I'm sure there's another thread about this, but adding something that doesn't yet exist doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I've seen many differing opinions about this. Obviously, it goes against the most fundamental of all guidelines, which is to have a release in one's possession, ideally in-hand, when adding it.
I can see the exception being the entity who is issuing the release, adding it. And, for the sake of argument, of course it's nice to know about things in advance of their actual release, or even physical existence. But, is it worth an entry that is or may be full of fundamental errors?
It goes without saying that Web submissions can be valid, but when the item is only available for pre-order, why is it OK to add it? I've been told that this is the ruling, so updating the guidelines accordingly would be absolutely wonderful.
It's not OK to add something that doesn't exist yet. However, a release that is only available for preorder can be added if someone has an advance copy. This person might be a reviewer, a record company employee, a band member, or simply a consumer who got the release early.
Of course, thank you. I'm only talking web submissions not owned by the submitter, and arguably not even in existence yet, but uncertain either way about this latter part. I wasn't clear earlier about this, sorry.
Web submissions aren't OK. If there is reason to believe they exist, however, they aren't removed.
You don't have to own to submit. You merely have to have access to it, i.e., through work, libraries, friends, etc. How do you know they haven't handled the release?
ThomasP64
Web submissions aren't OK. If there is reason to believe they exist, however, they aren't removed.
That is my understanding as well. I believe this thread is the result of a removal request by hatfulofelt where I voted "no". The submission is on preorder and is almost 45 days away from release. The submitter has done nothing but websubs and when someone called him on it he responded that the person making the comment is "stupid". Sweet.
Two weeks ago I submitted a similar release for removal and it was removed. nik made clear in no uncertain that he doesn't want submissions for items on preorder removed. That's why I voted "no" this time.
I hope nik or someone else on staff reads this. I respect his decision but I really feel it needs to be added to the Guidelines on removals.
hatfulofelt
It goes without saying that Web submissions can be valid
I don't think so. RSG 1.1.1 still applies and staff or management can take steps against the submitter if they so choose.
Fauni-Gena
hatfulofelt
It goes without saying that Web submissions can be valid
I don't think so. RSG 1.1.1 still applies and staff or management can take steps against the submitter if they so choose.
Valid,,,
Is it proper to websub? No. A websubmitter can be penalized for his activity.
Is it possible that a websubbed release is valid in the sense that it exists, and can be described in sufficient detail to describe the release? Yes. In that sense, a web-based submission can be valid.
Why is it OK to add pre-order releases that one doesn't own?
The answer to this question is: It is not ok to add them, if you do not have them in your hands while submitting. However, the actual question you ask is: Why don't we remove these submissions, if identified the subber did NOT have the item available? And the answer here is different:
I guess it has been quite some time now a fact by choice of the management that a release that does exist (and yet unreleased but scheduled releases of courese might exist as advance copies or similar) should never ever be removed. Only fantasy releases where no physical copy (excluding file based releases here) ever existed should be removed . Therefore a websub of a to be released item will hardly be able to be removed as you will need to guarantee that no copy was ever made which usually will be very hard to proove unless you are closely involved with the band, manufacturing, management or similar.
That does not make websubbing an accepted behaviour but the penalty is going toward the submitter and not towards the submission.
It's not uncommon for Cds to be in hands of the person submitting, before the release date. It becomes a issue when submitters submit something; ie a Cd seen on Amazon that gets submitted when the album is scheduled for August 2014. The CD may exist but just because one site says August 2014 doesnt mean that is what the final release date is going to be.
Fauni-Gena
I hope nik or someone else on staff reads this. I respect his decision but I really feel it needs to be added to the Guidelines on removals.
It already is.
15.1.2. Releases should only be removed from the database if they are invalid. For example; they don't exist or they don't contain enough information to identify them as a valid unique release...
15.1.3. Releases should not be removed because they were entered without the submitter having the release (websubmission). If the release exists and the data is enough to represent the release, it must stay in the database. However, you can report the who did the websubmission to the Database Manager - s doing websubmissions may be warned, restricted, blocked, or banned from the database by the Database Manager.
20.5. Releases should only be removed from the database if they are invalid. For example; they don't exist or they don't contain enough information to identify them as a valid unique release. Always exercise caution when voting to remove a release. Please see the General Guidelines for more information.
Websubmission can be removed, but only where it is unlikely that the item does not exist. For example, a websub added several weeks or so before the release date where the submitter cannot prove existence and a reasonable search about the item cannot uncover information ing it has been made. Within that three week window, the likelihood of it not existing is pretty slim. In these cases, they should stay with removal being an option if the release is canceled or pushed back beyond a reasonable timescale which would indicate that it has not been manufactured - exceptions of course should be looked at on a case by case basis, such as if the release is on hold because of a legal problem - this normally would not have stopped the manufacturing process, but halted those physical releases from hitting the shelves.
Mop66
The answer to this question is: It is not ok to add them
Frequently, these are actually in hand though. I've subbed copies in hadn months before release on several occasions. I'm fortunate to know artists in a number of bands and have been privvy to some releases over a year before they officially came out (legal dispute as release was sent to me just a few days before the label folded) but in most cases I get these things a few weeks prior.
Mop66
Why don't we remove these submissions, if identified the subber did NOT have the item available?
Because the item probably exists and can be identified and corrected where errors are present. Removing the submission serves no genuine purpose other than satisfying a weird fetishistic blood-lust.
Mop66
Therefore a websub of a to be released item will hardly be able to be removed as you will need to guarantee that no copy was ever made which usually will be very hard to proove unless you are closely involved with the band, manufacturing, management or similar.
Not uite right. We frequently remove them when the release date is quite a distance into the future and no evidence of the release exists. Wegi removed several John Garcia records last week for instance, they're not out until the end of July.
Eviltoastman
Frequently, these are actually in hand though. ....
I did not put any of this in question if you read my post correctly,.
Eviltoastman
Because the item probably exists and can be identified and corrected where errors are present.
Exactly what I wrote as well, not sure if you just want to make it more clear or if you read my post differently.
Eviltoastman
Not uite right. We frequently remove them when the release date is quite a distance into the future and no evidence of the release exists.
More or less you're saying the same as I myself again, as you should be reasonably sure the item does really not exist. If there is doubt and it might exist, it should stay.
Diognes_The_Fox
If the release doesn't exist it can be removed. If it does, it should not be removed but we can take action against the contributor.
Please add this warning to an 'are you sure you have this in your hand?' page for all submissions with a future release date that the contributor has to then click through to get the release submitted...
Diognes_The_Fox
I add people to the CIP all day for websubs. I DB banned two people this week for being repeat offenders.
Great! Thank you.
bobbley
Please add this warning to an 'are you sure you have this in your hand?' page for all submissions with a future release date that the contributor has to then click through to get the release submitted...
Wesubs cannot be removed. I ran into this issue when mdevans89 lost an ebay auction that I won and an SR failed to get it removed. Websubber got credit for a release they didn't own
I feel the guideline is still vague about websubs, as it doesn't currently differentiate explicitly the differences between items that haven't yet been released, and those that have. If something's on a site like eBay or eil.com, for instance, with full pics and info, it's to the benefit of the db to add it, if it's done right, so it's documented, esp. if it's rare.
But it's debatable whether the release in question that I put up for removal even exists yet. It may, or may not, I just don't know. I didn't care for being called "stupid" or whatever the word was, by the submitter, who itted they didn't own it, when I politely commented about necessary edits that could only be determined by someone in physical possession of the release.
Sorry to be late to the party, but if I'm right, is everyone saying that you can't post that you have pre-orders available to purchase if you don't physically have a copy of the pre-order in hand? If so, that makes no sense, because isn't that what a pre-order is? Something you pay for before it exists, but will on a certain date? Again, maybe I didn't read every entry and I could completely off base, but I've always found it odd that I can't pre-order off discogs, but I can off off Amazon, the artist's website, Soundstagedirect or even my local record store. My point is that I would rather sellers that are on Discogs because some of them I buy a lot of records from, I trust them and it just might happen that with the pre-order that they have 5 other records that I have in my Wish list that I'll grab with the pre-order. Isn't that point of discogs to promote the sellers on Discogs? If they can't presell a record, then how is that helping them establish a loyal client base? Again, maybe I'm drunk and I'm in the wrong, but I think my logic is correct!
