RYM vs. Discogs

This was an interesting read:

http://rateyourmusic.com/board_message?message_id=4420495

"before discogs went wiki it's info was waaaaay more accurate than just about any other site. but with anyone able to add and edit any releaqse that sorta went out of the window."
the truth is out there...

"I hope you're not advocating adding even more arbitrary electronic subgenres to RYM, just to keep up with the Joneses on Discogs... There are currently 24 subgenres of House on RYM, including one called Scouse House, which RYM informs me is "often described as being 'bouncy.'" (As opposed to the usual dour, slow, depressing tendencies of House, I guess...) "
*lmao* brilliant!

"before discogs went wiki it's info was waaaaay more accurate than just about any other site. but with anyone able to add and edit any releaqse that sorta went out of the window."
Absolutely a myth.
The pre-V4 submission queue was just one big circle jerk. It really had nothing to do with accuracy. Kudos anyway to the people that kick started Discogs with amazing energy and enthusiasm.

The only thing that is a pity is that apparently Discogs doesn't seem to appeal as much to people that want to write reviews as RYM does. If Discogs could 'fix' that, it could eclipse RYM in a few years, I think.
I don't know exactly why that is. One thing that could help is that reviews are sorted by how often they are marked helpful - IMDB style.

WilhelmT
One thing that could help is that reviews are sorted by how often they are marked helpful

actually i miss the possibility to mark them "not helpful"

heidelbaer
actually i miss the possibility to mark them "not helpful"

I don't see how that could encourage people to write more reviews...

Internaut
This was an interesting read: http://rateyourmusic

thanks for the link .. what i learned:

√ "Rating and communing on Discogs is a joke. I'm just there for catag and anal-retentive information gathering."

≈ "RYM has the better books and football discussion threads."

~ "what im trying to say is theyre both essential but rym will ruin your sorry life .."

heidelbaer
actually i miss the possibility to mark them "not helpful"

Didn't we have ''disagree'' some time ago? I seem to that some s abused this feature, so it was ditched.

WilhelmT
I don't see how that could encourage people to write more reviews

That's true, I think. Unfortunately many reviews are just variations on ''this is world class'' and ''this is shit''.
Q: What happened to the minimum of 75 words? Why was that ditched too?

Funny, no one have ever really mentioned the main Discogs advantages over the RYM. /
Quote: "sometimes has superior information" - hehe :)
Such release pages with no tracklist/cat# etc. are not uncommon for the RYM:
http://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/megas/flaa_verold/
However i have to it while release pages are 10-100 times more informative here at Discogs, it seems, when it comes to the number of unique titles, RYM wins. For example the album above is not present at discogs at all and if you go to the RYM's artist page you'll see 3 times more releases. Discogs is still mainly electronic music database :)

"I don't see how that wouldn't break the rules. It's discog's image, they don't want you using it anywhere."

Errr... What? I don't think that's the reason why they don't want you to source images from Discogs, right?

"discogs is way better tbh, if only for the database. just it takes up much less of your time than the highly personal rym"

Lol! If only they knew...

It's kinda sad to notice that a lot of people in the discussion seem to think that Discogs is a marketplace first and foremost.

Personally I have s on both websites, have had for a long time. I like the fact on RYM that they also have movies, but I find their database in general too simple and restrictive for my catag needs. :)

cvalda44
when it comes to the number of unique titles

I'm having issues finding mention that you actually have to own the release to add it to their DB there. That might for the volume difference.

Had no idea RYM was still around. Checking, the data on one of my labels there is a mishmash of 50% correct information, 25% partially correct, and 25% complete twaddle. As loose as the systems here are, at least there are *some* accuracy checks in place.

RYM's interface too looks like something from geocities.

Maybe I'm missing the attraction?

WilhelmT
The only thing that is a pity is that apparently Discogs doesn't seem to appeal as much to people that want to write reviews as RYM does.

I'm not surprised that with a name like Rate Your Music they attract more people that want to rate or review stuff.
The anal retentive attention to detail & fact is and has been what makes this site as good as it is. Technical behind the scenes issues aside.

