Skip to main content

Images in Discogs: what could be improved (part 1)

One feeling that I have when I am looking through Discogs is "if only they would have done XYZ". I understand that there is always more to do than there is manpower available and what I perceive as a big problem might be very low priority (and vice versa), but that doesn't stop me from ranting about it. This is one of those posts.


In Discogs it is expected that people upload images. The guidelines for images describe how this is being done and they make a lot of sense. For example, if a release (like a 7" single) has a sleeve and two sides the first image you should show is the front cover, then back cover, then the A-side label, then the B-side label. Of course, humans being humans it is completely random at times (although many times it is perfectly fine). Some things I have observed:
  1. the order can be quite random
  2. it is unclear what the images are off
  3. some people feel the need to upload images of their own copy
  4. people add images of another release or worse, replace them with images of another release (called "release hijacking")
  5. people add images with watermarks, or add images where watermarks have been 'removed' (usually smudged) or where the watermark has been cut off
The first two of these problems could easily be prevented: make tagging of images possible, with a few preset options. For 7" releases these could for example be as "Side A cover", "Side B cover", "Side A label" and "Side B label", plus a free text field for things that do not fall into these categories. This would cover the vast majority of use cases and make it easier to process images automatically. It also would make it easier to point out omissions, both by checking the data with scripts, as well as in a "soft" way by making it glaringly obvious to people that there could, and should, be more images (don't underestimate the power of nagging).

There is a lot more that can be done with images. In the coming few months I will be digging into that a bit deeper.

Comments

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

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

Country statistics (part 2)

One thing I wondered about: for how many releases is the country field changed? I looked at the two most recent data dumps (covering February and March 2019) and see where they differed. In total 5274 releases "moved". The top 20 moves are: unknown -> US: 454 Germany -> Europe: 319 UK & Europe -> Europe: 217 unknown -> UK: 178 UK -> Europe: 149 Netherlands -> Europe: 147 unknown -> Europe: 139 unknown -> Germany: 120 UK -> US: 118 Europe -> Germany: 84 US -> UK: 79 USA & Canada -> US: 76 US -> Canada: 65 unknown -> France: 64 UK -> UK & Europe: 62 UK & Europe -> UK: 51 France -> Europe: 51 Saudi Arabia -> United Arab Emirates: 49 US -> Europe: 46 unknown -> Japan: 45 When you think about it these all make sense (there was a big consolidation in Europe in the 1980s and releases for multiple countries were made in a single pressing plant) but there are also a few weird changes: