Restructuring of Moderation/Voting System

We are going to be making some big changes to the Discogs moderation system. A new, more open, graduated voting system will be put in place, with votes that range from “Complete And Correct” to “Entirely Incorrect”, in five stages. Then votes will be averaged and displayed on the release pages. Releases and edits that are rated poor quality will be removed from the database or reverted. Releases and updates with no votes will be marked as such, in the same way as unmoderated releases are marked today. The comments and general voting layout will remain similar to what we have now, with the added voting choices. Database functions will be affected in different ways by this new system, see the list below for details. And the ability to vote will be opened up to a much greater section of the Discogs user base; this will replace the current moderation based system. [b]These changes will go live on March 10, 2008[/b].

[b]Why Are We Making These Changes?[/b] As Discogs has grown, the submission system and user requirements have created ever more detailed and complicated submissions. With over 10,000 active submitters and less than 500 moderators, the task of moderating has become harder and more involved than before. By moving the voting to a greater percentage of the Discogs user base, and enabling a graduated voting system, we will give more people, especially those who own the release, the ability to register their opinion on the quality of the data entered into the site.

[b]Moderators and Editors[/b] The progression from a moderation based system to this new system is not an indication that any of the mods or eds themselves have failed or were not making good decisions regarding the data – on the contrary, this group of dedicated users have made the site what it is today. However, the system was having problems scaling to the size of the site. The mods and eds contribution since 2001 has obviously been huge and extremely positive, and it is hoped that the individuals involved will remain as active voters, continue to help and look after submitters and the data as before, and continue to be involved in improving the site overall.

[b]The Evolution of Discogs[/b] The Discogs submission and moderation system has gone through many big changes over the years in order to handle the growing user base and their submissions. This coming change is another step in that evolution. Here’s some history about how things have changed:

2000-2001 – All submissions were entered into a loosely structured form which did not support credits or remix credits. Then I would use a more complicated “editing form” to copy/paste remixers into the appropriate fields and fix any typos and capitalization errors.

2001 – I gave about 10 users access to this form so they could approve submissions as well. Since there was so much editing involved in approving a submission this group became known as the Editors.

2001 – I rewrote the submission form so that the it could accept data in the same format it would need to be in when approved. All I had to do was switch a flag from Pending to Accepted to let the submission through. Then about 50 of the top contributors were given access to the approval form, featuring Yes/No/Skip buttons. This was the beginning of the Moderators group. Then the Editors were given access to approve merge and rename requests since Moderators were now handling release approvals.

2002 – More users were made moderators, we tried out various selection methods.

2004 – I rewrote the whole system for V2. The major change here was that the underlying release data structure was much more flexible, immediately allowing multiple artists and labels per release, multiple artists per track, multiple credits per track, and release-wide credits. ANV and the upcoming label improvements would not be possible without V2. It was also possible now to leave comments on submissions, instead of the Yes/No limitations of before.

2004 – The history functionality was put in place, allowing everyone to see the previous updates on submissions.

2005 – Pending submissions were made viewable directly in the artist and label pages, highlighted in yellow. All users were allowed to leave comments on submissions.

2006 – AJAX-based release submission form, copy to draft function, editing releases while they are pending.

[b]Changes to the Current Update Functions[/b] Add Release – The release will go into the database similar to the “unmoderated” status of today. Users will be allowed to vote on the quality. If the quality rating is too low, the release will be removed from the database. In order to edit a newly submitted release, the user will first have to cast a vote on it, then edit it.

Edit Release – This will affect the release right away. Users will then be able to vote on the quality of the change. If the quality rating is too low, the release will be reverted to the last known good edit.

Edit Artist and Edit Label – will be handled in the same way as Edit Release.

Merge Releases – We will leave this operation out for a while but it will come back in a new form, possibly allowing members who have it in their collection to vote on the merge.

Merge Artist, Merge Label, Convert Artist to ANV – will be disabled. These operations can cause problems because they can’t be undone, and we’ve found that they typically only affect 2 or 3 releases. So under this new system the individual releases should be edited instead.

Rename Artist and Rename Label – These functions will be disabled as again they cause problems because they can’t be undone. Also, we have moved to a much more definite “as on release” data entry method, especially since the Artist Name Variation function came online. So updates should be done on a release-by-release basis now, with reference to what is printed on the release itself.

Images – all image update functions will be handled by a new Image Update form. The new form will allow you to make changes immediately, set images in the correct order, etc.

[b]Voting[/b] Users will be allowed to vote once they meet certain undisclosed requirements. Users will be free to apply votes to any release or edit at any time, no matter the number of votes that have been cast. These votes will be tallied and allow other users to gauge the validity of the data, and in extreme cases remove or revert the data. Users will see the average vote on their submissions in their profile. Users who receive too many poor votes that show they are unable to reach a reasonable standard will be limited or even blocked from interacting with the database. Voters will be checked in several ways for any abuse of the system, and blocked from voting if necessary. Submitters will not be allowed to vote on their own submissions.

Vote Choices:
– Complete and Correct
– Correct
– Needs Minor Changes
– Needs Major Changes
– Entirely Incorrect

The votes will be tallied and displayed on release pages.

[b]Viewing the Information[/b] New release submissions will be highlighted in yellow, the same as “unmoderated” releases are displayed today. This can be considered as “Needs Review”. Edits will now be viewable as soon as they are applied, and the release marked as “Needs Review” in a different way from a new release. As soon as a vote is cast the “Needs Review” flag will be removed and voting can continue indefinitely. The votes will be added up and averaged as they come in. The average vote will be displayed on the release page. Users will be encouraged to improve releases that “Need Minor Changes” and “Need Major Changes”.


[b]UPDATE 3-Mar-08[/b] – We’ve just decided on a few design changes for the voting interface, and that requires a little more development time. So I’m rescheduling this update for 10-Mar-08, next Monday.

Return to Discogs Blog
94 Comments
  • Feb 10,2008 at 08:25

    *gg*

  • Feb 10,2008 at 08:22

    Don’t use the M word!

  • Feb 10,2008 at 07:39

    well i’m moderately positive.

  • nik
    Feb 10,2008 at 06:38

    [quote=DS_Helder]changes to releases with this status will probably be to the worse. Two examples: Users updating a “complete and correct” entry where they ought to copy it to draft and enter a new one (f.ex. another country version). Or wrong updates of artists/ANVs/aliases. [/quote]

    Both of those examples would get voted “Entirely Incorrect” and the change reverted.

    [quote=DS_Helder]I really don’t see why such entries shouldn’t have a special moderated filter for making changes.

