Updating the submission limits, Pt II – reducing the queue

Following on from http://www.discogs.com/forums/topic?topic_id=131584

As most regular users will have noticed, we are in the middle of bringing out a new queue management system at the moment.

We hope this will help keep the pending queue a reasonable size, and lower the time most submissions take to be accepted. We also hope the new system will help us pick new mods, help good submitters submit more, and help below average submitters raise their game.

First of all, a couple of weeks ago, we applied a percentage reduction of submissions, to prove that we can have an automated system keep things level. This worked out fine.

As it stands just now, we have turned on a new way of counting the queue and submissions, as of last Monday, 30th April. This has had the effect of lowering everyone’s submission limits, fairly radically. Although we were expecting some shift on the change over, the present level of restrictions was not altogether planned. However, as part of this change, we needed to ‘put the brakes on’ at some point anyway, so for the moment we are letting things take their course.

Over the last two weeks, the queue has been reduced by around 10,000 submissions, from nearly 45,000 to under 35,000 submissions.

At the present rate of restriction that is being experienced this week, the queue will probably be reduced enough over the next two or three weeks to be levelled out again, and submission limits will go back to a little under where they were before the changes started.

This reduction of the queue size is only a small (but important) part of the overall plan. It is appreciated that it is frustrating for enthusiastic submitters to be restricted this much, but I would like to ask that everyone stays patient over this temporary period of adjustment.

As it stands just now, because the new way of calculating the submission limits is fairly complicated, and still evolving, it is not practical to display individual submission limits. We will hopefully get some kind of new display at some point, but this has to happen once we are on level ground, and may not be as literal as the previous display. Please bear with us whilst this change over happens


Return to Discogs Blog
93 Comments
  • May 8,2007 at 07:45

    Perhaps you’re right. I’m pretty sure it hasn’t dropped more than 200, but perhaps I mixed up the numbers. It is still rising, though.

  • May 8,2007 at 07:32

    [quote=perham]I’ve monitored the queue the last hour and it’ve risen with 30 units. The last 24 hours it’ve dropped no more than 100-200[/quote]
    according to my stats the queue has dropped ~300 in the last 18 hours… that’s not much compared with most other days in the past week, but I expect that’s just a matter of low number of active mods atm, the queue still has to drop a lot more, and it will
    (I’m not sure what number [u=nik] is aiming for, btw ;)

  • May 8,2007 at 07:24

    [quote=nik]At the current rate, it may be as little as 10 days until we level things out.[/quote]
    I wonder if we’re not there already. I’ve monitored the queue the last hour and it’ve risen with 30 units. The last 24 hours it’ve dropped no more than 100-200.

  • May 7,2007 at 17:01

    really helpful

  • May 7,2007 at 16:37

    Yeah, nice and bright!

  • May 7,2007 at 16:35

    huzzah!! That’s awesome :)

  • May 7,2007 at 15:35

    [quote=nik]The new system is already working, but different aspects will be adjusted and added as we level out and see how things are going for everyone.[/quote]
    Just noticed [url=http://www.discogs.com/subs/browse]a marker warning for new artist entries[/url] has been implemented. Haven’t been able to take advantage of it yet, but it looks functional.

  • May 7,2007 at 12:05

    [quote=skatedawe]How many thousands pendings are there left? Is there any page to see it?[/quote]

    http://www.discogs.com/stats/queue?genre=

  • May 7,2007 at 12:04

    [quote=tosmcgee]Why not make it mandatory, rather than optional, to include/exclude standard items that are printed on the release. This could be done in conjunction with a vote on specific parts to a release rather than the release as a whole. As the Y vote go through those parts can appear on discogs, the other parts being locked for editing purposes until voted through.

    The reason is simple if discogs wants to really consider itself a quality site it needs to provide complete information.[/quote]

    While personally, I would prefer the standard roles and credits to be mandatory, that would alienate a LOT of users who contribute a lot of releases – which I don’t think is a very good thing.

    Plus, it’s hard to enforce – especially for those submitters who don’t submit scans, or whose scans don’t include booklets.

    I think the system, as it is, is fine for now. Eventually, the technicolour-dream that is the Master Release Function, will make this less of a problem, as, in most cases, new versions of a release will not need to add credits at all, and only the primary version of a release will need to be updated if they are lacking in credits or information.

  • May 7,2007 at 11:57

    How many thousands pendings are there left? Is there any page to see it?

  • May 7,2007 at 11:51

    [quote=Kergillian]If it’s info that is mandatory as per the RSG, then you have to add it.

    If it’s not mandatory as per the RSG, then you should respond that it’s not mandatory…[/quote]

    Actually there is the crux of the matter, by allowing incomplete submissions that will always mean there is someone out there who will edit, and that discogs quality is not kept to a standard.

    Why not make it mandatory, rather than optional, to include/exclude standard items that are printed on the release. This could be done in conjunction with a vote on specific parts to a release rather than the release as a whole. As the Y vote go through those parts can appear on discogs, the other parts being locked for editing purposes until voted through.

    The reason is simple if discogs wants to really consider itself a quality site it needs to provide complete information.

  • May 7,2007 at 10:26

    [quote=MikeySwede]Well doing the best I can but still there are dumb commnts on the releases such as (since I taken the effort to scan and add pics of the sleave) that some mods say I´ll have to include the info that is listed on the sleevenotes to get a Y-vote – Why not just give a Y-vote with the info please if you want add the info instead of demanding it. [/quote]

    If it’s info that is mandatory as per the RSG, then you have to add it.

    If it’s not mandatory as per the RSG, then you should respond that it’s not mandatory…

  • May 7,2007 at 09:23

    [quote=bedrocking]Make accurate submissions of releases that arent in the database, ensure they contain no errors, be patient and then gradually see your submission limit increase and wait to be called to be a moderator.[/quote]

    Well doing the best I can but still there are dumb commnts on the releases such as (since I taken the effort to scan and add pics of the sleave) that some mods say I´ll have to include the info that is listed on the sleevenotes to get a Y-vote – Why not just give a Y-vote with the info please if you want add the info instead of demanding it. Even added several pics that are ok as thumbnails but a bit blurry when enhanced but still much better than a lot of pics already in the db.

    [quote=Horoma]I doubt you even read the first post in this thread. [/quote]

    As a matter of fact I have……..

    [quote=volospion]they are busy – look at this [/quote]

    I do agree but do notice some who hasn´t done anything the past months and of course know that it is all voluntery work and met some very good ones on the way

    [quote=md]Paying attention would be a good start.[/quote]

    Well if you want to add a few items but……..

    Just don´t get me wrong I love to see this place grow

  • May 7,2007 at 07:23

    [quote=MikeySwede] So what is the best solution for one who really wants to put a lot of time into making this database grow…….. [/quote]

    Make accurate submissions of releases that arent in the database, ensure they contain no errors, be patient and then gradually see your submission limit increase and wait to be called to be a moderator.

  • nik
    May 7,2007 at 04:58

    No, that aspect is not live at the moment.

  • May 7,2007 at 04:40

    So, the system of granting “good” submissions with higher limits is (partly or mostly) in place and operating as we speak?
    That’s was the “new system” I was refering to.

  • nik
    May 7,2007 at 04:34

    The new system is already working, but different aspects will be adjusted and added as we level out and see how things are going for everyone.

    [quote=nik]we have turned on a new way of counting the queue and submissions, as of last Monday, 30th April. This has had the effect of lowering everyone’s submission limits, fairly radically. Although we were expecting some shift on the change over, the present level of restrictions was not altogether planned. However, as part of this change, we needed to ‘put the brakes on’ at some point anyway, so for the moment we are letting things take their course. [/quote]

  • May 7,2007 at 04:21

    [quote=nik]At the current rate, it may be as little as 10 days until we level things out.[/quote]
    Is the new system conceived and worked out, and ready to be set-in? In other words, are we just waiting for the queue to be dropped some thousand items more, before the new system is implemented, or is it not ready yet?

  • nik
    May 7,2007 at 04:12

    The limits are based on how much you have submitted before, like the old system, so will be different for each user. I couldn’t say for definite a percentage reduction for the current limits, but I would guess about 35% or so.

    At the current rate, it may be as little as 10 days until we level things out. Current queue size is about 27000 in total.

  • May 7,2007 at 03:29

    I don’t think anyone knows. I don’t think there’s a definite limit that applies to everybody. It’s rather a percentual. My guess is around 20 percent. But that’s just my guess.

  • May 7,2007 at 03:19

    Does anyone know how low the current submission limit actually is?
    Some of you guys seem to have saved your subs for a rainy day (.txt -or whatever u did)…

    Horoma?

