quisquilia wrote:

Reviving this indispensable thread: http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/159791?page=5

How could it just disappear?
Undead. Undead. Undead.

Continue here or there.

(title edited by nik to be more descriptive)
(title re-edited by quisquilia in a comprehensive and positive way)

Drama_Ft._Justified wrote:

To start off, the 'Unknown' label page:

http://www.discogs.com/label/Unknown

And this which I ran into:

http://www.discogs.com/release/1144636


If you want more horror, just do a search for 'Produced By' in the 'Needs Vote' search engine. People love ignoring the 'Not Matching the credit list' warning.

trebor31 wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/release/1346916

Drama_Ft._Justified wrote:

He has 266 f**kin Pending Submissions!!!....it's only lucky that they love to use the copy to draft fuction when they can.

Kepe wrote:

Only 3 submits yet, but the guy has supposingly understood something wrong when he's submitting his want-to-buy's here

http://www.discogs.com/release/1346969

TechElec wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1275259#latest

bongabonga wrote:

The username is appropriate.

little_alien wrote:

How is he ever going to recover from so many EI votes? That's a bit unfair I think.

Drama_Ft._Justified wrote:

From what I understand, once you get in the CPI it takes 3 consecutive votes of correct to get out, regardless of how many votes of whatever put you in. Though this is a nice example of just how the CPI system works so well.

Europeen wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1309551#latest

I would like your opinion about the last modification of the cat# please.

Haze wrote:

.

little_alien wrote:

If you google it quite a few hits turn up, I think it's genuine.

Haze wrote:

Ok, that's why I didn't start a rant ; )

paris75 wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/release/1224924 or
http://www.discogs.com/release/1187583
and some other submissions by this member look dubious, too.

fleshmeatdoll wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/history?artist...kes#latest
http://www.discogs.com/history?artist=Shame+(4)#latest
http://www.discogs.com/history?artist=Shame+(3)#latest

multiple　personality

btw. grandmaster flashs webpage was raped for one week and nobody noticed? i guess v4 works.

fleshmeatdoll wrote:

wow somebody needs to stop him, just the tip of the iceberg
http://www.discogs.com/submissions?user=MreD

kwulf wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/comments?user=gunterphantom

Great reviews.

quisquilia wrote:

Well, yes, but that started already in v3 when the management had the BRILLIANT idea to leave reviews unmoderated.

Haze wrote:

little_alien wrote:

Ah yes, very nice http://www.discogs.com/release/1347471
He can't even count. 10 x WAV = 9 tracks?

choenyi wrote:

I thing that Sven Vath is better as DJ and this Wuttke , I dont know
thing that Sven Vath is better as DJ and this Wuttke , I dont know
thing that Sven Vath is better as DJ and this Wuttke , I dont know

th is better as DJ and this Wuttke , I dont know
thing that Sven Vath is better as DJ and this

thing that Sven Vath is better as DJ and this Wuttke , I dont know
thing that Sven Vath is better as DJ and this Wuttke , I dont know

th is better as DJ and this Wuttke , I dont know
thing that Sven Vath is better as DJ and this

Haze wrote:

Drama_Ft._Justified wrote:

LMAO. You just have to learn how to laugh at things like these on this site anymore.

http://www.discogs.com/release/1307199

"No better time than now to get sexy!"

zer0 wrote:

this guy is impossible, adding horrible subs like this one over and over again:
http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1348040#latest

kwulf wrote:

What a mess!

_kerry wrote:

I am just shaking my head at this one...

http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1349591#latest

md wrote:

Bad submissions and updates?

Haze wrote:

quisquilia wrote:

Nice. So even thread titles get changed now.

So, nik, as requested by you: No comment, in a most positive manner.

ApeAstbury wrote:

Could even be a duplicate.. The catalog numbers are the same.
http://www.discogs.com/release/1223139

_kerry wrote:

Joy.

The chances the submitter will scan a copy of his release to prove uniqueness are laughable.

swattan wrote:

What about "Bad Votes and Abuse"?

Since there isn't anymore the "Submission Complaint" link, i think this would be useful.

strangedevotion wrote:

I've just noticed that someone has been going through a series of mini CDs on the Virgin label and changing the lable from "Virgin" to "Virgin Records Ltd".

When looking at the Virgin label page I don't see Virgin Records Ltd listed as a valid sublabel.

Am I right in thinking all the releases under Virgin Records Ltd need the label changing?

buddahs_records wrote:

that could help to prevent, but still you´re 2 weeks on the CIP plus there´s almost nobody left, that wants to vote. I don´t think this will help expending the data, espacially for the time limitation, which is as idiosyncretic as the rules you´re following when you submit.
This will annoy even the experienced submitter, once they´re on it. Maybe it will be better just to limit the submissions of new users till they got the experience on which rules to follow and how it all 'works'...

fleshmeatdoll wrote:

yes, i just experienced a case of bad unjustified voting. it would be a shame if my average would decrease even further because of reoccurring incidents like this.

how are we supposed to fight bad voting
taking into account the possibility that the automated system of granting voting ability according to a secret algorithm
could just be another of the programs introduced with v4 that is not working correctly???

Drama_Ft._Justified wrote:

We had that. It was called a submission limit. Apparently a large amount of people bitched and moaned about it (There was even a forum devoted to it) so it got removed along with the moderating area because again, people complained it took too long. Now everythings a mess...I really hope it was worth it, management.

buddahs_records wrote:

Yeah, I know. Some peeps explained me already and all the 'WE'RE HATING THE MANAGEMENT' forums did good job too...

I actually tried to find out about the importance of beeing 2 weeks on there. I mean, how shall it work, if there's a submitter that received 3 NEEDS MAJOR CHANGES and he is able to correct them within a day and has 'friends' that are voiting for him, he still has to wait 13 days for getting the entry. Am I correct? Damn, it sounds harder then the entry in this hip clubs, right?

How many new accounts were created since the 9th?

Haze wrote:

(title edited by nik to be more descriptive)

Oh yeah. Funny that everyone knew what this thread was about and what they had to post in there - V4 Horror - can it get more descriptive?
Truth hurts?

Btw, Not On Label has 5731 submissions pending. I don't want to know how many invalid releases and duplicates are buried there. What do you think who will check all these subs?

Get rid of the voting system (system? lol) altogether, put a wiki-stamp below the Discogs logo and let's make yourself and teo the happiest users on this planet.

Drama_Ft._Justified wrote:

God, I pray no one ever does or my average is screwed.

LostInVinyl wrote:

Definitively needed nowadays as a control tool for the "new powers that be".

I had to post the current Submission Guide Lines a few times already to defend my edits / submissions against uninformed voters.

mick667 wrote:

V2 Horror !!! http://www.discogs.com/history?release=241597#latest

trebor31 wrote:

Would like a second opinion on whether these are web subs or not...lots of Juno links with exact matching info, lots of empty cat numbers, "information taken from web sites by mistake".

My instinct is saying web sub, but what do other voters think?


http://www.discogs.com/user/risto_madou

choenyi wrote:

mmm, lots of 7"s which are easy to scan but maybe owns no scanner? hard to say

choenyi wrote:

The original subject for this thread was better.

fleshmeatdoll wrote:

well, actually, to get the wiki stamp they would have to reintroduce the moderation system. at least that is what wikipedia deemed necessary since last month.

quisquilia wrote:

Agree.

The majority vote was in favour of changing the thread title, again.

Do I get a rankpoint for this edit?

sjcee wrote:

who t.f. tells you, that the info on the profile is correct AND not out of date??? drones!

Mop66 wrote:

Just another one, I guess:
Removed as now with images looks ok.

little_alien wrote:

What's so particularly bad about that one? Looks like an average submission (which may contain some minor errors, haven't really checked).

Mop66 wrote:

That's why I said: "I guess". When I had a look at it there were no pictures submitted and it looked like home made tape. Now with the images this looks different.

Drama_Ft._Justified wrote:

I believe Nik acually mentioned that page should be removed due to the vast amount of different ways Virgin likes to print it's label. It's easier to put it all on one page & wait for the 'Shadow label' thing to be built (if ever), rather than making 20 spin offs.

[Edit/]

I started a topic about it, i'm curious to see what happens.

quisquilia wrote:

easier /= correct
label /= company

Drama_Ft._Justified wrote:

Ok, so what's the company & what's the label? Virgin Records is the company & Virgin is the label?...How does that make any sense? The label could have been Virgin Records if someone entered it that way. There are tons of spin offs out there right now, that just seem to be extentions of the names, not companies. What should be done with them?




Ok, so maybe not easier. Less messy then. Would you suggest a label be made for every different printing? EMI Records, EMI Ltd, EMI Records Ltd. There are plenty that only list it like that. The new rules mention that labels should be enterted as they appear on the release, avoiding past groupings, which basicly if you think about it is stating that Label=Company.

quisquilia wrote:

^^ http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/to...75#2109868

nik wrote:

The label cataloging system at Discogs is currently under review to allow a greater degree of accuracy when adding the labels and companies involved in a release. We are moving to 'as on the release' requirements for labels and companies. This is especially relevant for major label releases, which can have many labels and companies involved. As a start to this process, the guidelines now require you enter the information for labels and record companies as closely as possible to the way it is written on the release. Please be careful of existing labels in the database which may have been 'created' under previous cataloging methods.

http://www.discogs.com/help/submissio...talog.html




'Virgin' could be the brand, and 'Virgin Records' the label. Things like this are tricky, but it doesn't solve anything to try to reduce these entities to one thing, unless you know beyond reasonable doubt that they are / were one thing. IOW it makes more sense to catalog the names as on the release, then figure out the relationship, rather than botch the names together and loose the information that may be significant.

