I am going through a few hundred 7" to see if they are already on Discogs (which in itself is already a big task) and I am seeing quite a few that are not on there (so setting them apart to make scans, which is even more work). What I see way too often is so called "release hijacking" where an existing release is changed into a different release. This seriously pisses me off and I have written about it before.
Some examples: someone posts pictures saying "alternate labels" (which according to the guidelines should be turned into a different release) or "better pictures" which turn out to be for a different release altogether (different texts, labels, etc.). Or, they don't read the notes that are for a release that say something like "This is the release with X, for the release with Y, see Z" and then add pictures for the release with Y. Sigh.
What these people do not seem to realise is this vastly reduces the value of the database for everyone. It is another example of the "Tragedy of the commons" as the Discogs database is basically a shared resource. It is shared by the various users: collectors, sellers and buyers. A polluted database means that collectors don't have a correct overview of their collection, sellers no longer have a correct store, and buyers won't be getting the release they are expecting when buying it from a seller.
I see it so often that at times I am even surprised that Discogs works at all. It is also totally unnecessary: the guidelines are quite clear about what should be a new release but it seems that people are simply not reading the guidelines.
It has made me wonder what could be done, apart from having a more active community checking but I haven't come up with the ultimate answer. I think that a partial solution would be to start tagging more data (labels, sleeves) and then having a wizard walk people through a release, for example by asking them questions or offering choices based on the data in the database.
This would require that the data in the database is of good enough quality of course and likely the UI of Discogs would need to be reworked for that. This would be a major and risky operation, as it would break people's habits and you can only do this if the new system is radically better, as people won't appreciate having to change their habits if it means getting a minor improvement. But, if done well it could be worth it.
Some examples: someone posts pictures saying "alternate labels" (which according to the guidelines should be turned into a different release) or "better pictures" which turn out to be for a different release altogether (different texts, labels, etc.). Or, they don't read the notes that are for a release that say something like "This is the release with X, for the release with Y, see Z" and then add pictures for the release with Y. Sigh.
What these people do not seem to realise is this vastly reduces the value of the database for everyone. It is another example of the "Tragedy of the commons" as the Discogs database is basically a shared resource. It is shared by the various users: collectors, sellers and buyers. A polluted database means that collectors don't have a correct overview of their collection, sellers no longer have a correct store, and buyers won't be getting the release they are expecting when buying it from a seller.
I see it so often that at times I am even surprised that Discogs works at all. It is also totally unnecessary: the guidelines are quite clear about what should be a new release but it seems that people are simply not reading the guidelines.
It has made me wonder what could be done, apart from having a more active community checking but I haven't come up with the ultimate answer. I think that a partial solution would be to start tagging more data (labels, sleeves) and then having a wizard walk people through a release, for example by asking them questions or offering choices based on the data in the database.
This would require that the data in the database is of good enough quality of course and likely the UI of Discogs would need to be reworked for that. This would be a major and risky operation, as it would break people's habits and you can only do this if the new system is radically better, as people won't appreciate having to change their habits if it means getting a minor improvement. But, if done well it could be worth it.
Comments
Post a Comment