My Vinyl is gone

[Pr33t]

My vinyl keeps inviting it's friends to move in.

Mine is like a high schooler's parents went out of town for the weekend and someone heard there was a party...

[ashratom]

Yea, I guess I had a couple of bad experiences out of the gate. I'll give it another shot. I've been building a cheat sheet, with tips on how best to add things on Discogs, because it seems I have to figure it out each time. It's not the most intuitive tool, but it works.

I have added quite a few releases into Discogs now. Lev is right, adding a new band isn't really that much different. I did have the unenviable task of adding in the Japanese Fragile for the first time (only the one album I own though, and they have many), and after a bit of figurin', this ended up being Fragile (34). A much used band name for sure...

Adding new albums is probably the biggest pain, as you have to enter all the track titles (and times if applicable). I admit I got a bit lazy with the subtitles on a couple of them and just went with the main title. Much easier to add a new version, where you can just copy all of it over... Then again, on one CD I own, there wasn't a single scan I could find on the internet, so I had to photo it. Anyway, still a long ways to go. The interface is a bit clunky, but overall I think they did a good job with it, and I like that I don't have to go past a review board every time I had a new band or add a new photo.

[moecurlythanu]

I did have the unenviable task of adding in the Japanese Fragile for the first time (only the one album I own though, and they have many), and after a bit of figurin', this ended up being Fragile (34). A much used band name for sure...

You mean it doesn't assign the next number up to a new artist with the same name? You have to determine how many are already in? Man, that's messed up.

[rcarlberg]

You mean it doesn't assign the next number up to a new artist with the same name? You have to determine how many are already in? Man, that's messed up.

That's just one of many messed up Discogs procedures. The place is pretty consistent at least.

[Pr33t]

I did notice a helpful feature that they've added recently. When you're in the master list, there's a button for "Find Your Version" that allows you to search only within a single release. This makes it a lot easier to narrow things down when there are a number of pressings for a single release.

Untitled-1.jpg

[ashratom]

You mean it doesn't assign the next number up to a new artist with the same name? You have to determine how many are already in? Man, that's messed up.

Indeed it is. The easiest way to do it (I think) is to put the band name in the search function, and then on the title bar, select "Artist" and press enter. Then after the results, sort "Title, A-Z". Even though you're not sorting titles, but band names. Then it showed me (further in the list) Fragile to Fragile (33) in order. Of course, when I added Arbatel (for example) there were no other band names like that, so it was easy.

[Calabasas_Trafalgar]

Indeed it is. The easiest way to do it (I think) is to put the band name in the search function, and then on the title bar, select "Artist" and press enter. Then after the results, sort "Title, A-Z". Even though you're not sorting titles, but band names. Then it showed me (further in the list) Fragile to Fragile (33) in order. Of course, when I added Arbatel (for example) there were no other band names like that, so it was easy.

So which band name has the largest number? I would guess that 33 would be hard to top, but I could be wrong.

[rcarlberg]

So which band name has the largest number? I would guess that 33 would be hard to top, but I could be wrong.

Well, Discogs is about 90% wrong so I wouldn't use their lists as gospel.

But try band names like Wind, Air, Free, Glass, etc.

[moecurlythanu]

So which band name has the largest number? I would guess that 33 would be hard to top, but I could be wrong.

I'd imagine that Various has quite a few.

[Calabasas_Trafalgar]

I'd imagine that Various has quite a few.

now you're just bottom-feeding, Mark.

[Levgan]

I have added quite a few releases into Discogs now. Lev is right, adding a new band isn't really that much different.

The easiest way to do it (I think) is to put the band name in the search function, and then on the title bar, select "Artist" and press enter. Then after the results, sort "Title, A-Z". Even though you're not sorting titles, but band names. Then it showed me (further in the list) Fragile to Fragile (33) in order.

Great tip, thanks! I never noticed that alphabetical sorting tool.

[ashratom]

For the heck of it, I put in Touch, which seems to come up often as a band name. 45 of those in Discogs.

I forgot to mention, but if you check the "Strict" box, it will only return what you typed in, so that helps immensely as well. So it will leave out all the band names with Touch as but one word of a larger name. In this case, I would have had to wade through nearly 1,900 band names otherwise.

[rcarlberg]

Real or imagined....

[Calabasas_Trafalgar]

I tried Saga, got 37 of those.

[ashratom]

Real or imagined....

