Sometimes duplicate entries get added to the Discogs database, for various reasons:
You can merge two releases using the "merge release" functionality in the edit menu:
You then have to pick the two releases to merge and say which one should be kept:
People can then vote on whether or not the releases should be merged. If enough people vote (I don't know what the threshold here is) the release will be merged, the pictures of all releases (if any) will be moved to the release that was chosen to be kept (although the merged images will be disabled by default) and the other release is set to 'Draft'.
For most people this is the end of the process and this is where things go wrong. What I have seen is that releases that are merged don't have the same information: while sometimes a release that is merged into another only has a subset of information of the other release very often the releases have non-overlapping sets of information and these are not actively merged by Discogs (only images are), and that means that information has to be actively copied from one release to the other.
Releases with status 'Draft' are removed every once in a while (although I am not sure if this is done automatically) or can be removed by people from their drafts list, and then the data will be purged from the database. This means that unless data is moved it is actually lost and has to be reentered, or recovered from the database dumps.
One solution to this is to encourage people to actively merge the data from the two releases (unless it is obviously incorrect) using some default language ("Releases have been merged. Don't forget to copy any data that should be copied!" or something like that), or to point out that there are differences and where they are, so people can copy these (the risk being that wrong information is copied, but that is an entirely different problem).
One other thing that I really dislike is that it is impossible to undo a merge, except by readding the old release. That usually means a lot of work and people who previously added the release to their lists will have to find it and readd it. So, having a way to undo a merge (also using some sort of voting system?) for a couple of days after a merge might not be a bad idea...
- inexperienced users: it takes some time to understand the Discogs workflow. This happened to me as well when I was starting out and it is because the Discogs edit interface throws you into expert mode, instead of trying to guide you through the process (which I have written about before here and here).
- stupid sellers: some sellers still don't understand that Discogs is a catalog where you simply pick a release (unlike for example eBay), so they add releases that are already in the catalog.
- entry errors: sometimes errors are made, which makes it hard to find that an entry has already been added, for example when it isn't clear what the correct label is, or the artist, and so on and then someone adds the same release twice.
- disagreement about when a release is a variation: people on Discogs frequently disagree about when a release is actually a different release, or simply a variation. For example, a different run out or pressing plant might mean a different release for one person and merely a variation for another person (my opinion: it depends on the release)
You can merge two releases using the "merge release" functionality in the edit menu:
 |
| Merge functionality in the edit menu |
You then have to pick the two releases to merge and say which one should be kept:
 |
| Example: merging two releases |
People can then vote on whether or not the releases should be merged. If enough people vote (I don't know what the threshold here is) the release will be merged, the pictures of all releases (if any) will be moved to the release that was chosen to be kept (although the merged images will be disabled by default) and the other release is set to 'Draft'.
For most people this is the end of the process and this is where things go wrong. What I have seen is that releases that are merged don't have the same information: while sometimes a release that is merged into another only has a subset of information of the other release very often the releases have non-overlapping sets of information and these are not actively merged by Discogs (only images are), and that means that information has to be actively copied from one release to the other.
Releases with status 'Draft' are removed every once in a while (although I am not sure if this is done automatically) or can be removed by people from their drafts list, and then the data will be purged from the database. This means that unless data is moved it is actually lost and has to be reentered, or recovered from the database dumps.
One solution to this is to encourage people to actively merge the data from the two releases (unless it is obviously incorrect) using some default language ("Releases have been merged. Don't forget to copy any data that should be copied!" or something like that), or to point out that there are differences and where they are, so people can copy these (the risk being that wrong information is copied, but that is an entirely different problem).
One other thing that I really dislike is that it is impossible to undo a merge, except by readding the old release. That usually means a lot of work and people who previously added the release to their lists will have to find it and readd it. So, having a way to undo a merge (also using some sort of voting system?) for a couple of days after a merge might not be a bad idea...
Comments
Post a Comment