  • May 7,2007 at 03:18

    [quote=MikeySwede]If the mod can´t or hasn´t the time new ones should be chosen[/quote]
    they are busy – look at this
    http://www.discogs.com/stats/moderator?genre=all&btn=Refresh

    BIG thanks to the mods

  • md
    May 7,2007 at 02:50

    [quote=MikeySwede]thinking of myself[/quote]
    Yes, that seems to be a recurring theme.

    [quote=MikeySwede]So what is the best solution for one who really wants to put a lot of time into making this database grow[/quote]
    Paying attention would be a good start.

  • May 7,2007 at 02:36

    Reading all of the above I still think the worst problem is speed on the mods behalf – seen submissions pending since dec 2006. If the mod can´t or hasn´t the time new ones should be chosen. Noticing how many mods take time to argue instead of moderating is another prob… hehe. Think the submisson level shouldn´t be limited at all – thinking of myself w a huge collection 5000+ CD several 100s 12″, LPs and 7″ trying to get them into the database will never be able to in this lifetime have about 20 releases pending some edits but most new ones have 50 or so draftrelease only done 12″ and 7″ up to the letter G (well added some a few years ago but stopped since it just took to long time for the approvals and started again in feb but still same speed……). So what is the best solution for one who really wants to put a lot of time into making this database grow……..

  • May 7,2007 at 02:36

    I also want to do that but you have to make an .txt … also editable edits would be nice.

  • May 7,2007 at 00:00

    [quote=Horoma]Just note your simple edit in a txt-file and do it later.[/quote]

    would be nice to be able to save edits in the draft folder.

  • May 6,2007 at 23:53

    [quote=zevulon]Any news??[/quote]
    Yes, the queue is dropping steadily :)

  • May 6,2007 at 23:48

    I cannot believe that I am not allowed to do a simple edit at the moment while others like [u=Antracot] were able to add a bunch of 11 releases yesterday!

  • May 6,2007 at 15:31

    I might be simple.
    I just wait.

  • May 6,2007 at 15:15

    I also made an .txt. That’s the easiest way.

  • May 6,2007 at 09:25

    Great. I’ve gone ahead and done just that (sort of). I saved bookmarks to all of my canceled edits so I can go back and re-release them later when I am under my limit again. Thanks!

  • May 6,2007 at 09:08

    If you can’t resubmit them there’s no point in them being in the queue. My advice to you would be to start a .txt file up listing the URL of the release and the updates you plan to make.

    Once the queue restrictions and / or you’re under your limit you can resubmit them then.

  • May 6,2007 at 08:26

    My sole complaint about the current restrictions are that I have several Edits pending with single obvious errors noticed after the fact or by moderators. I have no issue cancelling and resubmitting these, but being over my limit, I actually can’t. This means leaving Edits with errors easy to correct sitting in my personal queue waiting for restrictions to be lifted so I can cancel and re-submit correctly.

    Yes, I know I should do a better job with pre-screening my own edits. Yes, I know I can cancel the edits and just sit on my hands for 3-4 weeks and wait to re-submit them. Yet, this just seems counter-intuitive to the whole community accuracy to me.

    So my question is; is is better cancel these handful of Edits now, thereby lowering the overall Edit queue or just leave them in the queue until my limit allows me to Cancel and re-submit them correctly? Which is more beneficial overall to the general health of discogs.com? Just want to do the right thing as this point to help the ‘Great Queue Crisis of 07’ get resolved quicker. =8)

  • May 6,2007 at 02:15

    [quote=zevulon]The worst part is the non-ability to add even pics… [/quote]If that’s the worst part for you, low sub limits aren’t that much of a problem for you I suppose.
    Fact is that we don’t have separate queues for each kind of submission, so lowering a sub limit affects them all.
    But I guess you allready knew that ;)

    Btw:

    [quote=nik]At the present rate of restriction that is being experienced this week, the queue will probably be reduced enough over the next two or three weeks to be levelled out again, and submission limits will go back to a little under where they were before the changes started. [/quote]And that was posted 3 days ago.

  • May 6,2007 at 01:48

    So how about the queue and the submission limit?
    Seems like this limbo position lasts forever…
    The worst part is the non-ability to add even pics…

    Any news??

  • May 5,2007 at 16:08

    Please stay on topic.

  • May 5,2007 at 14:41

    I don’t see how this could be any clearer. Write “Blue”, not “Blue Vinyl”, to avoid redundancy. End of story.

  • May 5,2007 at 14:18

    If you bother to read instead of making presumptions – it’s quite obvious that I simply think that this abbreviated annotation might not be crystal clear to the average user – being a hard line Mod, like Dj Pure is not the common case.

    Implying that I play dumb is a weak cover for
    1.not bothering to read and instead jump to conclusions.
    2.not being able to express yourself in a clear and correct manner.

    Sorry Purity – but being humble is a good thing even for a high ranked mod like you.

  • May 5,2007 at 09:36

    DON’T DO IT.

    Sorry, you mean all of a sudden: Don’t write “Blue”.
    That’s what I do.
    Or you mean something else, Mr Clarity?

    Having an opinion is not the same as way of habit.
    No inhibition equals no civility.

  • May 5,2007 at 08:41

    [quote=dj_purity_control]DON’T DO IT[/quote]
    Please, [url=http://www.discogs.com/subs/view/2958352]tell your colleagues[/url], too !

  • May 5,2007 at 06:46

    [quote=zevulon]I beg to differ.[/quote]

    On which grounds?

  • May 5,2007 at 06:32

    How about adding the format “Color Vinyl” and then using free text to type in the color?

  • May 5,2007 at 04:49

    I beg to differ.

  • May 5,2007 at 01:32

    [quote=zevulon]I have read the guidelines on format – still –
    just writing Blue doesn’t automatically refer to colour of vinyl – it might be an annotation of something else. I’d just like to see that in notes as well “Blue vinyl” – a short message like that reiterated it’s good for clarity. IMHO[/quote]

    Since the RSG specifically says:

    “The free text field should be used only to describe the color of the item, or for text that isn’t part of the title but distinguishes the specific release from others (for example ‘Disc 1′, ’30th Anniversary Edition’ etc). It should not be used to describe things that are already in, or should be in, the Format or Description fields.”

    Since the only things allowed in the free text are colour and version-text, what else could Blue be? I can’t think of any release that would use the text ‘blue’ to distinguish itself from other versions – and if there’s a rare exception where a release is called the Blue Edition, the whole term will be included in the free text anyhow.

    So Blue Vinyl is redundant, since we already know the release is vinyl from the drop-down format; all you need to add is Blue.

  • May 4,2007 at 15:56

    I have read the guidelines on format – still –
    just writing Blue doesn’t automatically refer to colour of vinyl – it might be an annotation of something else. I’d just like to see that in notes as well “Blue vinyl” – a short message like that reiterated it’s good for clarity. IMHO

  • May 4,2007 at 06:35

    [quote=Todeskult]I got very limited free time, I got spend it adding new releases[/quote]

    So now you should finally find the time to turn your computer off and go out into the sun. What a blessing is this!

  • May 4,2007 at 06:17

    then add your drafts to your collection: this is perfectly possible and you’ll see them in your collection. Problem solved.

  • May 4,2007 at 06:11

    [quote=Conceited_2]you’ve got 34 pendings, that’s more than some other users can… what’s not fair? it’s strict for everybody.[/quote]

    And only ONE of those is brand new release (btw, it’s pending since February), the rest are updates & artist’s edits (most). I got very limited free time, I got spend it adding new releases (now they’re in drafts) and cannot submit any of those. My records collection list is here, on Discogs, if particular release I got recently is not putted there then I don’t know what exactly I got, that’s what unfair is…

  • May 4,2007 at 05:24

    Why isn’t it fair? The limitations are there for everyone and are only temporary.

  • May 4,2007 at 05:23

    [quote=nik]At the present rate of restriction that is being experienced this week, the queue will probably be reduced enough over the next two or three weeks to be levelled out again, and [b]submission limits will go back to a little under where they were before the changes started.[/b][/quote]

    [quote][u=Oxford Dictionary]
    [url=http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/temporary?view=uk]temporary:[/url] (adj.) lasting for only a limited period.[/quote]

  • May 4,2007 at 05:17

    [quote=Todeskult]It’s not fair!!! [/quote]
    you’ve got 34 pendings, that’s more than some other users can… what’s not fair? it’s strict for everybody.

