Dubvulture wrote:

On 13 August 2007, ie. one year and two days ago, I submitted this release to Discogs:
http://www.discogs.com/release/1039694

Four Discogs members own it; five have submitted votes on it; one member has a copy for sale. There's a MySpace at www.myspace.com/deliberatepop; and the record's existence can be confirmed online at all these places:
http://www.signaturarecordings.com/store.htm
http://www.roughtrade.com/site/shop_d...sku=289955
http://www.vinyl-junkies.com/catalogu...=Delibrate
as well as at Sister Ray, London; Crash, Leeds; Jumbo, Leeds; Edge World, Brighton; Beatdown, Newcastle; RPM, Newcastle; Record Collector, Sheffield; and Offbeat, Hull.

I'm fully aware of the "PLEASE BE PATIENT" notice when submitting entries for approval, but the concept that it must take over a year for two people to submit a "Y" to a release is ludicrous.

JTWolfe wrote:

Why would a voter mark this as correct? Are your artists really linked correctly? Did Christopher Wilson really compose this Electro Synth-pop release in 2007 while playing lute in 1986? Should we just completely throw out the guidelines and allow your credit roles to stand as-is? http://www.discogs.com/help/submissio...edits.html I'm more surprised that after a year it hasn't been given an incorrect vote.

meckah wrote:

I would say one reason it has not been voted on is beacouse it is the first release on a label and the first of that artist. Atleast when I vote I go to a label or artist and check the stuff that needs vote and vote if appropiate. Since the release is not linked from anywhere it is hard to find just like that if you do it my way.

BigTone wrote:

That one looks like an error in the credits on http://www.discogs.com/release/1373765

Jayfive wrote:

Sorted the incorrect credits and other bits that could have been altered any time in the last year. Help voters to help you.

sdevo wrote:

Please add the Vinyl Size. Others have fixed the other errors
Thanks

meckah wrote:

Vinyl size has been there for 14 hours.

julesparis wrote:

not only ludicrous but even totally superfluous, since in the meantime:




... see, no biggie - happy anniversary

Jayfive wrote:

No..no, its ok. Dont thank any of us.

jweijde wrote:

Not to mention that waiting for two 'Y' votes is useless nowadays anyway.

fleshmeatdoll wrote:

i wanted to start this exact same thread, i have just one more month to go for my first one-year-pending submission.

Dubvulture wrote:

JTWolfe, what a pile of crap. Firstly, the artists were not mis-linked at the time that I entered the release, and BigTone is correct in saying that the problem was with the other - subsequent - entry, not mine. Secondly, even in the case that the release should have earned a "N" vote, it doesn't help much to have to wait so long for it.

Jayfive, yes, I could have amended the entry at any time in the last year - had anyone informed me that anything needed amending. As it was, it appeared that no-one had even looked at it.

Thanks to all who have helped with this since. I didn't have internet access between posting this topic originally and just now.

The reason I called this post "The trouble with …" (no sarcasm intended) is connected with meckah is saying. The system works in favour of releases by well-known artists, and even when several links to verify the release's existence have been supplied, it doesn't seem to be speeding-up the process of getting these things approved.

meckah wrote:

The only reason I personaly have not voted correct or complete and correct is that I am still a bit unsure about the credits.

For example track 3 (b1) says Wilson/Peck on the label, but in the submission it says

Composed By - Christopher Wilson , Stephen Peck
Lyrics By - Christopher Wilson

I think (could not find any clear info on it though when I skimmed thorugh the guidelines) that both Peck and Wilson should be ANVed. And I could not verify that the lyrics were by only Wilson anywhere. The way it is on the label it seems that they both composed it (including lyrics), since it says nohting about the lyrics specificly on the label. And since I am unsure I don't really want to vote on and make a mistake it and there for let others do it.

Dubvulture wrote:

From the bottom-left corner of the back cover of the 12":

"Words by Wilson. Music by Wilson, except Kensington Heights by Wilson/Johnson/Treble and She could be persuaded by Wilson/Peck."

Note the full-stop after the first "Wilson".

dsmith wrote:

This is the sort of statement that should go in the submission notes.

Mr.Mystery wrote:

The thing is, there is no pending queue of any kind these days so one just has to browse randomly to find the submissions that need votes... and that inevitably means all the artists that aren't well-known are kinda stuck.

meckah wrote:

How can you expect voters that don't have the item or a scan of it to know that information and vote correct on the release?

Dubvulture wrote:

Okay, okay. The information I submitted regarding writing credits was based on the full details on the back cover, which are more detailed than on the label. I've added the submission note as suggested by smith.

nik wrote:

I think this is a fair criticism. I would also say that there may be some preference to users who submit a good number of quality submissions - these users are more likely to get a voters attention and votes that users who only submit one thing.

In any case, we are aware of these shortcomings and are trying to alleviate them.

You can help things along by getting more involved in things. Maybe check some other releases you have against items in the database, and update as necessary. Add some scans. Help other users submit things (even if you don't have voting rights, you can leave comments).

deejsasqui wrote:

Quoted for truth, bold for emphasis. This is the major shortcoming of the current site - there used to be a queue of ALL releases, and moderators had the option to filter through releases by release date, artist, label, or search with some other criteria.

Now, the queue is no more. The idea was that Discogs could rely on the great masses to patrol the site. The problem is, not everyone is as detail oriented as the ex-mods were. Yes, that was a bottle neck to getting things approved, but things haven't changed with a lack of queue.

This isn't intended as a rant, but rather a reiteration of a previous post, for anyone who is relatively new to Discogs, or hasn't gotten as involved as to notice the background mechanics. You aren't being ignored, it's just really hard to find you.

nik wrote:

This functionality is available http://www.discogs.com/submissions?type=release , no?




The way I see it, removing the submission limits obviously expanded the number of items needing checked. We have now nearly reached a state of equilibrium regarding checked items vs submissions, but there is now a backlog of things needing looked at.

So things have changed (there isn't a submitting bottleneck anymore).

What would be ideal to happen now is we start to roll down the other side of the hill, where more votes are happening than submissions. This would then hopefully clear most of the items waiting on votes. I believe this is entirely possible if we can get even 10 or 20% more votes happening. Every voter can now make a real difference, even if they only vote on a few items a day...

Dubvulture wrote:

nik, as regards getting more votes to happen than submissions, and so remove any bottleneck, would it not be possible to have periods where only votes, and not submissions, are permitted?

What are the criteria now for becoming able to vote?

Also, regarding the Deliberate release, if anyone else can see anything else that I need to add, please tell me. Thanks.

deejsasqui wrote:

There have been a VERY few "new submission" freezes in the past - the only one I recall was to clear the queue (when we had a queue =) to prepare the site for a new system. I have a screenshot of that last submission and then the empty queue at home.

In my eyes, a more reasonable option would be to limit what people could submit, or maybe just enact the Submission Form Checks to clear up some simple mis-understandings. But I'm not the site coder, so I'll just sit back and wait.

And the criteria for becoming a voter are not public, for fear that someone will try to meet all the criteria as soon as possible, then do terrible things with their newfound power.

helix wrote:

Stats say not, unless the missing items are all 'Needs Changes' or the figures available are wrong in the first place.


Same bottleneck different place (there is a voting bottleneck). The 'queue' of unchecked items has more than doubled in 6 months.


100 - 150% more like. You need to give all active users immediate voting rights if you have any hope of achieving this, or just go wiki (so there isn't a voting bottleneck anymore) and remove those yellow and red inaccuracy indicators forever.

fleshmeatdoll wrote:

there is a difference between checking (voting) and checking though. i have seen a lot of voting without checking of the voting regulations and/or the actual state of the submission.

so what is the equilibrium worth?

pawlick wrote:

So how the amount of moderators is growing up? I suspect that some countries still don't have any yet? Or there is stats about mods per country?

rwrackham wrote:

Is it possible to have the view in reverse order (ie. the oldest update first). This is good, but the newest updates will be voted on first - not the oldest.


Removal of submission limits have helped more releases to be added to Discogs, which is a good thing. However, entries that have been in the database for years keep changing which causes more votes.

The majority of these changes are minor and are mainly caused by the submission guidelines changing - e.g. Promo being added to format instead of in the title, Maxi-Single vs Single, how the cat no looks on the release rather than in Discogs, use of ANVs to describe how the artist is written on the artwork (e.g. DepecheMode instead of Depeche Mode).

There are going to be changes to the submission guidelines soon - this will cause a large number of votes (one that springs to mind is the Maxi-Single vs Single debate - once the submission guidelines clarify the position on its usage, I can see a large number of changes being made)

Also, some editor functions that were in the previous version of Discogs are not there now, so PAN to ANV changes or multiple to single PAN changes (e.g. Dan Le Sac vs Scoobius Pip was two artists, and is now one) need to be done on a per release basis, causing multiple changes.

Personally, I am finding it hard to spend the time voting on keeping my collection up to date (I am getting around 10 changes a day), let alone vote for new submissions.