Drama_Ft._Justified wrote:

I just want a clear yes or no. Is this label valid?

http://www.discogs.com/label/Virgin+Records

nik wrote:

Unless someone can come out and give a valid reason why they are the same entity, they should be treated as separate entities and cataloged as such. The current Virgin Records page gives no reasoning as to why it is 'not a valid label', and IMHO that info should either be clarified or removed. I think sjcee's frustration is justified at http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1271859 - I would listen closely to the linkes of kreuztot and sjcee on these matters.

djtmaroon wrote:

Ironic?

trebor31 wrote:

-

trebor31 wrote:

"Virgin Records Ltd" = the registered (UK) company.

"Virgin Records" = colloquial shortening of company name

"Virgin" = trading name of Virgin Records Ltd

"Virgin" IS "Virgin Records Ltd" just using a different name.
They simply use "Virgin" as it sounds less corporate, is more consumer friendly and has certain associated brand values.

"Virgin" does not exist as an "entity" - it is non-tangible. It cannot be registered as a company - it can only be a trademark. No one works for Virgin, no band ever signed a recording deal with Virgin, Virgin does not have an income, nor any accounts, it cannot be floated on the stock exchange, it does not have an office. It is a name, a word, nothing more.

The proof of this is that "Virgin" as a trademark is not even owned by Virgin Records Ltd.
It is owned by the Virgin Group (i.e Richard Branson's company who no longer have anything to do with Virgin Records as they sold it to EMI).

Virgin Record Ltd (EMI) actually pay Branson/Virgin Group to license the use of the name "Virgin".

Furthermore, you will notice that when it comes to the legal aspects of releases, the (p) and (c) for example, full company names are given - Virgin Records Ltd, or, more recently, EMI.
This is because "Virgin" does not exist as an entity therefore cannot hold, nor enforce these rights.

To bring it to music friendly terms:
Virgin Records Ltd is a company that has recording contracts with artists. It also releases their music, when it does this is uses the label (read "trade name") "Virgin".

Is Virgin Records a valid label? - No - this is Virgin Records Ltd, but people do not say, nor are legally required (except in certain circumstances) to say "Limited" whenever they refer to companies.

Is Virgin Records Ltd a valid label? - No - this a company, who release records using the label "Virgin"

jweijde wrote:

^^ need anymore proof?
thanks trebor31.

For a moment I was thinking we were going to eliminate the country branches but create new branches of companies, brands and labels.
Could still be the case ofcourse, but I hope not.

quisquilia wrote:

Right, and therefore we need
- a label (= branding = logo = trademark) field: Virgin
- a company field: Virgin Records Ltd. (or Virgin Scandinavia AB or whatever)

Unfortunately, Discogs only provides a "label" field and the management tells us to use said "label" field for both labels and companies.

choenyi wrote:

.(off-topic at moment).

SeRKeT wrote:

trebor31 has explained this beyond any reasonable doubt for sure and due to this ..


it's still a mess eh :D, most Virgin records have Virgin in big print but, i have probs defining the country though on the Virgin records America ones as many don't state where they were released (the obvious would be US) but i have a lot of UK ones on that label

hmvh wrote:

trebor31 has spoken, and it's because of discogs' shortcomings that this and similar discussions constantly re-surface.

Hit the problem at the root!

Drama_Ft._Justified wrote:

I agree with Trebor31. What about the shadow function I heard about? Wasn't it in the works or something?? There would be no need for multiple versions of a name or even country wise. Everything could be under one page, with a variation placed in it's proper area. If it can be done with artist pages, then it can't be that difficult to be done on a label page.

trebor31 wrote:

Totally agree

DS_Helder wrote:

Not that I oppose to a "company" field, but in this case, wouldn't the "country" field be enough to distinguish the record from others?

I'm all for adding Virgin as the label, though. F.ex. there are so many records labeled Virgin Schallplatten GmbH in this database, without having that label written on them.

kreuztot wrote:

that's where i agree, but it's contradicting some of your previous points.

you have the label entity "Virgin" which is a brand. several companies (Virgin Records Ltd. is just one of them) have releases on this label. limiting the label to a trading name of a company is plain wrong as the company can release on many others labels and thus your equation of "Virgin" IS "Virgin Records Ltd" doesn't hold.

kreuztot wrote:

it's been done wrong for many releases there, probably based on the wrong assumption that the label "Virgin" in Germany is equivalent to the company "Virgin Schallplatten GmbH".

nik wrote:

I agree unequivocally with kreuztot here.




