Skip to main content

A case for guided data entry (part 2)

I have been thinking a bit about how to increase data quality when entering data. There is already a lot that could be done by using wizards and asking users the right questions.

But I think that it can be made even easier when using graphical hints and explicitly pointing out to users what information should be entered in the database.

In the previous article I mentioned using a wizard and guiding users through the process of entering data. When the right questions have been answered (such as country and label) the user could be asked what the label of the release looks like . For example they could be given the following choice (left: typical label EMI used in Spain in the 1980s, right: typical label EMI used in Spain in the 1970s):

Examples of labels EMI used in the 1980s (left) and 1970s (right)

Based on this they could then be guided through the process of picking the right data. Also, using which label was picked already means that some checks can be applied. For example, if the user picked the 1980s label, but said the release is from the 1970s, then that is obviously not correct.

Let's assume that the user picked the 1970s label (the right one). The user could then be presented with a picture like this to show which information should be entered (in this case the depĆ³sito legal, the rights society and the catalog number):

Example of where data can possibly be found on a typical 1970s EMI release from Spain

This will make it easier to get the common data from a release and could be done for other pieces of information as well, such as sleeves that have a generic design (although labels tend to be much more generic).

Creating the "generic" versions of sleeves takes some effort, but I think it could be a very helpful tool to increase data quality in the Discogs database.

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: