The websubmitters these days...

As anyone who uses this site knows, the most basic Discogs rule of having a release in-hand when adding it, RSG 1.1.1, is often completely thrown out the window. And, I'm not saying this is or isn't OK.

It's also well known, that simply being a websub is NOT immediately grounds for removal, even when the OS fully its they don' t have the release and that it's a pure websub.

I'm just hoping for some consistency. Many add pre-orders. Some come from the label, many don't. Some are so far away, they haven't been manufactured yet, or even have the details necessarily finalized. But, none of this seems to matter now?

It's confusing to me, the things that do get removed and those that do not. There's no black and white here, sadly. No one needs be the Discogs police, either, other than the community at large.

I guess I'm just venting here, but it's frustrating to no end, how many submissions are so flawed, still... both before and after the item's release date. Once bad subs are kept, they often stay un-updated, as after adds the thing to the collection. So frustrating...

I feel your pain:
http://discogs.versitio.com/forum/thread/539372dfd07b096e437e0956
(which in turn links to an earlier forum post of yours)

I was thinking of new things, such as: 1) a button to click to confirm it's a websub, just to be clear/honest about it, 2) a special way to isolate/log releases with future distro dates, 3) a more automatic way of reporting s who do "things."

HOW TRUE! But this has been discussed several times and they won't change the rule, so the discussion is a waste of time. ;)

hatfulofelt
It's confusing to me, the things that do get removed and those that do not. There's no black and white here, sadly.

Yes there is.

If it doesn't exist, we remove it. If it does, we don't.

Gabbahead
this has been discussed several times

StaticGuru
If it doesn't exist, we remove it

...it's proving it doesn't exist...
you'll always get nay-sayers quoting 'there'll be advance copies somewhere' and 'it's probably been pressed by now so should exist'
my response to them is 'if it's not in anyone's hands how can it be proved it does exist' ie how is it in the database etc etc

Gabbahead
the discussion is a waste of time

...that's my conclusion. There's no from management other than 'file an SR' and we'll deal with it that way...'

bobbley
...it's proving it doesn't exist...

I would say it's the submitter's responsibility to prove it does.

ONLY submit records you hold in hand.

That should be the one and only rule regarding physical records. Everything else is just bs.
But it seems to me that some rules (simple and logical as they are) are too complicated for people.
As it is now, we will end up like amazon listings, with incorrect dates and records who never existed.

StaticGuru
I would say it's the submitter's responsibility to prove it does.

yeah - but how many do? Then to remove it - you've got to prove it don't!

Yes, Amazon is really bs... Best album sub ever: http://discogs.versitio.com/Die-Atzen-Atzen-Musik-Vol-2/release/2767381 :)

bobbley
you've got to prove it don't!

How do you prove a negative?

Another thread Request about Adding Specific Release Dates
2 different of Management replied in the SR that there will be no changes.
Wouldn't expect anything else to happen here. :/

StaticGuru
How do you prove a negative?

...and that's the loop this topic is stuck in!! and why there'll be no rule changes - just the subjective opinion of management when we sub an SR

I'm not holding my breath and hoping for miracles when it comes to changes. And from experience, this in fact is sadly but entirely untrue: "If it doesn't exist, we remove it. If it does, we don't."

People it they websub; you ask for removal when they it it and cannot update the info correctly when asked since it's entered wrong, and the removal is still voted down, since guidelines state that a websub on its own isn't cause for removal... and practice dictates that neither is common sense these days. Whether it even exists at this point has now become seemingly irrelevant, and that's just ludicrous, imo.

http://discogs.versitio.com/history?release=6212090#latest

Look, if someone obviously websubs something that is released in the future, why isn't it valid to remove straight away rather than someone chasing round that it should be kept because it might be pressed by now.
If the OS used the web to submit the info as in this case, then it should be removed...end of. But it isn't we no have to chase around getting opinions on whether it exists yet or not...

Surely we should be waiting until someone actually has it in their hands, is a member of this site and submits it???