The data definitely could use a scrubbing. It's not very clean. But at least for my collection (I'm about 45% complete), it's accurate. Anytime you have a crowd sourced website, without much restriction, it's bound to get messy. It's a trade off. With RYM, I ran into a bunch of kids who never had any power before, going crazy with the bureaucracy. They've gotten better with age, but still it's somewhat off putting to have some kid from Eastern Europe who possesses nothing more than illegal downloads challenge you on something you actually own on LP and that you just altered or added to the db. When I first joined, they basically just called me a liar, because no one actually owns those rare albums! LOL. Takes diplomacy and patience that's for sure.

Another time, my scan was denied on RYM because it didn't look like a digi-pak! How does a digi-pak look different in 2-D anyway? That kind of thing is annoying. So Discogs accepts what I put in right away. As much as I try not to, I'm sure I make mistakes too (well I know I do, and I catch them later myself).

[Pr33t]

For the heck of it, I put in Touch, which seems to come up often as a band name. 45 of those in Discogs.

I might have you all beat - Eden has at least 66.

https://www.discogs.com/Eden-Eden/release/6254196

[rcarlberg]

"Eden" is a perfect example of the chaos that is Discogs. If you search for "Eden" and filter for Artists and choose "strict." you still get 840 search results, including "Barry Farmer" and "Alan Stivell" (?). Alphabetizing, you have 85 bands named "Eden" (most of which do not show the name "Eden" anywhere in their listings), then it jumps up to "Eden106" and "Eden 224." Maybe those are the actual band names? No way to tell.

A lot of the Edens are IDM or Europop, with a single track on a compilation (mostly "Not On Label") somewhere. No picture or other band information.

IOW, not very useful.

[Pr33t]

A lot of the Edens are IDM or Europop, with a single track on a compilation (mostly "Not On Label") somewhere. No picture or other band information.

IOW, not very useful.

I very much ascribe to the "better than nothing" theory when it comes to Discogs. It's open for anyone to add information at any time. Is it perfect? No. Is it useful? Yes.

[ashratom]

"Eden" is a perfect example of the chaos that is Discogs. If you search for "Eden" and filter for Artists and choose "strict." you still get 840 search results, including "Barry Farmer" and "Alan Stivell" (?). Alphabetizing, you have 85 bands named "Eden" (most of which do not show the name "Eden" anywhere in their listings), then it jumps up to "Eden106" and "Eden 224." Maybe those are the actual band names? No way to tell.

A lot of the Edens are IDM or Europop, with a single track on a compilation (mostly "Not On Label") somewhere. No picture or other band information.

IOW, not very useful.

That tripped me up at first too. Just put in a single name and a million things come up of no value.

The key with the search function on Discogs is just to put more data. Eden is a good example then. Lets look for the rare Canadian band from 1978. If you put Eden Canada, then the release pops up first. How about Eden 1978? It pops up near the top. As long as you have another piece of data, which is easy to get really considering RYM, Gnosis, Amazon and others.

[spacefreak]

The key with the search function on Discogs is just to put more data.

Exactly. It is the only way to go if one wants reasonable results.

[rcarlberg]

I very much ascribe to the "better than nothing" theory when it comes to Discogs. It's open for anyone to add information at any time. Is it perfect? No. Is it useful? Yes.

Yes, it's better than nothing. It's not reliable, it's inaccurate, it cannot be used as a reference and it's frustratingly unhelpful, but it's still better than nothing.

Kind of like a starving person will eat a leather boot, if that's all that's available.

[ashratom]

Yes, it's better than nothing. It's not reliable, it's inaccurate, it cannot be used as a reference and it's frustratingly unhelpful, but it's still better than nothing.

Kind of like a starving person will eat a leather boot, if that's all that's available.

I think in the face of facts, you're just now being stubborn, without consideration of what's been offered. How about some hard examples so we can see for ourselves what's troubling you?

Because I find it reliable, accurate, helpful, and a superb resource. And if it's not accurate, I fix it myself. As I stated already, it's data needs cleaning, but I suspect like a lot of these initiatives, there's not a huge bankroll behind it with countless employees at the ready. Therefore we should do our part, and not just bitch about it.

[Calabasas_Trafalgar]

I think in the face of facts, you're just now being stubborn, without consideration of what's been offered. How about some hard examples so we can see for ourselves what's troubling you?

Because I find it reliable, accurate, helpful, and a superb resource. And if it's not accurate, I fix it myself. As I stated already, it's data needs cleaning, but I suspect like a lot of these initiatives, there's not a huge bankroll behind it with countless employees at the ready. Therefore we should do our part, and not just bitch about it.

Hear, hear!

[rcarlberg]

I contribute to Wikipedia when I have something to offer.

Discogs is just too fucked up to even CONSIDER trying to fix it. More power to you if you have that kind of ambition.

[Rune Blackwings]

Anyone else use Edit?

https://theedit.replyyes.com/