Summary of Guideline changes – 17th November 2008

We have recently completed the forth stage of the Guideline review, which involved trying to sort out most of the issues that were not resolved during the previous stages, or that had come up since the last major revision.

The most important changes in this review are to the label / catalog number section. For label names, there is now a section outlining when to enter the information as on release, and when to adjust the label name. This is important as we move further toward an ‘as on release’ method for label names (particularly major labels / companies). Regarding catalog numbers, it should be noted that all catalog number variations should now all be entered in the catalog number fields, and should not be entered into the notes section as previously. For the complete text of this guideline section, please check http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-label-catalog.html#Label

If you are interested in how the changes came about, you should be able to find details on the wiki pages http://wiki.discogs.com/index.php/Discogs_Guideline_Review_2007/08 and / or the development forum pages http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/board/843

This concludes the Discogs Guideline Review 2007/08. However, this does not mean that the guidelines will not be further improved. A new structure for proposing, discussing, and implementing guidelines will be worked out and put into place very soon.

The full summary of the changes are as follows:

[b]1. General Rules For Adding Information To Discogs (inc submission notes)[/b]
*  Unique releases - made a rule regarding when represses reissues etc are identical -  Reissues that cannot be told apart from the original issue cannot be entered as a unique release - unique releases must have a means of identifying them as such. http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-general-rules.html#Unique_Releases - second paragraph

* Caps rule for abbreviations and initalisims - http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-general-rules.html#Capitalization

* Caps rule for intentional capitalization of abstract titles - http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-general-rules.html#Capitalization

* Manufacturing variations in (for example) label paper color should not be a unique release. Different stampers / matrix numbers for the same edition do not constitute a unique release. http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-general-rules.html#Unique_Releases - paragraph 5

* Unofficial Releases - Uncleared recordings, Bootlegs, Pirates, and Counterfeits - section added regarding these items at http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-general-rules.html#Unofficial_Releases

* Releases should be submitted in the language used on them, they should not be translated or transliterated. - http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-general-rules.html#Languages

* Formatting, Unicode, and HTML Code guidelines created at http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-general-rules.html#Formatting_Unicode_HTML

* Full physical format descriptions are always required, for example Vinyl, 12". http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-general-rules.html#Required_Fields_For_A_New_Submission
[b]2. Artist (inc ANV and joins)[/b]
*  ANVs should not be used for any fundamental name changes, such as surname changes. In these cases, an Alias is more appropriate. http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-artist.html#Artist_Name_Variation_ANV

* How to for artist + generic band - http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-artist.html#Solo_Artist_Generic_Musicians

* How to add a new artist, when the link goes live etc http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-artist.html#Add_Artist

* Added "Crediting Unnamed Groups" guidelines http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-artist.html#Crediting_Unnamed_Groups
[b]3. Title[/b]
*  Guideline for subtitles - http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-title.html#Title paragraph 3

Added four new ‘how to’ type sections dealing with some trickier release types and how we can arive at a workable title for them:

* Explain what to do with inconsistent titles - "In rare cases, it may be necessary to make up a compound title from the various versions of the title on the cover, spine, label etc."  http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-title.html#Title paragraph 2

* How To Enter Releases Of Combined Titles section added - http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-title.html#Combined_Titles

* Clarified the double A side guidelines and exactly when to use both / all track titles for a release title, as opposed to just the A side. http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-title.html#Double_A_Sided_Releases

* How To Interpret Track Titles As Release Titles When Listed On The Cover - http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-title.html#Interpret_Track_Titles_As_Release_Titles
[b]4. Label / Catalog Number[/b]
* Revised whole Label section to be clearer regarding how to enter label names and the difference between major and independent labels. Added a section about legacy label names.

* Reworded Not On Label section to be clearer - http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-label-catalog.html#Not_On_Label

* Unofficial Release Label Names guidelines added - http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-label-catalog.html#Unofficial_Release_Label_Names

* Outline when a label should be an unique entry, and when it should be altered to match an existing entry- "The responsibility is on the user wishing to combine label or company names to provide proof that the entity they are trying to combine is indeed one and the same." - http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-label-catalog.html#Label_Names

* Describe DIDX and DIDP mastering labelcodes, and how to avoid their use as primary cat#s. http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-label-catalog.html#DIDX_And_Other_DID_Codes

* If the catalog number appears in different formats on the release (for example "ABC-001" and "abc1"), enter all the versions of the catalog number in separate catalog number fields.  http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-label-catalog.html#Catalog_Number

*  Made a new section, with some diagrams, outlining various different release models, from major labels to artists direct sales. http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-label-catalog.html#Examples
[b]5. Format[/b]
*  Clarify the special packaging guideline: "The free text field should be used to describe; 1) the color of the item, 2) any notable packaging (for example gatefold sleeves, Digipak etc), or 3)text that isn't part of the title but distinguishes the specific release from others. http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-format.html#Format section 4.1

* Packaging - clarify when and where to state the packaging of a release. http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/162096#2085810 - "unless the item is also released using different packaging (like a slimline jewel case or digipack) that text should not be added to Format, but remain in Notes as additional info about the release in question." "The format description field should remain as small and precise as possible, it's of no use to add every detail in this field. The main use of the format field should be the brief description of the release in order to distinguish it from other similar releases at first sight." http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-format.html#Format section 4.2

* Added in guidelines for the use of Quantity and Format fields http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-format.html#Format section 1 and 2

* Bitrates should be entered as "kbps" (note all lower case). This info can go in the free text field. http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-format.html#Files paragraph 3

* Descriptions - what is required information? - added to General Guidelines.
[b]9. Credits[/b]
*  'copy to draft' guidelines stated for credits - http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-credits.html#How_To_Enter_Credits_From_External_Sources 3rd paragraph
[b]10. Release Notes[/b]
* URLs printed on a release are valid for the notes section. Links are forbidden.
[b]11. Tracklisting (inc all tracklisting field rules)[/b]
*  Explained how to list items that have the exact same audio on both sides - http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-trk.html#Same_Audio_On_Different_Sides

* Added a guideline forbidding for:  Prefixing "CD1." in front of a release that only contains one CD, Prefixing with zeros or punctuation, and Suffixing with punctuation - http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-trk.html#Position near the end

* Remember that if you use position numbering in the main credit section, it must be identical to the position numbering scheme in the tracklisting. - http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-trk.html#Position near the end

* When bonus tracks / bonus content is identified on the release itself as a separate section of the release content, an index track can be used. However, when bonus tracks are identified with an asterisk, with a bonus track mention appended to the track title, a footnote or such like, do not use an index track, enter this in the release notes instead.  http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-trk.html#Insert_Index_Track

* Titles for whole sides of releases are eligible for use as index tracks - http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-trk.html#Insert_Index_Track

* Added "How to list Non-audio content of releases" section - http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-trk.html#How_to_list_Non-audio_content_of_releases

* Some file-based download stores (such as Beatport) place the phrases "Original Mix" and "Original" on the end of any track title without a mix name. These phrases should be ignored unless specifically appropriate to the release (for example - by the physical counterpart or cover). - http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-trk.html#Title

* How to list megamix and medleys - http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-trk.html#How_To_List_Megamix_And_Medleys

* Updated guidelines for multi-disc or multi-format releases, any position numbering scheme which differentiates each item is acceptable. - http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-trk.html#Position

* Describe how to list the various styles of hidden tracks: http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-trk.html#How_To_Enter_Hidden_Tracks.2C_Blank_Tracks_etc.
[b]12. Images[/b]
*  Added 'Uploading Images' section to the image guidelines to explain the upload procedures, accepted file formats etc. http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-images.html#Uploading_Images

* Label image guidelines - http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-images.html#Label_Images

* Add link on the word "watermark".
[b]15. Reviews[/b]
*  FAQ - how do I remove a review I wrote? http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-reviews.html#How_Do_I_Remove_A_Review_I_Wrote

* FAQ - how to I correct a review I wrote? http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-reviews.html#How_Do_I_Correct_A_Review_I_Wrote

* Be careful with capitalization (don't use A.B.C, use ABC) and ellipses (don't use three periods in a row ..., use the proper ellipse character …).  - http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-reviews.html#Content
Return to Discogs Blog
39 Comments
  • Dec 3,2008 at 4:05 am

    That will not work…
    As an example here are the first few catalogue numbers of the
    UK Mushroom label
    100 MR 1
    100 MR 2
    100 MR 3
    200 MR 4
    (5 = unknown)
    200 MR 6
    100 MR 7
    300 MR 8
    Further on some even start with ”150”.
    Now what automatic process could ever sort this properly??

  • Dec 3,2008 at 4:02 am

    gee thanks, looks familiar actually … isn’t that what’s been posted in the wiki like a whole year ago?

    isn’t that what’s been announced to be rolled on “soon” 9 months ago?

    is there any chance you can provide an ETA for this uncomplicated process to be implemented?

  • nik
    Dec 3,2008 at 3:45 am

    [quote=julesparis]how about a demo on a quite simple label page, say Balihu records for instance, can you show us how it will look once the *magic sorting system* is implemented? [/quote]

    It’s easy enough to check how it would work, the process isn’t complicated or magic:

    * Transform all lowercase letters to uppercase.
    * Strip out all characters except for letters and numbers.
    * Separate groups of numbers from groups of letters using tab characters.
    * Pad all number groups out to sixteen digits wide (“90241” becomes “0000000000090421”, etc.)
    * Strip out the tabs.

    For your example, Balihu records, the cat#s starting with “BALIHU” are still going to come after those starting with “BAL”, and there is no way round that except for making separate transformations for each label, which isn’t planned.

  • Dec 3,2008 at 3:21 am

    [quote=killaswitch]if there is no option planned to sort the releases chronologically and by media (7″, 12″)[/quote]
    those do exist already:
    http://www.discogs.com/label/Balihu+Records?sort=date%2Casc

    http://www.discogs.com/label/Balihu+Records?sort=format%2Casc

  • Dec 3,2008 at 2:50 am

    [quote=killaswitch]nik, would it be possible to make an exception for allowing to add an additional (invisible!) space into catalogue numbers when one space is already there?[/quote]
    no need for an exception, just say in your sub notes that the cat # as given on release does include a second invisible space – who’s gonna prove you wrong?

    [quote=nik]We must move forward[/quote]
    speaking of moving forward, how about you guys provide your part of the deal, ie the *magic system* that’s gonna sort out all this mess?

    how about a demo on a quite simple label page, say [l=Balihu records] for instance, can you show us how it will look once the *magic sorting system* is implemented?

    thanks in advance

  • Dec 3,2008 at 2:47 am

    [quote=nik]I can’t make exceptions for this, sorry. We must move forward and enter the info as is, not fubar it for display issues. [/quote]

    and then? if there is no option planned to sort the releases chronologically and by media (7″, 12″), this will be one big mess. one of the nicest things on discogs is the presentability of label discographies. now label discographies will look like one big mess wheren noone is able to find a thing.

  • nik
    Dec 3,2008 at 2:42 am

    [quote=nik]* Manufacturing variations in (for example) label paper color should not be a unique release. Different stampers / matrix numbers for the same edition do not constitute a unique release.[/quote]

    [quote=killaswitch]in jamaican vinyl, different matrix numbers mean different pressings, with a distance of often even 20-30 years! it is absolutely necessary to add both variations [/quote]

    They surely wouldn’t be the same editions then, would they? This guideline is only to stop a situation where we have, for example, loads of different runout info for Dark Side Of The Moon http://wiki.discogs.com/index.php/DSOTM_Runouts – the same will be true of any other very popular vinyl release.

