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.