Updates regarding the Queue / Moderators / Submission Skill

Following from the introduction of the Submission Skill system, and looking at the way the queue and submitters have been affected by the recent changes to the system, we are making the following changes to hopefully alleviate some of the issues that have been encountered:

  • The queue size will be allowed to grow from the current level of approximately 20,000 items to around 30,000 items. This will allow more items to be in the submission queue at any one time, allowing submitters some space, and lessening the issues of wasted time (due to more than one submitter making the same draft), and inability to add updates and releases. Average waiting times will rise a little, as will the age of the queue. Waiting times will be addressed by adding more mods, the age of the queue (and especially the ‘long tail’ problem) will probably have to be addressed by different methods TBA.

  • We are on a drive to add more moderators, with the aim to have around 10% of the submitters in the mod team as a start (it is currently 6.5%). We have removed the ‘Willing To Moderate’ preferences tickbox, as only around 10% of submitters have this ticked, which is not enough to ensure a good selection of new mods. Moderators are now being added approximately every week. We expect it to take us no more than 10 weeks to get the mod team up to the planned amount.

  • We have made a change to the Submission Skill calculation that will lessen the negative effects experienced by some users. We will be continuing to review this system, and I apologise for any undue limitations or complications that have come about due to it. It is our intention that users should not be unduly limited, and should be able to add and update data in a much freer way than has been experienced recently.


Return to Discogs Blog
60 Comments
  • nik
    Aug 6,2007 at 04:47

    Locking this thread now, it has got way off topic. Please do not fight over submission and updates, it is non-productive. Some of the issues brought up here will be addressed, but for the moment, take a deep breath, count to 10, and relax ;-)

  • Aug 6,2007 at 03:53

    [quote=hwanin]I hope now you know what Kergillian or I think about updates and rankhunting :)[/quote]

    Sorry, but there is no such thing as a useless update. If it is useless, it will not be Y-voted, and it wouldn’t exist. Every point counts. There are ‘big’ and ‘small’ items to amend on this site, such that -ultimately- everything appears consistent and conforms to the guidelines. But big or small corrections, they’re all good efforts in the long haul. We can’t be myopic and insist on big corrections all the time, and leave out correcting the little irritating details that only takes one second to correct for fear of the label ‘rankhunter’. That label does everyone a disservice.

  • Aug 6,2007 at 01:26

    Well, not to pick apart your example, but:

    1) While it’s preferable to have the size right after the format, it’s not mandatory – and there is a bug that sometimes forces us to move the size to the end.

    2) Yes it’s a bit redundant – but having the ‘Not for resale’ bit is still a valid part of the notes.

    While you added a lot of good information – the notes are not mandatory. The only thing he missed that I would say should have been changed was the title. The rest was okay, IMO.

    But you have the right idea (though your comments on his update – and his! – could have been a lot nicer:)

  • Aug 6,2007 at 01:05

    I can show a perfect example (I don’t wanna hurt DJ_Frankle, I don’t have any problem with him).
    http://www.discogs.com/subs/view/2545877

    I wanna show my perspective of updating as I mostly do them (not everytime of course)
    http://www.discogs.com/subs/view/2629817

    @ FLuViRuS
    I hope now you know what Kergillian or I think about updates and rankhunting :)

  • Aug 6,2007 at 00:58

    [quote=FLuViRuS]Helpful! Bit by bit, slowly, everything gets rectified to the ideal state that a world-class database should look like. Not everyone can spot the same ‘glaring’ mistakes, however well-intentioned. If you project far enough, you’ll see that even simple tag-adding has its usefulness. Nothing done by submitters that gets Y-voted should be scoffed at. That’s how i feel anyhow. [/quote]

    I think user shall check the whole release that wants to update.
    The user shall check it from any direction. I hate 1-thing-updates.
    Not because it’s about rankhunting. It spams the queue with shit job.
    They are easy to moderate, because there is only 1 modification/correction, but in my eyes these updates are nothing.
    Personally I only make 1-2 thing updates when it’s a follow-up correction, or it is connecting to my other pending subs and I don’t have the release myself.

  • Aug 6,2007 at 00:08

    [quote=Kergillian]Hope does spring eternal- but I never did find the well :)[/quote]

    Yeah i know how you feel. Nik never once personally responded my queries… whether directly or indirectly posted to him.

  • Aug 5,2007 at 23:42

    [quote=FLuViRuS] Nothing done by submitters that gets Y-voted should be scoffed at. That’s how i feel anyhow.
    [/quote]

    -grin-well I’m too cynical for my own good, I supppose – you’re too optimistic for my jaded perspective to handle :):)

    (danger will robinson!!! danger! overload!!)

    [quote=FLuViRuS]We can all live in hope, can’t we? ;)[/quote]

    Hope does spring eternal- but I never did find the well :)

  • Aug 5,2007 at 21:47

    [quote=Kergillian]it should not be N-Voted because it IS a correct update and fixing the other errors isn’t mandatory – but it’s not very helpful, izzit?[/quote]

    Helpful! Bit by bit, slowly, everything gets rectified to the ideal state that a world-class database should look like. Not everyone can spot the same ‘glaring’ mistakes, however well-intentioned. If you project far enough, you’ll see that even simple tag-adding has its usefulness. Nothing done by submitters that gets Y-voted should be scoffed at. That’s how i feel anyhow.

    [quote=Kergillian]Anyhow, I don’t necessarily disagree with you on your second point. But alas! I don’t think we’re going to win on it :)[/quote]

    If enough questions are asked about it, it -could- prompt a better rationale or response from the powers that be. We can all live in hope, can’t we? ;)

  • Aug 5,2007 at 12:17

    (Or should I say ‘existed’ ;)

  • Aug 5,2007 at 12:16

    -lol- not a matter of ‘problem’ or not – I’m just explaining what rankhunting is and why the label exists :)

  • Aug 5,2007 at 11:26

    Acceptable: yes. Useful: no.

    I mean, it’s not really the size of the update, it’s the intent of it. If there are glaringly obvious errors (credits in the notes, for example) and they are purposely ignored in favour of a simple ‘album to format’, in theory it should not be N-Voted because it IS a correct update and fixing the other errors isn’t mandatory – but it’s not very helpful, izzit?

    Anyhow, I don’t necessarily disagree with you on your second point. But alas! I don’t think we’re going to win on it :)

  • Aug 5,2007 at 02:51

    [quote=Kergillian]But I don’t think that hunting throughout the db to add ‘album’ to every possible release is inherently useful to the db – espcially when all other potential errors/corrections are ignored. [/quote]

    If it’s not useful, don’t Y-vote on it then. But i suspect it still is, for ease of highlighting the release format on the artiste’s profile page. That’s why they’re acceptable. Every point really does count for something of an effort.

    And yes, it’s good the ‘rankhunting’ label is pretty much dropped – which brings me back to the original point – the quote u cited from Nik should really be reconsidered as well.

  • Aug 5,2007 at 02:15

    [quote=FLuViRuS]You mean “just for the sake of increasing one’s points”, right? Cos submitters & apparently mods don’t know how the limit is increased / decreased.
    [/quote]

    Exactly – under the old system, your submission ‘limit’ was gauged by your rank.So by limit, I meant increasing your rank so you could submit more releases…

    [quote=FLuViRuS]As i said though, a tiny update is still a useful update if it’s Y-voted. If it’s not useful, it will be N-voted. Whither ‘rankhunting’? This site WANTS contributors to make improvements, and it automatically awards points for those improvements. In that sense, everyone is a rankhunter here. That label should definitely be dropped.
    [/quote]

    Well it’s pretty much dropped now anyhow, as there is no point to it any more.

    But I don’t think that hunting throughout the db to add ‘album’ to every possible release is inherently useful to the db – espcially when all other potential errors/corrections are ignored.

    The reason they were termed as such was that their entire purpose was to raise rank – for ‘limit’ purposes, or competition, or whatever. So they weren’t updating releases to help the db as much as trying to find the easiest way possible to accumulate rank…

  • Aug 5,2007 at 00:17

    [quote=Kergillian]I don’t think it was ever truly clarified.[/quote]

    Oh i was only referring to the calculation of point ratings, e.g. adding a release = +3 points, editing a release = +1 point, etc. But yeah, the percentages occupied were not truly clarified.

    [quote=Kergillian]but flooding the queue with tiny updates that don’t really add anything just for the sake of increasing one’s limit so they could submit more releases was definitely a big part of the queue problems we had. [/quote]

    You mean “just for the sake of increasing one’s points”, right? Cos submitters & apparently mods don’t know how the limit is increased / decreased.

    As i said though, a tiny update is still a useful update if it’s Y-voted. If it’s not useful, it will be N-voted. Whither ‘rankhunting’? This site WANTS contributors to make improvements, and it automatically awards points for those improvements. In that sense, everyone is a rankhunter here. That label should definitely be dropped.

  • Aug 4,2007 at 22:27

    [quote=hwanin]Can you tell me, what is the repeatedly insulting in my words?
    [/quote]

    Just a coupleof examples:

    [quote=hwanin]You are pretty offensive and not supportive at all[/quote]

    [quote=hwanin]What’s wrong with you dude?
    [/quote]

    [quote=hwanin]How the fuck dare you to say that[/quote]

    But it’s all good.

    Your welcome for the sites – it depends entirely on the song; sometimes only BMI has the song,, somtimes only ASCAP, sometimes both…

  • Aug 4,2007 at 15:55

    [quote=Kergillian]I think you need to calm down. I’m being completely civil here and you’re repeatedly insulting me and swearing at me…it’s not doing you much good, I’m afraid. Being rude never helps to prove a point. [/quote]

    Can you tell me, what is the repeatedly insulting in my words?
    About swearing… only one word has been written by me, which can marked as swearing: “fucking”. Nothing more, nothing else.
    If it hurted you so much, I’m sorry. I’ll leave this/these words behind in the future.
    —————————————————————
    About the misunderstanding: I’m glad that we could sort out the problem. It was also my fault, maybe in a bigger part, then yours,
    because I wrote the “bad” sentence.

    I checked both ASCAP and BMI. They both seem damn useful!! Thank you for it once again.
    By the way, I found ASCAP much better. Of course I only made 3 parallel searches yet.

  • Aug 4,2007 at 12:40

    (and as an aside – knowing how the system works precisely could possibly allow people to figure out ways to work the system and increase their limits faster. I say ‘possibly’ because I don’t personally know how the system works – but it’s obviously a concern or [u=nik] wouldn’t be keeping the information quiet…)

  • Aug 4,2007 at 12:38

    [quote=hwanin]I was told few times in the past to remove the remix credit, when the main artist made the remix for himself!
    I only fight with mods, if I know I’m right (or I’m convinced I’m right even if I don’t). Reading your words mean this sub is completely wrong
    http://www.discogs.com/release/350057
    In the case you mentioned, AAT should be entered as remixer.
    It’s pretty hard to submit, when 1 mods says X, and another mod says Y[/quote]

    Mods do sometimes disagree – and no mod is perfect.

    But I would say that yes that and the Oscar L remix both need remix credits.

    [quote=hwanin]OR I just can’t solve the problem. You are pretty offensive and not supportive at all. You don’t even wanna imagine!!, that I approached to that fucking update with my best side.
    Not finding an ANV is not a mistake. It’s the case: not knowing.
    You can turn the meaning of my words inside out, you are good in it, as it’s your mother language.
    [/quote]

    I’m not being offensive – I’m only going by what you’ve posted. It’s a language issue at stake here as you said later, and I apologize for misinterpreting what you have said – it was certainly not intentional (I cannot be blamed for seeing someone say ‘I hardly searched for them’ and taking them literally).

    I think you need to calm down. I’m being completely civil here and you’re repeatedly insulting me and swearing at me…it’s not doing you much good, I’m afraid. Being rude never helps to prove a point.

    [quote=hwanin]I do my subs as correct as my own boundries/limitations let me do. I can’t state it more clearly.
    I have a big knowledge about artists, but my knowledge is not lexical!!
    Thanks to your ASCAP and BMI explanation, I’ll use those sites in the future, but believe or not, I have never heard about these websites and the possibilities of them. I only knew that ASCAP must be a group of publishing companies or so, but nothing more.
    [/quote]

    Nobody expects you to be perfect or omniscient. All I’m saying is that you need to adjust your APPROACH to submitting if your attitude is ‘I do what I can and let the mods fix it for me’.

    And you’re welcome for the sites. They’re VERY useful for finding full writer credits and names.

    [quote=FLuViRuS]On the contrary. Knowing the calculation mechanism (which we assume is based on meritocracy) actually improves everyone’s efforts to make their submissions as correct as possible.
    [/quote]

    I’m not saying I necessarily disagree with you – I’m only explaining the reasoning behind it from the head honchos in charge ;)

    [quote=FLuViRuS]Why then clarify the points system when one adds releases, makes edits, adds pictures etc? Everyone was in fact thankful of that news when it was released.
    [/quote]

    I don’t think it was ever truly clarified. It gives us an idea to see the percentages, but I’ve never seen any precise explanation of how much anything is ‘worth’ so to speak…in the new system, that is…

    [quote=FLuViRuS]And seriously, people should consider dropping the rankhunting label. Everything on this site is run based on point ranking. Every point indicates a useful effort. Every bit counts. [/quote]

    Sure – but flooding the queue with tiny updates that don’t really add anything just for the sake of increasing one’s limit so they could submit more releases was definitely a big part of the queue problems we had. That aspect has certainly dropped off since the system change…

  • Aug 4,2007 at 06:50

    [quote=Kergillian]Well, nik has said that it’s left ‘hidden’ so that people focus on making their submissions as correct as possible rather than trying to find ways to rankhunt.[/quote]

    On the contrary. Knowing the calculation mechanism (which we assume is based on meritocracy) actually improves everyone’s efforts to make their submissions as correct as possible.

    I love quotes, but I question it. Why then clarify the points system when one adds releases, makes edits, adds pictures etc? Everyone was in fact thankful of that news when it was released.

    Knowing how limits are calculated has no relevance to rankhunting – when u’re at your limit, you just are. You can’t increase your points just because you know where you stand with regards to submission limits.

    And seriously, people should consider dropping the rankhunting label. Everything on this site is run based on point ranking. Every point indicates a useful effort. Every bit counts.

  • Aug 4,2007 at 03:48

    [quote=Kergillian]Where did you get that idea?They’re still remixing the track… [/quote]
    I was told few times in the past to remove the remix credit, when the main artist made the remix for himself!
    I only fight with mods, if I know I’m right (or I’m convinced I’m right even if I don’t). Reading your words mean this sub is completely wrong
    http://www.discogs.com/release/350057
    In the case you mentioned, AAT should be entered as remixer.
    It’s pretty hard to submit, when 1 mods says X, and another mod says Y.

    [quote=Kergillian]If you are writing that you know you’ve made mistakes and expect them to be found, then you haven’t spent enough time checking your info.[/quote]
    OR I just can’t solve the problem. You are pretty offensive and not supportive at all. You don’t even wanna imagine!!, that I approached to that fucking update with my best side.
    Not finding an ANV is not a mistake. It’s the case: not knowing.
    You can turn the meaning of my words inside out, you are good in it, as it’s your mother language.

    Submitting a bad ANV is worse than not adding ANV to that artist if the submitter is not certain it’s especially PREVENTING mistakes just like you love to say.

    [quote=Kergillian]Your ‘duty’ is to make sure that your submissions are as correct as possible,

    My ‘duty’ is to double check all information and correct you if you’ve made a mistake. It is NOT to do all of your work for you.[/quote]

    I do my subs as correct as my own boundries/limitations let me do. I can’t state it more clearly.
    I have a big knowledge about artists, but my knowledge is not lexical!!
    Thanks to your ASCAP and BMI explanation, I’ll use those sites in the future, but believe or not, I have never heard about these websites and the possibilities of them. I only knew that ASCAP must be a group of publishing companies or so, but nothing more.

    [quote=Kergillian]Um…you were the one who wrote:
    “hwanin
    I couldn’t find appropriate ANVs, although I hardly searched for them.”

    Unless ‘hardly’ has some new meaning to it that I don’t know of, you’re contradicting yourself…[/quote]

    Well. You made me uncertain, so I opened up a dictionary to make myself sure. Now I know my sentence was good.

    Although means I tried everything BUT…

    Ohhh…. I get your point now….
    you meant hardly = I am unable/weak in searching HAHAH…
    You just misunderstood me. I should have written:
    I couldn’t find appropriate ANVs, although I searched for them really hard.

    I hope you get my thoughts now! One little word in the wrong place can ruin my whole message.

  • Aug 4,2007 at 01:06

    [quote=FLuViRuS]I won’t be satisfied just knowing that my limit is 140%, 120% or 110% over some hidden or arbitrary rule, without any idea of what attributes would lend it to reduce, and by how much.