Fricking ridiculous, if you ask me.........................................................

bobbley
why isn't it valid to remove straight away rather than someone chasing round that it should be kept because it might be pressed by now.

Because the guidelines say we don't remove websubs

bobbley
If the OS used the web to submit the info as in this case, then it should be removed...end of

Except that, of course, that would be a complete violation of the guidelines.

bobbley
But it isn't we no have to chase around getting opinions on whether it exists yet or not

Except you don't. You just vote Yes for the sole reason that its easier than sending one solitary email to a record label, asking them, "Hi, I'm from Discogs. Has this release been pressed yet?". It doesn't even have to be you. As long as it's someone. You're not looking for options about whether it exists or not; you're looking for facts. It either exists or it doesn't. Someone knows. This whole 'proving a negative' thing is nonsense. A record label releasing a record can tell you if that record currently exists or not.

I don't websub, but one look at Flight Of The Condor, which is added, and I tried doing scans to no avail in of back cover, as my scanner is only A4, and tried using phone, but creates shadows, and not clear.

I'm well aware you need it in possession. What happens if I were to do a CD submission and to get a picture of internet until I can do scans (and I have this CD in possession). (Been tired, and slowly doing scans for other things) acceptable or not?

It's fine as long as you are absolutely sure that it is identical to the copy that you hold in your hand. If there's any shadow of a doubt, don't use them

adrez
It either exists or it doesn't.

RSG §15.1.3 states: "If the release exists and the data is enough to represent the release, it must stay in the database"

...prove to me/the community it exists then.
The OS of the release did not phone a record company to confirm it's release. He just used the info from a website.

Oh the CD I wanna submit is a Christian artist, hardly any other pressings.

About the Flight Of The Condor, which is a gatefold, I tried and scanner is not big enough. The front cover is the same, back cover the same, but very difficult to scan

bobbley
The OS of the release did not phone a record company to confirm it's release. He just used the info from a website.

Yes, I know. It's a websub. Still doesn't mean it automatically gets removed.

bobbley
...prove to me/the community it exists then.

It's not up to me to ensure that your votes are within the guidelines. You voted Yes, its up to you to justify that

adrez
You voted Yes, its up to you to justify that

...on the basis that there is no proof provided demonstrating the release exists.

bobbley

adrez
You voted Yes, its up to you to justify that

...on the basis that there is no proof provided demonstrating the release exists.

with a release being in the future, it's up to the OS to prove it exists. Not for me to prove it doesn't exist

bobbley
on the basis that there is no proof provided demonstrating the release exists

No proof it doesn't either.

bobbley
with a release being in the future, it's up to the OS to prove it exists. Not for me to prove it doesn't exist

It is your duty as a voter to stick to the guidelines. Or refrain if unsure.

chn74
chn74 10 minutes ago

bobbley
on the basis that there is no proof provided demonstrating the release exists

No proof it doesn't either.

The OS didn't provide any official source it exists at the time of his (web)sub.

chn74
It is your duty as a voter to stick to the guidelines. Or refrain if unsure.

RSG §15.1.3 states: "If the release exists and the data is enough to represent the release, it must stay in the database"
I'm voting on the basis that the OS hasn't stuck to this guideline and the release doesn't exist

bobbley
the release doesn't exist

My point is you don't know that.
I don't like websubmitters one bit, but in this case the release date is too close to assume without doubt it's yet to be manufactured.

It does exist

Pink Floyd ‎– The Endless River

http://www.pinkfloyd.com/theendlessriver/deluxe_box

But release date is now 10th. Did you check if the OS had one in possession?

MusicNutter
It does exist
http://www.pinkfloyd.com/theendlessriver/deluxe_box

That's not a picture - it's a mock up. They are not physical cd's

MusicNutter
Did you check if the OS had one in possession?

If the OS had one in hand, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

http://www.pinkfloyd.com/theendlessriver/standard_cd

MusicNutter
It does exist

Pink Floyd ‎– The Endless River

http://www.pinkfloyd.com/theendlessriver/deluxe_box

That proves it's going to exist.....

MusicNutter
Did you check if the OS had one in possession?

he quoted a website for all his info, not the release he might have had in his hand...he didn't even submit a catalogue number, fgs...it's not rocket science.

chn74
bobbley
the release doesn't exist

My point is you don't know that.

My point is the OS didn't demonstrate sufficiently that it did

Whereas this release not out for another 19 days is not a websub:
http://discogs.versitio.com/history?release=6228104#latest
Matrix runout info being very helpful in demonstrating it's 'in hand' and therefore 'exists'.

http://discogs.versitio.com/Various-10-Years-Of-Shogun-Audio-Boxset/release/6285414

powderhorn
http://discogs.versitio.com/Various-10-Years-Of-Shogun-Audio-Boxset/release/6285414

Hi :)

Looks like all the s subs are from the web

so he goes and does another one...
http://discogs.versitio.com/Ed-Rush-Optical-Funktion-Naked-Lunch/release/6296466

request!

Not me :)

I just dont have the time, sorry :(

MusicNutter
I tried and scanner is not big enough. The front cover is the same, back cover the same, but very difficult to scan

You can some free software from microsoft, called image composite editor (ICE)...take four scans of the LP cover, one at each corner then drop the 4 scans into the ICE and hey presto, you get a nice composite image.

I'm afraid it always make me chuckle when a label owner (God bless 'em) edits a release to only put hype text in the release notes field and in the sub notes talkin' about, "I, so and so, of such and such label" etc etc blah blah blah, then leaves. When clearly there is a review and comment section right smack dab on the release page for them to do this. LOL I just don't get it.

powderhorn
so he goes and does another one...
http://discogs.versitio.com/Ed-Rush-Optical-Funktion-Naked-Lunch/release/6296466

JayfiveWe dont remove websubs unless there is reason to believe the thing isn't even pressed yet. No-one has made any enquiries or research into this.
Unless anyone has compelling evidence that this release does not yet exist, please vote no.

bobbleyWhere's the compelling evidence it does exist? This is my whole point: it's for the OP to prove it exists in accordance with the guidelines, not for nay-sayers to prove it doesn't, n'est pas?

Suffice to say the release is now draft, as it should be...

bobbley
Suffice to say the release is now draft, as it should be...

No it shouldnt. There has to be a reason for removal. No-one did any research to check one way or the other. It was just assumed. Which is wrong.

It is NOT just only for the OP to prove. Also the OP did not reply. That does not mean a lack of proof. That may just mean he hasnt been online lately.

The item should not have been removed. Websubmissions are not removed. It is not 2005 any more.

bobbley
Suffice to say the release is now draft, as it should be...

I don't think so. A while back nik read me the riot act for removing a release that was on pre-order at the time. It was a month or more away from the release date. It is entirely possible someone related to the label could have it. In any case, the current decision by management is that these don't get removed.

Jayfive
Websubmissions are not removed

oh, yes they can be

Yes, if it's shown they dont exist in of not being pressed yet. But they are not being removed because they are websubs, they are being removed because they dont exist (yet). Which is DTG's point.

Jayfive
Yes, if it's shown they dont exist in of not being pressed yet

...you didn't say that above, you just said "websubs aren't removed"...

Anyway, if proof is found to show it exists at this moment in time, I'll re-submit it myself.

bobbley
oh, yes they can be

My experience was more recent than that, and with all due respect to Diognes, it's nik who has the final say.

bobbley
..you didn't say that above, you just said "websubs aren't removed"...

And they arent. Items that do not exist are removed. Including items that HAPPEN to be websubs.

The criteria for removal is the not existing (yet), not the websubbing. It's no different than one of the occasional muppets who add fake releases or youtube vids as file releases.

DTG makes that very clear what criteria he refers to in that post:
"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. "

Jayfive
Items that do not exist are removed. Including items that HAPPEN to be websubs.

agreed

Jayfive
The criteria for removal is the not existing (yet), not the websubbing

agreed

Jayfive
[DTF]If the release doesn't exist it can be removed. If it does, it should not be removed

absolutely

The onus is on the Original submitter to prove it exists (I'm sure that's written down somewhere?):
(Like it's been said before me) it's much easier to prove a positive ie it does exist than it is to prove a negative ie that it doesn't exist.
If at the time of submitting, no evidence it exists is provided, it's right for the community to vote if it should be removed or not...

Yes. the key wording in that is 'doesn't exist',

bobbley
(I'm sure that's written down somewhere?):

I couldn't find it in the RSG, but I am sure if there is, someone has a link and can provide.
Personally, as a contributor, I would expect the person who contributed the release to at least be able to provide some validity or not to it's existence, however, in practice, these individuals are not always the most cooperative.

That having been said, as the OS can not always be depended on to this information, as a person putting up an item for removal from the database, you should present your case strongly to help make the process easier for everyone involved.

Diognes_The_Fox

bobbley
(I'm sure that's written down somewhere?)

I couldn't find it in the RSG

If it's not, it should be.

Diognes_The_Fox
That having been said, as the OS can not always be depended on to this information, as a person putting up an item for removal from the database, you should present your case strongly to help make the process easier for everyone involved.

How does the community prove something doesn't exist?? I've said before, this is a much easier task for an historical item, but for one with a future release date?
Do we have to provide proof there is no trace of it on the internet (ie a link to a search engine that says 'no results found'??).
Or do we have to actually someone at the label and ask: "we've got this database and someone has submitted a release of yours that will be made publicly available in a months time: does it actaully exist in it's commercial format right now?"

Surely it makes much more sense for the onus to be on the OS to present their case strongly for a sub with a future release date, either by stating 'it's in hand'; adding info that you would only know if you had it in hand ie matrix/runnout info?
If they can't, the community can vote to remove it or not (it's not as if the release will disappear - someone will add it back in when it actually gets released)

If an OS just submits a future release and then comments that the info is from the web (as people do!) - it'll be obvious the OS can't prove it exists...hence why I've previously agreed for such releases to be removed

They don;t "prove" it doesn't exist. They just need to establish that it is unlikely to exist. If you have a release months away in the future, the liklihood is that it does not exist. In the abssense of proof of it's existence aftera reasonable request should then lead to other avenues, not an immediate step to remove. You may check the web, the label or artist's pages including facebook (a handy tool which has been removed from nay profiles because you happen to need to be logged in to view pages) and social media. I have found many times, particularly on FB that the artist has images of their test pressings or even the actual items. Even FNM did this recently:
https://www.facebook.com/officialfnm/photos/a.479883298414.268692.16942753414/10152805472078415/?type=1

If there is no trace and the release date is outside what would be deemed a reasonable window for a release to be made and then released, then we may determine that it is unlikely to exist at that point. The FNM example above is dated 28th Oct. The release comes out 28th November. That's a whole month. It gives you rough idea of a time betwaeen production of the physical item and the final release. In fact it was probably produced earlier than the photograph appeared. I accept that this is not proof of the final release, but just the test pressing, but once the stampers are made and approved, the production is fairly straightforward and normally quite quick.

Eviltoastman
You may check the web, the label or artist's pages including facebook...and social media

Eviltoastman
I have found many times, particularly on FB that the artist has images of their test pressings or even the actual items

...which could all provide prove the the actual item subbed will exist, not necessarily that it does exist at that moment in time (of checking)

Eviltoastman
I have found many times, particularly on FB that the artist has images of their test pressings

well, if people want to submit test pressings, thats fine.

Eviltoastman
In the absence of proof of it's existence after a reasonable request should then lead to other avenues, not an immediate step to remove

Ok.

just copied the info straight from facebook as far as I can tell : /

http://discogs.versitio.com/Spirit-VIP-Dial-Cobra/release/6439768

File an SR detailing the and link to the release so management can deal with it.
Many people won't vote for its removal unless you can prove it doesn't yet exist.
(which my own personal opinion is that the OS should prove it does exist.......)