Update to the submission limit

As of now we are working with a new system to help us manage the number of submissions in a much more dynamic way. The first stage of this system has just been turned on, you may notice a fairly radical reduction in the number of submissions and updates you can make.

The reasons for this shift is to reduce submitter and moderator frustration with the length of the queue, and to try to make the queue shorter and more free flowing as a result. I don’t believe it does anyone any favours by letting items sit in the queue for months only to be rejected, it makes the site submission process feel sluggish and overwhelms moderators.

This will be the first in a series of behind-the-scenes changes to the submission limit. Over the coming weeks and months, we will be working further with the whole system to try to make a much more accurate submission limit for everyone. We are planning to make the submission limit variable on a per user basic, taking into account the quality of each users submissions by various means.

This new system does not use the existing rank points system. The existing ranking system should now be seen as a legacy system that will probably be removed altogether at some point. I don’t believe that we should be trying to ‘reward’ or encourage submissions based on points scores, and that this only leads to problems such as rank hunting.

This new system will give users (who make complete, accurate, well documented submissions and updates) a higher submission limit. It will also lower users submission limits who fail to make acceptable submissions, or who make submissions that need a lot of moderator work to be accepted.

It is vital that the Discogs system is seen as a fair, open to all system that rewards conscientious users who take their time with their submissions, and understand the need to enter accurate information and to make moderation as easy as possible.

I apologise in advance for any annoyance felt with the reduced submission limits, and I beg you to bear with us as we tinker with the system and try to hone it.

[b]This topic is now locked, please see the new topic for the latest info – http://www.discogs.com/forums/topic?topic_id=133076[/b]

Return to Discogs Blog
97 Comments
  • Apr 25,2007 at 14:07

    I havnt read this whole thread..just skimmed through so I apologise if this has been mentioned before..but
    How about having a new set of moderators who have a reasonable amount of experience who are only able to moderate image submissions and relatively simple stuff therefore leaving the more experienced mods to get on with the more serious stuff?

  • Dec
    Apr 25,2007 at 13:54

    [quote=DS_Helder]However, we could add the effect of FIFO by “uncounting” submissions not moderated (or updated) for (say) 3 months, thus letting the submitter add a new release.[/quote]
    We should (using some kind of automation) look at submissions where the submitter did a “hit and run”: submitting, and then never logging in again to check comments and make requested corrections. Maybe they forgot, maybe the email address they signed up with doesn’t work, but if the submitter never logs in again, they can’t make requested changes to their submission.
    After a set period of time has elapsed, these should be considered as “abandoned”, and either N-voted out of the queue (automatically), or opened for editing by a Mod, or by a normal user who has the release in their collection, and who has logged in recently.
    This would only apply to users who have not logged in since contributing to the queue, not to users who at least bother to check their contributions for comments.

    This is more important for edits than it is for new releases, because edits “lock” the release from any further editing.

  • Apr 25,2007 at 09:53

    [quote=fleshmeatdoll]with regards to the below average submitters’ submissions:
    just no-vote and write to consult the submission guide![/quote]

    Which would alienate new submitters, many of whom don’t understand what is wrong even after having read the RSG, and who leave, taking valuable submission time away.

    The best way to deal with inexperienced submitters is to help them understand what the problems are. This will groom them into better submitters as time goes on. LImiting their submissions means that we can deal with their submission process a couple at a time, but we should still take the time to help them…

  • Apr 25,2007 at 04:08

    [u=nik], have you ever considered closing the Q to allow the backlog to be processed?

    If I were in your shoes, I’d make the Q automatically shut @ midnight on the last day of each month, and automatically re-open as soon as the last pending is processed. Then the Q will never be longer than 1 month old. Every time this has been done before, the Q has disappeared amazingly fast as the mods can see the Q evaporating (no new subs) then they tend to up their work rate to get the job finished.

    I can see a lot of benefits with this over submission limits.

  • Apr 25,2007 at 02:58

    [quote=nik]and will restrict below average submitters so the queue doesn’t get clogged up with hard / messy submissions / updates. [/quote]

    i dont think the majority of “hard/ messy submissions” are due to below average submitters. i think (from my experience) the opposite is true: they are from above average submitters who
    include all credits (with several new artists)
    or submit,
    styles and releases from countrys most moderators cant comment or have access to (sure bet that japanese releases have to pend for 4 months minimum)

    with regards to the below average submitters’ submissions:
    just no-vote and write to consult the submission guide!

    [quote=tosmcgee]KISS (Keep It Simple for Stupid)[/quote]

    as i and other said earlier,
    change the moderation process!

  • Apr 25,2007 at 02:53

    nice one nik :)

  • nik
    Apr 25,2007 at 02:32

    [quote=tosmcgee]Reducing or keeping the pendings at a retricted level will not answer the inherent problem, moderators need help. [/quote]

    I don’t want to repeat myself, but keeping the queue at a reasonable level is going to help us make the waiting times radically lower than they are just now, once the current pile of submissions is reduced (could take 2 months or more for this to happen). A short and controlled queue is in everyone’s benefit as it keeps things fresh and manageable, and means we eliminate 3/4/5/6 month waits for thin gs to be processed.

    This first move is only going to reduce the queue, nothing else!

    There are then other functions to add on to the new system that will allow quality submitters to open up their submission limit fast, and will restrict below average submitters so the queue doesn’t get clogged up with hard / messy submissions / updates.

    We will then look at further ways to raise the number of submissions accepted, but this is a separate task.

    [quote=SeRKeT]I’d like to see a separate limit on Images[/quote]

    The image limit will change soon, along with all the other limits, once we have that part of the new system in place.

  • Apr 25,2007 at 02:21

    oh one more thing
    Kergillian
    I’d like to see a separate limit on Images since they tend to fly through the queue (they’re pretty easy to mod…). Like, I have a limit of 19 subs, and just over 60 pendings at the moment. Maybe add a limit of 25 images, completely separate to the regular pendings…? That way I could start scanning booklets again…

    i think what is said here will reduce the queue very quickly :)
    well said Kergillian

  • Apr 25,2007 at 02:04

    much as there are many valid points to the submission limit being decreased for all users it’s not all hunky dory, for example a mod has looked at some of my submissions/edits but not all of them .How much longer would it have taken to view all ”SIX” of them >>2 minutes maximum lol ,so…. in answer to the suggestion that the queue will go down quicker i say ahem!!!

  • Apr 24,2007 at 01:14

    [quote=steady-j]I can imagine a system evolving in the background where perhaps moderators “mark” each submission a bit like the new ebay feedback system, with marks out of 5 for basic information accuracy, research (e.g. cross checking credits), richness of supporting comments, speed of response to moderation, attitude, etc. All this would feed your new “rank” score and hence your pending limit.[/quote]
    Bad idea, friends would automatically be given higher ranks than other users.

  • Apr 23,2007 at 15:22

    [quote=roisto]The queues will only be hidden in users’ draft folders, which will quickly become a problem for the site itself as fewer and fewer new releases can be found here.[/quote]

    I think the point about the changes is that the pile of outstanding submissions will gradually migrate across from users who generate poor entries to those who generate good ones that are quickly accepted. This will happen as the “good” submitters get longer queues as the new rules pan out. Meanwhile “bad” submitters will not be able to move stuff from draft to pending, but in the mean time chances are that the same release will be submitted to pending by someone else with space in their queue.

    We all just have to take a hit for the time being whilw the mess is sorted out.

    I can imagine a system evolving in the background where perhaps moderators “mark” each submission a bit like the new ebay feedback system, with marks out of 5 for basic information accuracy, research (e.g. cross checking credits), richness of supporting comments, speed of response to moderation, attitude, etc. All this would feed your new “rank” score and hence your pending limit.

  • Apr 23,2007 at 14:18

    Nik

    You sound as if you are defending the current retraint on submissions.

    [quote=nik]Balancing this seems a rational and useful procedure[/quote]

    I presume that means a constant pending list of 22000.
    Where there will always be some very old submissions.

    I would agree with roisto the drafts build up until full at some stage. I am a collector and my current buying habit will fill the draft very quickly. Then we wait… and wait … and wait ….

    Why ! because modders are busy modding the queue goes up and down but at 2000 releases a week then it will take 11 weeks to clear to zero. So there will be on average 3 months waiting time.
    Reducing or keeping the pendings at a retricted level will not answer the inherent problem, moderators need help.

    At what stage does the moderators forum believe there has to be a radical change to the modding method.

    Guzzer has already said he will not mod certain items.
    And it is common knowledge that moderators will stay away from, let’s say the truth here, submittors they just don’t like.

    It is time to CHANGE and come up with a better moderating method.

    And also keep it simple, so that it becomes a pleasure to submit and moderate.
    KISS (Keep It Simple for Stupid)

  • Apr 23,2007 at 13:06

    [quote=teo]They’d be forced to do submissions they may know nothing about.[/quote]

    They’d be forced into submissions they may not find interesting …

    Or they’d be forced in to handling submissions from people who are not in the “friends” list

    Or they’d be forced into handling submissions from other people but themselves..

    ( mods shouldn’t be allowed into voting on own submissions…)

  • Apr 23,2007 at 12:45

    [quote=teo]Moderation is all volunteer so I don’t think it would be fair to force them to work on things FIFO. They’d be forced to do submissions they may know nothing about. Moderations should be done by interest and that’s why we have to many options to help mods find things they want to mod.[/quote]

    I thinks that’s a sound practice. However, we could add the effect of FIFO by “uncounting” submissions not moderated (or updated) for (say) 3 months, thus letting the submitter add a new release. I don’t know how helpfull this will be in practice, but if it makes people happier, why not? Even more reason to do so, now that unfinished submission will be punished.

  • Apr 23,2007 at 10:08

    [quote=burpie]Another other suggestion… [/quote]
    see: http://www.discogs.com/forums/topic?topic_id=131584#1717179

  • Apr 23,2007 at 09:59

    Another other suggestion…

    -Fifo ( first in first out )

  • Apr 23,2007 at 08:58

    [quote=nik]This new system does not use the existing rank points system.[/quote]

    So one does not earn points anymore when adding images to old releases?

  • nik
    Apr 23,2007 at 07:15

    [quote=roisto]The queues will only be hidden in users’ draft folders, which will quickly become a problem for the site itself as fewer and fewer new releases can be found here.[/quote]

    This isn’t true. The same number of releases will be added to the database each week (and we will try to make it so MORE releases can be added per week, if possible).

    The ONLY impact of this change is forcing submitters to make the best use of their pending limit.

    Adding more and more submissions to the pending pile does no one any good, they have to be going out as well as coming in. Balancing this seems a rational and useful procedure, otherwise the queue will grow and grow, causing submissions to wait 6 months or longer to be reviewed, which is not efficient for anyone.

    We will be working more on the system, so that accurate submitters get a bigger submission limit, and below average submitters get a smaller limit (and hopefully some help as well).

  • Apr 22,2007 at 17:03

    I’m fine with the site, and don’t bother stressing out about it too much any more. The only thing that I pay much attention to is the Marketplace features.

  • Apr 22,2007 at 17:02

    [quote=fleshmeatdoll]lol, what are you trying to express.[/quote]

    Nothing, just making some observations.

  • Apr 22,2007 at 15:28

    i don’t care about the submission limit for adding releases.
    fuck the rank system!
    glad to see nik cleaning all that mess. keep the control.
    my submission limit is now xx-small..it’s fine!
    i can’t wait to see new system…

  • Apr 22,2007 at 08:10

    [quote=Vinyl_For_Sale_By_Radius]Maybe someone will launch a counter site to take some of the burden off of Discogs.[/quote]

    [quote=Vinyl_For_Sale_By_Radius]I guess valuable moderators are hard to come by.[/quote]

    lol, what are you trying to express.

  • Apr 21,2007 at 23:51

    I guess valuable moderators are hard to come by.

  • Apr 21,2007 at 21:27

    [quote=fleshmeatdoll]
    we all hope that these measures will change something for the better, but i doubt the reduction of the submission limit will actually help on the quest to make discogs THE complete database of music.

    [b]this measure does not help to reduce the queue, it just spreads it invisibly over the draft folders of the users[/b] and with this hides the actual dilemma discogs faces:

    with more and more users joining at an increasing rate from all over the world, with more and more music being published newly every day, discogs is not actually “getting closer every day”, but further away from its goal.

    however refined the selection process for new moderators will turn out to be (it sure is getting even more obscure and illuminati, if you ask me), it will still be a system that cannot keep up the paste of new publications worldwide (not the least because moderators, though elected, have no actual benefit of their “work”).

    what i think we need is not a reduced submission limit, it is a reform of the moderation process that either involves ALL available ressources/ users in the process or introduces some professional full-time moderators.[/quote]

    You just expressed my exact thoughts on this. The queues will only be hidden in users’ draft folders, which will quickly become a problem for the site itself as fewer and fewer new releases can be found here.

  • Apr 21,2007 at 16:42

    Maybe someone will launch a counter site to take some of the burden off of Discogs.

  • Apr 21,2007 at 06:38

    Forgot to suggest something…
    Of course you could do it the other way around. Employ the ultra-reliable mods/editors to clear the queue’s, THEN use the new system to keep those queue’s moving quicker.

    In employing these select people, you could opt for more part-time positions instead, as I’m sure these guys are likely to have current jobs & responsibilities outside of Discogs to which they would not/could not be able to escape from.

    …all dependent on your revenue streams for the site –are they high enough to be able to do this?– that is, of course, the biggest question only perhaps Teo knows?

  • Apr 21,2007 at 04:01

    I think this proposal (well, it’s not proposed, but rather [i]actual[/i] now) is good. However only in the SHORT-TERM until the queue’s are lowered considerably — perhaps 6-9 months.

    In the long-run, the only REAL way to get things moving is for some professionalism of some kind to be brought about on Discogs: FULL TIMERS who get paid for doing the work.

    This could be done on a ‘per unit’ basis or perhaps a monthly target for the professional mod or similar. However, this needs VERY careful consideration, and only the most trusted of individuals should be given the job.
    Due to the possibility of just offering Y and N votes for the money regardless of the quality of moderation, in order to either collect as much money as possible (if ‘per unit’ payment) or just meeting the monthly minimum target in order to collect payment.

    I don’t see how adding professionalism is a bad thing per se. Let’s face it, none of us would do our non-Discogs jobs without payment, and any employer of whatever type requires that standards are maintained, so presumably this should be operable within Discogs too.

    The only thing this brings into the mix, is contracts of employment and under which basis people are employed (long-term/short-term/casual & freelance/employees/self-employed/etc.). This is, as always, a legality that businesses around the world do on a daily basis. And I’m sure Teo has had to work through employing people already in various jobs (Nik for example? — I don’t know your arrangements, obviously, given that they are private!), so surely this isn’t an insurmountable task to arrange on a broader scale.

    It just seems to be inevitable to me. We have roughly 750k releases on here so far, however each year in just the UK for example, at least 50k releases are released or recieve distribution here (source: Juno.co.uk –> around 600-1200 releases added to their new releases weekly) [i]PLUS[/i] all those 1000’s that don’t sell on that site, you find in more commercial shops on the high street (HMV/Virgin –> reissues/compilation albums/etc.) [i]PLUS[/i] other minority-interest releases and shop sources.
    If you scale this up to the N. American market, S. American market, the Far-Eastern market (especially!), etc., [i]PLUS[/i] digital labels and more…
    Add the 1,000,000’s of PAST releases, and ‘Houston, We Have a Problem’ comes to mind!

    We would simply be here decades at the speed of additions and edits to get a quarter of that lot done.

  • Apr 19,2007 at 00:13

    An example: See [b]Lee B. Cooper, ‘Record Labels as Gateways to Popular Music Teaching: A Bibliography and Discography’, Popular Music and Society, 29:5, 583 – 615[/b] for “a bibliography and discography that details books, essays, and compact discs that illustrate the diverse tales of more than fifty commercial labels.” Among these, we will find “authoritative discographies”.

  • Apr 18,2007 at 23:56

    [quote=shatter]How authoritative is a source with misleading info? [/quote]

    “Authoritative” is “straight from the source”, “supported by evidence”, “result of a thorough research” etc, etc. Generally it is a source with data collected in a just as (or even more) critical method as Discogs.

    When I’m saying “misleading”, I am only stating the obvious; Even the more most critical reviewed science article can contain errors (typos, unclear statements etc).

    Discogs is full of errors / missing info, even if we’ve got a critical moderation process. It wouldn’t hurt to trust sources built on even more critical (read “professional”) info collection – *if* “the quest [is] to make discogs THE complete database of music”.

  • Apr 18,2007 at 19:59

    Unfortunately, the “release in your hand,” theory has always seemed to take a backseat to convenience. In the early days, I understood this, but since V2, there really isn’t any justifying it.

  • Apr 18,2007 at 13:17

    [quote=fleshmeatdoll]the quest to make discogs THE complete database of music.
    [/quote]

    Just curious: What do you mean by “complete” – the releases or the artist info?

    Well, I guess this has been discussed earlier, but… If it’s releases, we could start by collecting all available info from authoritative sources on artists or labels – be it artist’s/label’s web sites or books like [url=http://www.upress.state.ms.us/catalog/fall2003/trumpet_records.html]this[/url]. That would give us (at least close to) complete discographies of (at least some “important”) labels and – to a lesser extent – artists.

    What we would miss then, is the detailed info like cover pics (but that’s already missing on a lot of included releases) and contributing artists. It’s the interlinking of artists that makes Discogs most valuable, but I do believe the common music lover and the man behind the counter in Amsterdam (see above) would be happy to wait a little on the details, if they could use Discogs as the place to find “complete” discographies.

    Details (pics, contributing artists etc) could be added later, along with fixing mistakes or misleading info from the authoritative sources. It wouldn’t be any different from how we’re already mending releases included in Discogs.

  • Apr 18,2007 at 05:36

    [i]professional full-time moderators.[/i]

    I think, and can name a few others that fell under that role. ;)

  • Apr 18,2007 at 05:30

    [quote=fleshmeatdoll](it sure is getting even more obscure and illuminati, if you ask me)[/quote]
    I assume you’re referring to ANV? Which yes I agree with you. But think about it, it makes the most sense to use this method. Another complication is the format change but again I think this is for the best and all new methods take a while to settle in.

    Looking to the future, no of course Discogs will never be complete. A reduction in the number of physical releases and maybe eventually a move to digital only releases (*sniff*) this I think will lead to easier moderation (weblinks)

    Remember Discogs is quite young but is growing at a phenomenal rate. I was in Amsterdam recently, checking out some record shops when I noticed the guy behind the counter looking up a tune on his PC for a punter, straight to Discogs to check the label page. You can’t help but feel proud to be part of it.

    Back on topic. The recent credit checks are a huge step forward in preventing tiny mistakes preventing entries getting into the database. And I know there’s more automation planned. Mods and submitters do not want to be bogged down with small technicalities, we’re more interested in seeing those releases added and discovering new music.

    I think with users having more entries in their drafts they might actually treat their pendings with more care knowing they are now limited. They’ll get in eventually – there’s no rush.

    [quote=fleshmeatdoll]introduces some professional full-time moderators.[/quote]
    This is a great idea, I know I feel like a full time moderator at the moment!

  • Apr 18,2007 at 05:08

    [quote=fleshmeatdoll]with more and more music being published newly every day, discogs is not actually “getting closer every day”, but further away from its goal. [/quote]
    Just applying some logic; how can we get further away from our goal by rationalising the submission system?

  • Apr 18,2007 at 04:49

    we all hope that these measures will change something for the better, but i doubt the reduction of the submission limit will actually help on the quest to make discogs THE complete database of music.

    this measure does not help to reduce the queue, it just spreads it invisibly over the draft folders of the users and with this hides the actual dilemma discogs faces:

    with more and more users joining at an increasing rate from all over the world, with more and more music being published newly every day, discogs is not actually “getting closer every day”, but further away from its goal.

    however refined the selection process for new moderators will turn out to be (it sure is getting even more obscure and illuminati, if you ask me), it will still be a system that cannot keep up the paste of new publications worldwide (not the least because moderators, though elected, have no actual benefit of their “work”).

    what i think we need is not a reduced submission limit, it is a reform of the moderation process that either involves ALL available ressources/ users in the process or introduces some professional full-time moderators.

  • Apr 18,2007 at 01:20

    [quote=djCan]Sometimes I have a release submission went through on the day of submit. On the other hand you can have a release in the queue and it is stuck for 6 months, a mod turns up and complains about a minor error like a typo or something. You change it within minutes, only to have it go back to the queue for the next 6 months.[/quote]

    as far as i’ve experienced it also depends on the style. usually electronic subs go in faster than, for example, pop and rock.

  • Apr 17,2007 at 22:50

    ok guys, i see your points.

  • Apr 17,2007 at 20:03

    [u=djCan] It can’t be first in first out. Processing submissions in exact order would mean we had to moderate artists, or genres, we know nothing about and that way mistakes get made.

    For example if I see a release on an mp3 only label, i always skip it. I just don’t know enough about them and frankly don’t care much. Other mods do.

    Also, sometimes we don’t have much time. Example: I try and do some modding over lunch at work – so I’ve got about 20- 30 mins. So then, Yes, I confess, I try and find some “quick wins”. When I’ve got more time, like at the weekend, I’ll get stuck into more complex submissions.

    Just FYI

  • Apr 17,2007 at 16:09

    Furthermore: I don’t think that an “Update to the submission limit” is an argument to repeat previous made remarks on the ‘old’ system without at least [i][b]trying[/b][/i] this for some time. In other words: you can’t complain about something you don’t know. The magic word here is: [b]trust[/b], from both sides. And yes, talking about ‘sides’ here isn’t a good sign.

  • teo
    Apr 17,2007 at 14:57

    Moderation is all volunteer so I don’t think it would be fair to force them to work on things FIFO. They’d be forced to do submissions they may know nothing about. Moderations should be done by interest and that’s why we have to many options to help mods find things they want to mod.

  • Apr 17,2007 at 14:45

    The problem with this queue IMO is that it is not delt with like it should be: FIFO is the magic word, but the mods are processing by preferences. Sometimes I have a release submission went through on the day of submit. On the other hand you can have a release in the queue and it is stuck for 6 months, a mod turns up and complains about a minor error like a typo or something. You change it within minutes, only to have it go back to the queue for the next 6 months. This is what I don’t understand, someone enlighten me please if I’m totally wrong. If you mods would care about the first-in-first-out concept it really does no matter how big the queue gets (if this is no storage problem of course). Btw – what is my draft limit? ;-)

  • Apr 17,2007 at 13:27

    [url=http://www.discogs.com/forums/topic?topic_id=131622]some words of wisdom regarding the change in submission limits[/url]

  • Apr 17,2007 at 12:22

    I’ve kept an eye on the queue as well, Kergillian. The drop in Add Releases is something about 3-400 units. In the Funk / Soul section it have either grown or been relatively unchanged. The drop in Edit Releases is bigger, perhaps as much as 1’000 units.

  • Apr 17,2007 at 12:15

    >> [url=http://www.discogs.com/image/R-829963-1163130828.jpeg]Only Time Will Tell[/url]

  • Apr 17,2007 at 11:33

    Well, the queue has been dropping steadily over the last day ;)

  • Apr 17,2007 at 04:41

    In other words, we’re making the system more effective =).

  • nik
    Apr 17,2007 at 02:51

    [quote=doctor_trance]Big problem with this, as many mods don’t have a clue and due to their ignorance of rules, your release, or your explanation of something, then the submitter gets penalized?
    [/quote]

    Use the submission complaint system for that. Must be a valid complaint, of course…

    [quote=Kergillian]I’m still more concerned about having to worry over random user X demanding corrections that shouldn’t be made, and that having an affect. Because that happens much more often in my eyes than mod issues…[/quote]

    There is nothing wrong with the odd correction etc if it is needed, it’s not like the system is going to be set up so it penalises honest submitters. If you are an above average submitter, you will get a larger individual submission limit. Some of the best, most consistent, most helpful submitters will end up with a much larger submission limit – the good guys win!

    [quote=ivo6]can you at least allow ANV conversions and other things that need editor votes. My only concern here is the quality of the database. [/quote]

    At the moment the editor queue is treated the same. As things go on, we will look at the queues and how things are working.

    [quote=Kergillian]I’d like to see a separate limit on Images since they tend to fly through the queue (they’re pretty easy to mod…). Like, I have a limit of 19 subs, and just over 60 pendings at the moment. Maybe add a limit of 25 images, completely separate to the regular pendings…? That way I could start scanning booklets again…[/quote]

    They may be easy, but they all take time to mod, and so should be part of the same limits.

  • Apr 17,2007 at 02:11

    will we be able to see our “performance” rate, i.e. the way we’re viewed by mods?

  • Apr 16,2007 at 23:59

    [u=nik], can you at least allow ANV conversions and other things that need editor votes. My only concern here is the quality of the database.

    [quote=nik]

    ivo6
    I am not very happy about this.
    Everytime I see errors in the database or artist names that need ANV conversion, merge or whatever, I immediately make a submission. At this moment I can’t do this anymore, so I have to stop cleaning up those things.

    I am sorry you are unhappy. You will just have to wait until your submissions are processed, then you will be able to get stuck in again. [/quote]

  • Apr 16,2007 at 21:51

    [quote=royb0t]I would think image submissions would be the easiest to get submitted (so it’s been my experience so far). And I really want to submit a lot more too. Will the be more leeway for updates like those versus the edits that are either minor (ex: just adding the “album” format) or major (ex: overhauling everything, extraArtist credits, notes galore, etc. etc.)? [/quote]

    To be honest, I’d like to see a separate limit on Images since they tend to fly through the queue (they’re pretty easy to mod…). Like, I have a limit of 19 subs, and just over 60 pendings at the moment. Maybe add a limit of 25 images, completely separate to the regular pendings…? That way I could start scanning booklets again…

  • Apr 16,2007 at 21:48

    [quote=doctor_trance] They indirectly influenced users submissions before, with n and y voting in submissions, but now they will directly be involved in determining how good a user is? I don’t think so. If this is how it’s gonna be, I am out of here, as there are too many mods on here who give nonsense comments and incorrect no votes, and this should not determine a submitters effectiveness. [/quote]

    In theory, they already influence rank. as you can’t gain in rank unless they vote your subs in.

    That aside, in all honesty, I’ve only personally encountered a couple of erroneous N-votes, and usually on complicated updates. A couple out of hundreds of subs and updates is a pretty good margin for error. I’ve seen a few others here and there, but more often than not I’ve noticed more of a problem with incorrect Y-Voting than incorrect N-Voting (which would not AVERSELY affect one’s ‘rank’…).

    No system is infallible. But having our submissions process monitored, and our limits upgraded or downgraded based upon our abilities to sub and the type of sub/uprate we submit is better than flat rank points for anything whatsoever…

    I give [u=nik] and [u=teo] the benefit of the doubt that they’ll read our concerns and take them into consideration. And I’m still more concerned about having to worry over random user X demanding corrections that shouldn’t be made, and that having an affect. Because that happens much more often in my eyes than mod issues…

  • Apr 16,2007 at 20:34

    I would think image submissions would be the easiest to get submitted (so it’s been my experience so far). And I really want to submit a lot more too. Will the be more leeway for updates like those versus the edits that are either minor (ex: just adding the “album” format) or major (ex: overhauling everything, extraArtist credits, notes galore, etc. etc.)?

    I’m assuming that some sort of monitoring how frequent users login or are active in the forums would also aid in determining how to increase the submission limits. Not sure if that’d be a tough one with forums, or legitimate forum discussion, but at least logins. Also probably something like for all submissions that requires no discussion would elevate the submission limits. However it’ll be determined.

    I am kinda bummed I can’t add a coupla Pitchshifter releases I just picked up not on discogs yet (personal goal the past few months). But if overall this will expedite the moderating process, then I can hang tight.

  • Apr 16,2007 at 18:12

    [quote=Kergillian] or that mods have to repeatedly ask the submitter to do something with[/quote]

    Big problem with this, as many mods don’t have a clue and due to their ignorance of rules, your release, or your explanation of something, then the submitter gets penalized?

    This is absolutely wrong in every way, as this gives even more power to mods then ever before. They indirectly influenced users submissions before, with n and y voting in submissions, but now they will directly be involved in determining how good a user is? I don’t think so. If this is how it’s gonna be, I am out of here, as there are too many mods on here who give nonsense comments and incorrect no votes, and this should not determine a submitters effectiveness.

    This proposal is absolute and utter crap.

  • Apr 16,2007 at 17:34

    @tosmcgee – that’s too simplistic, who decides the ranks and what’s to stop someone creating a dozen accounts and modding their own subs? It can be done with a bit more work though. Raph Levien’s trust metric work could work: http://advogato.org/trust-metric.html

  • Apr 16,2007 at 17:31

    [quote=tosmcgee]In reality the increasing size of the queue over time indicates a fact overlooked by the powers that be. ‘People want to contribute’. So why stop them by cutting back their input.[/quote]

    No, what he means, I think, is that submissions that need a ton of corrections, or that mods have to repeatedly ask the submitter to do something with, will be tagged…

  • Apr 16,2007 at 16:21

    Agree with point 2 Kergillian.

    But the wording by nik concerns me
    [quote=nik]It will also lower users submission limits who fail to make acceptable submissions, or who make submissions that need a lot of moderator work to be accepted[/quote]

    The second part of that sentence implies that longer submissions with lots of checking will lower the limit.

    In reality the increasing size of the queue over time indicates a fact overlooked by the powers that be. ‘People want to contribute’. So why stop them by cutting back their input.

    Why not address the problem directly ‘look at different ways of moderating’ which will lead to speedier acceptance into discogs.
    At present pending method works very well with plenty of non moderators helping others.

    I mentioned before and i will mention again.
    Seed your members Moderators High Ranking & Low Ranking and ordinary members.
    Where, say, 5 ordinary members accept a pending release let it in.
    Where 2 low ranking members accept let it in.
    Where 1 low ranking and 2 non moderators accept let it in.
    A high ranking moderator needs one vote.
    Allowing ordinary members their vote will help speed up most submissions as i have seen plenty of pending submissions with 10 or more owners.

  • Apr 16,2007 at 14:45

    [quote=Kergillian]2) I think that the more effort one puts into a submission or update, the more they should benefit from it. If you add all credits, a ton of scans, etc, you should benefit more than someone who does the bare minimum. I think that people should be strongly encouraged to do as much as possible with a release – especially since it will eventually cut down the queue as people won’t be constantly updating to add images, scans, info, etc…[/quote]
    That’s what I was trying to type above! Indeed and agreed.

  • Apr 16,2007 at 14:37

    [quote=hypernova]of course discogs needs to find a solution to the queue lenght problem it’s surely a problem if a new submitter has to wait 6 months he will probably never submit again.

    but perhaps we need to get more mods on board then rather than limit submitters who do loads of work.[/quote]

    Just to give you an idea:
    * In the last 4 months the total size of the queue increased with 10000 units & the total length increased with 2 months.
    (On Dec. 16th we had one submission pending longer than 4 months, today we have exactly one submission pending longer than 6 months.)
    * I don’t have the exact figures, but I think I won’t be far off if I say that in the last 6 months approx. 80 new moderators were added.

    Taking the above into account, adding more mods [i]only[/i] (= [b]output[/b]) will not bring a solution to the ever-growing queues.
    I really hope & expect that by tackling the [b]input[/b] of the queue the submissionproces will become smoother & faster far all in the long run.

    As with all major changes in life: you’ll always notice the loss of the benefits of the old ways first. There’s no other way than to just sit them through. Because the new way will have its benefits as well, that may even be better….

  • Apr 16,2007 at 14:36

    A few concerns I have:

    1) In terms of how many posts/mod posts/etc on a release: It should be taken into account how much editing actually has to be done. If someone is adding comments asking for corrections, but that person is WRONG, it should not affect the submitter (in fact, it should probably affect the commenter, if possible, for creating confusion)

    2) I think that the more effort one puts into a submission or update, the more they should benefit from it. If you add all credits, a ton of scans, etc, you should benefit more than someone who does the bare minimum. I think that people should be strongly encouraged to do as much as possible with a release – especially since it will eventually cut down the queue as people won’t be constantly updating to add images, scans, info, etc…

  • Apr 16,2007 at 14:12

    It’s a good thing, we need this atm. There’s no point in allowing more submissions into the queue than the amount that can be processed.

    This is part of a package of updates/changes in the system, that as a whole will be a big improvement… I have no doubts about that.

  • Apr 16,2007 at 14:04

    I never exceed submission limits, just one or two times when i’ve uploaded many pics…

    …about pics, I think we should have a separate submission limits from edit/add releases/artist, because i think it’s more simply to moderate, and surely (if edit/add go more slowly) soon we will have all pics for each release.

    However, i’m not really happy about the delete of ranking….

  • Apr 16,2007 at 13:54

    I hope this works, big sub limits would be fine if they were getting processed quickly. But in the current state of affairs at the moment I have had to hold off cataloguing the last 10% or so of my [url=http://www.discogs.com/collection?user=steady-j]collection[/url] because my queue is full. Now where I had one or two slots free there are none for the time being, so like I say I hope it works – it sounds from what nik says that this is not a simple one-step action but the beginning of a process of change

    @ [u=nik] 2 questions:

    Will historical submission accuracy be taken into account, quality of submissions up to now, not just since the new rules are introduced? I put a lot of work into submissions like [r=624277] for instance with pretty minimal moderation required

    Does the removal or partial removal of “rank” from the submission equation mean that the [url=http://www.discogs.com/stats/contributors/]contributor list[/url] will also be changed in format as a discouragement to rankhunters?

  • nik
    Apr 16,2007 at 13:45

    [quote=hypernova]it’s not a personal thing against you nik!

    i mod on several days a week and try to do my part. i also help newbies to get used to the thing with explanations other than the usual “read submission guideline” comments….

    of course discogs needs to find a solution to the queue lenght problem it’s surely a problem if a new submitter has to wait 6 months he will probably never submit again.

    but perhaps we need to get more mods on board then rather than limit submitters who do loads of work. it’s not about me only, i think there are other good submitters being limited down.
    i’m sure there are more submitter with much experience so we can let them mod too…[/quote]

    That’s a fair point hypernova. It is simply the fact that this first step is the easiest and widest ranging of all the steps, and also statistically one of the most interesting, as basically from last weeks stats we need 40% more moderations just to keep thing on a level, never mind about knock down the queue. Believe me, the last thing I want to do is limit or reduce the amount that anyone can submit, but until other measures are in place, we really are kidding ourselves if we think letting the queue grow and grow is going to do anyone any good.

    We can also look forward to the submission limit being way more dynamic (which wouldn’t be difficult as it has been totally static in the past). Every week, we will see a new limit calculated from the previous weeks goings on. We can look forward to hopefully encouraging more new users, and finding enthusiastic new mods in the general user population a LOT sooner than before. We can look forward to good solid submitters being rewarded, not by some number on a screen, but by their individual submission limit going up.
    I am also considering things like an automatic email for submitters who appear to be struggling with the system. No doubt there will be hardships and problems along the way, but really there are too many positive things in store to not expect at least some of them to work out ok for us!

  • Apr 16,2007 at 13:38

    lol – again it’s not about ranks or hall of fame or whatever, just to be able to work on without new limits.

  • Apr 16,2007 at 13:28

    [quote=hypernova]currently all are limited down as nik stated above[/quote]
    You’re right of course. But it, hopefully, is temporary. Soon the cream will be sorted from the crap, and everyone will know how good a submitter you are. =)!

  • Apr 16,2007 at 13:26

    anyway – i have posted my concerns, can’t change it anyway. i’m looking forward to positive news..

  • Apr 16,2007 at 13:25

    [quote=nik]Come on mate, read the thread… it’s because *everyone* is having their submission limit reduced[/quote]

    ^^

  • Apr 16,2007 at 13:24

    well but this will happen after a time when the system has noticed a corresponding submitter. currently all are limited down as nik stated above

  • Apr 16,2007 at 13:20

    [quote=hypernova]it’s not about me only, i think there are other good submitters being limited down. [/quote]
    I think you’re misunderstanding [u=nik]’s goal with this update. It’s the good submitters that will be rewarded, not limited down.

  • Apr 16,2007 at 13:18

    @nik

    it’s not a personal thing against you nik!

    i mod on several days a week and try to do my part. i also help newbies to get used to the thing with explanations other than the usual “read submission guideline” comments….

    of course discogs needs to find a solution to the queue lenght problem it’s surely a problem if a new submitter has to wait 6 months he will probably never submit again.

    but perhaps we need to get more mods on board then rather than limit submitters who do loads of work. it’s not about me only, i think there are other good submitters being limited down.
    i’m sure there are more submitter with much experience so we can let them mod too…

  • nik
    Apr 16,2007 at 13:03

    [quote=hypernova]@nik do you really think this makes much sense?
    i really don’t care about ranks, remove them but don’t cut our already too small submission limits.

    i add loads of stuff to be able to sell them so you gain money from this too and i’m sellin quite good regarding your bills….
    keep this in mind as well! [/quote][quote=hypernova]in the early days this was a community and discogs went big because of the community! back then the community was asked what features would be useful….

    these days someone decides to develops new features without the community …[/quote]

    I think you are wrong here, I have been repeatedly asked to help lower the submission queue since I started here, by many members of the Discogs community, namely the mods and editors, but also everyday users. Look through the forums and see how many times people have asked about the queue. Also, look in the moderators forums, where I discussed last week this very issue, and changed things about due to the feedback received. I have got no desire to be beating a lone path here, I am here to try to help the Discogs community move things forward, and most if not all of my actions are preceded by many users requests and observations.

    I think it is vital to the functioning of the site that submissions are dealt with fast, and do not pile up for months at an end. This IS a community issue, in that a certain percentage of Discogs community (the mods) are under constant pressure from the submitters to look at their submissions.

    I will be looking at some aspects of this later on, but I think we need more submitters on the other side, moderating, to balance things out. If the community wants higher submission limits, then it should look at ways to make normal users help, to encourage better submissions, etc.

  • nik
    Apr 16,2007 at 12:48

    [quote=hypernova]being reduced after over 1200 subs…. why?[/quote]

    Come on mate, read the thread… it’s because *everyone* is having their submission limit reduced, as there is no point in adding things to the queue when they can’t be moderated. This may be temporary, it may not. Submission limits can go up as well as down, and will do on at least a weekly basis for the foreseeable future.

    [quote=ivo6]I am not very happy about this.
    Everytime I see errors in the database or artist names that need ANV conversion, merge or whatever, I immediately make a submission. At this moment I can’t do this anymore, so I have to stop cleaning up those things.[/quote]

    I am sorry you are unhappy. You will just have to wait until your submissions are processed, then you will be able to get stuck in again.

    [quote=ihall]For quite some time, I’d been going about my business, unaware that this style of making small updates rather than waiting for the opportunity to update ALL information with the release in my hand was putting a strain on the system.[/quote]

    Exactly how much of a strain small updates put on the system is unknown, but it has been brought up numerous times as an issue. I believe that at least by encouraging as complete updates as possible from users like yourself may help us make the moderation task more efficient. At the same time, I am aware that sometimes only one thing jumps out for an update, or perhaps a user gets zoned into one type of error. We will be checking how things are working, and adjust as needed.

  • Apr 16,2007 at 12:46

    in the early days this was a community and discogs went big because of the community! back then the community was asked what features would be useful….

    these days someone decides to develops new features without the community …

  • Apr 16,2007 at 12:42

    @heidelbaer – sorry i do that right afterwards ;)

    once again a feature that blocks active submitters.
    i mean the queue is long yeah but decrasing sub limit is strange isn’t it? one of my pendings went in and i wanted to move a draft in that position (as i have plenty) but NO this wont work.

    @nik do you really think this makes much sense?
    i really don’t care about ranks, remove them but don’t cut our already too small submission limits.

    i add loads of stuff to be able to sell them so you gain money from this too and i’m sellin quite good regarding your bills….
    keep this in mind as well!

    cheers!

  • Apr 16,2007 at 12:33

    I am not very happy about this.
    Everytime I see errors in the database or artist names that need ANV conversion, merge or whatever, I immediately make a submission. At this moment I can’t do this anymore, so I have to stop cleaning up those things.

  • Apr 16,2007 at 12:33

    ^^ ‘coz you didn’t give me a seller rating for the Sunbeam E.P. ;-)

  • Apr 16,2007 at 12:30

    being reduced after over 1200 subs…. why?

  • Apr 16,2007 at 11:57

    Oops…meant to quote this from nik:

    “all submissions take time to process, so are part of the system. I would prefer to encourage more new submissions and more full updates, and less bitty one-at-a-time updates if possible.”

  • Apr 16,2007 at 11:56

    [quote=nik][/quote]

    Cheers to that! As a rather fervent but still relatively new (October ’06) ogger and even more nascent browser of the forums, it only occurred to me a few weeks ago after reading md’s fairly recent “State Of The Discogs Address” what a strain the one-at-a-time updates I was making were putting on the system, given the submitter-to-mod ratio.

    Honestly, it wasn’t even so much a matter of “rankhunting” as it was not having physical access to most of my collection at the time, yet still wanting to make minor information updates based on common sense and style info I knew could be accurately updated. For quite some time, I’d been going about my business, unaware that this style of making small updates rather than waiting for the opportunity to update ALL information with the release in my hand was putting a strain on the system. I know the cardinal rule as a submitter is to not update unless the item is physically in-hand, but I wonder how many folks simply don’t realize that the small “common sense” updates (e.g., adding Album or Compilation under Format, removing leading zeros from track titles, correcting capitalization and/or spelling errors, etc.) are jamming up the queue and causing problems for the mods? Maybe I’m just a bit daft, but I doubt I’m the only one. It seems to me like this is a frequent point of contention on the boards, but it isn’t really spelled out so clearly in the Submission Guidelines. Perhaps a paragraph at the top of the first page of the Submission Guidelines explaining WHY it is important for people to update as much as possible (and preferably the full release) would help a bit — assuming, of course, that new submitters take the time to read the guidelines before getting started.

    Over the past several weeks, I’ve been able to get my hands back on larger parts of my collection and have been making full updates whenever possible. These take a lot longer to research and enter into the system, and surely a lot longer to moderate, as well. Ironic that shortly after I learn how to do it “the right way,” further restrictions are placed on my ability to update! :-)

    I’ve been close to maxed out on Updates and fully maxed on Adds for most of my brief Discogs career, so this really isn’t such a big deal. In the interim, I suppose I’ll just have to grow my queue of pending Adds (plenty of soundtracks to get into the system, among other things), look for ways to help others to improve Pending submissions, and maybe flesh out my profile a bit. :-)

  • Apr 16,2007 at 11:41

    excellent [u=nik], thanks for the prompt response. all around good idea from my perspective, as the queue and number of…less than stellar submissions has really bogged things down over the last six months.

  • Apr 16,2007 at 11:39

    Will you take into consideration the time spent to provide your submission with pictures? I myself spend a lot of time just taking pictures of my submissions as I consider it just as important as providing all the credits, and correct ones. Of course it will be really hard to determine what is an user taken picture and what has been copied. But basically pictures of other aspects of the release than just the front are usually hard to find with a google search, specially on rare releases.

    Btw great that you’re doing something about the rank system and the queue!

  • nik
    Apr 16,2007 at 11:34

    [quote=djcatfood]will you provide some metric to gauge an ogger’s activity as far as submissions and updates to the db? i currently use rank as one factor in determining whether or not registered shipping is required. active oggers generally are trustworthy in my experience. [/quote]

    Yes that is a good example of why we do need something on a users profile. TBH this is the last thing to be changed anyway, for the moment, I am more interested in getting the queue under control and at a reasonable level, and picking out both the good submitters (for future mods) and the poor submitters (for reduced submission limits and help to improve).

  • Apr 16,2007 at 11:19

    [quote=nik]This new system does not use the existing rank points system.[/quote]

    will you provide some metric to gauge an ogger’s activity as far as submissions and updates to the db? i currently use rank as one factor in determining whether or not registered shipping is required. active oggers generally are trustworthy in my experience.

  • nik
    Apr 16,2007 at 11:09

    I am going to be vague about this at the moment, primarily because I dunno (the system isn’t finalised yet), but also because we may choose to hide the workings or parts of the workings of the system to avoid folk ‘gaming’ it (see: rankhunting).

    All I will say is it will be designed so that full and correct submissions, and the users who make them, will be at an advantage!

    TBH chatting on the submissions is not really the right way to do things, and will only distract other mods who have to read thru it. Drop them a PM instead.

  • Apr 16,2007 at 10:57

    [quote=neocactar]I hope that won’t be dependent purely on the number of mod posts on a submission.[/quote]
    Good point. [u=nik], how will the accuracy of a submission be measured? If a user (or mod) points out that J. Smith (17) is actually Joseph B. Smith, Jr., is that a lack of accuracy in the submission?

  • Apr 16,2007 at 10:53

    Interesting. It’ll be something to look forward to, to only have a few days to wait on a submission.

    One thing I was wondering about:

    [quote=nik]or who make submissions that need a lot of moderator work to be accepted. [/quote]
    I hope that won’t be dependent purely on the number of mod posts on a submission. If we end up having a conversation about our favorite tracks on a release for example, it shouldn’t reflect as though I’m arguing with him over the sub process or something.

    By that token, I suppose email or the forums are better places for conversation, but still :)

  • nik
    Apr 16,2007 at 10:47

    @ comkai – all submissions take time to process, so are part of the system. I would prefer to encourage more new submissions and more full updates, and less bitty one-at-a-time updates if possible.

  • nik
    Apr 16,2007 at 10:44

    @ perham – For me, it’s dead simple. There is no point in allowing more submissions than we can moderate.

  • Apr 16,2007 at 10:43

    i don’t care about the submission limit for adding releases. i’ve never had 50 adds pending at one time.
    but i’m pretty much always scratching on the limit for updates. now it’s only 62 & i have 100 pending.
    would you consider a non-limit for adding images as they’ve never been a queue problem ?
    otherwise – see u next month…

  • Apr 16,2007 at 10:25

    That aside and all in all, I think this is a necessary move. The submissions check that was implemented a couple of weeks ago have halted the growth of the queues but has not succeeded in lowering it, as far as I can see. This move certainly will, although it might be understood as the wrong move by many users.

  • nik
    Apr 16,2007 at 10:19

    I understand what you are saying perham. All links need to be checked no matter how small or big the submission. Larger and more content rich submissions should be checked to the same level of accuracy as smaller submissions. I think it is a perception thing to think that by making a submission more complete, you are risking making errors. In reality, you just need to take more time! And this will be greatly rewarded!

  • Apr 16,2007 at 10:10

    [quote=nik]Yeh this is taken into account. Bigger more complicated submissions require more work from submitters and moderators, and it is important that the submitter takes the time to check a 100 artist link submissions the same as a 2 artist link submission. [/quote]
    Yes of course, but errors with big and complicated submissions can’t be judged on the same basis as errors with small submissions. It’s important to check of course, but users must not be afraid of adding all credits, as the risk of getting errors gets higher by doing so, than by not adding any credits at all. Get what I mean?

  • Apr 16,2007 at 10:05

    Good enough for me.

    Cheers nik.

  • nik
    Apr 16,2007 at 10:03

    [quote=perham]Have you considered the fact that adding credits are not compulsory? Users adding huge numbers of credits might have a couple of errors or two, while another user adding as big a release but don’t adding any credits has no errors. I think that needs to be taken into account if haven’t already, of course. [/quote]

    Yeh this is taken into account. Bigger more complicated submissions require more work from submitters and moderators, and it is important that the submitter takes the time to check a 100 artist link submissions the same as a 2 artist link submission.

  • nik
    Apr 16,2007 at 09:59

    There is no way of displaying anything at the moment that will make sense to anyone regarding submission limits, and in any case this will change on a weekly basis if not sooner as we tweak things. You will just have to be patient for the time being, check your profile every time one of your submissions is processed, and you will see when you can submit again.

    I can tell you that basically all limits are at about 60% of what they were, if that helps.

  • Apr 16,2007 at 09:52

    [quote=nik]We are planning to make the submission limit variable on a per user basic, taking into account the quality of each users submissions by various means. […] This new system will give users (who make complete, accurate, well documented submissions and updates) a higher submission limit.[/quote]
    Have you considered the fact that adding credits are not compulsory? Users adding huge numbers of credits might have a couple of errors or two, while another user adding as big a release but don’t adding any credits has no errors. I think that needs to be taken into account if haven’t already, of course.

    And another thing, what’s the current limit for edits and adds?

  • Apr 16,2007 at 09:47

    Bah, humbug!

    So, how do we know what we’re aloud?

    I’m now at my limit, but I don’t know what that limit is.
    Is it a case of what I have now is my limit? Or, will I still be at my limit until alot of have been passed or rejected?

    Not annoyed, just curious.

Leave A Reply