    If a system is just and meritocratic, there should not be any reason to withhold the rules from its participants.
    [/quote]

    Well, [u=nik] has said that it’s left ‘hidden’ so that people focus on making their submissions as correct as possible rather than trying to find ways to rankhunt. And I personally have no problem with that, as long as I have a clear view as to exactly what my current limit status is – even when I’m over 100%…

    [quote=hwanin]I guess you are not reading my words…
    I really search for them, even if you don’t believe it.[/quote]

    Um…you were the one who wrote:

    [quote=hwanin]I couldn’t find appropriate ANVs, although I hardly searched for them.[/quote]

    Unless ‘hardly’ has some new meaning to it that I don’t know of, you’re contradicting yourself…

    [quote=hwanin]You tell me, I shouldn’t submit if I’m not 100% sure about something. DUDE, you FORGET something. Your !DUTY! as a mod to HELP and CHECK the submissions, before you place the vote.
    [/quote]

    Your ‘duty’ is to make sure that your submissions are as correct as possible,

    My ‘duty’ is to double check all information and correct you if you’ve made a mistake. It is NOT to do all of your work for you.

    [quote=hwanin]I NEVER asked you, and I will never ask you to help me, because now I know you wouldn’t. This is not a mod attitude.[/quote]

    I will (and have, many times) help anyone who asks me to, inn any way In can. What I won’t do, is write your submission for you. Nor should I have to. I doubt you’ll find many mods who would (and if that’s a ‘bad attitude’ for a mod, then I suppose most mods have a bad attitude…)

    [quote=hwanin]”So this excuse is a cop-out, IMO, for laziness.”
    How the fuck dare you to say that, since you don’t know me at all? You are saying I’m lazy to search for something when I submit 1-2 hours updates and new additions??? What’s wrong with you dude?
    [/quote]

    If you are writing that you know you’ve made mistakes and expect them to be found, then you haven’t spent enough time checking your info. Submitting ANYTHING with mod notes saying ‘yah, by the way,spend extra time modding this because I’m sure I’ve made mistakes’ is lazy. Responding on this thread by saying that you wrote that so that mods would look at your submission more carefully is doubly so.

    Again – the right ‘attitude’ is not to EXPECT mistakes but to PREVENT them. And there’s a difference between simply not knowing something and expecting it to be wrong.

    [quote=hwanin]About blindly votes….
    This is not the best example, but also not bad. Just check the link that I accidentally found in this morning
    http://www.discogs.com/subs/view/1807346
    First 2 Y-votes (by the submtter as well, who also a mod…)
    – we don’t use remix credit if the remixer and the main artist the same, it seems these 2 mods don’t know it
    [/quote]

    1) that’s from over a year ago – not a great example…especially considering how much the RSG has change in the last couple of years.

    2) The RSG says “Remix credits and other credits that are mentioned in the track title or that are otherwise obvious must be entered as extra artist credits. For example, “Some Track (SomeArtist Remix)” must be entered as if “Remix by SomeArtist” were printed on the release.”

    I don’t see ANYTHING in the RSG that says that a remixer shouldn’t be credited if it’s the same as the main Artist. Where did you get that idea?They’re still remixing the track…

    3) Self-voting is BAD. It’s frowned upon moreso than in the past. But that doesn’t make it a ‘blind’ vote…

    [quote=hwanin]- the mistake still remains, and the Written By credit also not fixed, notes of course are not entered…
    The result: 2 Y-votes again….
    HILARIOUS! You may don’t make this kinda mistakes while moderating, but others do. And this wasn’t the only example, as I said I’ve found it accidentally (I put a release into my draft in the morning where Hott 22 remixed a track).
    [/quote]

    1) it’s not an error

    2) there’s no rule that credits must be linked

    3) notes are optional, not mandatory.

    There’s absolutely nothing wrong with this update – how is it ‘blind voting’?

    [quote=hwanin]I don’t even know what does ASCAP mean!?! Then how do you expect I can search by ASCAP or something-like-that?!
    [/quote]

    ASCAP and BMI are the main music publishing companies. If you want to see the full names of those who wrote a song, go to ASCAP.com or BMI.com and search for the song.

  • Aug 4,2007 at 00:48

    [quote=Dec]If you have draft or pending releases that you are unsure of, you can ask other users to look at those ANVs or producer credits, or unknown roles.
    The best way to do this is to join a forum that suits the musical style of the release(s) in question, post a link to your draft (or pending), and ask someone to look. State what it is that you are unsure of, and be patient.[/quote]

    Thank you very much for the recommendation. You can be sure I’ll do that in the future. But no one else noted this to me before!

    This is kinda helpful reaction I need as I use Discogs seriously not for so long. And as I work 9-10 hours per day, plus 1-1.5 hours the travelling from work to home and vica versa, I have to hardly select which forums I read frequently.
    If others have nothing to do but foruming and “discogging” I’m really pleased about that, but my life is not that easy.

  • Aug 4,2007 at 00:41

    [quote=Kergillian]If you’re not going to do the work, why bother submitting? You shouldn’t expect the mods to do the work FOR you – this will only lead to N-Votes…

    It’s really not that hard to search the db – even just ‘search all’ for the song title and last name, or the last names together; or a google search with the same criteria; or a look on the ASCAP or BMI sites. It shouldn’t take all that much time… [/quote]

    I guess you are not reading my words…
    I really search for them, even if you don’t believe it. Mostly in the way you already wrote.
    I don’t need to fit your expectations, because you never checked any of my subs before.
    Can’t you just imagine that there is no ANV in the database for the artist I plan to enter? It’s quite strange approach.
    And you also believe or not, when I check an artist with 10 or more alternates, what if I may don’t find anyone who would be an APPROPRIAT??? Because it’s not a one time situation since I started to contribute. Will you N-vote, just because I didn’t linked a short artist name to a bad “ANV”?