Having more people as voters can help manage the queue, but there are still differences in opinion between voters, which causes more changes.


We will start rolling down the other side of the hill once the submission guidelines are clearly defined and are static. As soon as they change, people will update the existing entries to meet the new rules.

This isn't a bad thing, but the downside will be that the more obscure entries will be overlooked as people focus on changes to their own collections.

Dubvulture wrote:

Blimey, what a can of worms. I hadn't realised that the criteria for becoming a voter weren't public (although I hadn't been able to find them). Does this incur that those who CAN vote don't even know the criteria by which they were selected? Or is it kept as a secret between those who can vote?

I'm assuming that the criteria are a mix of number of entries and/or comments provided, plus some minimum duration of membership, eg. a year. Or something like that. I've been a member for ages, but have contributed just this one release. I did have over 20 long comments on Discogs, but removed them before the system for making comments changed to allow just anything in. The other day I saw one new comment which was just the phrase "kiss my dick?" repeated until it fulfilled the minimum number of words.

Alors, if anyone can see any reasons why this
http://www.discogs.com/release/1039694
still shouldn't be given a "Y" or two, please let me know. Thanks.

Jayfive wrote:

No-one knows except nik and teo

Jayfive wrote:

You can report comments using the link below the comment on the release/label/artist page, they do get removed quite quickly.

Dubvulture wrote:

Further to this topic, I'd be interested to know what's the longest record so far for an unconfirmed release on Discogs. Anyone know?

helix wrote:

Pre-V4:
Longest Lifecycle

deejsasqui wrote:

While this is an awkward step in the right direction, it lacks the simple "order of submission" and "resubmission" queues that made it impossible to not review the old things. I often moderated from the back, because I felt bad for the people who had been overlooked in the grand scheme of things.

Oh, and the sorting is broken. Submissions: types: release, Country: ====== has 1 sub, so I thought I'd be good and vote on it, except it was voted out 2 months ago.




And people are complaining about this bottleneck. In my eyes, nothing has changed for the better with bottlenecks. Someone will always be complaining about something. That's just the nature of a huge public forum with dictated structure. And if there was no dictated structure, we'd have a wiki, and people could edit as they wish, function and form be damned.

And if you think I'm just ranting, I'd like to say I still use the site, I still vote and add submissions, but not with the same joy I once had.

corne_mo wrote:

Unfortunately a great bunch of ex-mods have left the site or do not vote anymore and we are stuck with a lot of very inexperienced and non-detail-orientated voters with a rank and submission history that would never have made it to mods in V2 and the beginning of V3, not even under your standards.
Even if we get more votes than submissions, the quality of the information will never be what it used to be.

Haze wrote:

Inexperienced and unfortunately often absolutely clueless how to use their voting rights. Nik, you should send another email out to all your voters explaining once again, that you cannot vote on image updates (I see too many votes refering to those) and (the rare cases) when they should vote Complete and Correct.
I know that there are Voting Guidelines, but it's just like with the RSG, most people don't read them.
Or you could just let them voting on and on how they think that it's correct, and be happy with more "correct" releases in the db.

rwrackham wrote:

Rather than remind the voters on this, how about changing the system so that releases that have only had their images updated and not classed as changed. I keep getting alerts saying that items in my collection have changed, or see Friends Submissions changing only to discover someone else has added images.

Maybe when someone updates images, they should be told that their vote score in their profile will not change when an image is submitted.

helix wrote:

That makes no sense. It is still a change and I want to know if someone changes images on something in my collection, so that I can check if they are correct.

The fact that the voting system doesn't even take account of images (a key source of information), is indicative of how ill conceived it was in the first place.

nik wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/disbugs/565 ticket regarding images.

corne_mo wrote:

Strange we have to vote for a feature that has been implemented before and was deleted by the programmers.

BigTone wrote:

It's still a fairly regular occurrence to get people voting "needs changes" (or requesting changes) on catalog numbers "for sorting purposes".

That shows you how much people read the guidelines (voter or submission) or check the forums.

Maybe an indication that some thought is needed about ways to make guidance/rules more accessible/usable, and/or more "in people's faces" - (since we clearly aren't going down the route of additional software validation of submissions).

corne_mo wrote:

Well, nik said that if a label has continues cat#, it's still OK to change cat# for sorting purposes. Can't find the topic but can remember it has been said.

helix wrote:

No it's not ok to mess with cat#s anymore. RSG says the same. What nik is alleged to have said is irrelevant.

Sorting will be sorted when http://www.discogs.com/disbugs/242 is sorted out. A long wait no doubt, but that doesn't mean you should start inserting zeros, dashes etc. and other silliness where they don't exist.

I hope you are not advising others to change things as you tried to suggest to me recently on one of my updates.

corne_mo wrote:

Actually, I'm fucking tired of these discussions as you must have noticed cause I correct voted that update you're talking about. I'm not advising anyone anything anymore and let this once useful DB go down the drain just like a lot of other users have done already.

I think it's strange that everyone is currently pointing to something in the RSG (which most users obviously haven't even read, not you helix, but a lot of others) to a dubious rule that was inserted there when it was and still is under discussion and where even management doesn't really know what to do with it.

But what the hell do I care that releases can't be found anymore on label pages. Searching for duplicates is even harder, now cat#'s formatted according to different rules are cluttering label pages and no order whatsoever can be found to search for a specific cat#s existance. But he, they have the correct cat# in the cat# field. Jippy.

helix wrote:

Inaccurate entry of cat#s to fit the display is the folly that caused the problem in the first place.

There is absolutely no argument for changing the data to fit the display. Blame the programmer, not the users trying to improve the accuracy of the data in this database.

Presumably there are no display driving the data issues at DDB?

corne_mo wrote:

I'm not blaming you or any other user helix.
And I'm all for accurate data, but I'm even more for a useful DB. Imo (and that has nothing to do with the subliminal release update, as that label uses different cat# formatting all over the place anyway) as long as we can't have a useful DB with correct info in the correct field, we should add the correct info in the notes field. If the programmers don't tweak this site someone has got to do it, even if that is on the wrong end of the stick.

That's just my opinion and has nothing to do with my moderations/votes btw where I have always tried to apply the rules of the RSG or the unwritten rules from the forum where applicable.

helix wrote:

My definition of useful is different to yours in this case. Seeing something changed to fit in someone else's definition of an ordered list is not my definition of useful.

I also see your point, but don't agree as it just leads to the mess the cat#s are in now. Unfortunately there will always be two camps on this subject until the solution is implemented.

corne_mo wrote:

Yep, we have a difference in opinion there. :-)

Imo a list with SUB 001, SUB 002, SUB 021, SUB 03, SUB 037 etc isn't very useful, but I think we shouldn't continue that discussion here and now for the sake of world piece. ;-)

We will always have two camps, but as long as everyone uses the set of rules applicable to the site there will be no problem. Currently we have two problems here:
- some voters haven't even read the RSG.
- the site admins don't know themselves and are spreading rumours that are not according to the sometimes unclear RSG and the RSG is not updated as soon as something is said in the forums. That gives a lot of free room for personal interpretation, which in its turn leads to all kinds of discussions on cat# and stuff around the site, in the forums, on submissions and so on.

helix wrote:

There Is No Law
The year is 2008, the moderator controlled areas have become know as free fire zones, the voters will not enter. There is no law.
;-D

When there is a delay in changes from discussions making it into the RSG, then the existing RSG must prevail if there is a clear guideline in there already.

corne_mo wrote:

LOL. for the italic statement.

on-RSG topic: Maybe, but even that is something that is being debated for ages.

nik wrote:

I'm sorry, I am sure I didn't say that since the guidelines have been changed.




http://www.discogs.com/help/submissio...log_Number




Also please see http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/158697

There was a bunch of discussion regarding cat#s previous to the change. Lazlo's Shadow Catalog Number idea http://wiki.discogs.com/index.php/Laz...tTechnique was deemed to be workable and acceptable, and has been slated for inclusion to the database (I am sorry, I don't know when). As for all such data entry driven issues, it is ultimately much more desirable for us to anticipate the creation of a better display function, and input the data as if the new function is imminent, rather than continue a data entry hack, since the display function will take one programmer a matter of some days or weeks programming to enable the new display, whereas data entry takes hundreds of thousands of man hours to manually adjust each piece of data. Even if the display function takes years to implement, once it is turned on, we have instant display satisfaction, as opposed to the time it would take to go back and check and re-enter the data piece by piece.

corne_mo wrote:

I'm sure you have said it. Don't know the exact order of actions (speech-RSG or RSG-speech).
I think that is one of the problems as indicated above. RSG should reflect forum discussions asap and should be announced much better, also on the home page and for voters also per e-mail to be sure everyone is up-to-date.

I think a lot of releases will fit this rule though:



btw: is that "this guideline is under review" note going to be used forever? I find it misleading cause people say: "he, it's under review and in a topic this and that is discussed, so it's no problem to do it according to these new as in discussion rules".