Allowing all Unique Releases

As of today, we are allowing all unique releases to be entered into Discogs. This means variations of the same release are now allowed (as long as we can tell them apart). This will allow us to expand the usefulness of the database for collectors, and increase the detail of the available versions for everyone.

[b]The logistics of splitting releases[/b]

As a lot of items in Discogs are entries for more than one version of a release (for example, the retail version and the promo version), this change may affect the items in your collection, possibly with the result that you end up with the wrong ‘version’ of a release in your collection. In order to limit this, the following rules for splitting a release into it’s unique versions should be used:

[quote]* If a release is currently for a retail release and also a white label / promo, the existing release should be kept for the retail version, and the white label / promo should be made as a new submission.

  • If a release contains multiple versions (for example, different coloured vinyl versions), the most common version should remain as the existing release, and the less common versions should be split off into new releases.

  • You MUST have the version in your possession whilst splitting, do not use the existing release notes as proof of the different versions. If there are multiple different versions of a release, and you only have one of them, only submit the one you have.

  • The existing release should be updated after a new version is accepted to the database to make it clear it does not represent the newly added version.[/quote]

[b]New guidelines[/b]:

[quote]Unique Releases

Discogs allows the entering of all versions of a release, such as white labels, reissues, different artwork, format variations, coloured vinyl, different country pressings etc.

In order for these to be accepted, you must provide enough information to distinguish the different versions of a release. It may be important to provide as much information as possible for major label releases, such as barcodes, matrix numbers, publishing/copyright dates, and any other identifiable marks. This is possible in the release notes field for the moment.

If the difference is subtle, you must explain the difference in the release notes, or with images, or by any other effective means, in order that future users can tell their versions apart by referring to the entry in Discogs.

Items can be submitted before the release date, but you must always have the physical copy in your possession when submitting.

Items such as cut outs (where a normal release has a section of the sleeve cut, denoting a price cut item), items that have otherwise been marked or altered after release, and individually numbered items on otherwise identical copies will not be allowed as unique releases.[/quote] [b]Extra format added[/b]: Reissue

[b]Guidelines for mods[/b]:

[quote]Unique releases – Ask yourself if there is enough information that other users will be able to tell the releases apart, and tell which version they have.

As an example; Simply adding ‘Reissue’ to the format is not enough (if the other aspects of the release are the same), and the submission should be treated as a duplicate and N voted in such a case. Remember to explain to the submitter the reason for the rejection, and point out they can resubmit it if they can explain the difference. Note that one distinguishing feature is enough to accept it as a Unique Release, for example, slight variations in the artwork (if images are available and / or if it is explained in the release notes), different Cat#’s etc.[/quote]

The new guidelines can be seen at http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-general-rules.html – note this is the new help section, which we are running concurrently with the old help section. The old help section will be turned off soon, in the meantime, only the new one will be updated from now on.

Return to Discogs Blog
97 Comments
  • Sep 20,2007 at 12:24

    Will the item that you have listed for sale be affected, if you have this information listed in the Comments section?

    Man, this kind of stuff really screws with volume sellers.

  • Sep 20,2007 at 08:30

    Before anyone starts to even talk about the watchlists for artists and labels… Those are useless unless you want to check tens of thousands of updates every week.

  • Sep 20,2007 at 08:16

    [quote=Josephschembri]Thought that if you check regularly Updates to items in My Collection will show what’s being updated under yur precious collection.[/quote]

    NO! You can only see what’s pending (unmoderated) and as soon as something is accepted you can’t see it anymore. As an editor I can submit an update, vote on it myself and it’s accepted within 30 seconds. NO person here on Discogs can keep track of all of those updates.

    If you go on vacation for a month without any possibility to go online then all updates done to your collection during that time can only be spotted by checking every single item in your collection.

    I wrote a ticket about this a year ago (now deleted) and I’ve posted a request for such a feature (watchlist for the items in your collection) numerous times without being able to reach teo.

    This feature is more important than “Master Release” actually! Without it I still can’t submit my collection anyway.

  • Sep 20,2007 at 07:52

    I can feel this topic veering off course.
    There’s a new thread for the Master Release proposal:

    http://www.discogs.com/forums/topic?topic_id=145737

  • Sep 20,2007 at 07:43

    Sorry, when I said ‘stark’ I meant ‘minimal’.

    Clean? Uncluttered?

  • Sep 20,2007 at 07:42

    But I wouldn’t hold your breath considering the über-stark discogs aesthetic.

  • Sep 20,2007 at 07:42

    [quote=AtomicCow]Looks like there will still be the problem of having to add three different releases to your wantlist if there’s a black vinyl, a color vinyl and a repress.[/quote]
    The individual releases will still exist so you should be able to add them separately if you want to.

    [quote=MetallicRaver]How about a tree structure, preferably using AJAX?[/quote]
    Cosmetic thing, could be added later. I’d like to see it eventually, as it seems to be the best presentationally, instead of having to go to a different page.

  • Sep 20,2007 at 07:39

    [quote=aenvrs]variations of a release should only appear in a kind of sub-menu on the main (or master) release page.[/quote]
    How about a tree structure, preferably using AJAX?

    [b]Kraftwerk[/b]

    [b]Releases:[/b]

    – Computer World
    — Computer World (CD, Album) EMI Records (UK), EMI Records (UK)
    — Computer World (CD, Album) Capitol Records
    — Computer World (CD) Elektra
    — Computer World (LP, Album)
    + Trans-Europe Express
    + Ralf & Florian
    – Autobahn
    — Autobahn (LP, Album) Mercury 1974
    — Autobahn (LP) Warner Bros. Records 1974
    — Autobahn (LP)

  • Sep 20,2007 at 07:37

    Also…what a pain in the ass for sellers. I will have to go back and redo my sale items so that they correct one is listed.

  • Sep 20,2007 at 07:36

    How will Master Release work with wantlist/collection?

    Looks like there will still be the problem of having to add three different releases to your wantlist if there’s a black vinyl, a color vinyl and a repress.

    I think as proposed the master release is too broad. To avoid the situation above the three different versions should be grouped under a master release and a user should be able to add the master release to his wantlist (for those that don’t care about distinctions). Grouping CD and LP together isn’t helpful in this regard.

    What about mispresses?

    I think this will create problems. Master Release should be covering the same territory as releases used to cover. So releases aren’t grouped together if the cat. number is different, if tracklist is different etc.

  • nik
    Sep 20,2007 at 07:29

    [quote=TexasNoisician]I tried to split two records from my collection. One on black vinyl and one on red vinyl and they were No voted. [/quote]

    Ok, I got the complaints, mods have been notified, I’ll do a mod mail out soon for those that don’t read the forums, sorry.

    [quote=Crappcyd]it’s a waste of time for us buyers who don’t care of which version it is, you have to add 5 different releases to wantlist, keep track of em, and when you get the tune remove the 5 versions from the wantlist.[/quote]

    Master Release should take care of that.

    [quote=d.troit]is there a way to ‘remove all items from collection’?[/quote]

    Not ATM, you have to do it one at a time, like Stormbringer did.

  • Sep 20,2007 at 07:24

    good stuff, I’ll be happy once that comes in, for a short while anyway ;)

  • nik
    Sep 20,2007 at 07:18

    I have put the proposal for Master Release up on the Wiki http://wiki.discogs.com/index.php/Dev-Master-Release

  • Sep 20,2007 at 07:12

    People should just not submit updates of this nature to releases UNTIL the Master Release feature is released. This is what angers me the most, how half-assedly the whole thing was done, without any kind of planning.

    In the meantime the moderation queue is only getting longer with actual new releases still stuck.

  • Sep 20,2007 at 07:06

    I tried to split two records from my collection. One on black vinyl and one on red vinyl and they were No voted.

    http://www.discogs.com/release/408659
    http://www.discogs.com/release/1074517

  • Sep 20,2007 at 06:59

    [quote=AtomicCow]And everything was going so well.[/quote]

    I know. I was so happy with the site lately. Then yesterday came along.

    [quote=aenvrs]makes label lists crowded and unclear.[/quote]

    Bingo!

  • Sep 20,2007 at 06:49

    [quote=Josephschembri]The point is: If there are (say) 5 versions of that release you have to add all five versions in your wantlist to increase your chance in finding it available for sale. Until of course, Master function is in function.[/quote]
    Oh, I see. That would be annoying.

  • Sep 20,2007 at 06:46

    [quote=AtomicCow]Makes wantlists much less usable. I don’t care what the label looks like, I don’t care if it’s colored or not colored. I don’t care if it’s a repress. I just want the track. Now I have to add 5 versions of it to my wantlist and keep on the lookout if more are added? [/quote]

    Hopefully, when we get Master Release Function, we can add to wantlist the Master Release and that will include every ‘sub-release’ in the marketplace.

    dsmith it’s a waste of time for us buyers who don’t care of which version it is, you have to add 5 different releases to wantlist, keep track of em, and when you get the tune remove the 5 versions from the wantlist.

  • Sep 20,2007 at 06:43

    [quote=dsmith]Why, if it doesn’t matter which version appears on your wantlist, then you can add any existing version to the list. You can always change it to the correct one when you buy the release. [/quote]

    The point is: If there are (say) 5 versions of that release you have to add all five versions in your wantlist to increase your chance in finding it available for sale. Until of course, Master function is in function.

  • Sep 20,2007 at 06:40

    [quote=Stormbringer]I’m sure that if you go through your complete collection you’ll also see that a lot of releases have been changed/updated to something that you don’t even own. That has nothing to do with this new possibility to submit all variants! I got tired of that so I removed my listed collection (about 6000 items) and I won’t add those again before teo fixes a watchlist/emailfunction for alterations done to any of the items in your collection. [/quote]

    Thought that if you check regularly [url=http://www.discogs.com/subs/browse?mode=collection&highlight=1]Updates to items in My Collection[/url] will show what’s being updated under yur precious collection.

  • Sep 20,2007 at 06:36

    [quote=AtomicCow]Makes wantlists much less usable. I don’t care what the label looks like, I don’t care if it’s colored or not colored. I don’t care if it’s a repress. I just want the track. Now I have to add 5 versions of it to my wantlist and keep on the lookout if more are added?[/quote]
    Why, if it doesn’t matter which version appears on your wantlist, then you can add any existing version to the list. You can always change it to the correct one when you buy the release.

  • Sep 20,2007 at 06:27

    [quote=AtomicCow]Now I have to add 5 versions of it to my wantlist and keep on the lookout if more are added? [/quote]

    When the Master Release function is implemented that will solve the problem, right ?

    [BTW – did you check that Distance to Goa 4 or are you away?]

  • Sep 20,2007 at 06:18

    This is fucking terrible!

    Makes wantlists much less usable. I don’t care what the label looks like, I don’t care if it’s colored or not colored. I don’t care if it’s a repress. I just want the track. Now I have to add 5 versions of it to my wantlist and keep on the lookout if more are added?

    And that’s just one of the drawbacks.

    Worst new feature of the year.

    And everything was going so well.

  • Sep 20,2007 at 05:42

    on your collection tab (in my discogs), you can toggle teh checks of all releases on that page at once. That’s AFAIK the fastest way to delete everything.

    I’m gonna do that when my new record storage case is finished.

  • Sep 20,2007 at 05:16

    ^ is there a way to ‘remove all items from collection’?