Ok...round 2.....After reading through a few more topics, it seems to me that Discogs is missing out on the whole presale concept, but they are trying to eliminate the first person that creates the presale release from capitalizing on it. So, clearly, the presales should become an official entry from the band, but then sellers should be allowed to that they will have it in stock, so you can figure out who you want to buy it from . For instance, (and to use a big name band), when Jack White allowed pre-orders for Lazarreto through the Third Man subscription (which would be considered limited and highly collectible), are sellers allowed to list that they have the item IF they were smart enough to buy 20 of these and then resell them upon delivery? I think they should...again for the sake that I might find a seller close to me or find a seller far away that has three other records I want to buy. That feels right...
You're missing the fact that Discogs is primarily a database. Sales through the marketplace were added later. From the beginning, and right up until today, RULE #1 of Discogs is that you absolutely, positively CANNOT submit anything you don't have in hand. It's the first Guideline, the only one in red, and it is the one rule that can get you on CIP or outright banned very quickly if you break it.
BTW, the Marketplace do not permit you to sell anything you don't have in stock. Discogs does NOT permit pre-orders at all in the Marketplace.
mikecameron
Sorry to be late to the party, but if I'm right, is everyone saying that you can't post that you have pre-orders available to purchase if you don't physically have a copy of the pre-order in hand?
If you don't have a copy in hand you can't make a submission. it's as simple as that.
mikecameron
For instance, (and to use a big name band), when Jack White allowed pre-orders for Lazarreto through the Third Man subscription (which would be considered limited and highly collectible), are sellers allowed to list that they have the item IF they were smart enough to buy 20 of these and then resell them upon delivery?
They are allowed to submit the release if they have a copy in hand.
mikecameron
After reading through a few more topics, it seems to me that Discogs is missing out on the whole presale concept, but they are trying to eliminate the first person that creates the presale release from capitalizing on it.
As above. RSG §1.1.1. You must have the exact release in your possession when you make a release submission.
This is why it's wrong for people who don't read rules to be allowed to submit.
As I said above, after any contributer hits the submit button with a sub that has a future release date, an 'are you sure?' page is needed - one that explains if this is a websub and you're found out/reported you will be CIP'd or banned...
el_duro
If you don't have a copy in hand you can't make a submission. it's as simple as that.
Not true, you *shouldn't* do it, but it's done all the time, and they cannot be removed, hence this thread.
ThomasP64
I never understood the appeal of websubmissions.
Well, all s are websubs by definition, are they not? And that's one way thing are obviously going these days. Also, if the intent of the db is to completely catalogue music, for the sake of history, sometimes things pop up online that should be included here, not that websubbing them is OK, but it's a shame to not catalogue them for the sake of the db and posterity all the same, imo.
I adding stuff on pre-order, just to have it there, but want the guidelines to address this explictly, since the item may not exist yet and obviously people add pre-order items that don't have in-hand, but it by the label or otherwise, and there *may* be material errors contained therein that can only be updated/edited when said release is actually in existence/in-hand, but whomever.
So, the guidelines about websubs and why they cannot be removed, should be updated, hence this topic.
hatfulofelt
Well, all s are websubs by definition, are they not?
Well you're actually not supposed to submit them until after you've ed them, I believe. In which case they aren't a websubmission. They're on your computer, so you can look at the file properties window to check format, bitrate, etc.
ThomasP64
I never understood the appeal of websubmissions.
So, what's the appeal of submitting stuff you don't have, and can't sell here, because preorders aren't allowed?
hatfulofelt
In order to show what's coming out soon?
If you could sell it here, sure. But you can't; preorders aren't allowed. So what's the point? Rank points with the accompanying prestige? The unparalleled joy of being first? The pleasure of finding something to do besides actually listen to music? The thrill of danger from the risk of being banned?
ThomasP64
Rank points with the accompanying prestige? The unparalleled joy of being first? The pleasure of finding something to do besides actually listen to music? The thrill of danger from the risk of being banned?