I would love it if the Helpful/Unhelpful returned for Reviews.
Even better if that was made public like the 1-5 rating system is.

auboisdormant
It's kinda sad to notice that a lot of people in the discussion seem to think that Discogs is a marketplace first and foremost.

Indeed. As though they do not see all those comprehensive credits and other sections, detailed information etc. It seems, they just not interested in it, otherwise they would be here instead of RYM. I have an there too :)

Opdiner
Had no idea RYM was still around.

I think it takes its niche as per title, "Rate Your Music". Discogs reviews just do not exist comparing to RYM, that's true. RYM's lists have existed long before Discogs has implemented this feature and are much more developed. RYM is good for "basic" collectors. But when it comes to serious catag or hardcore collecting, RYM is useless. It just doesn't have enough tools to build what deserves to be called "discography".

Diognes_The_Fox
I'm having issues finding mention that you actually have to own the release to add it to their DB there. That might for the volume difference.

Looks like that :)

I do think Discogs could do more to make reviews and discussion more meaningful here, as usual it is a matter of priorities for us. Someday :-)

As far as data accuracy goes, every time I hear a generalization about it pre and post v4 (or in fact before that as new submissions went live in the DB during v3), it is never backed up with any evidence. It is easy to check out Internet Archive and compare artist pages etc. Discogs isn't perfect though, there are errors, and we could (and will) improve submitting and error checking, voting and editing to help made the data entry more accurate.

Regarding RYM, choice and competition are healthy things for everyone!

WilhelmT
The only thing that is a pity is that apparently Discogs doesn't seem to appeal as much to people that want to write reviews as RYM does. If Discogs could 'fix' that, it could eclipse RYM in a few years, I think.
I don't know exactly why that is.

It's the focus.

• Discogs is focused on being an information pool for everyone to look up. It's primarily a tool you can work with, with focus on facts (for the most parts, that is :)

• RYM is focused on s and their opinions about the music content. The accuracy of data is only secondary. And that's what attracts the average "non-anal" , I suppose.

Diognes_The_Fox
I'm having issues finding mention that you actually have to own the release to add it to their DB there. That might for the volume difference.

The amount of fake releases "cataloged" at RYM must be insanely high. At the times when I was still somewhat bothered about the Czechoslovak discographies on RYM, I recall I must have requested at least about a dozen of provably non-existing releases to be removed, which were originally submitted based on dubious pirate blog entries, misinterpreted data from Ebay auctions, and the like. Due to the endless cue of crap, in some instances it took as long as a year until a non-existing release was finally removed.
Eventually I gave up to keep track, and today I'm only keeping my eye on those few releases (or "issues" in RYM terminology) with my own participation, adding full tracklists or correcting spelling errors. And even that can be a p.i.t.a. sometimes. :|

cvalda44
when it comes to serious catag or hardcore collecting, RYM is useless

After messing around with both sites for a while in February 2008, that was my final judgement as well. That's why with the introduction of Discogs V4 I have focused solely on Discogs as my tool. Also because I was not interested on RYM's "socializing" features at all.

The few positive things I can say about RYM:
• No Capitalization Terror™ for non-English languages
• Genres and styles are not part of the actual release data
• Some useful additional format attributes in the submission form Format section, with clear distinction between physical and abstract attributes.
• The "plain text" tool for adding tracklists

nik
Regarding RYM, choice and competition are healthy things for everyone!

Definitely. :)

heidelbaer
"before discogs went wiki it's info was waaaaay more accurate than just about any other site. but with anyone able to add and edit any releaqse that sorta went out of the window."
the truth is out there...

I doubt it, seriously. People easily forget that in pre-wiki times we invented a lot of legacy labels, changed catalogue numbers so they would sort properly and mashed different versions of releases together into one entry. All this was approved by the s and editors.
With the queues and submission limits some people feel they had more control over the quality of the data.. I believe this is why some people think the database was more accurate back then.

"If RYM is a Ferrari, Discogs is a Volvo. "
haha.
well..visually i'd prefer the Volvo anyway...
RYM looks like a 1998 website model kit like kiddie gumball-machine homepage.
On first glance totally useless for anything else than sharing hyper-socialized groupie gossip.
At best it feels like sort of facebook for mp3 kids that are obsessed of always having all the new stuff.
RYM s may care about music, but apparently they don't care about records.