  • Sep 19,2007 at 23:37

    [quote=xlr8r_detroit]Now I’ll have to go through my entire collection and correct everything because of this. How fucking stupid.[/quote]

    I’m sure that if you go through your complete collection you’ll also see that a lot of releases have been changed/updated to something that you don’t even own. That has nothing to do with this new possibility to submit all variants! I got tired of that so I removed my listed collection (about 6000 items) and I won’t add those again before teo fixes a watchlist/emailfunction for alterations done to any of the items in your collection.

  • Sep 19,2007 at 22:52

    [quote=nik]Yup, I’ll upload the Master Release proposal to the wiki for those that are interested, we plan to have that in place soon.[/quote]
    But Nik, if it’s soon, why unleash THIS plan NOW? It just upsets people’s collections, and will lead to another layer of work once the Master Release function is implemented.

  • Sep 19,2007 at 22:37

    This new rule is fucking retarded. Every douche-nozzle from Detroit to Manchester that wants increase his Discogs rating (in an effort to look “cool”, I’m sure) will be running around re-submitting every fucking picture disc and piece of colored vinyl ever released. Now I’ll have to go through my entire collection and correct everything because of this. How fucking stupid.

  • Sep 19,2007 at 16:31

    [quote=md]Can people not simply ASSUME that because they have a coloured vinyl pressing, that there is a non-coloured version?[/quote]
    You also can’t assume that your version is different because the existing entry shows another country. [r=764768] was an US release until I tracked down the submittor.

  • Sep 19,2007 at 14:14

    lol md, I just read your review for the proper one

  • md
    Sep 19,2007 at 14:09

    Can people not simply ASSUME that because they have a coloured vinyl pressing, that there is a non-coloured version?

    http://www.discogs.com/subs/view/3362180

    Otherwise we’re going to end up with a lot of invalid entries.

  • md
    Sep 19,2007 at 14:08

    [quote=robob]I totally HATE this function.
    This means I can check and update all my limited edition colored vinyls, promo’s and such. It took me three years to add all records to Discogs, It’ll take me another three to check them all again.
    Fuck it[/quote]
    It’s not the policy of adding unique releases that’s the problem, it’s the decision to allow it before implementing it before the Master Release function, which would have kept you informed if/when a different version of a release you have was added to a master release.

  • Sep 19,2007 at 13:58

    I totally HATE this function.
    This means I can check and update all my limited edition colored vinyls, promo’s and such. It took me three years to add all records to Discogs, It’ll take me another three to check them all again.
    Fuck it

  • Sep 19,2007 at 13:28

    I want to bring some other point to your mind.

    Nik or somebody else should send an email to all users about this huge change to the system.
    It’s to tell the not-so-active ones what’s going on.

  • Sep 19,2007 at 12:51

    ^^^oops, yes, that’s correct. I mean what Stormbringer posted. :P

    [quote=Stormbringer]teo and nik know what I think of this: http://www.discogs.com/forums/topic?topic_id=145554

    Please fix it and then I’ll finally be able to submit my collection![/quote]

  • Sep 19,2007 at 10:45

    [quote=nik]Should be working now, let me know if you are still not seeing them.
    [/quote]
    Works for me. Thanks.
    [quote=legumes-SALES]nik, what about the “Collection automatically on Wantlist” proposal?[/quote]
    Do you mean “Collection to WATCHlist proposal”? That would indeed be very nice.

  • Sep 19,2007 at 05:24

    I’m happy for this !
    This change is truly relevant for people collecting.

    Thanks !

  • Sep 19,2007 at 02:52

    Thx!

    [u=nik], what about the “Collection automatically on Wantlist” proposal?

  • nik
    Sep 19,2007 at 02:47

    [quote=delysid]Hmm, both Reissue and Repress are not available as format in the dropdown list.[/quote][quote=corne_mo]STILL MISSING !!![/quote]

    Should be working now, let me know if you are still not seeing them.

    [quote=Hardmageddon]Allright, I have a GOOD suggestion. For many big labels this will be total chaos, and make discogs now so usefull.
    Why not keep it as it was with a VARIANT form? [/quote]
    [quote=TomKay]That’s how the Master Release Function would work, if I understand correctly.[/quote]

    Yup, I’ll upload the Master Release proposal to the wiki for those that are interested, we plan to have that in place soon.

