›

Discogs - Heaven or Hell?

YemskyYemsky 710 Posts
edited October 2007 in Strut Central
There are many websites offering discographies for certain genres or specific artist and they sometimes go into great details... .. but are overall limited in scope. One of the most comprehensive sites though is probably www.discogs.com which I am sure you all know. I've looked at it time and again over the years when I was searching for something - after all you often get a hit for the Discogs entry when you google a title. It's only been a couple of weeks though since I realised that Discogs might be a better way to catalogue my collection than the Excel and MS Access databases I had created for myself over the years. For releases you have which are already in Discogs you simply click on "Add To Collection" (which is very fast and convenient) and for those you don't have, you do some work and at the same time help the community. So I started to actually contribute recently and realised that it's a little bit time consuming if you want to do it properly (listing individual musicians for individual tracks etc.) and that it can be frustrating at times as a lot of genres and sub-genres are missing so that categorization badly suffers.However, once I started, the biggest surprise for me was how big the gaps in Discogs still are. There are sooo many items which many other people must own as well which are not yet in the database. After going through only the first box of 50 odd CDs I feel that there is no way I will ever find the time to do add all that's missing in an attempt to get all my music catalogued. I dread I might be wasting my time unless many more people contribute to this community.So, my curious question to all the freakish collectors here: Are you contributing to Discogs? And if you decided not to, I am curious to here why not.
«13

  Comments

  • piedpiperpiedpiper 1,279 Posts
    I started to use it once, but I had a similar experience. The majority of discogs entries are for new or recent releases. It's, for example, strong for many types of electronic music and hip-hop. It's not very comprehensive when it comes to Jazz, Funk, Soul, Psych aso.
  • mannybolonemannybolone Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts
    The thing is - the site COULD have potential as a wiki-styled resource but they have very stringent rules on posting new albums. It's completely anal-retentive and a serious pain in the pass, so much so that it's a real turn-off to anyone who just wants to contribute some knowledge but doesn't like all the hoops they make you jump through.

    I find it counter-productive to their long-term aims. Wikipedia isn't perfect but they have a far more open system for editing and adding. I wish discogs would learn to loosen the fuck up a bit.
  • LamontLamont 1,089 Posts
    I use it everyday, it's a decent tool. Props to the crew that manage that website. I made a technical mistake the first submission + I didn't own an actal vinyl copy of my 2nd submission. Those two got deleted ofcourse, but after that I didn't bother anymore.

    Certain cassette tapes and 7"'s don't belong there though.
  • PlantweedPlantweed 394 Posts
    http://forbiddeneye.com/labels/archives.html
  • inVrsinVrs 687 Posts
    The thing is - the site COULD have potential as a wiki-styled resource but they have very stringent rules on posting new albums. It's completely anal-retentive and a serious pain in the pass, so much so that it's a real turn-off to anyone who just wants to contribute some knowledge but doesn't like all the hoops they make you jump through.

    I find it counter-productive to their long-term aims. Wikipedia isn't perfect but they have a far more open system for editing and adding. I wish discogs would learn to loosen the fuck up a bit.



    i wanted to submit stuff there, but lost the interest once they kicked my releases out because the track length i submitted was incorrect.
  • mannybolonemannybolone Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts
    The thing is - the site COULD have potential as a wiki-styled resource but they have very stringent rules on posting new albums. It's completely anal-retentive and a serious pain in the pass, so much so that it's a real turn-off to anyone who just wants to contribute some knowledge but doesn't like all the hoops they make you jump through.

    I find it counter-productive to their long-term aims. Wikipedia isn't perfect but they have a far more open system for editing and adding. I wish discogs would learn to loosen the fuck up a bit.



    i wanted to submit stuff there, but lost the interest once they kicked my releases out because the track length i submitted was incorrect.

    Yeah, right? It's kind of crazy how nit-picky they get. That's exactly why I think they need a more wiki-structured system, that would allow for anyone to edit and thus, hopefully, correct mistakes, rather than enforcing it from the top, down.
  • YemskyYemsky 710 Posts




    i wanted to submit stuff there, but lost the interest once they kicked my releases out because the track length i submitted was incorrect.