    In fact, I believe such a feature would also strengthen the motivation to contributors for making updates for releases until they reached the “complete and correct” status. It’s more motivating when we know our efforts won’t be possibly ruined by one thoughtless user.[/quote]

    The tendency is, in general, for the information to get more correct, even in a totally open wiki type situation, never mind a peer reviewed and graded situation with additional controls and error checks. There are of course cases where it gets worse, but these are by far in the minority, and we have the checks and controls and continual site improvements to try to stop them. The idea of a ‘lock’ on submissions has been considered for many years, but who decides to make the lock? Who unlocks the lock? It doesn’t fit in with the concept of anyone can edit anything at any time. How annoying would it be to want to add a note or an image or correct a tiny and unseen error, only to find the release locked? Again, the mechanisms in place (‘changes to my collection’ for example) are there so we can keep tabs on things, and this aspect of tending to the information, and especially the information of releases in out possession, I think is going to be strengthened by this change.

    [quote=dsmith]Still no word on whether or not the rank system will stay? [/quote]

    There is not any plans to remove the rank system in this update.

  • Feb 10,2008 at 04:55

    Behold; for he who provides nothing but quotes from dead people, addeth nothing to the discussion. ~kompressorkanonen

  • Feb 10,2008 at 03:05

    [quote=nik]Users with voting rights can place votes on basically anything at any time. [/quote]…
    [quote=teo]All moderators have been a huge help[/quote] …
    [quote=nik]Rank I think is going to become somewhat of a legacy thing, there aren’t plans to remove it right now, but[/quote]…
    Feels like “Lemmings” here.

  • Feb 10,2008 at 03:01

    [quote=dsmith]And if they do, they usually they get updated by users wanting to achieve one more rank point. [/quote]
    Quite true. Meaning that, as an incentive for the non-completist/perfectionists out there (the minority, sadly), the rank system should remain intact.

  • Feb 9,2008 at 16:26

    [quote=DS_Helder]Of course, but chances are any changes to releases with this status will probably be to the worse. Two examples: Users updating a “complete and correct” entry where they ought to copy it to draft and enter a new one (f.ex. another country version). Or wrong updates of artists/ANVs/aliases.[/quote]
    More or less complete entries are rarely updated. And if they do, they usually they get updated by users wanting to achieve one more rank point.

    Still no word on whether ot not the rank system will stay?

  • Feb 9,2008 at 16:23

    [quote=nik]So if you voted on an edit and said it was incomplete and highlighted what was missing, the submitter would just start a new edit to do that, and hopefully it will be voted ‘correct’.[/quote]
    Or do the edit properly myself.

  • Feb 9,2008 at 15:18

    [quote=nik]even releases that are voted ‘complete and correct’ may need small tweaks to make them more perfect.[/quote]

    Of course, but chances are any changes to releases with this status will probably be to the worse. Two examples: Users updating a “complete and correct” entry where they ought to copy it to draft and enter a new one (f.ex. another country version). Or wrong updates of artists/ANVs/aliases.

    I really don’t see why such entries shouldn’t have a special moderated filter for making changes.

    In fact, I believe such a feature would also strengthen the motivation to contributors for making updates for releases until they reached the “complete and correct” status. It’s more motivating when we know our efforts won’t be possibly ruined by one thoughtless user.

  • Feb 9,2008 at 15:17

    He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery. ~Harold Wilson

    If you don’t like something change it; if you can’t change it, change the way you think about it. ~Mary Engelbreit

    It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory. ~W. Edwards Deming

    When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves. ~Victor Frankl

    Change is inevitable – except from a vending machine. ~Robert C. Gallagher

  • Feb 9,2008 at 14:18

    ^^ (though I’m waiting and watching a little bit).

  • Feb 9,2008 at 13:25

    [quote=Josephschembri]Question to the administrators: how do you feel in a situation when not a single mod agrees to the direction you willl take ?[/quote]

    I don’t agree with the direction at all, but as I’m one of the good guys I have to be honest and say that there is a minority of mods who think it’s basically good, although do they have concerns.

  • Feb 9,2008 at 13:05

    Question to the administrators: how do you feel in a situation when [u]not a single mod[/u] agrees to the direction you willl take ?

  • Feb 9,2008 at 12:13

    Anyone else slightly turned on by that lyric?

  • Feb 9,2008 at 09:19

    [quote=teo]These changes will go live on March 4, 2008. [/quote]
    [quote=nik]That is part of the proposal..[/quote]
    When was the ‘[url=http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/proposal]proposal[/url]’ made and who accepted it? The [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Apocalypse]Three Horsemen[/url] I presume. I think the [url=http://www.engelen.demon.nl/666.htm#THE%20SYSTEM]lyrics[/url] of A1 on [r=370519] sum it up nicely.

  • Feb 9,2008 at 08:38

    [quote=helix]
    Alternatively, if these are not available, please scan the envelope/fag packet and post a link. [/quote]

    qft :)

  • Feb 9,2008 at 08:08

    [quote=Axefield]discogs is rushing into a new way of working without proper riskmanagement.[/quote]

    He said, proactively.

  • Feb 9,2008 at 08:08

    Web 2.0. It sucks, doesn’t it?

  • Feb 9,2008 at 07:51

    Reading the hole topic I kinda have the idea discogs is rushing into a new way of working without proper riskmanagement. Maybe it would be wiser if you insist on making these changes to do them step by step. One step, looking at how things go for a few months and discussing the changes in the helpforums. If all works well (which has to be better than the old situation ofcoarse) you can go to step two. If it turns out to be a bad choice you still have an option of going back to the old situation and discuss for other changes to solve problems.

  • Feb 9,2008 at 07:49

    with so many people arguing about “Country”

    [quote=zevulon]leaving out[/quote] [quote=zevulon]BIEM/Antarctica[/quote]

    is grounds for ‘whatever it is’ .. ah ‘Needs Major Changes’, before we are flooded with releases from every Iceberg floating towards Tierra Del Fuego.

    Country should be treated like ‘style’ as it’s a ‘ficticious’ fact (inferred at best, guessed at worst) therefore I think Country should be given to [u=DiscogsUpdateBot] to move to footnotes.

  • Feb 9,2008 at 07:13

    wiki? just the word leaves a bad taste.. Who uses that? People with info-urge but no time or real interest?
    I thought this site was about the actual records, not the consent of massinformation re-chunk.

    And what is “Needs Minor Changes”? At this moment, it looks like leaving out:
    (c) Owned by blah-blah LC666 Inc. Acme. licensed to themselves (p) BIEM/Antarctica –
    equals “Needs Minor Changes”. But that’s not very Wiki, is it?

    I still don’t get the wiki-connection – sounds like Tiesto..

  • Feb 9,2008 at 06:28

    lol^^

  • Feb 9,2008 at 05:53

    [quote=nik]..there may need to be.. ..if.. ..I think it can be changed, possibly… …for the time being…. ..faster at some point.[/quote]
    For such fundamental system changes, please post a link to the system design documents. This is much easier than trying to think up answers on the fly and making it look like things haven’t been thought about properly.

