teo wrote:

Greets

I'm sorry about the lack of updates on V4. After it went live I was frantically fixing things and working on improvements. Soon after I caught a bad flu and have been out sick for over a week. Looking back, the deployment of V4 was not planned well and came off quite sloppy. This is my fault and I'm sorry about the trouble and confusion it caused. I'm now working on getting things back in order. It's also become clear that the technical aspects of Discogs are too much for me to handle on my own, so I'm looking for another developer. There will be a job listing on the site in the next few days.

Now, about V4 itself. The reasons for doing this have been explained before. But in summary, it's because Discogs must accept varying degrees of data quality. Discogs has had to continually change to keep going, and this is the next change. I feel it is a matter of survival for Discogs and this is how we're going to operate from now on. There will be no rollback to the previous version. With that said, there are still some major problems with the system. These will be fixed, along with many improvements to the system. WE WILL MAKE THIS BETTER! So please be patient while we work through the issues. For those confused about how we're going to maintain the quality level in Discogs, I think the best method is to actively monitor changes to your collection, items for sale, and artists/labels of interest. If you think there is anything I've overlooked and hasn't been mentioned before please post or PM me (PM is the fastest way to get in touch with me).

thanks,

Kevin

Elusive1990 wrote:

R.I.P Discogs :(

donnacha wrote:

There's only one way to do that - ROLL BACK.

little_alien wrote:

Thanks for taking responsibility. You have gained a part of my respect back. nik could have told us you were ill though, why didn't he? Haven't you two been in contact? Your story above better be the truth or I'm off for good and I'll do more than just write a really dramatic message in the forums.

I'm still willing to give v4 a fair chance. Given the right tools, it won't be that different from v3 (which I also didn't like that much, but ok, we'll never go back to v2...)

Europeen wrote:

I check my 'collection' today and I notice a most of releases disappeared from the db. A bit boring.

deejsasqui wrote:

Quoted for posterity, emphasized for clarity.

little_alien wrote:

Come on, like anybody truly believed it would happen...

deejsasqui wrote:

If nothing else, I could get donnacha to stop saying posting ROLL BACK - then I can stop hearing the line "Roll out, roll out, roll out" in my head, from some drum'n'bass bootie. It's a good song an all, but not that good ;)

fistondub wrote:

KL aka Teo : Let's all make a ...issue of it (lol. see chat forum group)

fistondub wrote:

KL aka Teo : Let's all make a ...issue of it (lol. see chat forum group)

elisel wrote:

Too little too late.

avvy wrote:

Why couldn't Nik have said any of this in the last week?

I still think V4 is a very bad move but I am willing to wait and see what changes happen.

little_alien wrote:

My question above too. This had better be the truth. I'm very interested in the answer to this.

avvy wrote:

Can you explain this a bit more as well?
You survived for years with just the fees from advanced accounts. With all the extra income from the marketplace these days I would have thought that the survival of Discogs wasn't in question anymore.

onelittle wrote:

Please expand on this statement.

In your opinion, what level of quality is acceptable?
Is the RSG now technically obsolete or, at best, optional?
How do you envisage newbies learning the finer details of submitting?
What motive do submitters have for responding to comments?
What motive do voters have for making the effort in the first place?




Could you make a roadmap of changes to be made and their deadlines available to us, please. Clear transparent communication would be useful right now.

elisel wrote:

I don't think the survival of discogs depends on money at the moment. A lot of damage has been done to the image of discogs and many long-time users have turned their backs on the site. It's just a matter of damage control imo, but I don't know if it isn't too late already.

donnacha wrote:

ROLL BACK, ROLL BACK, ROLL BACK, ROLL BACK, ROLL BACK, ROLL BACK, :-p

Drama_Ft._Justified wrote:

I just spent the last hour fixing the 'NONE' page (which one release on there was not even a release anymore) & removing a fake ZYX page (which was created again by the same person who's releases I had already moved before meaning they didn't listen to a thing I wrote or even look at the quick start guide...then again why would they need to since "I" am expected to fix "Their" mess.) I'm not even going to touch the fake 'Warner Bros.' page until I refill my migrain medication.

"Discogs must accept varying degrees of data quality" Quality?!!...What Quality?...I don't see almost any quality anymore...I guess 0 quality on 50% of releases is accptable...It's the only reason why THIS THING still exists in the database.

http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1275390#latest

For the love of anything, please ROLL BACK.

djtmaroon wrote:

^briliant questions... Everything onelittle said is what I to wish to know. Any chance you could answer those questions please teo?