If i built my collection depending on "info" from RYM all my records would still fit into a shoe box i assume...
Amusingly the very first randomly picked record (which happens to be my avatar) i looked up on RYM had my images from Discogs but was still lacking any relevant data apart from tracklist. *gg*

And to be honest: before this thread was opened i didn't even know RYM existed.

"Discogs cvalda44 just said on their forum that "RYM is good for "basic" collectors. .... Her/his average rating happens to be 4.56 out of 5, whereas mine on RYM happens to be 2.56 out of 5."

This could be a result of record collectors mainly buying music or bands/labels they like whereas filesharing kids grab anything they can get.
It's only natural that those people grab far more releases they dislike than serious collectors of physical releases.

That aside, in my Asperger galaxy, when having a rating system from 1 to 5 then
5 means brilliant
4 means good
3 means mediocre
2 means lame
1 means shiza

How in the world could one end up with a rating average of 2.5 whithout picking up records randomly and simply gossiping about everything?

RYM reminds of those spam sites with all those floaty tags all over the place.

Opdiner
RYM's interface too looks like something from geocities.

+1

i hate finding their links in a google search result when trying to find info, as their "release page" is so scattered, it confuses me - half the time they lack information such as in cvalda's link up there, the tracklisting is smaller than the ebay widget cell, and than the review cell (which is normally empty).

not sure how RYM is seen as being the more social site (i guess the forums?) or better for reviews (as i can count the number of reviews on RYM i have read on one page, not for lack of interest but as any random page i open has no reviews.)

Opdiner
Maybe I'm missing the attraction?

+1

PabloPlato
the tracklisting is smaller than the ebay widget cell

that ebay widget does confuse me anyway.
i would go mad if we had sth. similar on here.

I had heard about rateyourmusic.com (probably on google results) but didn't even know it's a database.

After looking at it, I still don't know if it's a database. Anyway, I didn't get any ideas about how to use it.

"And Discogs' catalog #s are not trustable under any circumstances; RYM has a good triage policy of choosing spine cat. #, then back cover cat. # if needed, then cat. # on the media itself if none of the former two exist. Discogs seems to prefer to use the cat. # on the media itself, and often modifies (e.g. uppercases or lowercases it, or adds/removes a hypen or space) to make it fit the label's overall numbering scheme. "

huh? such practice of cat# formatting has been done away with. we enter cat#s as on release, and all variations found on a release. i think we handle cat#s quite well over here. most items i check on rym are missing the cat#.

I can't deny that RYM is better for the overall community aspect - we're definitely more geek and less couture.

Simply put: they are more interested in discussing which albums are better and why; what they think of the sound; what impact the record had on the industry; etc.

We are more interested in discussing the connection between an old Duke Ellington record to an Armand van Helden sample; the fact that the same person played sax on a Howlin' Wolf single and a Joan Baez record; and that there were four different Canadian pressings of a 1974 Beatles single, each cut at a different plant.

Both are valid and really reflect personal preference more than anything else. I just happen to prefer the latter, which is why I'm here.

But I will say that Discogs is not all buying and selling. For me it's the record-keeping - I love cataloguing my collection here, debating with the community over the importance of certain credits, making my subs as complete as possible, discovering more and more industry-related information based on runout etchings and nicknames, etc. Just discovering last night that Ringo Starr played on a track from the Howlin' Wolf London Sessions, for example, when ten years ago I would have seen the credit for "Richie" and not had a clue.

That's why I love Discogs ;)

PabloPlato
huh? such practice of cat# formatting has been done away with. we enter cat#s as on release, and all variations found on a release. i think we handle cat#s quite well over here. most items i check on rym are missing the cat#.

Indeed, the shadow cat# system has existed for a *long* time to make sure that the labels' discographies are in proper order WITHOUT having to alter the actual cat#s...

Kergillian
We are more interested in discussing the connection between an old Duke Ellington record to an Armand van Helden sample; the fact that the same person played sax on a Howlin' Wolf single and a Joan Baez record; and that there were four different Canadian pressings of a 1974 Beatles single, each cut at a different plant.

Precisely.
For folks who appreciate it – like you and me – this is exactly the Discogs "killer feature". :)

That said, for the "daily handling" of my actual collection I still prefer my custom offline FileMaker database. But each entry has a link to its online Discogs counterpart (and vice versa). From over 5000 of my cataloged items about 4/5 are now linked, i.e. there's still over 1000 releases I need to submit to Discogs. (Not counting my items for sale here, neither those already listed, nor those to be listed yet.)

Kergillian
Simply put: they are more interested in discussing which albums are better and why

seems so.
however, talking about the repeatedly mentioned "supreme RYM ratings" i must say that i am quite content with the way it is on here.
in my experience the apparently higher average ratings here on discogs are simply due to the fact that on here releases are mainly voted by those who actually own them and/or are interested in the respective artist.
i can't see why this should be considered a bad thing.

the RYM people seem to think anyone should rate anything wether he's interested in a thing or has knowledge of it or not.
but what's the use?

as an industrial (metal) fan i would never rate i.e. any Britney Spears release because it's feckin' useless. and no post 80s Madonna release could ever get more than 1 point from me, but why should i care about rating them?

but i want to know wether the other fans like the respective release or not.
on that basis i can make a quite reliable assumption about the record's overall quality.

the overall rating of that record from the average folk afficionado doesn't help at all in this attempt and i'm glad that here on discogs we usually don't mess with others musical tastes.
that would be as pointless as tofu sausages rated by carnivores or discussing the taste of Kobe beef with a vegan.

heidelbaer
the RYM people seem to think anyone should rate anything wether he's interested in a thing or has knowledge of it or not.
but what's the use?

To me ratings are all but useless in general because you never know the reason for a rating.

Reviews are what is useful - especially if attached to a rating - because you get a feel for where the is coming from (a fan? casual listener? troll? Critic? Journalist? etc) and the specific reason(s) for their position and rating.

heidelbaer
in my experience the apparently higher average ratings here on discogs are simply due to the fact that on here releases are mainly voted by those who actually own them and/or are interested in the respective artist

exactly. if people are interested in leaving a rating, usually it's on a release they enjoyed, hence the 4 & 5 votes.
very rarely will someone go to a release page to vote it low unless they were really let down or absolutely abhor the release.

also, people will be more critical and rate an mp3 they easily stumbled upon negatively than a vinyl release they had to put effort into obtaining into their hands, as obviously, if it was worth the effort to them they must have enjoyed it.

heidelbaer
the repeatedly mentioned "supreme RYM ratings"

"Rate" being even the first word of the site URL, RYM's rating better be "supreme". Otherwise the site wouldn't hold to its actual promise. ;)

heidelbaer
the RYM people seem to think anyone should rate anything wether he's interested in a thing or has knowledge of it or not.

I hope not, also for the above: the URL is rateYOURmusic.com and not rateALLmusic.com

heidelbaer
i'm glad that here on discogs we usually don't mess with others musical tastes.

… except when a – who was "offended" by one's comments on their submissions, as well as by the appropriate votes which have followed when they refused to make the necessary changes – runs "rating amok" and rates as a "revenge" a random bunch of one's contribution with "1". (Not that it matters to me, but the other guy's actual motivation for this "act of despair" puzzles me even years later.)

Kergillian
To me ratings are all but useless in general because you never know the reason for a rating.

Exactly.

That all made me think today about how my own rating scale actually works, and I figured out that I'm in fact using a reversed logarithmic scale:
0 = -∞
1 = -1000 (superfluous)
2 = -100 (acceptable)
3 = -10 (good - literally meant)
4 = -1 (great)
5 = 0 (outstanding, rarely used)

Which means: my "3" is not in the arithmetic middle between 1 and 5, and even my "2" is closer to "5" than to "1"…