    [quote=nik]The catalog number should be entered directly as it appears on a release – it shouldn’t be altered (as has been done in the past at Discogs) for conformity with other catalog numbers listed on the label page.[/quote]

    [quote=killaswitch]would it be possible to make an exception for allowing to add an additional (invisible!) space into catalogue numbers when one space is already there? for example, in Greensleeves Records, the 12″ cat#s go from GRE 1 to 3-digit cat#s, and by adding an (invisible) space towards the one- and two digit cat#s, they can be properly sorted, while no visible alteratino of the cat# is visible. [/quote]

    I can’t make exceptions for this, sorry. We must move forward and enter the info as is, not fubar it for display issues.

    [quote=killaswitch]please add the situation of jamaican matrix numbers to the next guideline revision (as in: DSR… are not catalogue numbers but matrix numbers, please add them to notes blahblah). you can erad about it what i wrote over 2 years ago: http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/131564
    if you need help formulating an according rule for the guidelines, i am willing to help of course. please simply contact me. i would appreciate very much if you’d react to this request, since the matrix number problem is a very vital one with reggae submissions[/quote]

    I have added a todo at http://wiki.discogs.com/index.php/Discogs_Guideline_Review_2009#4._Label_.2F_Catalog_Number – although I think a more general guideline regarding this is needed – we already have on the todo list “Explain matrix numbers and their use as catalog numbers” http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/168719 .

  • Dec 3,2008 at 12:23 am

    some points from the reggae moderator’s point of view:

    [quote=nik]* Manufacturing variations in (for example) label paper color should not be a unique release. Different stampers / matrix numbers for the same edition do not constitute a unique release. http://www.discogs.com/help/submissio…e_Releases – paragraph 5 [/quote]

    but, in jamaican vinyl, different matrix numbers mean different pressings, with a distance of often even 20-30 years! it is absolutely necessary to add both variations – already because of the totally different worth.

    another point, quoting from the new catalogue number guidelines:

    [quote]The catalog number should be entered directly as it appears on a release – it shouldn’t be altered (as has been done in the past at Discogs) for conformity with other catalog numbers listed on the label page.[/quote]

    nik, would it be possible to make an exception for allowing to add an additional (invisible!) space into catalogue numbers when one space is already there? for example, in [l=Greensleeves Records], the 12″ cat#s go from GRE 1 to 3-digit cat#s, and by adding an (invisible) space towards the one- and two digit cat#s, they can be properly sorted, while no visible alteratino of the cat# is visible.

    also, a VERY big request of mine: please add the situation of jamaican matrix numbers to the next guideline revision (as in: DSR… are not catalogue numbers but matrix numbers, please add them to notes blahblah). you can erad about it what i wrote over 2 years ago: http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/131564
    if you need help formulating an according rule for the guidelines, i am willing to help of course. please simply contact me. i would appreciate very much if you’d react to this request, since the matrix number problem is a very vital one with reggae submissions, and i am already devoting very much time for moderating this sectors against all odds.

  • Nov 27,2008 at 1:11 am

    [quote=marcelrecords]They will show up under a full search, though.[/quote]
    yeah, just like when they’re in notes

    i’d understand the need to list all them cat # variations in cat # fields for dupe warnings purposes but we all know this has never worked properly and probably won’t ever

  • Nov 27,2008 at 1:01 am

    [quote=fleshmeatdoll]whats the point of listing all catalog numbers when only the first version is displayed in the label page listing?[/quote]
    They will show up under a full search, though.

  • Nov 26,2008 at 9:49 pm

    whats the point of listing all catalog numbers when only the first version is displayed in the label page listing?

  • Nov 26,2008 at 7:15 am

    Can we stop using words like “onus?”

  • Nov 25,2008 at 1:43 pm

    [quote=Mop66]See Forum Topic #168059. The final outcome was to make them alias to each other and not to use an ANV.[/quote]
    Ah, I missed that. Thanks, “alias” is certainly the lesser of the two evils.

    [quote=hmvh]Hrrmmphff: Disagreement. I’d recommend that “transferred” credits (that appeared on the source of the copy2draft but not the “new” release) are removed altogether. For all we know, they never really did appear on the original (and may not even be incorrect). No need for fuel to propagate potential errors. [/quote]
    [quote=nik]Thanks for the thoughts on this. I think there has to be a compromise here. Firstly, I don’t see a lot of problem with the way users currently do things. For sure, we have to be on the lookout for bad info getting copied between releases, but also we have to allow obvious and straightforward usage of the site without putting obstacles in the way unless it is really necessary.[/quote]
    [quote=maxxyme]What if you’re about to submit the UK edition of a US CD album..??
    Several (dozens of) credits gone and you have to enter them again? I can see that problem… [/quote]
    Perhaps I need to elaborate: Yes, the copy2draft function is a fantastic one, especially for releases that have a HUGE amount of credits and what have you. Of course it’d be unreasonable to expect or force the submitter to re-type everything from scratch (and possibly add mistakes). That would be obscenely counter-productive.

    What, however, this here user wants is for “credits” that appear on one version (source) but not the other (target) to be eliminated. Since it’s impossible to automate this, the onus does lie with the submitter to manually remove those roles and names that do not appear on the “new” release (database record) for whatever reason or, conversely, even add those that were missing on the “source” release.
    The second part may be optional but the former should be mandatory (and difficult to enforce).

    Besides: If MR ever becomes reality and is designed properly, it can and should deal with the “jumbled-up” credits this would appear to cause at first glance.

    Edit: non->sense

  • Nov 25,2008 at 11:01 am

    [quote=nik] TBH it wouldn’t be a high priority right now I think.[/quote]
    Fair enough, understood.

  • nik
    Nov 25,2008 at 8:57 am

    [quote=8m2stereo]re: Help/Guidelines translations,

    pls make a note somwhere that i am willing to help contribute and/or proofread
    the German version ..[/quote]

    There is a thread at http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/174872 regarding this, thanks!

  • Nov 25,2008 at 8:51 am

    re: Help/Guidelines translations,

    pls make a note somwhere that i am willing to help contribute and/or proofread
    the German version ..

  • nik
    Nov 25,2008 at 6:32 am

    [quote=Mpendulo]Why not have an edit/remove option next to the review you wrote and save all the hastle ?[/quote]

    That is a good idea, just a question of priorities for getting it done, and TBH it wouldn’t be a high priority right now I think.

  • Nov 25,2008 at 3:39 am

    [quote=nik]

    15. Reviews

    * FAQ – how do I remove a review I wrote? http://www.discogs.com/help/submissio…ew_I_Wrote

    * FAQ – how to I correct a review I wrote? http://www.discogs.com/help/submissio…ew_I_Wrote [/quote]

    Why not have an edit/remove option next to the review you wrote and save all the hastle ?

  • nik
    Nov 25,2008 at 3:22 am

    [quote=nik]* Added in guidelines for the use of Quantity and Format fields http://www.discogs.com/help/submissio…tml#Format section 1 and 2

    “Quantity (Qty) – this is used to note the number of items that is included with the release, in the particular following format. “[/quote]

    [quote=hmvh]Please add a line or two about a very common mistake users make:
    3 x File, MP3 is typically incorrectly used for a single archive (containing 3 x MP3s + 1 x JPG for instance, which is, technically also wrong since the .jpg is also a file but since we only list audio files…) Well, you get the idea. Please. [/quote]

    I have my doubts about this (unwritten) rule, I brought them up at http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/169033#2194265 and I have put it into the todo for discussion at http://wiki.discogs.com/index.php/Discogs_Guideline_Review_2009#11._Tracklisting_.28inc_all_tracklisting_field_rules.29

  • nik
    Nov 25,2008 at 3:18 am

    [quote=nik]copy to draft’ guidelines stated for credits – 3rd paragraph

    “but all credits that are not written on that version of the release should have the [Uncredited] detail added.”[/quote]

    [quote=hmvh]Hrrmmphff: Disagreement. I’d recommend that “transferred” credits (that appeared on the source of the copy2draft but not the “new” release) are removed altogether. For all we know, they never really did appear on the original (and may not even be incorrect). No need for fuel to propagate potential errors.[/quote]

    [quote=neocactar]I agree with hmvh 100% on this. [/quote]

    [quote=maxxyme]I don’t.

    What if you’re about to submit the UK edition of a US CD album..??
    Several (dozens of) credits gone and you have to enter them again? I can see that problem…

    I know, it’s the counterpart of seeing credits copied from a retail 12″ vinyl to the corresponding white-label/promo/test pressing 12″ vinyl, which only has a sticker with artist name & release title on it… but, it has to be thought about…[/quote]

    Thanks for the thoughts on this. I think there has to be a compromise here. Firstly, I don’t see a lot of problem with the way users currently do things. For sure, we have to be on the lookout for bad info getting copied between releases, but also we have to allow obvious and straightforward usage of the site without putting obstacles in the way unless it is really necessary. For example, on a lot of white labels, the only info is the cat#. Are we really going to insist that all the data (main artist, track titles etc) is blanked from these releases, when it is overwhelmingly common for these items to simply be artworkless example s of the full release (IOW, the stamper is identical, therefore the audio is identical). We can certainly discuss this more, it has been a subject of much discussion in the past, but I do think it needs a compromise solution rather than an absolute one.

  • nik
    Nov 25,2008 at 3:07 am

    [quote=AbsoluteBodyControl]Nik, why don’t you replace onus with responsibility and amalgamate with combine and that sentence would make A LOT more sense to people that don’t have english as their native language.[/quote]

    Good idea, I have done that (and changed amalgamate to combine in a few other places on that page as well).

  • Nov 25,2008 at 2:03 am

    [quote=hmvh]Hrrmmphff: Disagreement. I’d recommend that “transferred” credits (that appeared on the source of the copy2draft but not the “new” release) are removed altogether. For all we know, they never really did appear on the original (and may not even be incorrect). No need for fuel to propagate potential errors. [/quote]
    [quote=neocactar]I agree with hmvh 100% on this. [/quote]
    I don’t.

    What if you’re about to submit the UK edition of a US CD album..??
    Several (dozens of) credits gone and you have to enter them again? I can see that problem…

    I know, it’s the counterpart of seeing credits copied from a retail 12″ vinyl to the corresponding white-label/promo/test pressing 12″ vinyl, which only has a sticker with artist name & release title on it… but, it has to be thought about…

  • Nov 25,2008 at 1:26 am

    While I might have used it in a couple of occasions, the [Uncredited] tag is something I’m no fan of at all.
    Imo a discogs submission should reflect what is written on a release 100%, tagged as uncredited or not they will still be linked.

  • Nov 25,2008 at 12:33 am

    [quote=nik]copy to draft’ guidelines stated for credits – http://www.discogs.com/help/submissio…al_Sources 3rd paragraph

    “but all credits that are not written on that version of the release should have the [Uncredited] detail added.”[/quote][quote=hmvh]Hrrmmphff: Disagreement. I’d recommend that “transferred” credits (that appeared on the source of the copy2draft but not the “new” release) are removed altogether. For all we know, they never really did appear on the original (and may not even be incorrect). No need for fuel to propagate potential errors. [/quote]
    I agree with hmvh 100% on this.

    Some of the other updates are nice to see, like the Unique release clarification and the record label/company information.

  • Nov 24,2008 at 6:09 pm

    ^[url=http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/175206#2238776]Onus = reponsibility => seems my comment on languages for Help section might help-out for this, instead of the basic babelfish/google translate usage by users[/url]^
    ____________________________
    [quote=nik]A new structure for proposing, discussing, and implementing guidelines will be worked out and put into place very soon. [/quote]
    …preferable including a better timeline feature for expected site improvements/bug fixes than the rather ‘blowing in the wind’ thing of Disbugs we currently have now.

    For example, many users are wondering roughly when MR is likely to finally make an appearance (or not?), or even when many simple bug fixes that are still outstanding are going to be sorted; but the Disbugs doesn’t give us this in any kind of “time expected: December 2009” type way.

    Communication *with time expected* by site mgmt is really the key to stop users getting grumpy :-)

  • Nov 24,2008 at 4:33 pm
  • Nov 24,2008 at 4:33 pm

    Regarding the Original Mix update. I agree that these phrases are excessive.
    But if a user for example does a search for “extreme trax on the run original” as displayed on the digital shop he purchased it, it will not show up on the search results.
    Maybe this should be added to the notes? “Tracks appear with Orginal Mix on digital download sites”. Only for searching purposes. This may seem stupid, but I thought I would mention it.

  • Nov 24,2008 at 4:27 pm

    OK, I’ve been talking to a friend in the US and he explained it to me.

    Nik, why don’t you replace onus with responsibility and amalgamate with combine and that sentence would make A LOT more sense to people that don’t have english as their native language.

  • Nov 24,2008 at 4:16 pm

    [quote=nik]The onus is on the user wishing to amalgamate[/quote]

    Can you please use normal English words in your guidelines. I’ve been speaking English for over 25 years now, but I’ve never heard of onus and amalgamate before, so that guideline doesn’t make sense to me at all.

  • Nov 24,2008 at 4:00 pm

    About the File quantity this is written in the description of File on the Formats List (http://www.discogs.com/help/formatslist):
    “For any computer file based format. A number in front of the File format should not be used to describe how many files there are. The only accepted file formats are AAC, MP3, ogg-vorbis, and WMA at the moment.”

    But yes, this should have a line in the Formats section.
    If not the same long description, just a short note that File is an exception. Then something like “for more info see the description in the Formats List”.
    Well you tell me…

  • Nov 24,2008 at 3:45 pm

    Release Notes clarification…
    [quote=nik]10. Release Notes

    * URLs printed on a release are valid for the notes section. Links are forbidden. [/quote]
    This sounds fine, however it should be a little bit more specific to avoid those is it/isn’t it allowed discussions on subs. eg:
    [b]
    * URLs printed on a release are valid for the notes section. They should be entered with or without the “html://” part on the front, following how they are actually written on the release. Making any external links active by using HTML coding to link them is however forbidden.[/b]

    …it’s a small thing I quickly noticed, but it has many a time been the subject of heated discussion about the validity of whether adding the “html://” part should/shouldn’t be done.
    I figure if we’re following the [i]as on release[/i] philosophy these days, this would be much clearer.
    _____________________

    Digital formats expansion…

    The http://www.discogs.com/help/formatslist needs to have ALL the digital formats (or at least most of them) available. eg. AIFF’s, RIFF’s are missing amongst others.
    _____________________

    Languages for Help…

    As this site gets increasingly used by many second/low/non-English language speakers, the whole of the Help sections should really be translated to aid these users.
    Of course the base language for the data side of the site should remain as one single language, English, but that doesn’t stop the Help being more useful for these users to be clear on the right/wrong rules when they are unsure.
    Perhaps to start: French, Spanish, German, Japanese, Chinese (with Italian, Portuguese, others? to follow)

  • Nov 22,2008 at 11:33 am

    [quote=marcelrecords]Or is there some room for common sense in a case like this? [/quote]
    I would agree that common sense should be used here. From my PoV this is just fine. Although I will update the title in my submissions when I am going to update anyhow. But just to go back to all these subs and adapt it? I don’t think should be our goal.

  • Nov 22,2008 at 11:02 am

    Well… I had the same question as hmvh

    [quote=hmvh]”Quantity (Qty) – this is used to note the number of items that is included with the release, in the particular following format. ”

    Please add a line or two about a very common mistake users make:
    3 x File, MP3 is typically incorrectly used for a single archive (containing 3 x MP3s + 1 x JPG for instance, which is, technically also wrong since the .jpg is also a file but since we only list audio files…) Well, you get the idea. Please.[/quote]
    But more generally, the files to downloaded on the digital stores are not available in a archive file, but directly!

  • Nov 18,2008 at 12:13 am

    [quote=comkai]if i’m not mistaken, please outline matrix in run-outs is not = cat#.
    people already start adding the run-out etching as a 2nd cat#[/quote]

    A matrix is a matrix and a cat# is a cat#, the two shouldn’t be mixed up or used in place of each other. Anyone doing what your describing is doing it wrong.

  • Nov 18,2008 at 12:09 am

    [u=RSG]:
    2. Two titles listed on the front but with one more prominent than the other: normally, only the more prominent title should be entered as the release title, but external sources can be taken into account.
    Does this really mean that a release like:
    http://www.discogs.com/release/1536731
    should only have the A-side listed as title?
    Or is there some room for common sense in a case like this? If ”equally prominent” is to be taken literally, then the bulk of the singles with picture sleeve should be updated…

  • Nov 17,2008 at 11:39 pm

    [quote=hmvh]Correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t maiden and married names made ANVs of one another (however twisted that actually is)?
    Irrespective, clarification here is needed. [/quote]
    See [t=168059]. The final outcome was to make them alias to each other and not to use an ANV.

  • Nov 17,2008 at 10:02 pm

    [quote=nik]Regarding catalog numbers, it should be noted that all catalog number variations should now all be entered in the catalog number fields, and should not be entered into the notes section as previously.[/quote]
    Imo notes should stay too to indicate which cat# writing is used where on the release.

  • Nov 17,2008 at 9:39 pm

    [quote=nik]4. Label / [b]Catalog Number[/b]

    * If the catalog number appears in different formats on the release (for example “ABC-001” and “abc1”), enter all the versions of the catalog number in separate catalog number fields.
    [/quote]

    if i’m not mistaken, please outline matrix in run-outs is not = cat#.
    people already start adding the run-out etching as a 2nd cat#

  • Nov 17,2008 at 3:32 pm

    [quote=nik]ANVs should not be used for any fundamental name changes, such as surname changes. In these cases, an Alias is more appropriate. http://www.discogs.com/help/submissio…iation_ANV [/quote]
    Correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t maiden and married names made ANVs of one another (however twisted that actually is)?
    Irrespective, clarification here is needed.

    [quote=nik]* Added a guideline forbidding for: Prefixing “CD1.” in front of a release that only contains one CD, Prefixing with zeros or punctuation, and Suffixing with punctuation – http://www.discogs.com/help/submissio…l#Position near the end [/quote]
    You recently wrote about [url=http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/174834#2229768]unnecessary punctuation[/url] (makes listing for global credit ranges ugly and unwieldy). Though I’m sure it’ll get vetoed… I can’t say I’m fond of spaces in track listings either.

    [quote=nik]copy to draft’ guidelines stated for credits – http://www.discogs.com/help/submissio…al_Sources 3rd paragraph [/quote]
    “but all credits that are not written on that version of the release should have the [Uncredited] detail added.”

    Hrrmmphff: Disagreement. I’d recommend that “transferred” credits (that appeared on the source of the copy2draft but not the “new” release) are removed altogether. For all we know, they never really did appear on the original (and may not even be incorrect). No need for fuel to propagate potential errors.

    [quote=nik]Unofficial Release Label Names guidelines added – http://www.discogs.com/help/submissio…abel_Names [/quote]
    Me understands. Not sure if everyone else will. An example would be good here.

    [quote=nik]* Added in guidelines for the use of Quantity and Format fields http://www.discogs.com/help/submissio…tml#Format section 1 and 2 [/quote]
    “Quantity (Qty) – this is used to note the number of items that is included with the release, in the particular following format. ”

    Please add a line or two about a very common mistake users make:
    [i]3 x File, MP3[/i] is typically incorrectly used for a single archive (containing 3 x MP3s + 1 x JPG for instance, which is, technically also wrong since the .jpg is also a file but since we only list audio files…) Well, you get the idea. Please.

    ———

    The rest (of what I’ve read through) is OK.

Leave A Reply