That is fine, and as such is a valid 'label' for the site.




This may or may not be fact, I would require proof of this being the case, otherwise our default cataloging behavior should be to *not* assume such things. Maybe it is a colloquial expansion of the 'Virgin' brand instead? Until clear proof can be put forward for the exact usage of this, it should be understood to be a valid label / brand / company (if written on the release).




I don't believe this is true. Virgin Records Ltd is the trading name. 'Virgin' is the brand name that can encompass a wide range of business activities, both inside and out with the record industry. This brand is also a valid 'label' for Discogs under the current transitional guidelines'







These two statements, as kreuztot has pointed out, are contradictory. 'Virgin' is clearly a brand, and 'Virgin Records Ltd.' a company. Not everything branded as 'Virgin' was released by 'Virgin Records Ltd.', therefore 'Virgin' ≠ 'Virgin Records Ltd.'

nik wrote:

I don't believe that the shortcoming can be laid entirely at anyones feet. The cataloging problems with large labels result from a number of areas:

* The desire to keep things tidy

* Misunderstanding the brands, labels, and companies structure of major labels

* Strict interpretation of the word 'label' as used in the Discogs field.

These topics have been discussed at length for quite some time now. The way forward is to expand the label concept on the site. This takes as much a mindset change by database users, as any great database shift, as clearly a lot of data can be entered using the current 'label' field by just expanding this to brands and record companies.

Further development of the site is needed in this direction, and a number of possible ways forward have been outlined at http://wiki.discogs.com/index.php/Dev...instorming

jweijde wrote:

What's the use of brainstorming when it looks like you've made most of the decision yourself already? You keep saying we need to expand the label field and allow everything that appears on the release to be entered there. So what's left to discuss?

choenyi wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/submissions?user=OMNIX

haha, one of these after "Edit was EI" now reads correct, by which the label is now rated correct and is editable. fk

TechElec wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1338106#latest

PITONE wrote:

Over the top ;-)
http://www.discogs.com/release/1351727

johnochs wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/release/1226842

choenyi wrote:

oh that's a good one.

nik wrote:

The decision up to this point was not made by myself, nor has it been a snap decision. As with most other things, there has to be a compromise struck between the fine level of data entered, and the basic information that everyone can understand and use.

What is left to discuss is everything that is stated on that page - there are numerous ways to do this, and at least some level of discussion would be good, I feel.

Mad_Porno_Max wrote:

Famine

170 x CD - as large as my Mozart Release ;-(

choenyi wrote:

fucking awesome!
http://www.discogs.com/submissions?user=Fachwerk

fleshmeatdoll wrote:

what is even the logic behind that???

JT_X wrote:

Someone thinks that the quantity in the format refers to how many copies of the item were manufactured, as opposed to how many discs one gets when one buys one copy…

fleshmeatdoll wrote:

oh dear, some people's logic is far beyond that of others.

waiting for 100.000 x CD in the format of the next britney spears album.

choenyi wrote:

julesparis wrote:

i like this one Rough Trade Counter Culture 04, and especially the very nice and detailed notes left by voters to explain what's to be fixed that have been sitting there ignored for a month ...

fleshmeatdoll wrote:

check out the new artists on this release.
***

fleshmeatdoll wrote:

btw, now that another person has edited the release there is no way to teach him about his errors.

paris75 wrote:

_kerry wrote:

Put this up for removal.. let's hope the new user learns his/her/its lesson

choenyi wrote:

I don't know if it's horrible or not, but within 2 minutes of The Incredible Soundtrack Adventure having been submitted, it already had a (praising) review {from a different user} that was obviously composed before the sub went live. ?????????

Mop66 wrote:

Sorry, but as far as I can see the submitter and reviewer are the same person, aren't they?

choenyi wrote:

oh ... whoa, sorry.

quisquilia wrote:

Amusing... http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1299061#latest

mayday wrote:

some twat decided to change this Viewlexx record into Disco B version here! http://www.discogs.com/history?release=36243#latest

TechElec wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/release/1274755

choenyi wrote:

Great one, here ... :\
The Diary

SeRKeT wrote:

The CD comes with an 8-page A5-sized booklet listing "1979 to 2007 - 801 Rap Hits In The Mix": (76:56)??? is it my maths or does something not add up here
i bet that sounds very strange

choenyi wrote:

I love that after muscling through the mouse-scrolls (including a FAQ) it ends in a single track ... maybe not horrible, but most certainly atypical!

choenyi wrote:

.