swattan wrote:

Since there isn't anymore the "Submission Complaint" link, i think this topic would be useful to highlight some wrong votes.

But please, if you write a release you think has taken a wrong vote , be sure you have read CAREFULLY the Submission Guidelines before.

swattan wrote:

Here's a free 'Need Major Changes' from one of my submissions:

http://www.discogs.com/history?release=907666#latest

link edited

trebor31 wrote:

^^^ Bad link

Which sub?

EDIT - found it - given it another Correct vote so overall status has changed to Correct.

_kerry wrote:

Major Changes for that?!?!? Thats messed up.

Looks fine the way it is.

Chamleon wrote:

one this is there.
Arranged By, Mixed By, Producer - credits of Andrea T. Mendoza and Steven Tibet can be changed to the general credits. they are on all tracks.

swattan wrote:

Thanks trebor31, choenyi

@Chamaleon:

1) I can write records in the way i prefer. This was discussed really several times in the forum (and i've also taken some wrong N-vote in the past for this)

If this is not enough:

2) On the cd, credits are displayed in this way (inside the sleeve)

3) there is a 'general' Producer in the back of the sleeve (Vincenzo Nicastro) this is another reason....

Mop66 wrote:

From the RSG: Generally, release wide credits (that is, credits that apply to all tracks) should go in the main credits section, but they can go in the extra artist section if, for example, they are writing credits and splitting them up would be confusing.

So there is some room, but I totally agree that these credits should go to the main credit section as it enhances readybility of the sub.

Chamleon wrote:

oh, for me it is also okay. i just was thinking what could be the reason for the NMaC vote.

on now, you get the 5th correct vote :-)

swattan wrote:

Thanks! Stop voting now :s.. I've opened this topic for all users not only for that release..

Plastic_Demons_4_U wrote:

trebor31

Can you tell me why you gave this a yes vote for removal.
http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1091344#latest
When it is a unique release submitted after the rules were changed allowing ALL variations on sleeve and label design, if you had read the notes I made on EACH release you will see that the difference is CLEARLY stated.

I shudder to think how many good releases have been removed or merged due to that kind of sloppiness.

mawiles wrote:

hypernova's request and vote is nonsense.

You did a perfect work, swattan. The credits are exactly as they should be.
Fortunately, there aren't many oldschool oggers anymore that are working against new rules, trying to force own standards.

Mop66 wrote:

I told him before in another thread as there are other examples (see Metallica) , but he is a little quick with judgements on releases and people and lacks the precision.

Plastic_Demons_4_U wrote:

Why has that been removed and what has been put forward in it's place, because I've had a complaint against me from a voter and yet I don't see how we (the users) can complain about the Voters.

Haze wrote:

You have to send a PM to nik in such a case.

Plastic_Demons_4_U wrote:

Well spotted on that one I've added a comment to back up your vote.
As an obsessive collector I have lots of variations of the same releases by my favourite artists, because I would buy anything that had sleeve or label differences to that of the original release. Since the ruling changed and we've now been allowed to add those unique releases I have been doing so, but I'm holding off from doing many of them because of situations like that.

Plastic_Demons_4_U wrote:

Thanks Haze ;o)

Out of interest what was your modding points total when they changed the system, because I seem to remember that you were on some obscene amount even back in the days when I had access to the mod forum.
Shame they never give out points to the Editing team then it would have been interesting to see, what the likes of me and pushaman would have had, though I think Paul still had a lot of mod points racked up behind you.

Mop66 wrote:

Same for me. That's why I have a different opinion than him on Forum Topic #165235 but he does not see the point.

Haze wrote:

Can't say a definite number since the beloved management has disabled the modstats a few months before they sacked the whole moderation system. It was something around 340,000 the last time I saw them. And you can be sure that if I knew earlier in which direction the site will go I would have done much less :(

Plastic_Demons_4_U wrote:

Hmmmm noted and responded, some of the OMD releases I own have up to 9 different sleeve and label variations, and that's all on the same cat#'s so unless the notes are read and/or the images are looked at there's no actual difference with the release data. So I'm holding out for the Master release before attempting to enter most of them. :o?

Haze wrote:

When you describe the difference in the release notes (or format) there shouldn't be any problem. And there has been so much talk for a long time about the master release thingie - who knows if it will ever come.

Plastic_Demons_4_U wrote:

I know full well that's an obscene amount of hours work in anyones book, I don't know if you remember I resigned due to differences of opinion with regards to the way the editors hands were tied, with regards to duplicate submissions and artists as the merge function wasn't enabled. So I'm glad I got out when I did though that just freed me up to add more submissions, so discogs was win/win yet again. :o(

LostInVinyl wrote:

got a wrong NMC vote here lately:
http://www.discogs.com/submissions?us...se/1318217

edit: "votes" => "vote"

swattan wrote:

Here we go again

http://www.discogs.com/history?release=712483#latest

schtel wrote:

Not sure I could fully understand what was going on with these two:
http://www.discogs.com/release/65140
http://www.discogs.com/release/1097076

I'm still hesitant to amend.

BigTone wrote:

It's probably more important to get credits in the right place when the situation is the other way round, i.e. someone puts a credit in the main credits section which only actually applies to one track. The artist then appears to be credited on the whole release (or at least multiple tracks) in the artist view, (i.e. abscence of tracks) instead of being credited for just the track they were involved with.

Personally, I don't see the point of applying the same credit to every individual track, regardless of whether the release does it that way or not. You just create a truncated list of tracks in the artist view...

BigTone wrote:

Wasn't this dealt with pretty conclusively towards the end of This thread?
We know it's a heavily compromised "workaround" until MR gets here.
MR will get rid of this issue (won't it?)

schtel wrote:

MR, aka the discogs urban legend. :)

We still need the unique releases in the DB to attach to the MR. And they need to be identifiable by their difference. So...maybe the MR will carry a 'unique difference' field, other than the format free text field? I don't think just pictures will suffice.

But yeah, regardless, was a bit harsh to get EI and 'major changes' votes. :(

choenyi wrote:

Don't want to drag the links here & didn't think I was going to even mention it but retaliatory votes are not very fun: getting a major vote over a minor issue from a relative n00b just because they'd received one for something major ... no names mentioned, no links given, but maybe in the voting guidelines:

Don't retaliate or let received votes color the ones you give.

Decent idea, or?