“Index Tracks” guidelines in place

Some [url=v]guidelines for the use of Index Tracks have been added to the submission guidelines[/url]:

=======================
[b]Index Tracks[/b]

Index Tracks are used to denote groups of tracks (for example: movements in a musical piece, or where a range of tracks are given a collective title).

Index tracks should never be used ‘on their own’, they should always refer to a group of audio tracks directly below.

Index Tracks should only be used only when the release itself divides the tracks into named sections in some way. Index Tracks should not be used for denoting the sides, track positions, or separate media of a release (the track numbers are used for this), or for adding incidental information which belongs in the Release Notes.

For Index Tracks that only apply to some tracks in the middle of an otherwise normal list of tracks, it is necessary to add a blank Index Track containing a single dash (-) between the last track in the group and above the subsequent tracks which are not part of the group.

Return to Discogs Blog
22 Comments
  • Oct 3,2006 at 6:18 am

    [quote=lazlo_nibble]I don’t get what’s supposed to be so fishy. This Is… The Best Of Trance is a repackaging of This Is… Trance Life and This Is… Trance Life 2K (3 CDs each) as a single 6CD set. Disc 4 of This Is… The Best Of Trance is disc 1 of This Is… Trance Life, etc. What’s the problem?
    [/quote]

    Incidental notes belong in release notes, not in index tracks. If you look at the photo of the back of the releaes, it only states each cd as one, two, three, four, five, six. If it’s just a repackaging, this can be said in the notes. Index tracks should be used to title something that the CD itself has titled. If the CD just decides to repackage something, why can’t that just go in the notes?

    Also, even if you argue that inside the CD, it does break down and title these groups of cd’s, there are still only two titles, but he used them three times each, making 6 indexes (one for each disc) when all he had to do was use 2, (one each) as I tried to explain to him in the notes I added. Either way, it’s the incorrect way to use the indexes.

    And on that Emerson Underwater release, he himself named the cd’s and gave them total track times, as it doesn’t say anywhere on the release (not on cd’s, not in booklet, not on back cover, and not on back of slipcover) that disc 1 is “Darren Emerson’s Mix” or disc 2 is “Sharem Jay’s Mix”.

  • md
    Oct 3,2006 at 1:16 am

    [quote=lazlo_nibble]I don’t see anything “abusive” about labeling the discs for the Underwater compilation either. It’s a split set, each DJ did one mix, and he’s labeling who did each one. Again, what’s the problem?[/quote]
    The problem is (assuming doctor_trance is correct in his submission comment) that the Index Tracks are just made up, and those CDs are not given those names on the release. Index Tracks are to be used to show where groups of tracks are given a collective title [u]on the release[/u] – not for just inventing stuff and putting it into submissions for any old reason. If d_t is correct (as we can assume from the fact that the submission was cancelled after his comments) then yes, that I would say that is abuse of the feature, and clearly not in line with the guidelines posted at the top of this thread.

  • md
    Oct 3,2006 at 12:20 am

    It’s overkill – seeing too many submissions where users are going Index Track happy.

  • Oct 2,2006 at 9:12 pm

    sorry, that was the CD photo (which doesn’t show the titles of each cd like he’s trying to add in)

    [url=http://www.discogs.com/subs/view/2168134]here is the pending submission[/url]

    How can every cd be called trance life then the cd number?!?!

  • Oct 2,2006 at 9:10 pm

    It looks like this person is throwing in a lot of these types of edits, and while I don’t seem to have any other releases he has to confirm if he’s making up other index titles or not, [url=http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?what=R&obid=789150&showpending=1]this one looks fishy too![/url]

  • Oct 2,2006 at 9:05 pm

    Nice way to [url=http://www.discogs.com/subs/view/2187386]ABUSE[/url] the index feature and rankhunt! Looks like they decided to name each CD themselves and throw in the full CD track times. Unbelievable!

  • Sep 27,2006 at 2:13 am

    [quote=nik]Although I can see the attraction of adding side descriptions to a release using Index Tracks, there is already a good set of rules on how and where they can be added – http://help.discogs.com/wiki/SubmissionGuidelinesTracklisting – although this rule will probably need to be discussed more as to where the line is drawn. [/quote]

    i don’t see why you would draw the line, though? index tracks seem to me like the perfect place to put side names. eg, say i had a 2xLP which has side descriptions:
    A: Rock Suite
    B: Classic Suite
    C: Funk Suite
    D: 3-Piece Suite

    then this is released on 1xCD, with the same names given to the relevent groups of suites on the CD. the latter release would be index-track’d, the former wouldn’t?

  • Sep 26,2006 at 11:17 am

    [quote=nik]There are no plans to add other fields to Index tracks (artist, credits etc) because: a) The complexity that this would add to the site would outweigh any advantage offered, b) It would add the need to use Index Tracks in ways other than the intended manner, c) Index Tracks should not be used for audio tracks, merely for describing groups of tracks.[/quote]

    I still strongly support the possibility to add credits and track-positions to index-tracks.

    [quote=nik]c) Index Tracks should not be used for audio tracks, merely for describing groups of tracks.[/quote]

    See [url=http://www.discogs.com/release/754843]this example[/url].
    Track 3 is divided into three parts. Track 3 is a real track that contains audio and it is what i would call an index track: a section that contains different parts.
    How would you enter this with the current possibilities?

    nik, please also read my [url=http://www.discogs.com/forums/topic?topic_id=107428#1407322]post in the mod-forum[/url]

  • nik
    Sep 26,2006 at 10:30 am

    Track time has now been added to the Index Tracks.

    Regarding the rules – the desire was to make the rules quite tight regarding the usage of Index Tracks.

    Although I can see the attraction of adding side descriptions to a release using Index Tracks, there is already a good set of rules on how and where they can be added – http://help.discogs.com/wiki/SubmissionGuidelinesTracklisting – although this rule will probably need to be discussed more as to where the line is drawn.

    There are no plans to add other fields to Index tracks (artist, credits etc) because: a) The complexity that this would add to the site would outweigh any advantage offered, b) It would add the need to use Index Tracks in ways other than the intended manner, c) Index Tracks should not be used for audio tracks, merely for describing groups of tracks.

  • Sep 26,2006 at 9:22 am

    [quote=nik]Index Tracks should only be used only when the release itself divides the tracks into named sections in some way. Index Tracks should not be used for denoting the sides, track positions, or separate media of a release (the track numbers are used for this), or for adding incidental information which belongs in the Release Notes. [/quote]

    i’m not sure what to make of this part. am i right in thinking you can still use index tracks to show the side name of a vinyl (or name of a CD, etc), but not INSTEAD of a side number?

    eg [r=74260] – these ARE names that describe groups of tracks, that are ALSO the names of the sides. it would be pretty silly to have, say, the CD version including these names, and the vinyl not, simply because one media has sides and the other not.

  • Sep 26,2006 at 4:43 am

    [quote=sdevo][r=663927][/quote]
    i’d like that a lot better if it didn’t have the “Disc 1 : “, “Disc 2 : ” before the titles…

    ps: there should be no space before a colon.

  • Sep 26,2006 at 2:39 am

    [quote=Haze]:(
    I really liked that idea[/quote]

    Count me in for liking the side / media option….
    [r=663927]

    Can we vote on it?

  • Sep 25,2006 at 9:12 pm

    [quote=nik]For Index Tracks that only apply to some tracks in the middle of an otherwise normal list of tracks, it is necessary to add a blank Index Track containing a single dash (-) between the last track in the group and above the subsequent tracks which are not part of the group.
    [/quote]

    Technically, this (-) is a hyphen or minus sign, and this (—) or this (–) is a dash. I take it by your pictured example (and not your word description of it), that you mean a single hyphen? Not trying to be picky, just trying to clarify this so they’ll be no confusion in the future.

  • Sep 25,2006 at 5:04 pm

    well, a release like [r=193414] has a title for each side, and should have index tracks (the titles are present on the CD versions also).
    so, you could argue that White / Black (e.g.) are the titles – and should have index tracks, as named sections.

  • Sep 25,2006 at 12:37 pm

    [quote=Haze]I really liked that idea [/quote]
    Same here, it would solve the problem of having side names for track positions. You can use standard notation for the track positions (A1/A2/B1/B2) and use the index tracks for the side names (White side/Black Side, etc)

  • Sep 25,2006 at 12:18 pm

    [quote=taalem]taalem wrote: quote selection

    Haze
    :(
    I really liked that idea

    me too
    [/quote]

    so did I http://www.discogs.com/release/789367 mp3 1 and mp3 2 would look plain naff as trackpos.

  • Sep 25,2006 at 11:38 am

    [quote=Haze]:(
    I really liked that idea [/quote]
    [url=http://www.discogs.com/release/679102]me too[/url]

    any chance to reconsider the official position on this ?

  • Sep 25,2006 at 11:23 am

    [quote=nik]Index Tracks should not be used for denoting the sides, track positions, or separate media of a release…[/quote]

    :(
    I really liked that [url=http://www.discogs.com/release/402453]idea[/url]

  • Sep 25,2006 at 10:14 am

    Also a second track positions box would be nice. See [url=http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?what=R&obid=455161]this artwork[/url] why I need it.
    The tracks that are grouped, are numbered for CD-index purposes, but are also numbered as pieces of the index track.

  • nik
    Sep 25,2006 at 9:09 am

    Yes, the duration field will be added in ASAP!

  • Sep 25,2006 at 9:05 am

    If a duration is given only for the group of tracks, is it ok to add the duration to the index track? e.g. [r=778762].

  • Sep 25,2006 at 8:48 am

    Thanks, on that last paragraph, as I wondered about this and usually left out an index because I thought it would look like all tracks under it would be consided part of the index. A dash it is.

Leave A Reply