    I also not agree and don’t understand your approach to moding and voting:
    You tell me, I shouldn’t submit if I’m not 100% sure about something. DUDE, you FORGET something. Your !DUTY! as a mod to HELP and CHECK the submissions, before you place the vote.
    I NEVER asked you, and I will never ask you to help me, because now I know you wouldn’t. This is not a mod attitude.

    “So this excuse is a cop-out, IMO, for laziness.”
    How the fuck dare you to say that, since you don’t know me at all? You are saying I’m lazy to search for something when I submit 1-2 hours updates and new additions??? What’s wrong with you dude?

    About blindly votes….
    This is not the best example, but also not bad. Just check the link that I accidentally found in this morning
    http://www.discogs.com/subs/view/1807346
    First 2 Y-votes (by the submtter as well, who also a mod…)
    – we don’t use remix credit if the remixer and the main artist the same, it seems these 2 mods don’t know it

    then comes an update! of course
    http://www.discogs.com/subs/view/2992379
    – the mistake still remains, and the Written By credit also not fixed, notes of course are not entered…
    The result: 2 Y-votes again….
    HILARIOUS! You may don’t make this kinda mistakes while moderating, but others do. And this wasn’t the only example, as I said I’ve found it accidentally (I put a release into my draft in the morning where Hott 22 remixed a track).

    I don’t even know what does ASCAP mean!?! Then how do you expect I can search by ASCAP or something-like-that?!

    Your suggestion to modify the limit-system is nice. I would also see if it’s over 100%. My frustration would be much lower.

  • Aug 3,2007 at 20:05

    [quote=Kergillian]I think the biggest problem for users – it;s certainly what has frustrated me the most for the past several months – is not a lack of transparency in the system calculation, but in exactly where my limit stands.
    [/quote]

    Actually it IS the lack of transparency of the calculation [i]mechanism[/i] of limits that I have a problem with, and I’m quite certain I’m not alone on this.

    I won’t be satisfied just knowing that my limit is 140%, 120% or 110% over some hidden or arbitrary rule, without any idea of what attributes would lend it to reduce, and by how much.

    If a system is just and meritocratic, there should not be any reason to withhold the rules from its participants.

  • Aug 3,2007 at 16:38

    [quote=hwanin]I couldn’t find appropriate ANVs, although I hardly searched for them.
    [/quote]

    If you’re not going to do the work, why bother submitting? You shouldn’t expect the mods to do the work FOR you – this will only lead to N-Votes…

    It’s really not that hard to search the db – even just ‘search all’ for the song title and last name, or the last names together; or a google search with the same criteria; or a look on the ASCAP or BMI sites. It shouldn’t take all that much time…

    [quote=hwanin]I think my honesty was right in that case and helped the mods to look at my sub more carefully, instead of a blindly given Y-vote.
    [/quote]

    Mods should ALWAYS moderate carefully and NEVER blind vote. While blind votes do occasionally, unfortunately happen, theyare the exception and not the rule, and you should always expect your subs to be picked through with a fine tooth comb. So this excuse is a cop-out, IMO, for laziness.

    [quote=hwanin]Mistakes are happen, I’m still just a mortal.
    [/quote]

    Of course they do -we ALL make them (believe me, I’m no exception). The difference is, however, that when I sub I try to PREVENT mistakes, whereas you seem to try to EXPECT mistakes. That’s the wrong attitude.

    I simply won’t submit something unless I’m certain it’s error-free. While that doesn’t guarantee that it IS, it’s better than simply assuming there are mistakes and letting the mods do the work to find them…

    [quote=hwanin]although sadly updates cannot put into draft and I plan to make dozens of them in the future.[/quote]

    Again – keep a .txt file with them. I have a list of 50+ updates I need to do right now. It had reached about 100 or so at the peak of the restriction period. That way I never forget.

  • Aug 3,2007 at 16:23

    [quote=FLuViRuS]Similarly, I’m limited to only 7 pending subs or less. That is at least 4 times less than Hwanin. Whilst I don’t claim to deserve a higher limit, the calculation of limits is befuddling to me (and perhaps for many others). There’s no transparency. I am happy that Kergillian has shot up into the thousands region because I’m sure he’s worthy and his efforts paid off. Are others’ not, though?
    [/quote]

    Thanks:)

    For some reason my limit jumped over the last several days- probably because of a couple of add releases that were accepted. Since I work mostly in updates it’s nice to finally start clearing my massive .txt file again :)

    I think the biggest problem for users – it;s certainly what has frustrated me the most for the past several months – is not a lack of transparency in the system calculation, but in exactly where my limit stands.

    We REALLY need a different way of showing limits so that we know EXACTLY where our limit is, even when over 100%.

    The most common complaintis ‘I’m over 100% and keept getting accepted but my limit doesn’t drop’. And people have called repeatedly for a post-one hundred percentile that shows how far over 100% you are. If you put in a sub that shoots you over 100% and see you’re at 140%, for example, you won’t be as frustrated when your subs are accepted and you see it shrink to 132%, 125%, 114%, etc.

    And you will also see the precision of the site fluctuations – when you’rew at 100% you currently have no way of knowing if the site has further decreased your limit. If you’re at 122% and then suddenly at 129%, you’ll know the site has fluctuated and your limit has decreased slightly – which again eases frustration.

    We need SOME form of counter that doesn’t leave us blind when our limit tops out.

  • Dec
    Aug 3,2007 at 15:23

    [quote=hwanin]I found this thread the most actual of all, I’m only active in the Discogs Developement section yet, and I’m also not a pro in using the search function as well.[/quote]
    The Forum Search is easy to use, no “pro” required!

    If you have draft or pending releases that you are unsure of, you can ask other users to look at those ANVs or producer credits, or unknown roles.
    The best way to do this is to join a forum that suits the musical style of the release(s) in question, post a link to your draft (or pending), and ask someone to look. State what it is that you are unsure of, and be patient. Look back over older topics first incase your question was asked before.
    If your question relates to something that isn’t limited to a musical style (example: how to enter single-sided or etched vinyl), you should ask in [b]Adding & Updating Information[/b].

  • Aug 3,2007 at 12:12

    [quote=nik]We are continuing to look at the process, and will continue to try to improve things so users can submit more.

    However, you can also help yourself. For example, on this submission , you write “I’m sure there will be some mistakes in my update”. I would suggest if you feel this, then you should spend more time attempting to find the mistakes, so your update can be accepted sooner.[/quote]

    Thank you very much for your straight reaction.

    “I’m sure there will be some mistakes in my update”.
    I wrote it, because _I know my own limits_. I couldn’t find appropriate ANVs, although I hardly searched for them.
    I always make multiple searches, and I try to check links, even if those leads to artist with 20 alternates.
    I’m not into old music, and with that Mario Lopez track, it’s a cover tune, if the inlay uses shortened names, it’s damn hard for me to find the original artist in the database.
    I think my honesty was right in that case and helped the mods to look at my sub more carefully, instead of a blindly given Y-vote.
    I hope you understand my point.

    I make/made more-hours updates, so please believe me, I’m not doing this for nothing. I mostly double check the links after each preview I make during ONE update :(
    Mistakes are happen, I’m still just a mortal.

    [quote=Horoma]33 pendings submissions is quite a lot at the moment. I’m a mod and have submitted 4x as much as you did, yet I’m at 50% of my sublimit with only 13 pending submissions.[/quote]

    And also thanks to Horoma, FLuViRuS, Kuta. I didn’t know about your and not even other users’ limit.

    Conclusion of my “story”:
    I have to try to be more patient, although sadly updates cannot put into draft and I plan to make dozens of them in the future.

  • Aug 3,2007 at 08:56

    Similarly, I’m limited to only 7 pending subs or less. That is at least 4 times less than Hwanin. Whilst I don’t claim to deserve a higher limit, the calculation of limits is befuddling to me (and perhaps for many others). There’s no transparency. I am happy that Kergillian has shot up into the thousands region because I’m sure he’s worthy and his efforts paid off. Are others’ not, though?

  • Aug 3,2007 at 08:31

    hey [u=nik], please stop deleting posts. kk?

  • nik
    Aug 3,2007 at 03:26

    [quote=hwanin]I don’t understand why my limit continuously decrease instead of increase[/quote]

    hwanin – at the moment, things fluctuate every day, as the overall site limit is calculated daily, depending on how many submissions have been processed by the moderators.

    We are continuing to look at the process, and will continue to try to improve things so users can submit more.

    However, you can also help yourself. For example, on [url=http://www.discogs.com/subs/view/3091053]this submission[/url] , you write “I’m sure there will be some mistakes in my update”. I would suggest if you feel this, then you should spend more time attempting to find the mistakes, so your update can be accepted sooner.

  • Aug 2,2007 at 23:48

    [quote=djcatfood]from hwanin’s profile…
    “I like electronic music since I first heard Scooter in the very beginning of the 90s.”
    dear god.[/quote]

    WTF is this? I asked for something answer, not this shit.
    If you didn’t like Scooter, that’s your business, it has nothing to do with my problem or with this thread.
    Just for you to know, I was born in 1983, so it couldn’t be possible to grow up in the prime house and techno era.
    I grew up listening to pop music (like Shane 54, when he was a pop singer in Hungary), then dance and euro house, then Scooter came, and finally then the German trance era from 1996 I think exploded into my life (Taucher, Talla, Sunbeam, Blank & Jones, etc.)

  • Aug 2,2007 at 23:48

    [quote=psychonausea]On the other hand, you should praise yourself lucky. Your oldest submissions are only about 1 month old.[/quote]

    It’s just because before it, I couldn’t enter much more :)
    I paste my history link, because I thought you/others will check it.
    I never do 1 thing updates, unless if it’s connecting to my other subs…

    You made quite decent answer, and I appreciate it a lot!
    ONLY the 1. part can explain my situation.

    BUT as I already wrote, I have big updates and mostly 100% full detailed new entries, this is why I don’t understand why my limit continuously decrease instead of increase!?!

    If the point 1. is true then all the users have decreased limits.
    Then how can it be that in electonic section has 2000 more new releases pending? It clearly shows that others can laughly submit in opposite of me :(
    My draft is growing, but I can’t put updates into my draft. If it would be possible, I would shut my dirty mouth! :D

    A user in a connecting thread wrote: sometimes/many times it’s easier to forget doing an update then noting it and return to it, after your limit increased. He is partially right.

    [quote=Kuta]You also have a larger submission limit than most people so I’d say you are quite well off. I wish I had your account.[/quote]
    It’s because you started to contribute this spring. I guess and hope your account will be as good as mine after time!

  • Aug 2,2007 at 17:39

    [quote=hwanin]Since that time I had 5 accepted updates[/quote]

    Luxury!

  • Aug 2,2007 at 17:00

    You also have a larger submission limit than most people so I’d say you are quite well off. I wish I had your account.

  • Aug 2,2007 at 13:55

    [quote=hwanin]CAN ANYBODY GIVE ME AN HONEST AND STRAIGHT ANSWER?[/quote]

    For the calculation of your individual submissionlimit 3 aspects are taken into account:

    1) The sitewide input vs. output ratio.
    If the number of submissions that are submitted by [i]all[/i] users equals the number of submissions that are voted out of the queue by the moderators, then the sitewide submissionlimit stays the same.
    If however there are more submissions being added to the queue then there are submissions voted out, the individual submissionlimit of [i]all[/i] users will decrease.
    If there’s more output then input, then individual submissionlimits for [i]all[/i] users will increase.

