Site Announcements

View the results of the New Wave Outpost 20th Anniversary Top Songs Poll here:

Coming Soon: Top Albums Poll. Stay tuned!

Welcome to the new forum!
If you are a previously registered user, you must do the following:

1) Click on 'I forgot my password' at the login prompt
2) Enter your username and email you registered with and submit
3) You will receive an email with an activation link. Please click it and then log in using the random password provided
4) Go to your User Control Panel and click on the Profile tab
5) Click on 'Edit Account Settings' and enter your new password twice followed by the random password provided earlier. Click Submit.
6) That's're back in! You may have to log in again with your new password.

If you forgot your email address, please email me (MikeP) at:

Note: you must now use bb code buttons in the Post form for embedded images, YouTube videos, etc.
For example, to post embedded YouTube videos: paste in the link (e.g.,, highlight it and then click the YouTube button.

Discogs BS

Re: Discogs BS

Postby Rubellan » Tue Nov 20, 2018 9:10 am

PKPN wrote:It's amazing how grown adults can get this far in life and think their poop doesn't stink. The release histories tell a different story than the tales of oppression spoken here.

Folks, it's not that hard. Be tolerant of other people's mistakes, and be gracious and contrite when people fix your mistakes or give you the opportunity to fix them yourself, even if they aren't super polite about it. If you have a disagreement or don't understand why the rules are the way they are, politely take it to the site's forums, and be prepared for any outcome, good or bad.

If you contribute to Discogs a lot, and make lots of good edits, you will get lots of good votes which will help you weather an occasional bad/unfair vote or two. But if, from Day One, your nerves are so frayed that you throw up your hands and storm off in a rage because of one moment of unfairness, then it's probably for the best that you just interact with the site as a passive observer, because you have no business in public forums, and your are just going to find that things go even worse when you are the one making mistakes.

Regarding the Erasure 12": Someone made a mistake and immediately questioned the correction that was made, but there was no reply. Two years later, another user did not do their due diligence in evaluating the situation, and they made a mistake and voted Entirely Incorrect, which undid the edit. They are human. They messed up. They should have noticed that the user said they timed their own rip themselves, and should have given the user the benefit of the doubt...or at worst, someone should have PM'd the user to double-check. But the harsh vote was cast and the result was unfair. Yet if you look, you see it eventually got resolved with an apology by the original submitter, and it did not require very much discussion or editing at all. Yes it did take a little bit of time, but was it ever really that urgent? Is this really worth giving up on the site or holding such a grudge over?

Regarding the Fixx CD: Similar situation. There are two pressings in the database. One is the original 1999 release, and the other is a later pressing, which cannot be from 1999 because it mentions EDC as the manufacturer. An attempt was made to enter the date on that one as 1999, and this was undone via an Entirely Incorrect vote. Again this was way too harsh a vote for a wrong edit made in good faith, but some users dish out EI votes out of impatience and frustration at the ineffectiveness of leaving comments or lighter votes or fixing other people's mistakes for them. Notably, another user pointed out how the vote was too harsh. Nevertheless, the attitude of the person who wanted to make the change should be "oh, sorry, I didn't realize there were two pressings and that an EDC pressing couldn't be from 1999. ya learn something new every day!" ...not (paraphrasing:) "Someone denies my expertise in this matter? Well, I'm leaving and never coming back!"

Regarding the the OP's complaint, this is a bit different. Mistakes were not made by other users. In fact, no one made any mistakes until the OP decided to start undoing other people's additions and corrections. It was OK to not initially enter copyright data. It was OK for someone else to come along and enter it anyway, since it is on the physical item. It was not OK to remove this correct information, even if it seems superfluous.

The other users could have explained better, although they did say what needed to be said. It would not have done much good, though, because they were up against someone who seems to feel (and this is a common attitude among artists and label owners) that he is entitled to more deference, privilege and authority than anyone else, and that he does not need to collaborate with anyone. He seems to think the site's rules do not apply to him so he doesn't need to read or heed them. He violates some of the most basic code of conduct required of users on any website. He becomes obstinate when challenged, digs in his heels, engages in back-and-forth edit wars, offers childish and unprofessional responses (e.g. "who are you, Discogs police? get a life", "moron", and, to paraphrase: "I'm taking my toys and going home" and "tell me your name so I can ban you from my store"), tries to go over everyone's heads, and gripes in other forums. All this over 4 lines of copyright data and some images!

Despite having a marketplace and forum bolted on, Discogs is first and foremost a space for collaboratively creating a database of artist, label and company discographies. This naturally requires some rules for data entry, as you will find in any database. There are some restrictions imposed by the data entry system itself, as well as a boatload of rules which everyone must follow.

