in the notes I guess. personally I don't really mind, that's just my opinion.

What I do object to though is being given NMC and asked to put things like this in the FTF when it's not necessary, as happened to me recently. But this goes to show that some people do misunderstand this usage.

silverleaf wrote:

There's an oblique mention of it here. http://www.discogs.com/release/394452
I have an original copy that's folds open from the center. It opens with the center's circular image skirted on the left side. When you open it there's the full image that you only see a piece of in the circle, which is actually the artist's wife. [Same artist responsible for the look of 'Alien' in the movie.] Great album, and I remember being ticked off a month after I bought it 'cus I found out there was supposed to be a poster that didn't come with mine.

edit: found an image of partly open cover http://images.google.com/imgres?imgur...f%26sa%3DN

DS_Helder wrote:

Agree. When I leave a submission with just "CD" or "Vinyl" as the format, it's usually cases I personally would call "Mini-Album" or "EP", but where the rules of Discogs does not allow me to (and I'm fine with that). So I am all for keeping album, but think the practice of adding just that is unsound, with the current voting system.




Sure it will. I've seen such edits already.



That's just the problem, though, when it's added on top of an unvoted edit or submission.

marcelrecords wrote:

It should, but in the notes! I understand the free text field as being for distiguishing features. On the other hand, personally I do not think it harms the dB, when ''gatefold'' appears in the FTF, even if there is no single sleeve release. Would be nice to come to an agreement, though. Nothing is so exasperating for the submitter as to have one voter who says it should go here and a next one who says it should go there...

Mop66 wrote:

Agreed! Same goes for "Papersleeve" for CD reissues IMO. In the beginning I did not put it in the free text, in the meantime I do, but I cannot even give a good reason for one or the other.

schtel wrote:

I think it has been left this way so it can be up to the submitter and not enforced by voters. In fact this maybe why there is such ambiguity in the guidelines. Just a thought though. :)

marcelrecords wrote:

Candidly spoken, it seems to me that you overestimate the subtlety of our management ;-}

silverleaf wrote:

Can anybody here think of somewhere in the guidelines where, for the sake of clarity, some ammendment(s) could be made to state more of what isn't allowed in submissions?
This could still leave some 'wiggle room' while hopefully curtailing some of the... uh... ur... vigorous debate (spurred by personal preference rather than rules) that sometimes happens in the voting process.

zevulon wrote:

Yeah- if all releases come in gatefold sleeve, should this still be added to Format?

I can't find any Rule governing this...

I reckon there should be a drop down choice; >Gatefold

marcelrecords wrote:

The answer seems to be: NO. The FTF is for ''distinguishing'' features. So, if the gatefold doesn't meet this requirement, it should not go in the FTF.

uzumaki wrote:

Hey zevulon, why add Compilation to format but not address other issues highlighted nearly three years ago?

http://www.discogs.com/history?release=65132

silverleaf wrote:

As for "distinguishing" features, why not put any/all relevant info in the First Time and just be done with it? So what if something has a gatefold release and never has a plain sleeve release!
If that's really the standard then an awful lot of the slim case and digipack in the Format Field should start getting removed because a lot of them never got plain jewel case releases.
I appreciate that information being there.
How do we justify someone's submission getting voted as "Complete and Correct" while known (and obvious) information is left out?
As I previously posted here, ELP's Brain Salad Surgery had an unusual gatefold on it's initial release and then went to a plain sleeve. Does anybody here really think that leaving out that kind of information on any release is what this database has been about? So somebody submits a release like that and should be told to take that out so we can sit and wait and see if a plain release is EVER done, so that can get entered, and then go back and put in what should have been there in the first place? Come on...

schtel wrote:

Just as a side note, it seems that many people do not understand the use of C&C votes. Here is the statement from the Voting Guidelines: http://www.discogs.com/help/voting-guidelines.html

Complete And Correct
For submissions that you believe have all the information possible to enter from the release. Note that a release voted as 'Complete and Correct' may still be edited further, this is fine. No explanation is needed for this vote, but comments can still be left if required.

Remember it's info from the release, not info about the release.

silverleaf wrote:

schtel, point well taken.
Just as gatefold is not information from the release neither is digipack, diecut, slimcase or the color(s) of the vinyl.
As these are also only about the release should this or anything else be left out of the Format field?

rassel wrote:

I agree with that, schtel.
If you make a transcript from your release, adding every information, even adding all the pics / scans, then we should be able to vote C&C. (If the information is correct).

This C&C vote does not mean, that there will be no more edits furthermore on this release, e.g.
- Adding packaging information
- Adding the ususal Album tag
- Changes for artist updates (if artist X is nobody else than artist y and all releases containing artist x must be updated)
- Changes for labels (Doom Music to Doom Records)
- Better pics
and so on.

I'd like to remind you that we used to enter just 7" for the 7" 45 RPM Singles, today it may seem incomplete, but it wasn't at the time. Same for all the digipack, diecut, slimcase...

C&C does not mean that the release should be freezed for all the times.

Mad_Porno_Max wrote:

can somebody drop a comment please:
http://www.discogs.com/history?release=179643#latest