Cheers onelittle

djtmaroon wrote:

^Bang.... Zooom...

Cliff_Freeword wrote:

Sorry, but you "feel" nothing ! Take a look of the mess generated by your V4, are you searching for another clues, or will you accept that you've make the biggest mistake with the 11th march 2008 ??? In a few months Discogs will sink, no doubt...

little_alien wrote:

WTF? I took care of the ZYX page a couple of days ago. Some may have been left behind with a comment though, I guess you took care of those.

heidegger wrote:

Please, please bring back the WATCHLIST feature! It was absolutely invaluable!

kozmikdj wrote:

No it isn't. right now, there's no encouragement for users to enter data correctly. they don't LEARN to submit properly, like back when we could N vote a submission. now people can just come in, enter some incorrect data, put it up for sale and ignore it / expect someone else to correct it for them.
it's wrong.

but if there's one thing that's clear by now, is that you don't think of this site as a database anymore, but as a marketplace.


'cause there's not much data needed to sell something.

k.felgerman wrote:

Jesus is among us.

Drama_Ft._Justified wrote:

They didn't...they just submitted more releases under that page...again...because they don't seem to read or even care...lolol.

AxemRangers wrote:

A terrifying prospect.

Discogs was an ideal resource for me because I could rest assured that the data here was accurate. Now, I understand accepting varying degrees of completion, in my early days here I often skimmed over details such as individual Credits in my submissions out of ignorance or laziness. But varying degrees of quality? Totally unacceptable.

legumes-SALES wrote:

Goodbye.

psychonausea wrote:

You forgot to remove your blindfold & your earplugs.

marcelrecords wrote:

You are not Discogs. You obviously mean: I accept varying degrees of data quality. My guess is: you'll be surprised how few users will agree with you.
Now, let's get out of here...

tony.lee wrote:

Sandwiching bad news between good news is a well known trick for deceiving people.

Unfortunatly it doesn't work in the 'written world' where one can go back and read what is being said over and over.

MR_E wrote:

This has been pretty clear to the rest of us for some years now! Good luck cleaning up the mess you've made, both of the technical side of things and of the community here. Both are in bad shape right now.

asylum27 wrote:

You really don't get discogs...its a mystery to you. Its not in simply programming that you seem to have lost your way but the overall concept and philosophy seems to have got away from you. There was and is no need to accept "varying degrees of data quality" and you fail to offer any reason why we should.

The data quality was controlled pre-10 March, there were gatekeepers and concerned users who ensured it was so. You, single handedly destroyed that. Now, its a an increasingly unreliable quagmire.

The only issue was the queue but you and Nik created that issue and refused to listen to anyone else, especially those here who quite clearly had a better grasp on what discogs was than either of you.

Sad really, to see you both humble and destroy such a mighty achievement.

fleshmeatdoll wrote:

I would imagine that with users leaving the site out of frustration since v4 was introduced, listening to what THEY have/had to say would be a matter of survival for the site. because in the end how can a site survive without users?

the most disturbing part about your logic is however the point that there needs to be a matter of survival.
as far as i remember discogs was never about surviving or staying alive until you introduced v4.
on the contrary pre v4 discogs grew steadily and retained a constant and high degree of data quality.

it is true, YOU have made accepting varying degrees of data quality the ONLY means of survival of discogs, as every lazy submitter must be allowed in to fill the gap that dedicated contributers left AFTER you drove them away.

r.i.p. discogs.

corne_mo wrote:

That's the most stupid thing you could have said in this situation. The majority of the mass-contributing users (read editors and moderators) are only here because of the quality the DB HAD.
It's gonna look like e-bay now and I don't think you find one record collector that is happy with that idea.
Only wise thing you can do, see all threads, is to pick up your backup from before the V4 changes and implement V3 including sub limits. But he, let's go for quantity in stead of quality.

Kergillian wrote:

Are you planning on reinstating moderation and sub limits? That's the only possible way to fix this morass. And even then, it's likely too late...

PKS wrote:

R.I.P. Discogs

Schweppsner wrote:

teo + $$$ = D†scogs

wrote:

I don't think teo is making that much of money to consider that idea...

DS_Helder wrote:

Of course, it could be said this has always been the fact, as some entries have had just the required information. But:
1) We should set a minimum of quality for what information is shown; and, of most importance:
2) We should not accept decreasing data quality.

Haze wrote:

No news here, just like with all the other changes before. And I'm pretty sure that you're not sorry, why should you. You have never shown the slightest amount of respect to those who helped to build your site.




One should think that nearly 2 million items for sale should help to guarantee the survival, no?


"Normal" users had already in V3 the possibility to edit submissions or to leave helpful comments for mods to verify if the entered data is correct when they own the release in question. If they haven't done it before why should they do it now? Since in the future everything here will run more or less automatic (you seem to like machines more than humans) you should maybe consider that a release/edit can't be submitted when you get the error message that one or more credit roles are wrong, to keep the "quality" level as high as possible. But I guess that wouldn't go to well together with the survival of Discogs and your philosophy of a completely ignorant...

V-12 wrote:

V4 is a total crap.

hmvh wrote:

So much for that.

sdevo wrote:

ROLL BACK, ROLL BACK, ROLL BACK, ROLL BACK, ROLL BACK, ROLL BACK

davidsmind wrote:

I feel the more error reporting the better.

It's a VERY simple regex to figure out if someone submits a vinyl release but did not add sides to the POS..or to find a CD with sides...or a non single sided release with only ONE side. Programming languages have been capable of doing this for about 30 years now.

It's a simple variable return to show the user which credit list exactly they entered incorrectly (as of right now support for this is spotty if you have more than one role assigned to an artist)

Or perhaps there should be a "soft" warning if the user submits a label with one of the following names:
http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/160369

In V4, I believe better error reporting and cutting off stupidity at the root is going to be key to it's success.

hmvh wrote:

Friggin' F5

nik wrote:

Regarding data quality, it is important to remember that submissions have been of variable quality throughout the sites history, and there are a lot of better ways of doing things now than there were 4 years ago. We have seen that submissions get constantly worked on and made better by both the submitter and other users. This is a natural situation, and one we should accept. There were many examples in v3 of submissions being in 'limbo', and spending months being commented on and updated by the submitter, mods, and other users. Submissions could sit in this state, viewable in the database, highlighted in yellow. The problem with this is exactly the undefined state - not accepted but not rejected. The important difference now is we can mark such submissions instantly with out opinion of the quality of the data, for example Battle For Everyting was submitted 15 days ago and marked as 'needs major changes' 13 days ago. It's state is clearer (notwithstanding any display improvements we can make), but at least on the label / artist page, it is blatantly clear this submission has been deemed good enough for the database, but it needs it's cat# fixed, and the notes should be entered as credits. In v3, this same submission would still be siting there with the yellow 'pending' highlight, and anyone browsing the artist or label page would not know if it was a new submission that was perfect, or had been worked / commented on and needed things changed.

The guidelines are still fundamental in how to enter data to the site - they are what we use to judge if something is correct or not, what we use to try to make the site consistent and logical, and what we use to stop flip-flop changes from happening. Data entry is not 'do whatever you like' but 'do your best', and the vast majority of submitters do try hard to make their submissions correct. We can and will work on the automated error checks, there are a bunch of updates we can do for that.

Regarding submission limits - we will try selective limits (along with help and advice) for users that are not doing well with their submissions. This is a planned part of the new system.

PKS wrote:

Who are you trying to fool?? Please stop talking bullshit straight in our face. How about:

http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/159133

legumes-SALES wrote:

no, not really

blach wrote:

Indeed, - I have no time for this site anymore.

Jayfive wrote:

But why should other people do the work for submitters who ae too lazy and/or too stupid to read the RSG? What you and teo dont seem to realise is theres a tiny minority of users on this site willing and able to do this - and a lot of them have left the site or downed tools.




Again, its up to everyone else to report them or alert discogs management in some way - always cure, never prevention.

corne_mo wrote:

That has been tried in the end of the V2 phase too and never worked correctly. Hell, it didn't even get a change and the system was thrown in the garbage within a month or two. Why would we believe that it's gonna get implemented and working now?

helix wrote:

Thanks for deleting my post due to 'misquoting' those in charge.

teo, nik your ideas are all so very bad.

Holfi wrote:

It's not that I don't think the v4 to this point have had some major issues that needs to be adressed, and I understand your frustration at the lack of communication, but with this it seems that nik & teo at least recognizes some of the flaws and are willing to make adjustments. I'm still skeptical, but I seriously doubt it will ease the communication with short nonconstructive comments eg.

.




This would really open up for a more productive discussion, and (I guess) restore (some of) the confidence in the forum.

ShampooCell wrote:

I have yet to see this occur one single time. Do you really think that's true?