(Edit: strictly speaking, when my "best value" is actually "0", then it's a reversed negative logarithmic scale…)

loukash
Which means: my "3" is not in the arithmetic middle between 1 and 5, and even my "2" is closer to "5" than to "1"…

lol

loukash
I hope not, also for the above: the URL is rateYOURmusic.com and not rateALLmusic.com

i see.
similar to DISCogs instead of HITScocks™

heidelbaer
 loukash
Which means: my "3" is not in the arithmetic middle between 1 and 5, and even my "2" is closer to "5" than to "1"…

lol

The point is: rubbish is simply rubbish, there's no need to differentiate between that. :D

heidelbaer
HITScocks™

Haha!
The domain is still free:
http://whois.domaintools.com/hitscocks.com

btw - the release image on http://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/silvinha/silvinha/ is entirely incorrect. it's a digital recreation that originally appeared on the brazillian nuggets blog where the mp3s circulated from. all but one of the s who have that release have a digital (or a cdr descendent from those mp3s) copy of that release, so they wouldn't be able to update or confirm any information on that page, and the one owner doesn't seem interested in updating the image.
despite the scant comments left by s, mostly discussing the style, there is very little of wealth on that page.
compare it to Silvinha* - Silvinha

so if you had to choose one page for truthful information, which one would you opt for?

PabloPlato
all but one of the s who have that release have a digital (or a cdr descendent from those mp3s) copy of that release

so much for www. rateYOURmusic.com...
well...file sharers and CDr collectors have always had rather confusing opinions on "mine" and "yours"...
now i believe even stronger that the word "YOUR" should actually be taken literally like in www.irateyourmusic.com™

silverleaf
I'm not surprised that with a name like Rate Your Music they attract more people that want to rate or review stuff.

They post reviews, we post mixes.

PabloPlato
so if you had to choose one page for truthful information, which one would you opt for?

Surprisingly, just a few weeks ago I was actually able to fix a totally malformed submission (an old classical Artia LP) from an unresponsive contributor (you guessed it: a seller) by using a partially unreadable tracklist photo I found on Teh Intervebz™, and the RYM listing which – also suprisingly – included the full tracklist and which looked quite plausible to me when compared to other known versions of those recordings. (I don't which LP it was - I was fixing dozens of such "zombies" in the past weeks…)
But I'd call it the "exception confirming the rule"… :P

i will not rrrate this rrecorrrd, itt ees scrratched!

the info presented on this page is misleading --> http://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/crossover/cryptic_and_dire_sallow_faced_hoods_blast_off_into_oblivion/

it gives an impression that the album was released on LP, when in reality, Gigolo only released a handful of the tracks from the album onto an EP/12" --> Crossover - Cryptic And Dire Sallow Faced Hoods Blast Off Into Oblivion

this was a pretty touch item to find for me here in north america (both the CD And the 21"). had i chosen RYM over discogs all those years ago my search would have been further complicated as i would have been led to believe that the full album was available on vinyl, and the wild goose chase it would have led me on would result in anger and frustration.

thankfully, i am on discogs so i know better.

RYM is totally useless to me...and my guess to anyone who is pretty serious in regards to what he/she listens.
Discogs' data accuracy is what helps me discover other artists i might like, say via credit roles, labels, studios etc.

Unless someone isn't actually interested in "learning" anything at all for the music he/she's interested in...
but just listens to random stuff out there in the web, and pretends the...ultimate judge according to personal tastes.

So-called "rating" is interesting from a purely "statistics" point of view.
Ie. to know if this or that release attracts more people or not, but up to that.
But even so, the number of people that have a release in their wantlist, is probably more revealing...
Who cares if a release has merely 3 ratings, say at 2/5, when there are 100 people who have it in their wantlist?
Apparently, since they want it, it means way more to them than just 2/5...

Another reason that i never "rate" anything: people rate exactly what?
The music itself? 200% subject to personal tastes...
The quality of the pressing? The quality of the recording?
The format of the release itself? (Others like cds, others prefer vinyl, and goes on...)
There's just way too many factors...i rate nothing myself:
live, and let others live, listen & judge for themselves what suits them and what not...

Reviews are extremely interesting if they take into consideration the above...generic "ratings" though,
without providing any further explanation / information, are next to useless to me...

Kergillian
To me ratings are all but useless in general because you never know the reason for a rating.

Reviews are what is useful - especially if attached to a rating - because you get a feel for where the is coming from (a fan? casual listener? troll? Critic? Journalist? etc) and the specific reason(s) for their position and rating.

+1