The Record Collectors Guild Forum Index

Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Printable version Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Author Message
JohnH.
Post subject:   PostPosted: Sep 15, 2011 - 09:51 AM
Level 5
Level 5


Joined: Jul 27, 2011
Posts: 172

I also sell on discogs as well. My only beef with them is that I have made my contributions on what I could. You only get 3 until they shut you down until your contributions get voted on. They call it a CIP program (Contribution improvement program). It takes forever to get off this program. I have so many items to post in which I can't. For example, White Noise 2, they don't have the Pulse 002 release listed there. So I can not list my item there. I am trying to keep the accuracy that they demand so I won't list it under another item in which I have noticed others have done so and listed on their item. But some of them don't. I have found that some of the people on there that make suggestions for you to correct tend to be a little abrasive and rude. I can't seem to get through to them that there that the group Buggles is not "The Buggles". There never was The Buggles and never will be. This is one item that is holding me up from contributing more.

On the plus side, they only charge a 6% commission on what you sell. Free to post. They are one of the best organized sites I have seen so far.

I don't list my Discogs link here because I give RGC members 10% off the prices I am asking for there. The other thing, I have stuff in my collection that I can't list there yet because I am on this CIP program. So, I will go elsewhere when the time comes where the contributions aren't as intense as Discogs.
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
Reply with quote Back to top
DollarsternoOffline
Post subject:   PostPosted: Sep 15, 2011 - 01:26 PM
Level 5
Level 5


Joined: Nov 02, 2004
Posts: 165
Location: Sautee Nacoochee Ga.
Status: Offline
I've been a member since June 11, 2011...as of today

Contributed Releases (900)

Pending Submissions (1064)

Browse Collection (2531)

At first I found the workings difficult...but I find that if you keep it simple (stupid) and just Thank everyone for the help then you get along fine. I'm using it to see want I've got as I've never put to paper (program) the collection,

Peace.
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
JohnH.
Post subject:   PostPosted: Sep 15, 2011 - 01:55 PM
Level 5
Level 5


Joined: Jul 27, 2011
Posts: 172

I have been a member since the beginning of August. I have contributed to 12 new submissions and the system cut me off then. I was keeping it very simple. Simple as just putting the track listings. I also found it unusual and took me awhile to get used to the way that they do things. Not everyone organizes their collection like they do. I am not the only one on this list. Many are complaining and waiting for a long time to get votes. So I don't feel so bad. Because I just don't sell there, I prefer to sell privately. RGC members know exactly what they want and are buying from me. Makes my job simpler. It is nice to have something on paper and for the RGC members, I will take the time to do this.
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
Reply with quote Back to top
Global_Dog_ProductionsOffline
Post subject:   PostPosted: Sep 15, 2011 - 09:31 PM
R.C.Guild-SM
R.C.Guild-SM


Joined: May 01, 2006
Posts: 1146
Location: Portland, Oregon
Status: Offline
Discogs has positives and negatives. Probably the best positive is that it can make it very easy for someone to document their collection rather than doing a ton of data entry. The biggest negative to me is the way the database is set-up, you can't have "sublabels" that allows a shared number system to be shown in it's entirety. From the Discogs forum...

http://www.discogs.com/groups/topic/144407

From my website this is what the unified Festival numbering system looks like...

http://www.globaldogproductions.info/f/festival-main-k-series-index-oz.html

I account for every number in the series, on Discogs you will never know if anything is missing because it is scattered all over the place with the separate labels. This isn't an isolated case by an means.

In 1970 CBS started a unified numbering system for LPs which later evolved into CDs. One of the problems is when you bring up a label on Discogs they are sorted by date then prefix and then by number rather than properly by number alone. By sorting by date first Discogs anything without a date shows up first and then the rest appear in chronological order by prefix and then number. CBS prefixes in this case began with a simple C (Columbia), E (Epic), H (Harmony), M (Masterworks), Y (Odyssey) and Z (any other label). Additionally CBS generally added a G (such as EG) to denote 2 LP sets and Q for Quadraphonic records (such EQ). Later additional letters (price codes) were added, K first, then P, J and F so you end up with prefixes like KE, PEG, MQ. In the beginning you see a lot of C's and E's but there KC's and KE's intermixed.

In looking at Discogs listings there is no way you can grasp what the CBS unified LPs looked like because Discogs has it all jumbled. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. For a friend I've been working on the CBS unified single and "EP" series that started in 1980, tons of labels and it combines 45s (7" and 12"), 12" 33 1/3, cassettes, cds and dvds all with their unique prefixes.

What this boils down to is Discogs ends up giving you lists of sorted numbers that appear to have very little to do which each other because the gaps are different labels and/or format. Some of this has to do with the template they designed for their database but a lot has to do with having the data being inputted by folks who mean well but don't know what they are doing.

_________________
http://www.globaldogproductions.info/
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
DollarsternoOffline
Post subject:   PostPosted: Sep 16, 2011 - 03:14 AM
Level 5
Level 5


Joined: Nov 02, 2004
Posts: 165
Location: Sautee Nacoochee Ga.
Status: Offline
Amen ...Global.
Best not to try and fix anything while in there. I've been not too politely told off. They seem to want vast amounts of input but the accuracy can suffer. The trend is "just make another entry" if the listed release is inaccurate or lacking. Many enter data just to score a high number of contributions therefore the number of entrees is overwhelming.

I look at the history, the MODS. and the entrees from years ago and the site has changed. Better? I don't know, I just got there.

Like I said before I'm using it for getting my collection accounted for, I really can't see an accounting for Discogs in it's current working state that is worth fighting for/about. Too heavy handed, too many strong options and lack of consistant (fair) interpetations of their rules. I use the same KISS principle (quanity over substance) and it has allowed me to carry on without hassle.

Sterno
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Rafter242Offline
Post subject:   PostPosted: Sep 16, 2011 - 07:49 PM
R.C.Guild-SMR
R.C.Guild-SMR


Joined: Oct 02, 2002
Posts: 2346
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
JohnH. wrote:
. I can't seem to get through to them that there that the group Buggles is not "The Buggles". There never was The Buggles and never will be. This is one item that is holding me up from contributing more.


Hmmm, maybe you should revise your stance...



1980PlasticAgeBuggles.jpg
 Description:
 Filesize:  56.46 KB
 Viewed:  738 Time(s)

1980PlasticAgeBuggles.jpg



_________________
Always looking for the odd and obscure on vinyl.
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
Reply with quote Back to top
JohnH.
Post subject:   PostPosted: Sep 16, 2011 - 08:26 PM
Level 5
Level 5


Joined: Jul 27, 2011
Posts: 172

I crash and burn. Spanish release as well. But in my defense the covers I have don't say The Buggles it's just Buggles. Which the placeholder they were under did not belong under that heading that is there. It is completely misfiled then. Razz
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
Reply with quote Back to top
JohnH.
Post subject:   PostPosted: Sep 16, 2011 - 08:37 PM
Level 5
Level 5


Joined: Jul 27, 2011
Posts: 172

The whole kerfuffle was over me trying to create a new release because it didn't match. They kept trying to tell me that it was a duplicate. Under their strict guidelines, you have to enter what is on the cover. So, I am wrong and now am humbled. Until you go through their strict rules of entering new releases into the database and trying to get votes on it takes a really long time. So, I am just playing by their rules.
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
Reply with quote Back to top
Rafter242Offline
Post subject:   PostPosted: Sep 19, 2011 - 02:14 AM
R.C.Guild-SMR
R.C.Guild-SMR


Joined: Oct 02, 2002
Posts: 2346
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Early Pink Floyd albums also used the moniker of The Pink Floyd.

_________________
Always looking for the odd and obscure on vinyl.
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
Reply with quote Back to top
JohnH.
Post subject:   PostPosted: Sep 19, 2011 - 05:20 AM
Level 5
Level 5


Joined: Jul 27, 2011
Posts: 172

Try searching for "The Pink Floyd" and see what you get.
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
Reply with quote Back to top
Display posts from previous:     
Jump to:  
All times are GMT
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Printable version Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Powered by PNphpBB2 © 2003-2007 The PNphpBB Group
Credits