You're talking to a group of people who have spent many years trying to work with submitters to improve their submissions, and I hope I'm not the only one who's insulted with this notion that v.4 has made them MORE willing to meet even the site's minimum standards. It's simply and obviously not true.

I'm glad that teo plans to hire another programmer. I think that's a step in the right direction for sure.

Holfi wrote:

Douple post

legumes-SALES wrote:

are you a paid troll?

Holfi wrote:

Sure, but in your eyes probably more a gnome - and again thx for the constructive comment. I'm just saying that Nik & Teo maybe aren't send from hell to ruin our lifes...

japedumarie_shop wrote:

I am scared.... I hope this isn't the end of the most beautiful database in the world ?

I am hooked on discogs - and now with V4 I don't know what the hell is going on... Everybody can add like crazy and make mistakes as many as they want ... It's a bloody mess already -> stop this ... before it's too late & DON'T SAY & USE THIS AS A EXCUSE THAT YOU WHERE SICK but take your responsibility for what you have done and FIX this before it's too late ....
Come with a solution !! NOOOOW !

japedumarie_shop wrote:

I am scared.... I hope this isn't the end of the most beautiful database in the world ?

I am hooked on discogs - and now with V4 I don't know what the hell is going on... Everybody can add like crazy and make mistakes as many as they want ... It's a bloody mess already -> stop this ... before it's too late & DON'T SAY & USE THIS AS A EXCUSE THAT YOU WHERE SICK but take your responsibility for what you have done and FIX this before it's too late ....
Come with a solution !! NOOOOW !

legumes-SALES wrote:

japedumarie_shop wrote:

No I am sorry - correct - it's for user TEO, offcourse
My apologies...

legumes-SALES wrote:

Dude, your attitude...

I don't think any of the users you attacked in this thread are in urgency to justify their stances on v4 to a gnome.

legumes-SALES wrote:

;)

n/m cheers

Holfi wrote:

You call me a troll; I respond with a bit of irony and suddenly I got an attitude... And I certainly wasn't planning an attack, but only pleaded for a fair trial and maybe give them (nik & teo) a chance to fix their mistakes. Good communication is a two-way street, and even though n & t certainly haven't proved their skills as communicators its probably not helping to bash them each time their heads come out of the bushes - even though it can be tempting :-)

Jayfive wrote:

Yes, because critising the brevity of what people have posted is really helpful

Jayfive wrote:

Believe me when I say no it isnt - many many of the subjects brought up in v4 discussions where brought up months ago and continue to go unanswered.

Holfi wrote:

I know they haven't listened, but if we can't somehow establish a good communication with n & t, then we won't seen any development. I'm not saying that its the users/ex-mods fault that there's lack of communication - not at all! But if we, each time they come up with a statement, only replies with short angry messages - even though its tempting - then they certainly won't listen to us. And to state it again: I'm well aware that they in the past haven't listened, but if we don't believe that it/they can improve then we're unfortunately just wasting our time/venting steam...

killaswitch wrote:

WHERE IS THE MODERATOR/VOTER INTERFACE?...

the database gets more and more screwed day by day and there is no possibility to fix it on a large scale.

FLuViRuS wrote:

CRY ME A RIVER.

wrote:

Giv3 p3ac3 a chanc3...

Gecks wrote:

there are 2 main 'concerns' i have with the kind of data we deal with at discogs:
- securing existing 'correct' data.
this could be fine under V4, once the system uses the releases 'quality' to affect its 'editability'. that is, a release that's voted 'complete & correct' would (always?) be voted by someone who either has the release and confirm that everything is there, or someone who has a concrete source (scan of the sleeve or something else - the kind of confirmation i would have looked for when i was a mod). so edits to a 'complete and correct' sub should not go live instantly - they should be made to wait for the vote. everything else could go live straight, i think (maybe not for 'correct' releases also?).
- not allowing non-existent/duplicate data in.
i don't know how to solve this. the 'pending' releases or the 'unvoted' releases - it all seems like the same problem. only V2 seemed to do this right, but then we get the V2 problems of limiting contributions.

with some kind of 'release protection' for high quality releases, and the voting tools we had available to us before (why not still have a 'queue' of un-voted releases?)...i think everyone would be much happier. hey i didn't say happy :)

asylum27 wrote:

Oh, twaddle nik..you know it and we all know it. Sometimes I feel embarrassed for you writing such crap. You are not a fool and yet you humiliate yourself this way.

Such submissions, due to the nature of the layout of the submission page were quite clearly a work in progress, an item being moderated to an acceptable standard. The current interface offers little such indication unless one knows where to look.