  • May 4,2007 at 05:07

    [quote=nik]The new system will not allow the queue to rise as before, in fact, we will have automatic control of the queue size, as well as manual control if we need it. Submission limits may go up and down as a result, depending on how the moderations are going. This means we can then focus on getting the whole process smoother for everyone, without worrying about escalating queue sizes.[/quote]

    Sorry nik, but this is bullshit: I’m experienced submitter (482 new entries done, not counting the edits), now I got only ONE new release in queue and I’m unable to move 2nd release from my drafts to my pendings! It’s not fair!!!

  • May 4,2007 at 05:03

    [quote=zevulon]…and the format thing is a total mess.
    “..remove Blue vinyl from notes; write Blue in Format field and NOT Blue Vinyl.” (!!) Blue what!!??? Cover? Vinyl? Emotion? [/quote]

    1000% agree on that: blue, green, red, pink, shrink, etc. what? Cover, printings, innersleeve, jewelcase, artist’s pants? It’s good that on my submissions I got no N-votes and I’m always adding “Green Vinyl”, “Blue Vinyl” etc., like it should be done…

  • May 3,2007 at 23:57

    [quote=neocactar]
    But that’s the limitation to edits. If someone does one in between when you copied to drafted your edit and when you submitted it, the information they added would be gone.[/quote]

    not necessary: that’s what you got version control systems for, but that’s just a side note from me. Something like that would be overkill for this site I guess. Or at least not so easy to implement.

  • May 3,2007 at 18:20

    nik, I appreciate this reality check. N-votes are not used as efficiently as they should be. There really needs to be some strict parameters so users won’t let their pending subs hang for weeks. That said, I know users are not tied to their computers, including myself (I would be a mod, but just don’t have the time).

    I say you tighten the reigns on us users. Let a few of us whine and moan for a couple weeks when implemented permanently, and have an improved system!

  • May 3,2007 at 17:07

    What the hell is the problem? Nik has made it more than clear that this is temporary. Wait a month, make a few good submissions, and we’ll have the queue under control and the road paved for some serious additions to the database.

  • May 3,2007 at 16:48

    Sorry nik, but this is sick.
    People (like me), who are submitting for years now , spending hours for this data are now able to submit 7 releases. Thank you very much.
    What an award for all the work.

  • May 3,2007 at 16:39

    off-topic but maybe some help

    [quote=stffn]For ease a copy past would be good to quickly submit a release with a slightly different format. I can understand the reason for not having it. That lazy submitters might miss other changes. But on the other hand, if a release is in discogs, then one should be able to assume that it was correctly submitted why copying can save submission-queue time by not needing to correct typos. The argument against it properly rate higher within the editors circle.[/quote]

    It’s already there – on any release page, on the right you have a ‘copy to draft’ link. Klick it and edit your new submission from your drafts.

  • May 3,2007 at 12:52

    [quote=royb0t]how about a “Copy Edit to Draft”?[/quote]
    If you go to a release, edit it, and then save it, the changes will be there when you go back to it unless someone else has also pressed the edit button on that release. And considering the number of releases in the database, you’ll probably come out of it with a bit of work done.

    But that’s the limitation to edits. If someone does one in between when you copied to drafted your edit and when you submitted it, the information they added would be gone.

  • May 3,2007 at 12:47

    Question for nik that dovetails with an earlier question from Part 1 of this topic…

    I know our past submissions won’t be weighted per this new system. Will edits such as this http://www.discogs.com/subs/view/2922210 be weighted more because of their content, or will it still just be a measly edit?

    Just getting an idea of what to expect. I still have a lot of material to submit – new releases, edits, and images!

  • nik
    May 3,2007 at 12:05

    [quote=royb0t]I have a feeling though once the limits are raised it’s going to get back to the usual size it was at before way quick[/quote]

    The new system will not allow the queue to rise as before, in fact, we will have automatic control of the queue size, as well as manual control if we need it. Submission limits may go up and down as a result, depending on how the moderations are going. This means we can then focus on getting the whole process smoother for everyone, without worrying about escalating queue sizes.

  • May 3,2007 at 10:47

    I know that in regards to editing Edits is somewhere and should probably go there… but since we’re all maxed at our sub limit – how about a “Copy Edit to Draft”?

    I know there’d be a lot in it, like making sure the current version hasn’t been updated since the edit was copied to draft. Or if it will be really necessary if the submission limit for edits goes back to around 100 (which I never reached). That or patience, but I’m not good with the latter.

    PS: AWESOME JOB TO THE MODS! That queue is gettin’ down there! hooray! I have a feeling though once the limits are raised it’s going to get back to the usual size it was at before way quick. :x I already have 5-7 drafts ready to submit. Keep up the good work though. You guys rock.

  • md
    May 3,2007 at 10:27

    [quote=al1]Thanks for the additional infos about format[/quote]
    Aren’t you a mod? How is it possible you didn’t know this?

  • May 3,2007 at 09:54

    [quote=zevulon]”..remove Blue vinyl from notes; write Blue in Format field and NOT Blue Vinyl.” (!!) Blue what!!??? Cover? Vinyl? Emotion?
    [/quote]

    Why would you put Blue Vinyl in the free text? Vinyl is already in the drop-down, so you already know the release is vinyl – this is why you only need the colour.

    [quote=oparischka]N-vote because album or remastered tag is missing?
    [/quote]

    Shouldn’t be an N-vote. If it’s an add, you can update it, if it’s an update, it can be updated again. That’s an incidental, and in my experience, most mods have simply asked for an(other) update.

  • al1
    May 3,2007 at 08:15

    Thanks for the additional infos about format, nik.

  • May 3,2007 at 06:44

    Yes, but i’ve considerate just one “add release” submission per user… we know that many users have more than one subs in pending…

    These are just average datas, but truly…

  • May 3,2007 at 06:35

    [quote=nik]How to deal with this is already in the guidelines: [/quote]

    N-vote because album or remastered tag is missing?

  • nik
    May 3,2007 at 06:29

    That is over a 6 year period, so I wouldn’t expect every contributor to have a submission at the same time. If they all did do that, I guess we would need a different system!

  • May 3,2007 at 06:24

    buf=bug

  • May 3,2007 at 06:23

    Nik, i’ve done two calculations, maybe can help, or maybe you know this…

    There are more than 48500 contributors…. and about 30000 with rank minor or equal to 4

    18500 with more than 4…

    I think if every users (of 18500) keep one or more “add releases” in pending… we are far to raising the queque down to 18000/19000..

    For now there are “19216 Add Release” in queque, and I think that the better result should be around 15000, but less I think no.

    That, if my calculations are exact, it’s the value of standard queque…

  • nik
    May 3,2007 at 06:23

    [quote=vargind]how does it help this database if I get a release accepted, but then when I try to add the new band members thus created to their band, it says I’m at my submission limit ??

    I’ve only got about 10 edits pending… f*%king ridiculous[/quote]

    Please understand this is a temporary measure! I am not sure how many different ways I can say it. If you don’t agree that a lower queue is going to be beneficial, then that is your right, but we are going for it now, and we can see after everything has settled down whether it is better or not.

    [quote=al1]I’d like to have clearer rules about the format (maybe create a “format list” like for the credits available in the RSG) [/quote]

    There already is one – http://help.discogs.com/wiki/SubmissionGuidelinesFormat

    [quote=al1]I think it’s stupid to have a correct release staying weeks and weeks because mods are discussing about the interest of having LP and/or Album or 12″ … in format.[/quote]

    http://help.discogs.com/wiki/SubmissionGuidelinesFormat#lp12

    [quote=al1]I see also than the new format field allow tons of new submissions of the same record with just slighty differences.[/quote]

    No, not at the moment. We are planning on allowing all unique releases at some point, but we need to juggle exactly when this is going to happen.
    [quote=zevulon]..and the format thing is a total mess.
    “..remove Blue vinyl from notes; write Blue in Format field and NOT Blue Vinyl.” (!!) Blue what!!??? Cover? Vinyl? Emotion? [/quote]

    How to deal with this is already in the guidelines:

    [quote]The free text field should be used only to describe the color of the item, or for text that isn’t part of the title but distinguishes the specific release from others (for example ‘Disc 1′, ’30th Anniversary Edition’ etc). It should not be used to describe things that are already in, or should be in, the Format or Description fields. As the free text field will be shortened the only the first three characters on the artist and label page lists, it is vital that the most important distinguishing feature be noted first. For example, if the vinyl is available in “mottled clear red, blue, and brown”, it should be listed in the free text box with the color first: ‘Brown Mottled, Clear’ etc, so the three character abbreviations “Red, Bro, Blu” appear on the lists.[/quote]

  • May 3,2007 at 06:22

    Nik, i’ve done two calculations, maybe can help, or maybe you know this…

    There are more than 48500 contributors…. and about 30000 with rank < or equal 4

    18500 with more than 4…

    I think if every users (of 18500) keep one or more "add releases" in pending… we are far to raising the queque down to 18000/19000..

    For now there are "19216 Add Release" in queque, and I think that the better result should be around 15000, but less I think no.

    That, if my calculations are exact, it's the value of standard queque…

  • May 3,2007 at 06:22

    Nik, i’ve done two calculations, maybe can help, or maybe you know this…

    There are more than 48500 contributors…. and about 30000 with rank < = 4

    18500 with more than 4…

    I think if every users (of 18500) keep one or more "add releases" in pending… we are far to raising the queque down to 18000/19000..

    For now there are "19216 Add Release" in queque, and I think that the better result should be around 15000, but less I think no.

    That, if my calculations are exact, it's the value of standard queque…

  • May 3,2007 at 06:21

    Nik, i’ve done two calculations, maybe can help, or maybe you know this…

    There are more than 48500 contributors…. and about 30000 with rank <=4

    18500 with more than 4…

    I think if every users (of 18500) keep one or more "add releases" in pending… we are far to raising the queque down to 18000/19000..

    For now there are "19216 Add Release" in queque, and I think that the better result should be around 15000, but less I think no.

    That, if my calculations are exact, it's the value of standard queque…

  • May 3,2007 at 06:21

    Nik, i’ve done two calculations, maybe can help, or maybe you know this…

    There are more than 48500 contributors…. and about 30000 with rank <=4 18500 with more than 4... I think if every users (of 18500) keep one or more "add releases" in pending... we are far to raising the queque down to 18000/19000.. For now there are "19216 Add Release" in queque, and I think that the better result should be around 15000, but less I think no. That, if my calculations are exact, it's the value of standard queque...

  • May 3,2007 at 04:22

    Doesn’t it also have somthing to do with the fact that there’s a lot of music released ?

    On various media I might add.
    Vinyl, CD, MP3, WAV, …….

    By lowering the submission limit you risk having updates / adds not done because of the fact that you’ve reached the limit, you have to wait for (let’s be realistic) 3 days before you can submit something else.
    It’s just easier to ‘forget’ about updating or adding some things this way.

    Just a thought.

  • May 3,2007 at 03:31

    lol true vargind O.o

  • May 3,2007 at 02:48

    [quote=SeRKeT]hence my call for mods making very small corrections to speed things up a little :)[/quote]

    well, mods are just as unlikely to be able to submit an update :)

  • May 3,2007 at 02:16

    i had a release accepted recently that a mod made a slight adjustment too . i stated in the notes that the record cover said limited edition not in the format field.. i think if its a very small mistake mods should correct these more often rather than N-vote this way things are done quicker.. i also made a comment on a pending release about needing to add ‘promo’ to the sub because i had an official copy of the rls to add and it was returning a duplicate error. the mod had Y-Voted on the rls too and the reply to y comment was this ”u can do the edit yourself if u wish” lol i wish this was true as i am unable to add more atm because of the restrictions … hence my call for mods making very small corrections to speed things up a little :)

  • May 3,2007 at 02:06

    how does it help this database if I get a release accepted, but then when I try to add the new band members thus created to their band, it says I’m at my submission limit ??

    I’ve only got about 10 edits pending… f*%king ridiculous

  • May 3,2007 at 01:25

    …seems like a lot of non-compulsory info is now compulsory.
    “…please add Album…”
    “…please submit additional info…”

    I can see that a release doesn’t have to be re-done too often – but since the rules change ALL THE TIME – this will ALWAYS be inevitable.

    Clearer updates on rules/non-compulsory rules/info.

    …and the format thing is a total mess.
    “..remove Blue vinyl from notes; write Blue in Format field and NOT Blue Vinyl.” (!!) Blue what!!??? Cover? Vinyl? Emotion?

    Order in the class, PLEASE!!!

  • May 3,2007 at 01:17

    [quote=al1]3- I see also than the new format field allow tons of new submissions of the same record with just slighty differences. It’s just an opinion, but is it so useful to distinguish releases just because one is a yellow LP and another blue ? Or one is a digipack or one a regular CD ? One is “Limited” and another one is a “Promo” ? [/quote]

    The coloured once i think need not be seperated if everthing else is the same, since it might be a gimmic that half are printed in blue and the rest in yellow. Then it should be put in the notes field. I know hat you mean, cause what if you got a black, submit that too?

    But the rest. Yes it should be there.

    For ease a copy past would be good to quickly submit a release with a slightly different format. I can understand the reason for not having it. That lazy submitters might miss other changes. But on the other hand, if a release is in discogs, then one should be able to assume that it was correctly submitted why copying can save submission-queue time by not needing to correct typos. The argument against it properly rate higher within the editors circle.

  • al1
    May 3,2007 at 00:53

    1- One good thing we could do for reducing the size of the queue is letting moderators editing the re-edit requests. Since the rules have changed many times @ discogs (writing credits, ANVs, format …), there are more & more (too much ?) re-edits in the queue than in the past.

    2- I’d like to have clearer rules about the format (maybe create a “format list” like for the credits available in the RSG) as I think it’s stupid to have a correct release staying weeks and weeks because mods are discussing about the interest of having LP and/or Album or 12″ … in format.

    3- I see also than the new format field allow tons of new submissions of the same record with just slighty differences. It’s just an opinion, but is it so useful to distinguish releases just because one is a yellow LP and another blue ? Or one is a digipack or one a regular CD ? One is “Limited” and another one is a “Promo” ?

    And YES nik ! I’m completly frustrated by this submission limit restriction ! ; (

  • May 2,2007 at 17:40

    For myself, I usually wait 3 weeks between a request for a change and voting No if there’s no response. People aren’t always tied to their computers and don’t always have their collections at hand. They travel, they go on holiday, they get tied up at work… they behave like normal human beings.

    But this makes no difference to the size of the queue. I don’t stop moderating whilst waiting for someone to respond..

  • May 2,2007 at 16:32

    [quote=Kino]maybe there could be a tickbox next to where mods comment.. if they choose to tick it, the comment automatically becomes a no-vote if not responded to by submitter in x amount of time.[/quote]

    Not a bad idea. One to mull over.

  • May 2,2007 at 16:31

    Many moderators wait 3 to 5 days for a submitter to respond to comments before issuing the dreaded N-vote, though there is no set rule.

    Speaking for myself, it is quite frustrating to have dozens of pending submissions waiting for days on responses. It gets even worse when the submitter makes some corrections, but leaves others issue. The cycle begins again with more waiting…

    I know not every user checks their submissions everyday, but a bit of diligence on the part of the submitters would be helpful too.

  • May 2,2007 at 16:14

    ….I know someone must be hungry by now…

    Hats off for [url=http://www.discogs.com/user/DiscogsUpdateBot]My Favorite User[/url]!!

  • May 2,2007 at 15:24

    maybe there could be a tickbox next to where mods comment.. if they choose to tick it, the comment automatically becomes a no-vote if not responded to by submitter in x amount of time.

  • May 2,2007 at 13:47

    [quote=paultrautrim]N-vote if there are … editable edits[/quote]
    After a reasonable amount of no-response time. I’m in agreement as well, but it’s up to each mod how he or she chooses to moderate.

  • May 2,2007 at 13:36

    I’m in agreement with the those above; N-vote if there are errors and editable edits. Then we’ll have a much better system.

  • May 2,2007 at 11:39

    [quote=jweijde]Mods should N-vote quicker and more often, to force a reaction from the submitter.[/quote]
    I could also see this being an easy way to help determine the quality of submissions/updates for calculating submission limits. Get things moving in the queue, too. I think somewhere in the forums someone proposed N-voted subs get moved out of the active queue until the submitter responds/updates accordingly. Not sure if that has been considered further too.

  • May 2,2007 at 11:14

    [quote=jweijde]Mods should N-vote quicker and more often, to force a reaction from the submitter.[/quote]
    I agree. In that way we get the items that are just “hanging” out of the queue and the user is, as you say, (more) forced to do something about it. However, this attitude is not equally productive with edits, where a rejection force one to do everything all over again. This’d be (easily) solved if we’re granted the ability to edit our edits, which I hope will be happening sometime soon.

  • May 2,2007 at 10:28

    Making the queue manageble is important, but in my opinion the current size of the queue also has a lot to do with the mods.
    Especially the fairly new Submission notes function has let to mods only commenting on submissions instead of voting. As a result submissions stay considerably longer in the queue because mods wait for a reaction and it generally takes a considerable amount of time before the submitters come back and react. In my opinion it’s quite ridiculous to see subs in the queue longer that two weeks without a reaction. Mods should N-vote quicker and more often, to force a reaction from the submitter.

Leave A Reply