    2) your individual history.
    The more you have contributed to the site (= the higher your rank), the more percentage of the sitewide submissionlimit you will be able to fill.
    However, rank has been replaced with ‘score’. It used to be that an accepted update increased your rank with one point, while a new release gained you 3 points. These days, your submissions are weighted against the time it takes to moderate it.
    Updates that add nearly nothing to the existing release will have hardly any effect on your submissionlimit. An accepted new release with full credits & with a long tracklisting etc. will gain you a lot of submissionscore, thus increasing your individual submissionlimit drastically.

    3) your individual submissionskill
    The better your submissions (acceptable without any corrections from moderators), the higher your submissionlimit will become in the long run.

    As an individual user you can have an influence on aspects 2 & 3, but not on aspect 1. Fluctuations in your individual submissionlimit are most likely due to the activity (or lack thereof) of all users & moderators.

    The long waiting times are a real drag indeed. Suggestions have been put forward to try to reduce the waiting times drastically, unfortunately without any effect as of yet.
    In the last month, approx. 50 new moderators have been added to the team, with many more to be added during August. That should improve things.

    On the other hand, you should praise yourself lucky. Your oldest submissions are only about 1 month old. There’s approx. 10.000 submissions that are older than yours, the oldest ones dating back from February!

    I hope this has answered your question.

  • Aug 2,2007 at 12:58

    from [u=hwanin]’s profile…

    “I like electronic music since I first heard Scooter in the very beginning of the 90s.”

    dear god.

  • Aug 2,2007 at 12:30

    I’m deadly enthusiastic in update-ing, using my own collection,
    but this kinda waiting/freezing time totally kills my pleasure and which is more important: _enthusiasm_.

  • Aug 2,2007 at 12:23

    Sorry to post here, I found this thread the most actual of all, I’m only active in the Discogs Developement section yet, and I’m also not a pro in using the search function as well.

    [quote=nik]There has been another update to the Submission Skill system. We have now made it so that no one is being penalised, only positive Submission Skill scores are affecting users submission limits.[/quote]

    [quote=nik]These things are possible, but TBH we really want to now move away from the limits being such a big deal. I hope that the last set of changes have given everyone some room the breathe.[/quote]

    I have to laugh, Nik, sorry to say it.
    I checked almost every connecting thread thanks to mod Yvesscheers.
    I don’t have rejected updates or new-releases in this year (or at least I can’t remember them), if you look at my already accepted updates and NEW releases, you can realize:
    – my updates affects more than 4 fields in average
    – my new entries mostly was not edited by myself or anyone
    – the only 2 resubmits in my queue is just because I want to free up some space for the updates which are prior in my eyes

    I have only accepted releases and updates in the last few weeks, and my limit is still on 100%.
    I can’t tell you more clearly that this is impossible, if I read and believe your words about the Submission Skill system.
    2 of my latest accepted updates have more credit roles and modifications than other user’s 30 average submissions.
    WTF is going on then? I wrote to mod Spankwa, after he voted Y to these huge updates of mine to help me find out.
    His profile says “Discogs mod so if you have any questions or queries don’t hesitate to ask.” He never replied/answered to me,
    but next day my limit magically went down to 97%…
    I said wow… I could move 2 releases from draft to pendings and I was still freezed. Those 2 releases have been accepted within one day, and my limit did not increased, but at least I could move 2 more releases from draft. Since that time I had 5 accepted updates, I’m still at 100% and nothing happens.

    it may help
    http://www.discogs.com/history?artist=&release_id=&btn=Refresh&label=&user=hwanin

    I’m deadly tired by waiting for weeks something happen! I’m _patient_ if I know somebody will help me, but it doesn’t look that way.
    CAN ANYBODY GIVE ME AN HONEST AND STRAIGHT ANSWER?
    Because I asked about it mods: Spankwa, Assaiki who didn’t give a shit about my problem.
    And mod Yvesscheers, who was unable, _but_ AT LEAST TRIED to help me.

    Thank you in advance to all who at least read my words and for those as well, who will reply to me.

  • Jul 28,2007 at 12:01

    yip, an average rock album (including all band member, songwriting, production, engineering credits + anvs) takes about 1% of my submission limit, viz i could have about 100 of such releases pending at the same time.

  • nik
    Jul 28,2007 at 11:15

    [quote=vargind]just a question, is the submission limit effectively infinite now, instead of the old cap of 50 releases pending?
    [/quote]

    Theoretically, yes.

  • Jul 26,2007 at 15:03

    just a question, is the submission limit effectively infinite now, instead of the old cap of 50 releases pending?

    I mean, if you keep making more and more good and large submissions, would your submission limit grow and grow, allowing you to (depending on overall queue size) theoretically have more than 50 pending releases?

  • Jul 18,2007 at 02:08

    [quote=pawlick]Does the update by other user to the release i’ve submitted decrease my submission limit? (e.g added extra images or credits)[/quote]

    no, only edits to submissions that are still pending have an influence on your submission skill/ limit: it will not rise beyond the standard.
    in no way, however does your submission limit get influenced in a negative way.

  • Jul 18,2007 at 01:39

    Does the update by other user to the release i’ve submitted decrease my submission limit? (e.g added extra images or credits)

  • Jul 17,2007 at 05:10

    thanks for the answer!
    I was totally unaware of queue calculation! dough! :)

  • Jul 17,2007 at 03:44

    @ urbazon… Because your submission limit is based on 1) your skill and 2) the size of the queue of pending releases.
    In other words, if there are still many releases pending, there won’t be any room to add more. Even if your very skilled and did get all your pendings voted in.
    Ofcourse, if there is room, people with a higher skill will have more room to add releases.
    So keep checking your stats now and then.