Unless they were shrewd enough to scroll down.

waxHead wrote:

From a website usability perspective, please disable users from being able to alter "live" values without first getting votes. This has been making a mess of previously valid entries as new users start changing all sorts of things without understanding the "correct" way of making changes to existing artists/releases/etc.

Please don't say the changes can simply be reverted - by saying this, you expect that your user-base wants to do this, and given the vastly negative response to the V4 changes, I doubt you have as much user support as you did previously. Discogs has been a fantastic musical asset, but it's not just a one-man shop - it's been built by the hard work of thousands of users. Without overall user support, all the time that's been spent building this site will slowly deteriorate as the users you've depended on start leaving.

AnalogAutomat wrote:

people still care`? lol! this site is fukced!

0 wrote:

I don't think it's going to work.

guzzer wrote:

Re: We must accept different levels of data quality

If you mean - we must accept both simple and complex submissions, I completely agree. People can add credits later to simple submissions

If you mean - it doesn't matter if what you submit is right or wrong, I couldn't disagree more. If you take the reggae genre for example, there are a LOT of entries owned by one person only. If the original submitter can't get the sub right, the chance of someone seeing it, owning it, fixing it, later are remote. Outcome - incorrect data, labels, links for years if not for ever. How can this be desirable?

So which is it? I am genuinely interested...

deejsasqui wrote:

That's what the forums are now, where we vent a lot of steam. You're not as new to the site as some users, but I don't know if you've read through the threads much. Or maybe you did, and the important posts or threads were deleted by the time you got there.

There has been a LOT of discussion going on. We have a 2nd version of a bugtracker, new forums, and a revised site we never really asked for (and in turn, never really needed), while the Master Release system hasn't been discussed openly by teo for a while. I think there was some mention of something going online at the beginning of 2008, and now it's almost April. We have a list of fairly simple checks that would have saved moderators a LOT of time hashing out the basic questions ("No, your CD didn't come out in 1979, that was the original release year," "Where is your second catalog number / second label? You can't leave those fields blank," "you shouldn't list vinyl or cassette tracks as 1-10, they should be A1-A5, B1-B5," ... )

And for v4 specifically? Lots has been REMOVED that was functional before. Just check the outstanding issues list, and see how few have been resolved. Lots of answers, though most are "this will be updated with this other feature."

Sorry for venting steam, but everyone who thinks we should say "hey, sorry you were sick, good luck fixing the site" is missing the fact that there were issues prior to last week. I'm not saying we should have no sympathy for someone who is sick, and who has built this site code up by himself (I won't say the site is only his doing - he started it, and kept adding features, but he has submitted very little in the huge scope of things), but I'm saying he could have told nik to tell the rest of us that he wasn't going to be able to do anything more with v4 for a few weeks.

Yes, communication is a two way street. And it's a lot more useful if communication comes in an even flow, instead of a steady flow in and trickling bits and pieces coming back.

blach wrote:

Exactly my point. Thanks for clarifying.

Weasle wrote:

quite an understatement that considering the amount of discussion beforehand.





excuse my ignorance but isn't that what nik does?





ABSLUTLY UNNACEPTABE the quality of the data is aramount to the surviva of discogs, there are many other sites that list varying degrees of quality, DISCOGS used to be the most accurate.





regardless of the discussion and the fact that mosdt of this is unwanted by the majority of users??





that's what we used to do but now this isn't as easily achieved anymore.

where have the other usefull functions gone......like alternatives to artist names when hovering??


I've not left this site yet but my foot is out the door

Schweppsner wrote:

@ unknown

Who do you think gets all the money from the marketplace here?

taalem wrote:

nope. nik is our beloved "community manager".

taalem wrote:

totally impossible right now as the watchlist doesn't work anymore!

donnacha wrote:

Alas, in v4 that has become a complete Oxymoron. Once upon a time, Nik engaged, discussed and tried to resolve issues. Now we have Nik the mouthpiece - reminds me of HR people.

little_alien wrote:

So...? I'm waiting.

onelittle wrote:

Thanks for the reply, nik. The theories you are basing the sites future on still seem optimistic, at best.




It's also important to remember that prior to V4, subs went through a degree of quality control in order to meet the RSG. Very few were 100% perfect, many have been and will be improved. But, at least, they generally adhered to the basics of the RSG.

That now happens after the fact, once a sub is lost amongst the other million-odd subs; perhaps missing a remix credit or linking to Artist rather than Artist (3).

Fixing errors such as these, which are now live in the DB, relies upon:
a/ Someone stumbling over the mistakes and having certain knowledge of the release
b/ Someone stumbling over the mistakes and being able to start a dialogue with the submitter

a/ was always the case, but b/ is a new unknown.

I ask again…
How do you envisage newbies learning the finer details of submitting?
What motive do submitters have for responding to comments?
What motive do voters have for making the effort in the first place?





The vast majority of submitters who genuinely wanted to contribute to the site would do their best once they had the quirks of the entry system explained to them. It took me a few subs with suspicious mod N-votes to learn my mistakes, and learn to sub correctly.

I ask again…
How do you envisage newbies learning the finer details of submitting?
What motive do submitters have for responding to comments?
What motive do voters have for making the effort in the first place?



In light of the fact that there is now no motive for anyone to enter into a dialogue (submit and, boom, it's in), there appears to be at present poor notification and no tracking system for dialogue, and in the light of the fact that there's next to no one around to enforce the RSG and explain our rules,

I ask again…
In your opinion, what level of quality is acceptable, given that the sites small percentage of 'super-users' are the ones that wholly understand the standards?
Is the RSG now technically obsolete or, at best, optional, given that this small percentage of 'super-users' have been neutered in guiding those who don't yet know better?


Finally, could you make a roadmap of changes to be made and their deadlines available to us, please. Clear transparent communication would be useful right now.

marcelrecords wrote:

Not possible, there is no way to track comments one makes on subs. This sorry fact renders all efforts by users to maintain a certain degree of quality obsolete.

nik wrote:

We need a search to bring up submissions based on whatever factors we want to vote or comment on. Apart from that, the system works in basically the same way:

v3 - sub goes into the database, listed on artist + label pages, highlighted in yellow, new artists + labels can't have their profiles filled out until Y voted.

v4 - sub goes into the database, listed on artist + label pages, highlighted in yellow, new artists + labels can't have their profiles filled out until voted 'Correct' or better.




We need to get the notification of comments / votes on submissions happening again to get the dialog moving again.

'Live in the database' is only a concept of what is displayed. It is totally possible (and may be done at some point) to display only the version of the information that has been voted correct or better. The current display shows us unvoted subs (as before on the add release subs), and the releases that need changes. It's important to do it this way not only because we have done this for years with add release submissions (and that works), but because the database is a work in progress, not a static thing. Everyone needs to see what we are trying to build in order to get the maximum number of possible people validating and improving it.




As before in v3, they need to get notifications of votes, edits and comments on their submissions. Also, submitters that fail to make acceptable submissions will get their submissions limited until such a time that they start getting things correct. Error checks and warnings need to be improved to help everyone avoid obvious errors.




The same motive as previously, that they care about their submission and they want to get it right and voted correct.




Again it is the same as before, the desire to validate the information, help the submitter, help the database provide a correct discography for artists / labels, and make sure the guidelines are being followed.




The level of quality that is acceptable for a correct database is 'correct' or above. The level of quality that is acceptable for working on the database is unvoted subs, and subs that hold enough information to be seen to represent a unique release, but need changes to bring them up to the standard of the guidelines. The submissions that are unacceptable for the 'work in progress' display are the ones that have been peer reviewed and judged that they fail to contain enough information to represent a unique release, are totally wrong, are duplicates, are abusive, are fantasy, or are based on information for an unreleased item

The standards should not be the sole preserve of super-users, but should be made as accessible as possible for all users, by improvements to the site and the guidelines that make it as easy as physically possible to submit the correct information. The guidelines are as important as ever in telling all of us how to submit the correct information to the database, and vote on it, in a logical and consistent fashion, with an eye not only to the current display of the information, but future possible uses for the information as well.




An important item on the todo list is to do some updates to http://www.discogs.com/disbugs, and that would include being able to see some kind of roadmap or priority list of changes planned, as well as the ability to make your own priority list for updates, and have that count toward an overall vote for updates, so we can see what are the most important issues for everyone.

Jayfive wrote:

So why are those unvoted (and by extension incorrect) subs in the same database that you believe the quality level should be 'correct or above'? PLEASE, even if you make the whole of discogs a free-for-all wiki-fest, make it so that the work-in-progresses are in a seperate location from voted items.

A yellow border will not prevent a number of users taking this incorrect info as 100% correct.

If you do anything else regards v4, keep submissions out of artist/label pages until they receive a certain level of votes - yellow and red turds help no-one.