    How did you get them on the database in the first place if they were considered incorrect by Discogs standards?
    I have successfully submitted some images to existing entries getting two positive moderator votes for my submission fairly quickly.
    But as far as adding artist information and or even new releases is concerned, I am not sure whether I am wasting my time: I have typed up and submitted 55 releases and they are all pending moderator votes, in the worst case now for two weeks...
  • jaymackjaymack 5,199 Posts
    i love discogs!!
    i dont contribute, but i use it to make playlists on my ipod. i make producer and artist playlists.i got a rza/wu playlist, pete rock, premo, kanye, timbo, hi-tek, the neptunes, etc.
    its a great way to organize your shit. good resource resource.
  • mannybolonemannybolone Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts
    i love discogs!!
    i dont contribute, but i use it to make playlists on my ipod. i make producer and artist playlists.i got a rza/wu playlist, pete rock, premo, kanye, timbo, hi-tek, the neptunes, etc.
    its a great way to organize your shit. good resource resource.

    Yeah, I'm definitely not knocking its usefulness as a resource. I'm just expressing the wish that they'd make contributing easier. For example, I'd love to fill in all their blanks on Joe Bataan's discography but it's such a slog that it's really not worth the trouble.
  • WoimsahWoimsah 1,734 Posts
    Bomping this as this is something to which I've been trying to contribute. But man, these moderators can be reeeeaaaallly tough and mad annoying. Props for them being anal about the details to submitting, but their "quick start guide" should be deemed the "long start bible". Its not exactly user friendly, nor is it quick.

    I do not want to knock the site at all as it provides a great service and is really pretty comprehensive, but the moderators organization methods have some major bugs which need addressing.

    Anyone else been put through the ringer with these folks?
  • Options
    Unknown
    Hehe,

    I use discogs for what it is worth, a lot of data is there. Definitely enough data to see what I want to know.

    But, I say approach Discogs with caution. I also designed a MS Access database, for fun! But, the value I gained from the Access database was in it's construction; the framework. I don't know if I will actually digitize my data unless I start to sell out. Fortunately, I don't think I will have to do that.

    Now, consider this question, "how do you do your research?"

    I wouldn't want my friends to get burned out on discogs. Likewise, I wouldn't want my friends to get burned out by garage band.

    But, you are free to do what you want to do. This world is a changing place and people can't control the planet. The planet wiped out dinosaurs with no remorse...say'n.
  • WoimsahWoimsah 1,734 Posts
    uh....thanks?
  • white_teawhite_tea 3,262 Posts
    The rework of the site's framework has me scratching my head. Can't find stuff that used to be a breeze, now that it's so compartmentalized.
  • akaaka 67 Posts
    I've had good experiences. I've contributed a lil' bit, and never had an entry deleted. Nowadays mods mostly post comments telling you to change stuff. Even if it does t get the "correct" vote, the entry is there, visible and part of your collection.

    My advice to the hesitant would be to post up a skeleton (artist, title, label & cat. no., genre, tracks) and let other folks fill in the rest. Seems like it's a community effort these days.
  • dammsdamms 704 Posts
    I think I wouldn't have discovered 60% of what I listened to in 2010 if it wasn't for that website

    randomly browsing through album credits there >>>> *


    definitely H e a v e n
  • Options
    Unknown
    Discovered?
  • dammsdamms 704 Posts
    Woimsah said:

    Anyone else been put through the ringer with these folks?
    I've had my share when trying to add some albums there
    they have all types of rules there whether it's regarding how to specify the face of a record (strictly letters A,B,... even when it's not written that way on the record) or formats (difference between a 12'' 33rpm and a LP and yada yada yada)
    it's exhausting
  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts
    In the late 80s early 90s I put all my record info onto 3x5 cards.

    I look stuff up on discogs. They can't be beat for 12" single information.

    BothSidesNow.com is a good rockist discog site, categorized by labels.
    I think most of the info was compiled before the internet existed.
    BothSidesNow was originally a collector/seller who was obsessed with getting stereo versions of rock songs. (If I remember correctly.)
  • dammsdamms 704 Posts
    bawls said:
    Discovered?

    hush
  • dopeshitdopeshit 134 Posts
    c'mon its not that hard...
    i have submitted about 2500 records, only the stuff i need to sell which wasnt listed...if you dont put in all the credits just the tracklist its really easy..
    but its true that some moderators are

    mannybolone said:
    completely anal-retentive and a serious pain in the pass
  • dopeshitdopeshit 134 Posts
    mannybolone said:
    The thing is - the site COULD have potential as a wiki-styled resource but they have very stringent rules on posting new albums. It's completely anal-retentive and a serious pain in the pass, so much so that it's a real turn-off to anyone who just wants to contribute some knowledge but doesn't like all the hoops they make you jump through.

