Skip to main content

What happened in Discogs in October 2017?

A new dumpfile was uploaded by Discogs, so I launched my scripts again to see what happened in Discogs in October 2017.

Release statistics

The new dumpfile ("the November dump") was released on November 4 2017 and has 9,107,428 releases. The previous dump ("the October dump") was released on October 4 2017 and had 8,996,419 releases. That means 111,009  more releases in the database. Of these:
  • 8,455,978 releases stayed the same
  • 537,679 releases were changed
  • 113,771 releases were added
  • 2,762 releases were removed
  • 222 releases had the status Draft, Deleted or Rejected set
  • 11 releases that were not Accepted were present in the October and November data dump
  • 1 release moved from Draft to Accepted
What stands out is that fewer new releases were added than in September even though October was 1 day longer. But in September Discogs had organized a contest called S.P.IN (September Pledge INiative), where people were encouraged to add new releases to the database. What is striking is that many more existing releases were changed: 11% more releases than in September 2017.
October 2017 saw fewer new releases added than September 2017, but significantly more edits of existing releases (11% increase).
 In total there were edits for 651,450 releases. There were 44,640 minutes in October 2017, meaning there were a bit over 14.5 edits (new or changed releases) per minute, compared to 12.5 edits per minute in September 2017.
This means that there was one edit every 4 seconds, compared to one edit every 5 seconds in September 2017.
In October 2017 there was one edit in the Discogs catalogue every four seconds

Releases with known smells

To make a fair comparison I first ran the scripts on the previous datadump, as I had updated some of the scripts and more smells were found.

In October: 212,772 smells were found, compared to 220,387 in September 2017, meaning 7,600 fewer entries with smells. These numbers are not exact though: there are some known issues with finding the Depósito Legal field in the Notes section as these are processed and reported before there is a check if there actually is a Depósito Legal section. This will be improved in a future version of the scripts.

In October 1,022 entries were added with a known smell (where my scripts found something), which is not too bad. Most of these seem to come from people not understanding what a Label Code is, people copying old entries as templates and changing the fields on a per needed basis without fixing the wrong fields, or people following old habits.

So to answer last month's question: the quality of releases is increasing, but we still have a very long way to go. Let's see in a month what will have happened in November 2017!




Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

SID codes (part 1)

One thing that I only learned about after using Discogs is the so called Source Identification Code, or SID. These codes were introduced in 1994 to combat piracy and to find out on which machines a CD was made. It was introduced by Philips and adopted by IFPI, and specifications are publicly available which clearly describe the two available SID codes (mastering SID code and mould SID code). Since quite a few months Discogs has two fields available in the " Barcode and Other Identifiers " (BaOI) section: Mould SID code Mastering SID code A few questions immediately popped up in my mind: how many releases don't have a SID field defined when there should be (for example, the free text field indicates it is a SID field)? how many releases have a SID field with values that should not be in the SID field? how many release have a SID field, but a wrong year (as SID codes were only introduced in 1994) how many vinyl releases have a SID code defined (which is impossi...
1 comment
Read more

SPARS codes (part 1)

Let's talk about SPARS codes used on CDs (or CD-like formats). You have most likely seen it used, but maybe don't know its name. The SPARS code is a three letter code indicating if recording, mixing and mastering were analogue or digital. For example they could look like the ones below. There is not a fixed format, so there are other variants as well. Personally I am not paying too much attention to these codes (I simply do not care), but in the classical music world if something was labeled as DDD (so everything digital) companies could ask premium prices. That makes it interesting information to mine and unlock, which is something that Discogs does not allow people to do when searching (yet!) even though it could be a helpful filter. I wanted to see if it can be used as an identifier to tell releases apart (are there similar releases where the only difference is the SPARS code?). SPARS code in Discogs Since a few months SPARS is a separate field in the Discogs ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Using matrix numbers of CDs to verify release years (1)

One of the first steps when making CDs is to produce a "glass master". From that (using a few more steps) a "stamper" is created which is then used to press the actual CDs. When looking at a CD you can often see text in a ring in the middle of the CD. This is the so called matrix which comes from the glass master. Apart from the matrix other text (like the IFPI mastering SID code) could possibly also come from the glass master. A bit of background information can be found on page 7 of the IFPI SID code implementation guide although I would also highly recommend watching some of the clips about glass masters on YouTube, which are highly informative. One company making a lot of these glass masters is Cinram . For most of their glass masters they stored the production date in matrix. This is good news, because it means that it could possibly be used to verify releases and see if the declared year of the release is right: it could never have been released before...
Post a Comment
Read more