All these, perhaps. But, from a label's perspective, it promotes folks knowing of releases, so they can be pre-ordered on the label's own site. I see this a lot. That's a lot less cynical. And from a fan's perspective, it should be self-explanatory.
For the sake of the db, it's great to allow everything. I just take exception when it's done against the guidelines esp. when the item in question doesn't yet exist. Fundamental errors are made when this happens. But, nothing's set in stone, either, it goes without saying. Release details change, dates, songs, etc... and their respective entries will follow accordingly... IDEALLY...
The trouble, is, the purpose of the site is to document things that currently exist, and not things that may or may not exist at some point in the future. Releases frequently get canceled. Then they would have to be removed.
This Agency stands flat-footed upon the ground and there it must remain. The world is big enough for us. No ghost need apply.
ThomasP64
The trouble, is, the purpose of the site is to document things that currently exist, and not things that may or may not exist at some point in the future. Releases frequently get canceled. Then they would have to be removed.
Exactly why the guidelines need a bit of an update.
ThomasP64
So, what's the appeal of submitting stuff you don't have, and can't sell here, because preorders aren't allowed?
Based on observations I;ve made it seems simialr to the appeal of removing them. The submitter wants to be the first, the aggrieved voter is upset that they weren't the first because someone cheated, both sides see it as a serious game. Another set of submitters are those that feel an irresistible urge to submit, again, another problem with lunatics. Discogs attracts a certain type of nutjob.
BTW, the websubber who effectively started this thread has been put on CIP as has another who was mentioned in "the submitters these days" thread. That would seem to be the staff/management response, which I find entirely appropriate.
ThomasP64
hatfulofeltIn order to show what's coming out soon?
If you could sell it here, sure. But you can't; preorders aren't allowed. So what's the point? Rank points with the accompanying prestige? The unparalleled joy of being first? The pleasure of finding something to do besides actually listen to music? The thrill of danger from the risk of being banned?
you have to give people the benefice of the doubt. my first two submissions were both websub and one of them was not yet released at the time. I wasn't aware of the rule and saw this album not listed so I didn't tought twice and submited it, because I wanted to contribute to the community and nothing else.
now I know better of course and I only add and edit what I have at home and LOL about people beign buthurt because they weren't the first to submit something, there's tons of records that are 30 years old that are not listed here yet.
ThomasP64
I never understood the appeal of websubmissions. It's not like there are cash prizes for racking up rank points.
Everyone wants to be the OG submitter of any given title.
The fact is that plenty of popular new releases are websubbed daily, weekly, monthly.
These aren't DJ or RIAA promos either, because no one ever has pics of said "promo" labeling, which almost every advance copy has.
There's no excuse with the technology these days.
You can photo and crop with your phone and email it to your hard drive for submission in a few minutes.
It's just a small example of the flaws with the system here.
Personally I think web subbing should be allowed if it is done accurately and thorough info/pics are submitted.
If it exists then there's no reason not to.
Any errors can be cleaned up by an item holder at a later date.
It's not like there isn't hundreds of legitimate popular releases here that are in hands that have been voted on.
Fauni-Gena
If it was up to me we'd still be removing websubs. It's not up to me.
From experience they never want to remove releases, regadless of how incomplete or invalid they might be. So as an alternative I wish questionable submissions got flagged, and not in a subtle way. Perhaps with a big bright banner at the very top of the page.
Fauni-Gena
You're missing the fact that Discogs is primarily a database. Sales through the marketplace were added later
The database survives because of (not despite) the Marketplace.
The issue of web-subbing is one thing and should rightly be banned. Pre-orders for already subbed items where the stock is available from a distributor just makes good business sense and should be allowed so long as this is made clear by the seller.
ABusDriversPrayer
The database survives because of (not despite) the Marketplace.
The marketplace is as interesting as it is because of the database and the thousands of s who are only interested in the database and providing a lot of detail, thousands of hours of work and benefit for free and that sellers take advantage on. Otherwise this would be just another GEMM or Musicstack!
The database itself could be run as a non-profit organization.
"Something, something suffering fools gladly" - Don Cheadle, in a poem.
hatfulofelt
Rewrite the guidelines to say that websubs with insufficient info can be removed,
If you read my previous posts and the guidelines I quotes you will see that this is already the case but does not mention the term websub because it is an unnecessary to single out websubs but to speak of submissions that contain too little information to be useful in general.
15.1.2. Releases should only be removed from the database if they are invalid. For example; they don't exist or they don't contain enough information to identify them as a valid unique release.
Racer599
Everyone wants to be the OG submitter of any given title.
That's an unqualified supposition and from my perspective and considering what I know and who I know in this DB, speaking about people like Opdiner, Mr.Mystery, Jayfive and Loukash, my impression is from stalking these guys for four years is that I have never, ever seen any behaviour which s the thesis that they actively seek to be the original submitter, I cannot say the same for those who frequently bemoan the fact that websubmissions cannot be removed. There seems to be a problem in the animal there and not the database as they suggest. I think a degree of introspection is what's required there and the database and the remainder of the community cannot help them. Sometimes you have to deny baby his toy no matter how much he cries.
Racer599
These aren't DJ or RIAA promos either, because no one ever has pics of said "promo" labeling, which almost every advance copy has.
Most modern pre releases have no discernable promo marks. Releases are seldom promo stamped or stickered anymore. For example Mofi release commercial records without numbering to promote the commercial release, if the subsequent release is unnumbered the promo copies are entirely indistinguishable from the retail, because they are the exact same thing.
Racer599
There's no excuse with the technology these days.
Go on...
Racer599
You can photo and crop with your phone and email it to your hard drive for submission in a few minutes.
On the point above about photographic technology, you seem to assert that everyone on Discogs MUST or DOES have access to a digital imaging device of some kind. Not everyone owns a camera or a scanner or even a smartphone. In fact I was close to going back to my Sony Walkman phone with 1mp camera this week but bought a new martphone. It's a little bit arrogant to claim to know that that everyone has access to imaging devices or to assert as fact that everyone wants to be the original submitter. I personally know at least one big Discogs submitter who sells here by the bucketload and contributes massively. His computer runs windows 98, the screen flickers, his mobile phone can send and receive phone calls and text, and pre dates the chocolate bar style phones of the mid naughties. He doesn't own a scanner, he doesn't own a camera. His life is collecting records, he is a brilliant contributor and imo one of the best sellers on the interwebz. Assertin that technological possession is unoiversal seems quite removed from real life experience and realistic expectations.
Racer599
It's just a small example of the flaws with the system here.
I'm not too sure you've demonsrated anything to be perfectly honest. I see that you feel that your observations are right, but I find both main points above to be irrational and not particularly realistic.
Racer599
Personally I think web subbing should be allowed if it is done accurately and thorough info/pics are submitted.
It should never be allowed and websubbers must be punished harshly. We need the item in hand to avoid errors creeping into the database.
Racer599
Any errors can be cleaned up by an item holder at a later date.
This currently happens if and when a websubber is detected by someone with the release, the issue is that a websub may never be detected and so the errors inherent will last indefinitely. When identified, they are usually fixed or flagged.
Racer599
It's not like there isn't hundreds of legitimate popular releases here that are in hands that have been voted on.
That's actually a line which s what I just said, the erroneous websubbed data is easily lost and forgotten nd remains incorrect. Whilst this is true of subs with the release in hand, errors are far more likely where data is not taken from the item in hand but taken from a second hand internet source. We cannot accept that.
cdremixcollector
From experience they never want to remove releases, regadless of how incomplete or invalid they might be
This is not true. Websubs which are far off in the future (more than a couple of weeks) such as the John Garcia release I mentioned up thread was removed only the other week by Wegi, four subs in total I believe. Dozens of subs are removed every day. If they are demonstrably non existent like those Garcia records, or if they are otherwise invalid in accordance with the removal guidelines, they can go and do go. The main reason why the majority of removals fail are because they are incorrectly selected for removal usually by people who should know better (a week or so until release date for instance) or because they ought to be merged,
cdremixcollector
So as an alternative I wish questionable submissions got flagged, and not in a subtle way.
I wouldn't precisely what you're asking for but I would ask that any release submitted before the given release date should be automatically flagged and remain flagged until checked. Not with red yellow or amber, but another colour. Purple? So that we're aware the submission requires extra scrutiny.