    I find it counter-productive to their long-term aims. Wikipedia isn't perfect but they have a far more open system for editing and adding. I wish discogs would learn to loosen the fuck up a bit.



    i wanted to submit stuff there, but lost the interest once they kicked my releases out because the track length i submitted was incorrect.

    Yeah, right? It's kind of crazy how nit-picky they get. That's exactly why I think they need a more wiki-structured system, that would allow for anyone to edit and thus, hopefully, correct mistakes, rather than enforcing it from the top, down.

    but its like that you can edit any release and add info if you want
    an easy way to make a new entry is just copy another relase from the same artist on the same label then its almost correct already you just change titles and cat. nr.
  • dopeshitdopeshit 134 Posts
    the reason the moderators are trying to force you to change your submission yourself is cause they are scared because if they correct some errors themselves, a vote on the release affects them too..
    pussies
  • WoimsahWoimsah 1,734 Posts
    dopeshit said:
    ...if you dont put in all the credits just the tracklist its really easy..



    ah hah -- good to know!!!
  • holmesholmes 3,532 Posts
    yeah, i started to add stuff, but got sick of people emailing me to remove or add "-"s from release numbers & add or remove "/"s or spaces from titles etc. It got retarded because whoever moderates it seems to have a different agaenda. One dickhead had me add a "-" & the first 3 letters of the prefix to the catalog numbers for some 45s I added which were all on the same label because the other releases in the database were all from his personal collection, just had the number without the prefix & he wanted them all in a consecutive list on the page with my stuff coming after. It was retarded, because on another release (different label) I added just the number he asked for the catalog number to be changed to exactly what was on the label (prefix + number). Dicks. The deals aren't even that great on there, I went through a bunch of stuff yesterday & got better deals off ebay & amazon for everything I searched. Such a bullshit way of policing & killing a site that could otherwise be quite useful.
  • BernedoBernedo 70 Posts
    For me it is a very useful thing. I live in a city where there's only a vinyl shop for purchasing black music (where I am into) so they sometimes receive some good stuff and rare albums but they never have some basics (cheap and easy to find basics). I mean, all the Earth Wind & Fire, Barry White, Change, Chic, Ashford & Simpson, Bootsy, Slave etc. albums that I own I've purchased them via Discogs. There are a few dealers with a good stock in a great shape, so basically I use to buy lots of 30 or 40 cheap LPs.
  • KineticKinetic 3,739 Posts
    Discogs is awesome. Great way to catalogue your collection for all the reasons that people have already said. It's also equally good as a selling platform because it's so easy to list stuff that's already on there. I've made a few entries, and like others, mostly for titles I wanted to list for sale but weren't on there. I had a few issues in the beginning but honestly, I think some of the anal-retentiveness is necessary in order to keep a standard of info that keeps it useful and relevant.

    And I've had some great scores on discogs over the last year. Can't even think of them all now but the one that stands out was the 20 pound OG copy of Skull Snaps I scored.
  • BeatnicholasBeatnicholas 1,005 Posts
    there really is nothing weirder than getting told off for spelling mistakes on your own releases, or being told you didn't play on a record when you did, or all of the weird and wonderful things that happen when you try to update your OWN discography on discogs. i can't imagine what it's like if you're on there a lot updating other peoples.

    although i do enjoy having an argument about myself in the third person with some nutter in poland. (/postmodern )
  • WoimsahWoimsah 1,734 Posts
    Ulysses31nicholas said:
    there really is nothing weirder than getting told off for spelling mistakes on your own releases, or being told you didn't play on a record when you did, or all of the weird and wonderful things that happen when you try to update your OWN discography on discogs. i can't imagine what it's like if you're on there a lot updating other peoples.

    although i do enjoy having an argument about myself in the third person with some nutter in poland. (/postmodern )

    haha - classic. at least you're getting entertained out of it.

    Well, the discogs nazis actually cast a light and let me out of the dog house -- I'm no longer on the "contributor improvement program". I did my hours and went to my meetings and remained humble, looks like I can now enter data with the rest and best of em.
  • BlackCatBoneBlackCatBone 3 Posts
    Have any of you tried GEMM.com for buying and selling?
  • Options
    Unknown
    Woimsah said:
    I did my hours and went to my meetings and remained humble, looks like I can now enter data with the rest and best of em.

    With all do respect...

    You enter the data and they do the data analysis, that is why they don't want any errors. Once you digitized the local data you and your location are dispensable... obsolete in other words.

    I guess you can kiss your next gig goodbye.
Sign In or Register to comment.