    Alternatively, if these are not available, please scan the envelope/fag packet and post a link.

    Thanks.

  • nik
    Feb 9,2008 at 04:54

    [quote=md]For what to happen straight away? For the addition of profiles, images, aliases, memberships? For artist entries created by pending releases which will may then be changed when someone corrects an artist name? We had that situation in the past, it caused a massive mess of ghost entries. That’s why editing pending artist entries was blocked. Are you proposing to bring that situation back?[/quote]

    That is part of the proposal, with the acknowledgement that there may need to be better handling of the artist and label profiles if they end up with ghost links etc (this is still an issue even today, albeit not a major one). However, this isn’t fundamental, and I think it can be changed, possibly with an eye to keeping the pending entry editing blocked for the time being. However, I would like the handling of profiles to be smoother and faster at some point.

  • md
    Feb 9,2008 at 04:27

    [quote=carlos_the_fraggle]md: if I’m following correctly, there won’t be pending artists.[/quote]
    Seems to be the case. I’m just waiting for nik or teo to confirm that they really do intend to revert back to a process that was fixed because of the mess it created, or clarify how it will work in a way that doesn’t cause these problems.

  • Feb 8,2008 at 20:14

    [quote=simfonik]We’re planning on disabling the ability to sell drafts and rejected items when the new system goes live. [/quote]
    Could you please keep the possibility to add drafts to your wantslist?

  • Feb 8,2008 at 17:48

    md: if I’m following correctly, there won’t be pending artists.

  • Feb 8,2008 at 13:51

    If the moderation/voting system is going to be reworked, so be it. What else will happen with the site at or around that time, beyond no longer being able to sell drafts and rejected items? Or is this the main focus of the site upgrade in the next month?

  • Feb 8,2008 at 11:35

    [quote=md]Will the Marketplace listings flag up a warning to potential buyers about releases that have been marked as unreliable but not yet removed?[/quote]
    There’s going to be an indication of rated data quality on releases. Buyers, just as they can today, can decide based on the information present at time of purchase, and the sellers feedback history, if it’s a purchase they want to make.

    ===============================

    These were some other questions, asked in the mod group (for those without access) about the Marketplace impact of this change:
    [quote=Jayfive]How does this change affect the marketplace? At what stage is an item for sale in this new process? Is there plans to prevent users selling rejected or draft items?[/quote]
    There’s no real change from a Marketplace perspective. Just as items that are unmoderated today [url=http://www.discogs.com/release/974836]can be sold[/url], they’ll be able to be sold with the new system as well. We’re planning on disabling the ability to sell drafts and rejected items when the new system goes live.

    [quote=Lostsignol]What do you do when some one buys and unmoderated item only to find out it is the wrong item due to the submitter adding it incorrectly?[/quote]
    I would expect that the buyer would leave appropriate feedback for the seller and report the problem to me. This hasn’t really been a problem though.

  • md
    Feb 8,2008 at 11:22

    Will the Marketplace listings flag up a warning to potential buyers about releases that have been marked as unreliable but not yet removed?

    Also, the different vote options are inadequate. We need one that says something like “impossible to judge due to submitter providing no information for verification”. If release edits are to be judged only by other owners, it’ll be up to those owners to dig out their own copies to check, but with artist & label updates there needs to be verifiable back up. How can such changes be deemed acceptable by anyone without evidence?

    [quote=Unint]What will be the conditions for newly-created artists becoming “active” for the purpose of adding group membership or aliases?[/quote][quote=nik]The proposal is for this to happen straight away. We may need to improve the handling of ’empty’ artists so (for example) we don’t end up with aliases that point nowhere.[/quote]
    For what to happen straight away? For the addition of profiles, images, aliases, memberships? For artist entries created by pending releases which will may then be changed when someone corrects an artist name? We had that situation in the past, it caused a massive mess of ghost entries. That’s why editing pending artist entries was blocked. Are you proposing to bring that situation back?

  • Feb 8,2008 at 11:08

    [quote=dsmith]
    You may need to spell out the correct order for every type of release to stop users changing the order to suit their own personal preferences.[/quote]
    [quote=nik]
    That’s true, no doubt we will end up with a guideline for that.[/quote]

    Having an optional description with every image would probably be a more versatile idea than having a somawhat pointless rule for ‘correct’ image orders. There are just too many possibilities for images, IMO.

  • Feb 8,2008 at 10:11

    [quote=deejsasqui]Forking the site is an interesting idea[/quote]
    This was here: [url=http://www.discogs.com/groups/topic/154075#1990955] another probably very stupid idea of mine in the mod forum [/url]

    But forget it, too late. alea iacta est.

  • Feb 8,2008 at 09:51

    [quote=Hannesl]It’s wrong when someone starts to use it as reference without knowing if it’s wrong or not. If everybody who uses information knows the information and can verify that it’s correct, then there’s no use to store information. This database was to me a way to find information and learn about music, a good reference.[/quote]

    Exactly. The biggest problem I can see will be similarly named artists and groups bleeding together, due to a general lack of understanding that numbers following an artist / group name denotes a new artist / group. For example, there are [url=http://www.discogs.com/search?type=artists&q=unique&btn=Search]over 30 artists / groups known as “Unique”[/url].

    [quote=nik]That’s right. We don’t want users just ‘ticking the boxes’ so they can get voting rights. In any case, we will probably be adjusting the requirements and the system quite regularly until a balance is reached. [/quote]
    Didn’t you say that you’d tweak the submissions limits until there was a balance? Then it was scrapped.

    [quote=nik]The existing moderator group will of course have voting rights, and we’ll take it from there. We will be looking at many different aspects to assign voting rights. [/quote]
    How about incremental voting? Way back when, new mods had half the voting power of older mods. Why not increase voting powers with the numbers of accepted releases? That means more coding, but it would prevent people from trying to “push the buttons” and get voting power just to muck stuff up.

    [quote=nik]I think the average votes cast on a users submissions is going to be much more important as a ‘status’. [/quote]
    That’s hoping people take an interest in voting. Not to be a wet blanket on all ideas, just offering the bitter counterpoint.

    [quote=nik]Indeed, the possibility for messing up the data is endless![/quote]
    Fantastic! I’m excited too! =)

    [quote=nik]Images will no longer be deleted from the system, just ‘hidden’. There will be a way to view all the hidden images belonging to a submission. Images will only be deleted for abuse or legal reasons. [/quote]
    With enough votes, couldn’t you simply upgrade an image? I know there are plenty of major label releases that have fine print denoting the actual market and release country that are often overlooked by the more casual user. I guess this could be discussed later, when a submission has images in triplicate and someone’s tossed up a bunch of artist pics onto a submission (yes, I’ve seen it happen).

    [quote=nik]The proposal at the moment is the first vote a submission receives is going to be vital. If the first vote is “Entirely Incorrect”, the submission will be immediately reverted or rejected, so this vote is very powerful and we will demand that it is used carefully and explained well. [/quote]
    Back to the idea of graduated voting power – someone who has newly come into the ability to vote should get at most a 50% power vote. ALSO: please remove the push-button options if this will be the case. As it is, a mod can accidentally press the 100% Yes button and get any old mess into the DB (to date, I’ve only accidentally pressed No twice, and 50% yes a few times, which are currently reversible damages).

    [quote=Iron_Fist]Someone already proposed to make two differente databases: a wiki database, just like what’s explained here, and a moderated database, for those that STILL CARE about DATA QUALITY. What’s wrong with this idea?[/quote]
    Forking the site is an interesting idea, though I imagine one would be the “market site” where anyone who wants to sell stuff goes, and the other would be the “data site,” where those who care about data go. If this was accepted, it would be interesting. Perhaps subs on the “wiki/sales” site could create “yellow ghosts” on the “db” site, allowing users to tweak and accept/deny the sub. Hmm …

    [quote=bongabonga]Maybe so, but I do know that your method of expressing your views is clearly not working. I was merely pointing out that you might make a better point by making a list of your own.[/quote][quote=quisquilia]Nearly all proposals, lists etc. have been ignored by the management in recent months.[/quote][quote=bongabonga]Food for thought, ay?[/quote]
    What? Are you wondering now why there has been 3+ years of suggestions that have been glanced over and discounted? Or are you saying that we mods were going about it the wrong way? The way I see it, the mods were chosen for their attention to detail and quality, while the site required a more “broad brush” approach, with the sheer mass of submissions.

    My new concern: how the masses will comprehend what is unique and what is not. With all the discussion in the mod forums (sorry non-mods) about gold stamped promos, white labels with stickers and writing, and all that jazz, there needs to be some way everyone is updated with the newest “refinements” of the RSG. Maybe the Discogs News group and an email sent out weekly?

    I’m not raising this fuss because I think it’s a dumb idea. I’m asking questions and commenting on the proposal because I want the site to keep working. The past updates and revisions have not made the site implode, but I can’t say I don’t have some concern for this new plan. Maybe it’ll work out better than I fear, but I’ve seen a lot of bad subs with weird disregard for any pattern. I’m assuming those users won’t have any voting power any time soon, but there are some rather lazy users who have provided a LOT of submissions to Discogs over the years, yet still can’t be bothered to check everything thoroughly. I won’t kill myself over the site change, and I’m interested to see how it works out, but I think there are other fixes that should come first (master release or a [url=http://www.discogs.com/disbugs/111]link back to the drafted submission source[/url], add more label / company fields, full guideline review, [url=http://wiki.discogs.com/index.php/LazloCatalogSortTechnique]better catalog number sorting[/url] and solving more [url=http://www.discogs.com/disbugs]disbugs[/url])

  • Feb 8,2008 at 09:46

    When did that happen for the last time nik? 6 months ago or more than that. You haven’t listened to us for ages.

    With every new update this site is going more down the drain. Updates should be there to improve the site not just your wallet size.

  • Feb 8,2008 at 09:45

    I agree with [u=dsmith]. ANV conversions are not always about a few releases. I have submitted ANV conversions earlier than sometimes affected 50 or more releases. Especially with songwriters this is possible. I think we should keep a system with editors or moderators for this.

    [quote=dsmith]
    teo
    Convert Artist to ANV – will be disabled. These operations can cause problems because they can’t be undone, and we’ve found that they typically only affect 2 or 3 releases. So under this new system the individual releases should be edited instead.

    http://www.discogs.com/subs/view/3458759

    I currently have this Convert to ANV pending which affects far more than a few releases.

    Maybe opening these corrections up to moderators would be better. [/quote]

  • Feb 8,2008 at 09:19

    [quote=bongabonga]But are you as good as coming together as a whole and proposing things–in an organized way–that are actually better? Many of you have valid points, but they get lost in this sea of disagreement and personal wants and beliefs.[/quote]

    Get back to us when you have a logged a minimum of 1,344 hours submitting, editing, and moderating.

    The communities points are valid and Kevin Lowendoski is a FUCK STICK

  • Feb 8,2008 at 09:18

    [quote=bongabonga]But are you as good as coming together as a whole and proposing things–in an organized way–that are actually better? Many of you have valid points, but they get lost in this sea of disagreement and personal wants and beliefs.[/quote]

    Get back to us when you have a logged a minimum of 1,344 hours submitting, editing, and moderating.

    The communities points are valid and Kevin Lowendoski is a FUCK STICK

  • Feb 8,2008 at 09:18

    [quote=bongabonga]But are you as good as coming together as a whole and proposing things–in an organized way–that are actually better? Many of you have valid points, but they get lost in this sea of disagreement and personal wants and beliefs.[/quote]

    Get back to us when you have a logged a minimum of 1,344 hours submitting, editing, and moderating.

    The communities points are valid and Kevin Lowendoski is a FUCK STICK

  • nik
    Feb 8,2008 at 09:13

    The moderators have had a massive influence on the site, and ideas have been implemented, opinions listened to, lists drawn up, [url=http://wiki.discogs.com/index.php/Main_Page]wikis[/url] built etc. This update is not a failure of the moderators, but a widening and attempt at improving the system overall. Of course, it would be great to be able to satisfy every individuals ideas for what the site should be, but that’s not realistic.

  • Feb 8,2008 at 09:10

    [quote=bongabonga]Food for thought, ay?[/quote]
    How about this: Try it yourself, and then come back trying to tell me about it, ‘kay.

  • Feb 8,2008 at 08:49

    [quote=bongabonga]Maybe so, but I do know that your method of expressing your views is clearly not working. I was merely pointing out that you might make a better point by making a list of your own.[/quote]

    And what do you think has the group of moderators done the last months and years. We had a private forum where these things have been discussed, so you can’t search for those things. We had a ticket system with many good ideas, it has been scrapped. We have now Disbugs, but that was just another way to avoid discussions and to give solutions to problems.
    To make it a little clearer now: Don’t talk about things you don’t have any clue of and don’t try to tell some of us what we could do better.

  • Feb 8,2008 at 08:44

    Maybe so, but I do know that your method of expressing your views is clearly not working. I was merely pointing out that you might make a better point by making a list of your own.

    [quote=quisquilia]Nearly all proposals, lists etc. have been ignored by the management in recent months.[/quote]

    Food for thought, ay?

  • Feb 8,2008 at 08:32

    [u=bongabonga] with all respect, but you don’t have been long enough around to know what has been going on here for months and years.

  • Feb 8,2008 at 08:30

    [quote=bongabonga]But are you as good as coming together as a whole and proposing things–in an organized way–that are actually better? Many of you have valid points, but they get lost in this sea of disagreement and personal wants and beliefs. [/quote]
    Nearly all proposals, lists etc. have been ignored by the management in recent months. Organized lists have been deleted, moderators fired, and the communication was usually non-existent or not really open for debate.
    [quote=bongabonga]teo and nik might actually be the right guys for the job, after all.[/quote]
    For the market place? Sure. For the DB? No.

  • Feb 8,2008 at 08:27

    [quote=Mop66]Or may we end up with an additional x-hundred persons beginning of March who suddenly all can give votes immediately because they already fulfill these criteria?[/quote]
    That’s been the course in recent months anyway, even though the numbers were rather in the dozens than hundreds. It couldn’t make up for the far too many experienced mods & veterans who’ve decided to abandon the site, however.

  • Feb 8,2008 at 08:25

    You guys are really good at telling teo and nik (and everyone else) what a bad job they’re doing with those changes, and how it will harm Discogs (and destroy our universe, etc).

    But are you as good as coming together as a whole and proposing things–in an organized way–that are actually better? Many of you have valid points, but they get lost in this sea of disagreement and personal wants and beliefs.

    You feel that Discogs, being a community driven database, should be run according to the wishes and wants of the majority, am I right? Or did I get it wrong? Is it perhaps about what the individual wants?

    So, come together and make a list (signed by more people than yourself) of the things that *should* or should not be done, Do that, and it will make this discussion, and dealing with these changes, much easier, clearer, and to the point. Right now all I see are a gazillion personal views, and they only complicate the matter by bringing up, again, gazillion new approaches — instead of providing the solutions which everyone’s after.

    If you can’t make this list, well, there you go. teo and nik might actually be the right guys for the job, after all.

  • Feb 8,2008 at 08:09

    [quote=nik]The existing moderator group will of course have voting rights, and we’ll take it from there. We will be looking at many different aspects to assign voting rights.
    [/quote]
    So, do I get it right, that in the beginning only the current mods/eds will have voting rights and current normal users may be added afterwards to the voting right list depending on the votes they receive and whatever other criteria may be applied? Or may we end up with an additional x-hundred persons beginning of March who suddenly all can give votes immediately because they already fulfill these criteria?

  • Feb 8,2008 at 07:24

    Someone already proposed to make two differente databases: a wiki database, just like what’s explained here, and a moderated database, for those that STILL CARE about DATA QUALITY. What’s wrong with this idea?

  • nik
    Feb 8,2008 at 07:18

    [quote=julesparis]who’s blocked from updating the edit? user who just voted? all other users except submitter?[/quote]

    [quote=dsmith]Yes, I don’t really understand that statement. If I voted on an edit and said it was incomplete and highlighted what was missing, the submittor may want to re-edit and add some missing information.[/quote]

    No one who is allowed to interact with the database will be blocked from any editing action at any time. But ‘editing edits’ won’t happen, a vote will need to be placed on the edit, then another edit started. So the process is much more serial, in distinct steps, and with a vote always being placed on the previous edit before another edit commences. So if you voted on an edit and said it was incomplete and highlighted what was missing, the submitter would just start a new edit to do that, and hopefully it will be voted ‘correct’.

    I will write out the exact processes over the next few days, but it should be straightforward in practice.

  • Feb 8,2008 at 05:59

    [quote=julesparis]hu?
    who’s blocked from updating the edit? user who just voted? all other users except submitter?[/quote]
    Yes, I don’t really understand that statement. If I voted on an edit and said it was incomplete and highlighted what was missing, the submittor may want to re-edit and add some missing information.

  • Feb 8,2008 at 05:56

    [quote=nik]Images will no longer be deleted from the system, just ‘hidden’. There will be a way to view all the hidden images belonging to a submission. Images will only be deleted for abuse or legal reasons. [/quote]

    And what about the image update which happens most nowadays, replacing images? so e.g. a 150×150 scan being replaced by a 600×600 scan? Will the 150’er be hidden as well?

    And will there remain a sort of queue you can browse liek there is now? Or do you just have to go through the label pages?

  • Feb 8,2008 at 05:56

    [quote=carlos_the_fraggle]To criticise this change you need to think about the similarities and differences between Discogs and Wikipedia.[/quote]
    Wikipedia has certain elemants of quality control, such as citations. Only the most popular releases are well documented on wikipedia. If something is deemed “unimportant” (a band that did not have any chart success for example) and doesn’t meet some of the basic quality control requirements, then it can be listed for deletion. Something like [r=233048], where the distribution/pricing has been given as a cat #, would be deemed deletion material.

    Both discogs and wikipedia have improved over time (there was a time when I wouldn’t believe most of the artist profiles on either discogs or wikipedia).

  • Feb 8,2008 at 05:56

    [quote=nik]Once a vote is cast, the edit cannot be updated. [/quote]

    hu?
    who’s blocked from updating the edit? user who just voted? all other users except submitter?

  • Feb 8,2008 at 05:45

    [quote=nik]That’s right. We don’t want users just ‘ticking the boxes’ so they can get voting rights. In any case, we will probably be adjusting the requirements and the system quite regularly until a balance is reached. The existing moderator group will of course have voting rights, and we’ll take it from there. We will be looking at many different aspects to assign voting rights.[/quote]
    You need also to consider the possibility of fake voting (votes cast by the same user, but using different accounts – probably recognisable by knowing their ip; votes cast by friends of the submittor). Fake votes usually happen one after the other in a short period of time.

  • nik
    Feb 8,2008 at 05:35

    [quote=teo]Users will be allowed to vote once they meet certain undisclosed requirements.[/quote]

    [quote=psychonausea]Why undisclosed?
    Why aren’t we allowed to know which standards we have to meet before we can say if a release in our collection is correct & complete?
    How our we able to know how we can improve ourselves to gain ‘voting-power’ if there’s no feedback?[/quote]

    [quote=azzurro]Can you enlighten us about clear limits someone has to meet before he’s allowed to vote? Is it rank-based? Do we get the shortlived submission skill back? [/quote]

    [quote=deejsasqui]To prevent rankhunting for rights, I’d guess. If people knew it only took 6 submissions with “Complete and Correct” status to start editing releases, I’m sure there would be some who would find the easiest subs they could, and then get to mucking with the rest of the site.[/quote]

    That’s right. We don’t want users just ‘ticking the boxes’ so they can get voting rights. In any case, we will probably be adjusting the requirements and the system quite regularly until a balance is reached. The existing moderator group will of course have voting rights, and we’ll take it from there. We will be looking at many different aspects to assign voting rights.

    [quote=Lostsignol]will users still have rank and links to all the releases they have added to the site on their profile?[/quote]

    The links to all the release a user has added will still be there for sure. Rank I think is going to become somewhat of a legacy thing, there aren’t plans to remove it right now, but I’m not totally sure if it will be as relevant, I think the average votes cast on a users submissions is going to be much more important as a ‘status’.

    [quote=DS_Helder]The main worry is not the number of entries that needs major or minor changes – we have plenty of those already – but the risk of ruining good data. Could we have some kind of lock on updates for releases that have a certain number of votes for “Complete and Correct” (and maybe even “Correct”)? So that these entries, for example, only can be edited by (say) moderators on the basis of trustworthy sources?[/quote]

    Locking releases has been proposed before, but it goes against the idea that anyone should be able to add / update information. Also, even releases that are voted ‘complete and correct’ may need small tweaks to make them more perfect. Owners of the release will need to be vigilant that things don’t get changed incorrectly, but this is what should happen at the moment in any case.

    [quote=dsmith]You may need to spell out the correct order for every type of release to stop users changing the order to suit their own personal preferences.[/quote]

    That’s true, no doubt we will end up with a guideline for that.

    [quote=dsmith]users might remove information from the notes that is vital in order to distinguish two near identical releases.[/quote]

    Indeed, the possibility for messing up the data is endless! Again, we must rely, as we do to an extent already, on the community as a whole to check that changes are good. Users that are unable to take proper care with the data need to be told what they are doing wrong, and users who fail to improve and continue to mess things up need either limited or stopped from interacting with the database.

    [quote=dsmith]What about deleting images?[/quote]

    Images will no longer be deleted from the system, just ‘hidden’. There will be a way to view all the hidden images belonging to a submission. Images will only be deleted for abuse or legal reasons.

    [quote=Unint]What will be the conditions for newly-created artists becoming “active” for the purpose of adding group membership or aliases?[/quote]

    The proposal is for this to happen straight away. We may need to improve the handling of ’empty’ artists so (for example) we don’t end up with aliases that point nowhere.

    [quote=md]How will you be informing users that edits have been made to artist & label pages? Contrary to the initial post they can not be handled in the same way as release edits, as there will be no peer review (nik stated in the mod forum that all submissions will still be subject to peer review so clearly management either does not know what it’s implementing or has not got its story straight). Currently there is peer review on release edits via the notifications, but on artist and labels this only happens via the moderation system. Are we to assume that blatantly incorrect data doesn’t matter until someone who recognises it as such changes it (to something that might also be totally incorrect)? [/quote]

    We will try to notify users who have the artist / label in their collection, wantlist, or favourites of the change. The edits are planned to go live straight away, but will be flagged as ‘needs review’ – this is the peer review part. I believe it is better that blatantly incorrect data is seen by as many people as possible so someone can change it or vote it as “Entirely Incorrect”. Users doing too many “Entirely Incorrect” changes will be automatically limited or blocked from interacting with the database.

    [quote=md]EXACTLY what is the process by which updates will be reversed and the timescales involved (i.e how will we be able to instantly reverse the many thousands of damaging edits which are currently rejected as they are obvious bullshit, which you are now giving your blessing to?). Please give exact steps, including timings and actions required. [/quote]

    The proposal at the moment is the first vote a submission receives is going to be vital. If the first vote is “Entirely Incorrect”, the submission will be immediately reverted or rejected, so this vote is very powerful and we will demand that it is used carefully and explained well. Voters abusing this vote will loose their voting rights. If this causes other problems, we may need to start counting votes before reversion, but I would prefer that things can happen quickly and effectively.

    If the first vote is “Needs Major Changes” and the second is “Entirely Incorrect”, the submission will be rejected or reverted. If the first vote is “Needs Minor Changes”, there will have to follow three “Entirely Incorrect” votes for a reversion or rejection. In this system, not only are the additional votes voting on the release, but they are also voting on the other votes (!). We should be able to pick out users who’s votes go contrary to the other votes, and their voting rights may be withdrawn if this is a trend.

    [quote=md]How will you be dealing with the thousands of incorrect changes to artist pages caused by users submitting Add Releases and not checking for the correct entries? Again, are we to assume that blatantly incorrect data doesn’t matter until someone who recognises it as such changes it (to something that might also be totally incorrect)?[/quote]

    Incorrect data does matter, but it has to be seen for it to be deemed incorrect. As the data will be flagged, for example ‘needs review’ or ‘needs minor changes’, it will hopefully be much more explicit what the status of the information is, and lead to more users who know what the correct information is to update it. So, as opposed to the moment where the data is either correct and we Y vote it, or unchecked and / or incorrect and / or needs major / minor changes and marked in yellow and hangs about in limbo for months, the new system will allow a much finer degree of judgement to be placed quicker on the information.

    We have also considered ways to allow the data to be viewed only above a certain threshold, so for example if you only want to see data that is ‘Correct’, you could set a threshold for that. Unfortunately, this got a bit complicated in terms of how it would affect peoples collections, wantlists etc, so it is on hold for the moment.

    [quote=lazlo_nibble]One thing I don’t see here is a way to communicate WHY you think a sub/edit needs work (etc.). I may know why a sub needs minor changes when I place a vote, but there needs to be a way to communicate that reason to other users who are in a position to make the correction. [/quote]

    You’ll be able to leave comments the same as just now. The process in this respect is the same, just more voting options.

    [quote=lazlo_nibble]I assume also that we’ll be able to revise our votes as changes are made to the entry?[/quote]

    Once a vote is cast, the edit cannot be updated. If the update needs revised, another edit must be started, and that can be voted on.

  • Feb 8,2008 at 05:06

    [quote=nik]Again, this will be adjusted as we see how it affects things[/quote]
    ROTFPIMP

  • Feb 8,2008 at 04:04

    [quote=Hannesl]This database [b]was[/b] to me a way to find information and learn about music, a good reference.[/quote]
    Just emphasizing.

  • Feb 8,2008 at 03:55

    [quote=carlos_the_fraggle]If a piece of the database is wrong because no one uses it, is it wrong?[/quote]
    It’s wrong when someone starts to use it as reference without knowing if it’s wrong or not. If everybody who uses information knows the information and can verify that it’s correct, then there’s no use to store information. This database was to me a way to find information and learn about music, a good reference.

  • md
    Feb 8,2008 at 02:59

    [quote=carlos_the_fraggle]They can’t answer questions about timings, nor about percentage of the database you can expect to be accurate at any given time, because those things will arise from the users using it[/quote]
    That’s not really good enough. If someone completely fucks up a submission that either I’ve carefully put together or that changes an entry in my collection to something else, through either wilful or ignorant neglect, I don’t want to just put a vote on it and hope that eventually some day enough other people will vote on it in the same way for it to be reverted back to its former state.

  • Feb 8,2008 at 01:50

    I’ve only been away for 14 hours… and now that. Fuck it.

  • Feb 8,2008 at 01:18

    [quote=elexxii]If you’re not interested in the database any longer, why not let others take over development instead of letting the good data rot away?[/quote]

    seconded.

    whilst you (teo) may have your reasons for this step, it is quite not understandable how one can allow to ignore/drop the main USP of this DB –> the Quality of Information. Even though it can’t be obvious at this stage, sooner or later all other USPs of the site are going to suffer under this burden.
    (Actually that’s basic knowledge – at least for those with knowledge in economy… but well, if the plan is to sell the site anyway and this is the next step in preparation, you shouldn’t care too much, I agree…)

  • Feb 8,2008 at 00:55

    You are too rigid in your ideas of validity. If a piece of the database is wrong because no one uses it, is it wrong? Beyond pressure thresholds for basic functionality there are philosophical implications: information that no one sees, changes or cares about stops being information in the mathematical sense. I’m already eager to know how many OCD mods will kill themselves over this.

  • Feb 8,2008 at 00:39

    [quote=carlos_the_fraggle]I worry less about constant reversions to Jeff Mills than about the many unvisited corners. Then again, if they’re unvisited, who cares? [/quote]

    [url=http://www.fsc-watch.org/media/800px_Hear_speak_see_no_evil_Toshogu.jpg]well said[/url]

  • Feb 8,2008 at 00:34

    [quote=teo]We are going to be making some big changes to the Discogs moderation system.[/quote]
    Thanks for ruininig this project.

    The primary problem is/was not the increased number of submitters and submissions over time, the primary problem IMO was the lack of technical improvements to the moderation and submission process.

    Numerous specific suggestions have been made in the past months/years, which would have increased the moderator’s efficiency manifold, but zero effort has been put into this.

    If you’re not interested in the database any longer, why not let others take over development instead of letting the good data rot away?

  • Feb 8,2008 at 00:24

    They can’t answer questions about timings, nor about percentage of the database you can expect to be accurate at any given time, because those things will arise from the users using it.

    To criticise this change you need to think about the similarities and differences between Discogs and Wikipedia. Ask what goes wrong there and why it might be amplified here. What structures and protocols force the information into correctness and timeliness. Whether the information is of the same nature.

    To really know, you have to try it and find out. Initial thoughts: retaining selection of voters/neo-mods as a tweakable knob on the system is good but may be too crude, probably still need a hierarchy. These systems work like Aztec waterfall machines: wherever there is less than a minimum pressure it badly stops working, the most-used bits will be fine. I worry less about constant reversions to Jeff Mills than about the many unvisited corners. Then again, if they’re unvisited, who cares?

    Interesting.

  • Feb 7,2008 at 23:49

    [quote=azzurro] When are users allowed to place votes? Will there remain some sort of moderators group or editors group, only than way larger, or is the voting allowed to more or less everyone?[/quote]

    [quote=nik]Users with voting rights can place votes on basically anything at any time. The selection for users getting voting rights will be automatic, taking different things into account, and we will probably adjust it as we go along. [/quote]

    Nice answer, but this is all Ronspeak to me. Can you enlighten us about clear limits someone has to meet before he’s allowed to vote? Is it rank-based? Do we get the shortlived submission skill back?

    [quote=md]Please give exact steps, including timings and actions required[/quote]

    ^^^ Seconded for hope

  • Feb 7,2008 at 21:52

    ^Just put the link here I would say.

  • Feb 7,2008 at 17:58

    People who strongly disapprove Discogs turning into Wikiogs may want to PM me for a link.

  • Feb 7,2008 at 17:50

    if all the requested submissions errors checks and auto correct ideas were online before march i would be much more confident with the proposed changes.

  • md
    Feb 7,2008 at 17:24

    [quote=Unint]What will be the conditions for newly-created artists becoming “active” for the purpose of adding group membership or aliases?[/quote]
    Good question.

    Also:

    How will you be informing users that edits have been made to artist & label pages? Contrary to the initial post they can not be handled in the same way as release edits, as there will be no peer review (nik stated in the mod forum that all submissions will still be subject to peer review so clearly management either does not know what it’s implementing or has not got its story straight). Currently there is peer review on release edits via the notifications, but on artist and labels this only happens via the moderation system. Are we to assume that blatantly incorrect data doesn’t matter until someone who recognises it as such changes it (to something that might also be totally incorrect)?

    EXACTLY what is the process by which updates will be reversed and the timescales involved (i.e how will we be able to instantly reverse the many thousands of damaging edits which are currently rejected as they are obvious bullshit, which you are now giving your blessing to?). Please give exact steps, including timings and actions required.

    How will you be dealing with the thousands of incorrect changes to artist pages caused by users submitting Add Releases and not checking for the correct entries? Again, are we to assume that blatantly incorrect data doesn’t matter until someone who recognises it as such changes it (to something that might also be totally incorrect)?

    Who will update dozens, scores, or hundreds of releases just to change the name of a record label that someone got wrong?

  • Feb 7,2008 at 17:21

    A big FUCK YOU to teo and nik. You are scum.

  • Feb 7,2008 at 16:43

    Makes sense.

    “Then about 50 of the top contributors were given access to the approval form, featuring Yes/No/Skip buttons”

    If there were moderators in 2001 they didn’t have the Skip button.

  • Feb 7,2008 at 16:30

    [quote=jasmithers]prevent new, inexperienced users from flooding the database with incorrect submissions, read “crap”; they get a few slots to start, learn the submission process as they go, then get more slots once they’re ready to handle it.[/quote]
    Users learn at different speeds. Those who are quick learners will want to add more. Those that are slow (and even lazy) will struggle to deal with a handful of releases. In the past six months, I’ve been able to add some 120/130 releases, twice as many as I added in my first year. Unlimited sublimits allowed me to add far more to the database than the old limits. I think the problem is that lots of users submit too much in one go. A decent submission can take hours.

    [quote=jasmithers]– keep the queue free of “abandoned” submissions, i.e. those needing changes which the submittors never bother to come back and change[/quote]
    Maybe the new system will combine the era of unlimited subs with the brief period of heavily restricted limits, i.e., the slow learners will eventually be able to submit little and become just users of the database.

  • Feb 7,2008 at 16:05

    [quote=teo]Images – all image update functions will be handled by a new Image Update form. The new form will allow you to make changes immediately, set images in the correct order, etc.[/quote]
    What about deleting images? Someone tried to remove the image of the disc from [r=886802] thinking it belonged only to [r=403965].

  • Feb 7,2008 at 15:50

    [quote=teo]Edit Release – This will affect the release right away. Users will then be able to vote on the quality of the change. If the quality rating is too low, the release will be reverted to the last known good edit.[/quote]
    I’m not sure if this is a good thing or not. On the positive front, it brings releases onto an artist page where they would otherwise not be listed. It’s much easier to assess the validity of data when it’s listed next to other releases. On the negative front, users might remove information from the notes that is vital in order to distinguish two near identical releases.

  • Feb 7,2008 at 15:39

    [quote=teo]Images – all image update functions will be handled by a new Image Update form. The new form will allow you to make changes immediately, set images in the correct order, etc.[/quote]
    Not quite sure what would be considered proper order. You may need to spell out the correct order for every type of release to stop users changing the order to suit their own personal preferences.

  • Feb 7,2008 at 15:37

    [quote=teo]Convert Artist to ANV – will be disabled. These operations can cause problems because they can’t be undone, and we’ve found that they typically only affect 2 or 3 releases. So under this new system the individual releases should be edited instead.[/quote]
    http://www.discogs.com/subs/view/3458759

    I currently have this Convert to ANV pending which affects far more than a few releases.

    Maybe opening these corrections up to moderators would be better.

    But I agree that merging artists/labels can cause huge problems – witness the huge mess that is [l=Castle Music / Castle Communications].

  • Feb 7,2008 at 15:13

    [quote=teo]Vote Choices:
    – Complete and Correct
    – Correct
    – Needs Minor Changes
    – Needs Major Changes
    – Entirely Incorrect
    [/quote]

    The main worry is not the number of entries that needs major or minor changes – we have plenty of those already – but the risk of ruining good data. Could we have some kind of lock on updates for releases that have a certain number of votes for “Complete and Correct” (and maybe even “Correct”)? So that these entries, for example, only can be edited by (say) moderators on the basis of trustworthy sources?

  • Dec
    Feb 7,2008 at 14:20

    [quote=TomKay]this skewss things towards the most important site menbers being the marketplace sellers.[/quote]
    I’d prefer that to happen, than to read an announcement that effectively said “Screw you guys, we sold out to Gracenote”.
    Presumably the Marketplace is what pays the bills here.

  • Dec
    Feb 7,2008 at 14:17

    [quote=TomKay]What the hell kind of word is [b]ankh[/b]unting?[/quote]
    Something that tomb raiders do in Egypt? :-P

  • Feb 7,2008 at 14:03

    I still have the same feeling as 5 months ago, this is the end of the quality database for collectors. Ahoi to the marketplace!

  • Feb 7,2008 at 13:42

    [quote=TomKay]What the hell kind of word is ankhunting?[/quote]

    I guess he meant rankhunting ; )

  • Feb 7,2008 at 13:33

    will users still have rank and links to all the releases they have added to the site on their profile?

  • Feb 7,2008 at 13:19

    What the hell kind of word is ankhunting? I’m cool with this, enough (easy come, easy go) though I think allowing nearly-anyone to vote is asking for trouble. I was kind of hoping to make a name for myself though. And once again this skewss things towards the most important site menbers being the marketplace sellers.

  • Feb 7,2008 at 13:01

    [quote=teo]Users will be allowed to vote once they meet certain undisclosed requirements.[/quote][quote=psychonausea]Why undisclosed? [/quote]
    To prevent ankhunting for rights, I’d guess. If people knew it only took 6 submissions with “Complete and Correct” status to start editing releases, I’m sure there would be some who would find the easiest subs they could, and then get to mucking with the rest of the site.

  • Feb 7,2008 at 12:52

    What will be the conditions for newly-created artists becoming “active” for the purpose of adding group membership or aliases?

  • Feb 7,2008 at 12:48

    double post – sorry

  • Feb 7,2008 at 12:45

    The new system [i]might[/i] work, especially since
    [quote=nik]It’s a fact that 50% of our submitters are below average.[/quote]

    [quote=teo]Users will be allowed to vote once they meet certain undisclosed requirements.[/quote]
    Why undisclosed?
    Why aren’t we allowed to know which standards we have to meet before we can say if a release in our collection is correct & complete?
    How our we able to know how we can improve ourselves to gain ‘voting-power’ if there’s no feedback?

  • nik
    Feb 7,2008 at 12:27

    [quote=azzurro]When are users allowed to place votes? Will there remain some sort of moderators group or editors group, only than way larger, or is the voting allowed to more or less everyone? [/quote]

    Users with voting rights can place votes on basically anything at any time. The selection for users getting voting rights will be automatic, taking different things into account, and we will probably adjust it as we go along.

    [quote=azzurro]At what point will the data be removed or reverted? [/quote]

    There basically needs to be enough “Entirely Incorrect” votes for this to happen, again this may be adjusted as we go. But this vote is really a last resort for nonsense submissions, duplicates and the like. Data that can be improved will be either Needs Minor Changes or Needs Major Changes, I’ll write up guidelines on when to use those votes, but I think most of the time it should be reasonably easy if you know the release / artist / label.

    [quote=azzurro]When will users be “blocked”? at how many incorrect subs or votes? [/quote]

    Again, this will be adjusted as we see how it affects things, we want a balance so those who at at least honest in their errors are able to use the database and learn, but those that are careless or even malicious should be swiftly removed.

    [quote=azzurro]How will someone with over a thousand subs be able to keep track of “his” submissions? [/quote]

    I think as they do today, the same way. We want to improve the communication for users who have items in their collection changed, for example for pending merges.

  • Feb 7,2008 at 12:26

    Good times for all you websubmitters btw – all your crappy submissions will be fixed slowly by other users like e.g. [url=http://www.discogs.com/subs/view/3738661]this one[/url] or [url=http://www.discogs.com/subs/view/3739925]this one[/url]. You can be sure that your patchwork subs will be accepted! I’m pretty sure this will bring a whole new spirit into this community here. One hand washes the other.

  • nik
    Feb 7,2008 at 12:15

    All the things in your list will stay Haze, and in fact we should improve those areas. The site will basically stay the same apart from a different voting system.

  • Feb 7,2008 at 12:12

    copying my Q’s here following Haze’s Q’s:

    – When are users allowed to place votes? Will there remain some sort of moderators group or editors group, only than way larger, or is the voting allowed to more or less everyone?
    – At what point will the data be removed or reverted?
    – When will users be “blocked”? at how many incorrect subs or votes?
    – How will someone with over a thousand subs be able to keep track of “his” submissions?

  • Feb 7,2008 at 12:06

    Will we keep the ‘Updates to items in My Collection’ link?
    Will we still get the mails about ‘Recent changes affecting releases in your Discogs collection’?
    Will the submission complaint reports stay alive in your new system?
    Are you sure you wanted to post that today and not on the 3rd March?

Leave A Reply