  • Jul 17,2007 at 02:47

    Just a quick question about this limits, skills, and whatever else… I’m confused…
    Every day, no matter that nothing was accepted/n-voted, my percentage value drops/rises… why? how? was there some new tweaking this morning, or is it normal that every day it’s a different value with no reason? ???

  • nik
    Jul 17,2007 at 01:49

    These things are possible, but TBH we really want to now move away from the limits being such a big deal. I hope that the last set of changes have given everyone some room the breathe. We don’t want submission limits to be the centre of the process, they are just there to control things somewhat. In an ideal world, there would be no limits. We really want to concentrate on other aspects of the site for a while.

  • Jul 16,2007 at 23:16

    [quote=royb0t]
    “If you submit this release, your Submission Limit will increase to 87%.”[/quote][quote=Never_Again]
    Your Submission Limit will not increase to 87%, you will simply use 87% of it.[/quote]
    Try this then:
    “If you submit this, your Submission Limit will be at 87%.”

    Cut the “…release” bit and it’ll mean all kinds (add release/edits/pix…), and slight sentance alteration will make it acceptable.

    Like the idea of showing how much OVER the 100% you actually are. Though I have to say I’ve been well under it (maximum of 30% in fact) for the last few weeks –. so better get subing, hey :-)

  • Jul 16,2007 at 14:30

    [quote=royb0t]Another feature that would be nice is that if you’re in a draft and you click “Preview” that at the top it lets you know what your Submission Limit percentage will be raised to. Similarly to the green box that appears when you’re over your limit.

    Ex: “If you submit this release, your Submission Limit will increase to 87%.”[/quote]

    Agree! Brilliant idea! Also agree with showing how far over your limit you are (i.e. 110%) because when the over-all limit changes, and I’m still at 100%, it’d be nice to know how far over. It’s like knowing how many people are ahead of you in line.

  • Jul 16,2007 at 07:18

    Another feature that would be nice is that if you’re in a draft and you click “Preview” that at the top it lets you know what your Submission Limit percentage will be raised to. Similarly to the green box that appears when you’re over your limit.

    Ex: “If you submit this release, your Submission Limit will increase to 87%.”

  • nik
    Jul 16,2007 at 06:35

    [quote=Random_Tox]Will the limit calculation still occur Mondays?[/quote]

    The limit calculation is daily, individual users calculations are instant.

    [quote=jdr]Is it possible for the system to show the percentage above our limit. [/quote]

    I/m not sure that this is possible right now.

    [quote=Kergillian]I’m not sure that removing the penalties altogether is the way to go either. I think that adding weight to them based on the size of the sub just like the positive qualifiers are weighed would be a better idea.
    [/quote]

    Possibly, yes, but we feel that any advantages of doing more work with this are outweighed by the disadvantages of both taking up our time implementing them (when there are loads more things to do), and also the experienced negative repercussions that caused issues for submitters, and further time looking into them and sorting them out. Unless other issues come to light, we will probably be putting this on the back burner for the foreseeable future.

  • Jul 15,2007 at 17:36

    Thanks. This sounds much better. Will the limit calculation still occur Mondays?

  • Jul 14,2007 at 15:11

    [quote=jdr]Is it possible for the system to show the percentage above our limit.

    You are using 110% of your submission limit[/quote]
    it would be nice ;)

  • Jul 14,2007 at 11:29

    [quote=nik]There has been another update to the Submission Skill system. We have now made it so that no one is being penalised, only positive Submission Skill scores are affecting users submission limits.

    We were seeing too many cases of submitters getting tripped up and frustrated by the system, and we didn’t think it was right or fair to continue to do this.
    [/quote]

    I’m not sure that removing the penalties altogether is the way to go either. I think that adding weight to them based on the size of the sub just like the positive qualifiers are weighed would be a better idea.

    (ie: you lose the same percentage you would have gained if it had been accepted rather than losing a massive amount for a tiny update)

  • jdr
    Jul 14,2007 at 06:53

    Is it possible for the system to show the percentage above our limit.

    [i]You are using 110% of your submission limit[/i]

  • nik
    Jul 14,2007 at 06:42

    There has been another update to the Submission Skill system. We have now made it so that no one is being penalised, only positive Submission Skill scores are affecting users submission limits.

    We were seeing too many cases of submitters getting tripped up and frustrated by the system, and we didn’t think it was right or fair to continue to do this.

    We will be continuing to review the system, and try to make it as transparent and easy as possible for everyone. Thanks for bearing with us.

  • Jul 12,2007 at 11:33

    That’s provided the submitter checks the “Allow moderators to edit this submission” checkbox. Unless it goes away and is like that for all releases.

  • Jul 12,2007 at 05:09

    [quote=royb0t]to become a standard or automated procedure as it helping to alleviate any dead weight on the queue for users who disappear.[/quote]

    it would be a waste of data,
    unless there is reason to believe the release doesnt exist, a moderator can correct apparent mistakes and we can save the info for the database.

  • Jul 11,2007 at 11:10

    [quote=nik]…the age of the queue (and especially the ‘long tail’ problem) will probably have to be addressed by different methods TBA. [/quote]
    I have noted that mods are N-voting more for submitters who are unresponsive after a while and on a more consistent basis. I think that is a fair thing to do and should be considered (I’m sure it is already in the mod forums) to become a standard or automated procedure as it helping to alleviate any dead weight on the queue for users who disappear. On a side note though, I would like to see at some point Rejected submissions and edits show up in the Page History (perhaps as a separate field to view just them) – in the case that another diligent user doesn’t have to create the release from scratch or to cite notes to avoid any update war type stuff.

    I can only speak for myself (which has been mostly waiting for the few pendings to get accepted) but it seems like the Submission Skill is on the right path to expediting pending submissions and rewarding more quality submissions and Discog junkies, heh.

Leave A Reply