  • Sep 19,2007 at 00:45

    [quote=Hardmageddon]Allright, I have a GOOD suggestion. For many big labels this will be total chaos, and make discogs now so usefull.
    Why not keep it as it was with a VARIANT form?

    A new field called variant, which would work like javascript tab in google? One presses it and see the list of variants, and then just click on them to see… Because we will have labels with 20 items with same catalogue, tracks (the most important thing!), and 99% alike artwork.
    Who draws the limit? A black vinyl release is separate from a picture disc. But then maybe 2 black vinyls with only a small marking from origin are totally different releases too? Does not seem very bright imo.[/quote]

    That’s how the Master Release Function would work, if I understand correctly.

  • Sep 19,2007 at 00:45

    [quote=zevulon]..thanks, Stormbringer! (..even though u r a Swede! ;)[/quote]
    tusen tack på dig i alla fall…

  • Sep 18,2007 at 21:31

    [quote=nik]delysid
    Hmm, both Reissue and Repress are not available as format in the dropdown list.

    Darn. Will get it sorted ASAP, sorry![/quote]

    STILL MISSING !!!

  • Sep 18,2007 at 19:22

    …overload/overload/overload….
    …must quit my day job/discogs overload/colored vinyl/update/must sleep/over but not out…

    :D

    …thanks, Stormbringer! (..even though u r a Swede! ;)

  • Sep 18,2007 at 19:01

    Vinyl is, by default, black, as always. Only add a colour if it’s not black…

  • Sep 18,2007 at 18:33

    and by that I mean, do we write Black or just take it as written that a lack of specification suggests it is black?

    Thanks.

  • Sep 18,2007 at 18:33

    Sorry if this has been covered elsewhere but just a quick question:

    If a vinyl is released in say black and red versions do we now need to add Black in the free text field in the same way we would previously have done for Red so as to distinguish from the other colours available?

  • Sep 18,2007 at 16:56

    Allright, I have a GOOD suggestion. For many big labels this will be total chaos, and make discogs now so usefull.
    Why not keep it as it was with a VARIANT form?

    A new field called variant, which would work like javascript tab in google? One presses it and see the list of variants, and then just click on them to see… Because we will have labels with 20 items with same catalogue, tracks (the most important thing!), and 99% alike artwork.
    Who draws the limit? A black vinyl release is separate from a picture disc. But then maybe 2 black vinyls with only a small marking from origin are totally different releases too? Does not seem very bright imo.

  • Sep 18,2007 at 16:46

    can’t***

  • Sep 18,2007 at 16:45

    [quote=legumes-SALES]the Repress and Reissue tags have misteriously disappeared from the dropdown menu.[/quote]

    how the hell it works !??????
    can add repress !

  • Sep 18,2007 at 15:11

    Strange. Everything is normal here: [l=Strike Records] (008 and 020)

  • md
    Sep 18,2007 at 14:50

    I just added this: http://www.discogs.com/release/884651

    It had been in my drafts for months. It just shows 12″ on the label/artist page.

  • Sep 18,2007 at 14:38

    [quote=md]Please add Repress to the list of format options that appears on label/artist pages.[/quote]

    In fact it does, but as was stated earlier, the Repress and Reissue tags have misteriously disappeared from the dropdown menu.

  • md
    Sep 18,2007 at 14:33

    Please add Repress to the list of format options that appears on label/artist pages.

  • Sep 18,2007 at 14:29

    [quote=MetallicRaver]Does this also apply to MP3s which are released on vinyl/CD afterwards?[/quote]

    Sure.

  • Sep 18,2007 at 14:29

    Does this also apply to MP3s which are released on vinyl/CD afterwards?

  • Sep 18,2007 at 14:19

    [quote=nik]I’m ok with white labels with printing / stamps being entered, just the pure white ones are unessasary IMHO. [/quote]

    Agreed, but it should be described in the notes that there is nothing at all on the record. Otherwise someone else doesn’t know if there’s just an image missing, or if it’s really a no-info-at-all release.

  • Sep 18,2007 at 13:46

    A tricky question from my side: May I submit the promos that I already sold, as new entries, using the data and scans that I added to the retail myself?
    It’s actually a kind of “websubmission”, because I don’t hold it at the moment of the new submission, but I stored and “submitted” its data into the existing entry.

  • Sep 18,2007 at 13:31

    [quote=Sputnik86]This is gonna be a right pain in the arse having to check you’ve got the right version of the records in your collection. For example checking you’ve got the right labelled Transmat release in your collection.[/quote]

    True. nik, pls delete the new feature. It sucks. It is gonna a right pain in the arse.

    DISCOGS MAKES ME SICK!

  • Sep 18,2007 at 13:22

    This is gonna be a right pain in the arse having to check you’ve got the right version of the records in your collection. For example checking you’ve got the right labelled [l=Transmat] release in your collection.

  • Sep 18,2007 at 12:44

    ….very interesting thread – but I must get off to submit, there is work to be done….

    :)

  • Sep 18,2007 at 12:44

    Finally!

  • Sep 18,2007 at 12:22

    Great news!!

    Looking forward to the actual master Release Function and I agree on the Collection Wantlist proposal. Brilliant idea. :)

  • Sep 18,2007 at 11:59

    teo and nik know what I think of this: http://www.discogs.com/forums/topic?topic_id=145554

    Please fix it and then I’ll finally be able to submit my collection!

  • Sep 18,2007 at 11:29

    Nice

  • Sep 18,2007 at 11:26

    congraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaats!!! i waited for this for my whole discogs life!

  • Sep 18,2007 at 11:19

    [quote=kompressorkanonen]As far as major labels go, this will cause both more order (easier to distinguish between different regional pressings) and more chaos (tons of new submissions/updates, the whole country/area based sublabel mess getting even more difficult to manage).[/quote]

    The whole country/area based sublabel mess is easy to deal with, an editor will just unilaterally delete ‘fake’ ones.

  • Sep 18,2007 at 11:13

    I assume regional pressings are now supposed to be qualified for separate entries? Example: [url=http://www.discogs.com/subs/view/3357387]James Brown – People[/url] – I assume that the only thing that separates this issue from e.g. the German pressings is that the Scandinavian version has a (tiny) NCB logo on the center label, where the German version carries the GEMA symbol. Not exactly a big difference, but these things matter to collectors.

    As far as major labels go, this will cause both more order (easier to distinguish between different regional pressings) and more chaos (tons of new submissions/updates, the whole country/area based sublabel mess getting even more difficult to manage).

  • nik
    Sep 18,2007 at 10:50

    Just added a small clarification to the new guideline:

    [quote=nik]Items such as cut outs (where a normal release has a section of the sleeve cut, denoting a price cut item), items that have otherwise been marked or altered after release, [b]differences in releases with hand-made artwork that are part of the same edition[/b], and individually numbered items on otherwise identical copies will not be allowed as unique releases.[/quote]

    [quote=delysid]Hmm, both Reissue and Repress are not available as format in the dropdown list.[/quote]

    Darn. Will get it sorted ASAP, sorry!

  • Sep 18,2007 at 10:45

    [quote=nik]Extra format added: Reissue [/quote]

    Hmm, both Reissue and Repress are not available as format in the dropdown list.

  • nik
    Sep 18,2007 at 10:32

    [quote=corne_mo]I just tried to update a release, but can’t find the Reissue description in the dropdown menu.[/quote]

    Hmm, Houston, we have a problem. Kevin has been informed, must be a glitch.

    [quote=comkai]what about this ?[/quote]

    I’m ok with white labels with printing / stamps being entered, just the pure white ones are unessasary IMHO.

    [quote=dsmith]How far does this go? There were some releases in the database that had scans of the rear covers with different distribution codes – appart from these scans, I don’t really see how you can the releases apart.

    I guess different markets are ok – I have an Argentinian pressing of Blue Train. I could a new version one with the scans.[/quote]

    All differences, no matter the size, are presumed valid for the moment. If there is an issue, we will tighten the rules.

    Also, as well as thanking [u=Stormbringer] for this change, thanks to [u=delysid] and [u=teo] for giving us the final push to get on with it, and all the mods for help getting the guidelines in order!

  • Sep 18,2007 at 10:23

    Thanks. Big step in the correct direction.

  • Sep 18,2007 at 10:00

    thanks for clarifying!

    [quote=nik]I don’t see any point in adding scans of white labels.[/quote]
    what about [url=http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?what=R&obid=1073732&showpending=1]this[/url] ?

  • Sep 18,2007 at 09:52

    [quote=nik]
    Extra format added: Reissue
    [/quote]
    I just tried to update a release, but can’t find the Reissue description in the dropdown menu.

  • Sep 18,2007 at 09:48

    *a few hundred

  • Sep 18,2007 at 09:48

    Sweet holy moses. I could submit probably few hundred releases now (promos, test pressings, white labels, Scandinavian pressings etc etc) but if I can actually be bothered is another matter entirely.

  • Sep 18,2007 at 09:15

    How far does this go? There were some releases in the database that had scans of the rear covers with different distribution codes – appart from these scans, I don’t really see how you can the releases apart.

    I guess different markets are ok – I have an Argentinian pressing of [r=435859]. I could a new version one with the scans.

  • Sep 18,2007 at 08:24

    [quote=FLuViRuS]xdefenestratorx
    Personally I’m very disappointed that we have opened the flood-gates BEFORE we have a mster release function. This is going to be EXTREMELY chaotic to deal with until we have a master release function, IMO. Both for browsing the site, and for maintaining one’s collection. :-(

    I couldn’t have said it better.[/quote]

    Exactly what I asked in my first post on top. I say we should roll-out Master Release and Unique releases together

  • Sep 18,2007 at 08:13

    [quote=xdefenestratorx]Personally I’m very disappointed that we have opened the flood-gates BEFORE we have a mster release function. This is going to be EXTREMELY chaotic to deal with until we have a master release function, IMO. Both for browsing the site, and for maintaining one’s collection. :-([/quote]
    I couldn’t have said it better.

  • Sep 18,2007 at 08:12

    Great! n©bs coming up :D

  • nik
    Sep 18,2007 at 07:45

    [quote=comkai]when i’m submitting white labels i go for all the infos written on the sheet,
    no matter if tracknames or credits differ from the finished copy, correct? [/quote]

    Credits should be as on the release. There is no need to transfer credits from the full release to the white label, except perhaps the main artist/s if not noted.

    Please refer to the Errors and Conflicting Information section in the guidelines http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-general-rules.html for how to handle conflicting track name information.

    [quote=comkai]still unacceptable to add white label scans to the subs i guess ?[/quote]

    The image guidelines http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-images.html haven’t changed. I don’t see any point in adding scans of white labels.

  • Sep 18,2007 at 07:36

    Personally I’m very disappointed that we have opened the flood-gates BEFORE we have a mster release function. This is going to be EXTREMELY chaotic to deal with until we have a master release function, IMO. Both for browsing the site, and for maintaining one’s collection. :-(

  • Sep 18,2007 at 07:19

    I use Paint.NET

  • Sep 18,2007 at 07:16

    [quote=SeRKeT]one more thing , i am now gonna borrow/buy a scanner and scan all my coloured vinyl and picture discs as i see this being the only proof of difference between the black vinyl version (in most cases)the thing is i don’t have photoshop to make the image the correct size so any reccomendations in a freeware program able to do this would be appreciated .. thx [/quote]
    Nice and tightly cropped full-size ones like this http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?what=R&obid=634810 I hope ;-)

    If you type in you browser “[url=http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4HPEB_en___GB205&q=online+image+editor]online image editor[/url]” you should find a few to try, though most decent scanners will have some bundled software (like my Canon all-in-one did). So check the scec before purchase.

  • Sep 18,2007 at 07:10

    one more thing , i am now gonna borrow/buy a scanner and scan all my coloured vinyl and picture discs as i see this being the only proof of difference between the black vinyl version (in most cases)the thing is i don’t have photoshop to make the image the correct size so any reccomendations in a freeware program able to do this would be appreciated .. thx

  • Sep 18,2007 at 07:08

    [quote=gmos]I think this will actually be really annoying without the master release thingy implemented, at least for bigger artists who have many different issues of basically the same release. Browsing artist pages could become a nightmare, no?[/quote]

    Yes you’re right, we could have the Not On Label some browsers can’t handle the page size thing happening.
    eg. (not really my kind of music but…) the Bruce Springsteen page for example, will have half his albums pressed in about 30 different countries releases all with own entries on his page.

    Remember seeing a TV program about fans commenting about his worldwide popularity, showing the versions of same albums they had as proof. Same with a ton of other Jazz and Rock artists for sure…

  • Sep 18,2007 at 07:03

    If anyone should get credit, it should be Stormbringer for his unrelenting work in bringing this to everyone’s attention, and working tirelessly to make sure it became reality!

    oh sorry lol … thankyou stormbringer :D

  • Sep 18,2007 at 07:00

    I think this will actually be really annoying without the master release thingy implemented, at least for bigger artists who have many different issues of basically the same release. Browsing artist pages could become a nightmare, no?

  • Sep 18,2007 at 06:59

    Oh good the database is going to explode, rightly so though :-0

    And some comment from above about MR too, all in one day. Shizzle-me-nizzle it’s all go recently !

    Hope that “reissue” is defined away from “repress”…
    – repress — being same release, identical item, same label, new pressing.
    – reissue — being same release, different item, same/different label, new pressing.
    – re-release — another label releases the same tracks on a completely new release.

    *i think* this defines these three, any other suggestions helpful ;-)

    Just waiting to be turned back on now. hrump…hrump…hrump…

  • Sep 18,2007 at 06:49

    Thanks!

  • nik
    Sep 18,2007 at 06:16

    If anyone should get credit, it should be [u=Stormbringer] for his unrelenting work in bringing this to everyone’s attention, and working tirelessly to make sure it became reality!

  • Sep 18,2007 at 06:13

    SWEET !!!
    OK – when i’m submitting white labels i go for all the infos written on the sheet,
    no matter if tracknames or credits differ from the finished copy, correct?
    still unacceptable to add white label scans to the subs i guess ?

  • Sep 18,2007 at 06:11

    This is gonna be better for lots of ppl me for one as i have loads of coloured vinyl editions of tunes that came out as plain black vinyl too as well as picture discs with same cats as official rls so…thankyou nik ;)

  • Sep 18,2007 at 05:51

    I guess you are going to get a barrage of question like mine, but I’m not exactly clear what this means. Are you saying that my copy of [r=155758] which is a whitelabel promo (see actual pic I uploaded in associated images) should be re-submitted as a distinct release that is identical to the existing release except for the picture (it even has same cat number)?

  • nik
    Sep 18,2007 at 05:15

    Yup, looking forward to getting Master Release soon, but no definite ETA at the moment.

  • Sep 18,2007 at 05:08

    [quote=d.troit]all different entries? example
    woah, that is a massive change![/quote]

    That’s why master release function should be implemented ASAP, I think right ?

  • Sep 18,2007 at 05:03

    all different entries? [url=http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?what=R&obid=4282]example[/url]
    woah, that is a massive change!

  • Sep 18,2007 at 05:02

    [quote=dj_purity_control]Whut whut?[/quote]

    Nice nice!

Leave A Reply