The rules ("submission guidelines") and challenges of collaboration ultimately frustrate everyone sooner or later, but it mostly works out. The rules exist sometimes to simply ensure good data is entered, so that releases are sufficiently distinguished and the discographies are fleshed out properly. Some guidelines, like the rules for capitalization, are more just to put an end to arguments and keep the site tidy. The good news is that the barrier to entry is low: when submitting a release, you can enter a minimal amount of info and someone else will help out sooner or later by adding more info and images. Everyone benefits from everyone else's work. Mistakes are made, and mistakes are fixed. Sometimes things don't go your way, and you move on and work on other parts of the site. None of it is worth having a heart attack over.

Just trying to add a little perspective here. Chill out, everybody.

Can we say Discogs employee? Considering there's been no further response to this thread in over a month, I think it's safe to say that everyone has "chilled out". And your one-sided perspective of exchanges and obvious antagonistic remarks on the aforementioned titles isn't helping anything. But hey, it looks like you spent far more time than any of us on this subject, with the obvious effort you spent researching a bunch of third party gripes that have been dormant for a while now. So perhaps it's you who should "chill out". Ta!
Scott @ Rubellan Remasters
Room at the Top
Posts: 1142
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 10:59 am

Re: Discogs BS

Postby Surly » Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:17 am

Yeah, that was...definitely an over-the-top response from that person. I don't know how they inferred that I was so mad that I walked away in disgust and never vowed to return. I just thought, if people are going to be so persnickety over CD pressings, then I'll leave it be and just use the site for reference. To me, the thought of multiple pressings of that CD is laughable. There's only one version of the CD. If there are different pressings, then maybe the first run came from one plant, the second from another plant, etc. There's no way it ever sold enough copies to warrant reissues, remastering, changes to artwork, selection numbers, etc. The CD is a 1999 release. Any pressings in the future would not change the content in any way, shape or form.
Last edited by Surly on Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Words like conviction can turn into a sentence"
The Jet Set
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 6:48 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Discogs BS

Postby oldwaver2 » Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:24 am

In the meantime let's listen to some music. ... _Horse.jpg
Take On Me
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2017 3:12 am

Re: Discogs BS

Postby ABOATES » Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:00 am

This thread is a pretty good example of why I can't do social media. I think the anonymity of the internet allows for people to be at their worst and get away with it. Further, because people get to see their words in print and responded gives them a voice and makes them feel "special" and part of something..sometimes when they are truly unqualified or biased or simply ignorant of the facts. The worst part about all of this is how is perpetuates relativity. Truth no longer exists...only random diatribes in 140 characters or less. I have pondered whether the internet has created this or whether it has just shined a light of reality on what people already were really like. I am not sure. I think a case can be made for both sides of that argument. It's not like human beings during their time on this planet have always been loving, kind, understanding, magnanimous, and good. As George Carlin so eloquently said, human beings are simply "apes with delusions of grandeur." Hard to disagree with that (says the guy posting about social media on a social media page ;-).
Take On Me
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu May 18, 2017 10:51 am

Re: Discogs BS

Postby NuWavo80s » Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:40 am

Another bi-product of social media is sanctimony.
There's also a faction on social media of individuals whom swoop down while hiding
behind the guise of the moral arbitrator of social media and monitor other's comments and behavior.
The pitfall of sanctimony is hypocrisy.

P.S. How many times did you re-read your comment and bask in the "after-glow"?

I've read mine four times already.
Switchin' to Glide
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2018 1:28 am

Re: Discogs BS

Postby obs » Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:02 am

Are you two on drugs?
Room at the Top
Posts: 1857
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 3:59 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Discogs BS

Postby ABOATES » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:57 am

Nope. Just reacting to the overly lengthy diatribe posted earlier in this thread. It's like dude...I just popped in here to check on the latest New Wave music news and somebody posts a 10 paragraph novel about something as if anybody cares. So, I was just extrapolating to make a quick comment about the silliness of forums and social media in general.
Take On Me
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu May 18, 2017 10:51 am

Re: Discogs BS

Postby jason89 » Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:46 am

Wooow, it's wonderful, for more information check my profile)
User avatar
Running Up That Hill
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:44 am
Location: London

Re: Discogs BS

Postby Barmy » Fri Feb 01, 2019 10:42 am

Haven't read ANY of this interminable thread. Discogs is the most valuable website of CDs or whatever. Period.
The Jet Set
Posts: 692
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 1:24 am


Return to News, Reissues & Compilations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests