the 'best' way to sort Matrix and SID Code variations ?

This topic concerns me been a while particularly in this context.

Please share your thoughts (and experiences), what would be the best way to display the versions (and descriptions) easy and understandable e.g. in this case...

R.E.M. - Monster

Matrix / Runout (Version 1+4): 936245740-2 WME
Mastering SID Code (Version 1+2+4): IFPI L011
Matrix / Runout (Version 2): 936245740-2.2 WME
Mould SID Code (Version 2): IFPI 0531
Matrix / Runout (Version 3): 936245740-2.3 09/99
Mastering SID Code (Version 3): IFPI L012
Mould SID Code (Version 3): IFPI 05A8
Mould SID Code (Version 4): IFPI 0525

I was looking for an related thread before and find no one.
Please link me to the thread if you know or find one. Thanks.

http://discogs.programascracks.com/help/forums/topic/365107

I quite like this example: System Of A Down - Steal This Album!

Clear & simple to read.

Yep, best to keep the variants in separate blocks and add the all three fields for each variants even if some of the SIDs or even matrices are the same. It keeps things real, ya'll.

xjoxjox
Clear & simple to read.

thanks for this

@ ETM
you would also repeat identical informations like this way - correct ?

Matrix / Runout (Version 1): 936245740-2 WME
Mastering SID Code (Version 1): IFPI L011
Matrix / Runout (Version 2): 936245740-2.2 WME
Mastering SID Code (Version 2): IFPI L011
Mould SID Code (Version 2): IFPI 0531
Matrix / Runout (Version 3): 936245740-2.3 09/99
Mastering SID Code (Version 3): IFPI L012
Mould SID Code (Version 3): IFPI 05A8
Matrix / Runout (Version 4): 936245740-2 WME
Mastering SID Code (Version 4): IFPI L011
Mould SID Code (Version 4): IFPI 0525

Yes, there is no need to save space and the info needs to 'marry up'

Why not use:

Matrix / Runout (Version 1): 936245740-2 WME
Matrix / Runout (Version 2): 936245740-2.2 WME
Matrix / Runout (Version 3): 936245740-2.3 09/99
Mastering SID Code (Version 1+2): IFPI L011
Mastering SID Code (Version 3): IFPI L012
Mould SID Code (Version 1.1): none (Not mentioned, so maybe remove it)
Mould SID Code (Version 1.2): IFPI 0525 (could be version 1 see ^)
Mould SID Code (Version 2): IFPI 0531
Mould SID Code (Version 3): IFPI 05A8

Due to the fact there is nothing mentioned about a Mould SID Code for the "old" variant 1 and variant 4 is the same as variant 1 you could also mention the "old" variant 4 variant 1.

For me it is more clear that there "in this case" 3 different Matrixes and they have Mastering and Mould SID Codes corresponding with that variant.

We discussed this before and it looks more confusing and has led to multiple problems. Whilst there's nothing wrong with it, it causes data entry issues with further variants. It's clearer to keep the variants in distinct blocks repeating the SIDs if necessary.

Willow.the.Wisp
Matrix / Runout (Version 1): 936245740-2 WME
Mastering SID Code (Version 1): IFPI L011
Matrix / Runout (Version 2): 936245740-2.2 WME
Mastering SID Code (Version 2): IFPI L011
Mould SID Code (Version 2): IFPI 0531
Matrix / Runout (Version 3): 936245740-2.3 09/99
Mastering SID Code (Version 3): IFPI L012
Mould SID Code (Version 3): IFPI 05A8
Matrix / Runout (Version 4): 936245740-2 WME
Mastering SID Code (Version 4): IFPI L011
Mould SID Code (Version 4): IFPI 0525

I'd handle it slightly differently:

Matrix / Runout (Variant 1): 936245740-2 WME
Mastering SID Code (Variant 1): IFPI L011
Mould SID Code (Variant 1): none
Matrix / Runout (Variant 2): 936245740-2.2 WME
Mastering SID Code (Variant 2): IFPI L011
Mould SID Code (Variant 2): IFPI 0531
Matrix / Runout (Variant 3): 936245740-2.3 09/99
Mastering SID Code (Variant 3): IFPI L012
Mould SID Code (Variant 3): IFPI 05A8
Matrix / Runout (Variant 4): 936245740-2 WME
Mastering SID Code (Variant 4): IFPI L011
Mould SID Code (Variant 4): IFPI 0525

I'd also run the variants in ascending order (not done here).

The only problem I see about mentioning all seperate is that if the list is getting to long you'll maybe miss the one you have and unneccessary create a new one.
That's for me the reason to add all my releases as follow:

Barcode (string)
Barcode (text)
Other Cat# (of the CD which is different as the release one)
Matrix (all)
Mastering SID Codes (all)
Mould SID Codes (all)
Right Society
Label Code

With boxes I do the same only barcodes I keep together, so String CD1, Text CD1, String CD2, Text CD2 etc.

I agree with you dreeat and ETM.

This 'marry-up-style' in ascending order seems really the best way to sort Matrix and SID Code variations. This makes all details clear and easy understandable.

I'm waiting for Myriad's pending answer and will clean up the BaOI section.

Quatroo66
Matrix / Runout (Version 1): 936245740-2 WME
Matrix / Runout (Version 2): 936245740-2.2 WME
Matrix / Runout (Version 3): 936245740-2.3 09/99
Mastering SID Code (Version 1+2): IFPI L011
Mastering SID Code (Version 3): IFPI L012
Mould SID Code (Version 1.1): none (Not mentioned, so maybe remove it)
Mould SID Code (Version 1.2): IFPI 0525 (could be version 1 see ^)
Mould SID Code (Version 2): IFPI 0531
Mould SID Code (Version 3): IFPI 05A8

As far as order of the variants of stuff in the matrix, I think this is the best and it's how I do it. It's the best way to easily identify the data. Why mix the different BAOI just so they stay as per version. Often you will have versions sharing some of the BAOI..

It;s harder to read and leads to more errors when further updates are required. You say it;s the best, but no reason as to why, practically or aesthetically, Boggling.

Eviltoastman
It;s harder to read and leads to more errors when further updates are required

?
In my opinion it's more clear. You'll search your matrixnumber, if it is there you check the SID Codes and add them if there different. If it is not there you'll create a new matrix variant.

I've updated the release in question yesterday evening.

It's important for me to bump this discussion in addition to the other thread to gather more pro and cons for each method.

Maybe it would be easier than to find a final ruling within the new guideline.

Eviltoastman
It;s harder to read and leads to more errors when further updates are required.

Is that scripture? You've provided no evidence to back up that claim.

Quatroo66
Why not use:

Matrix / Runout (Version 1): 936245740-2 WME
Matrix / Runout (Version 2): 936245740-2.2 WME
Matrix / Runout (Version 3): 936245740-2.3 09/99
Mastering SID Code (Version 1+2): IFPI L011
Mastering SID Code (Version 3): IFPI L012
Mould SID Code (Version 1.1): none (Not mentioned, so maybe remove it)
Mould SID Code (Version 1.2): IFPI 0525 (could be version 1 see ^)
Mould SID Code (Version 2): IFPI 0531
Mould SID Code (Version 3): IFPI 05A8

Because Toasty doesn't like it that way? Seriously, I see no reason not to do it as you suggest.

dollvalley
As far as order of the variants of stuff in the matrix, I think this is the best and it's how I do it. It's the best way to easily identify the data. Why mix the different BAOI just so they stay as per version. Often you will have versions sharing some of the BAOI..

Agreed. I find the Toasty method much more difficult to read myself, but that's just me.

whats with Version 1.1, 1.2 in the sid codes... confusing me on first look, and second look.. so I guess they have same of everything version 1 but one of them has mould code and other does not... do I get it? This way looks much better, but maybe having version 1.1 and 1.2's can confuse ppl with less experience.. could it be worth entering them as separate variant even though matrix and mastering sid will be repeated.

Toastman way is harder to read but straight forward and easier to understand and I agree less likely to be error prone.

timetogo
Is that scripture? You've provided no evidence to back up that claim.

No it isn't scripture and I did back up that claim in another thread to almost universal agreement. Call it peer review.

timetogo
Because Toasty doesn't like it that way?

Not at all, he can list it as he wants. All I can do is opine and I have done so. With regards to the venomous response, I hadn't exactly stormed down mount Sinai with my opinion etched in stone as law, so I'm confused why the vitriol.

timetogo
Agreed. I find the Toasty method much more difficult to read myself, but that's just me.

Why? The information is logically and orderly entered. You are not scanning for the other parts of the variants, filtering out variant numbers which share the quality entered. You're not having to so much information when scanning up and down which means it can be read quicker and there is a lessened need to rescan or re-read do to the unclean method being bitterly defended (grow up for christ sakes, use the method you want to use).

With the Quatro method your eye is forced to scan more up and down to locate the other parts of the same variants, it has to filter variant numbers and the introduction of the decimal system further complicates an overcomplicated and inefficient method of collation. The eye is working much harder. You may think it's prettier, but it appears disorganised and is harder work and will clearly and obviously result in more entry errors as a similar method is currently more prevalent (without decimals) and variants are constantly being messed up when new ones are being added. Keep it simple and orderly is my recommendation.

If you don't like my recommendation fair enough, but the virtues of my method are quite apparent.

http://discogs.programascracks.com/forum/thread/363471#521517889469733cfcfb41fe - My previous comment and its responses. Be aware the thing soon goes into a debate on the use of "Matrix/Runout" for SID codes which is not related to this discussion. The linked thread was the catalyst for the introduction for the SID dropdown.

I'm with toastman on this. But it would be great if there could be a way to have a empty line between those triplets.
Something like this: http://i.imgur.com/4AnRSgr.png
That would make them easier to read.

Whatever way we think is the best, I think it would help us a lot if we could add them after each other instead of under each other.
Nicest would be something like this (I think)
Variant 1: Matrix / Runout: 936245740-2 Mastering SID Code: IFPI L011 Mould SID Code: none
Variant 2: Matrix / Runout: 936245740-2 Mastering SID Code: IFPI L011 Mould SID Code: IFPI 0525
Variant 3: Matrix / Runout: 936245740-2.2 WME Mastering SID Code: IFPI L011 Mould SID Code: IFPI 0531
Variant 4:Matrix / Runout: 936245740-2.3 09/99 Mastering SID Code: IFPI L012 Mould SID Code: IFPI 05A8

And yes I then Agree to get rid of the idea of 1.1 and 1,2

Maybe you have to split the BAOI in two: "Matrix and SID Codes" and "BAOI" for that.

This might have been handy to include in the discussion for interpreting run-out information http://discogs.programascracks.com/forum/thread/52151d4d9469733cfcfc9580 , or would this not fall under "Interpreting run out information"? If s could have a 'fixed' way of doing it, it would result in less arguments ensuing on this. There is a Madonna single where every weak another variant is added, and one changes the order, then the next adds a variant and changes it again. Rather annoying. I think either way is fine, but would be good if it was decided to stick to one or the other.

Amsreddevil
This might have been handy to include in the discussion for interpreting run-out information http://discogs.programascracks.com/forum/thread/52151d4d9469733cfcfc9580 , or would this not fall under "Interpreting run out information"? If s could have a 'fixed' way of doing it, it would result in less arguments ensuing on this. There is a Madonna single where every weak another variant is added, and one changes the order, then the next adds a variant and changes it again. Rather annoying. I think either way is fine, but would be good if it was decided to stick to one or the other.

Interpreting run-out information is indeed a "problem". In my Opinion something on the inner ring like this: Sony Music IFPI L555 14589999/0102 31 A1 should be the matrix. Due to the fact in this case it is sometimes in front of the manufacturer and sometimes behind it. But how often people mention that it is not part of it.

Amsreddevil
This might have been handy to include in the discussion for interpreting run-out information http://discogs.programascracks.com/forum/thread/52151d4d9469733cfcfc9580 , or would this not fall under "Interpreting run out information"?

I mentioned it in ing here:
http://discogs.programascracks.com/forum/thread/52151d4d9469733cfcfc9580#52151d4d9469733cfcfc956d and was replied to by Swagski, the author of the 1.1, 1.2 method that was commented on above.
You're right, it should have been more explicit. I honestly thought I included the link there but found out this morning that I had not.

anssisal
Something like this: http://i.imgur.com/4AnRSgr.png
That would make them easier to read.

Quatroo66
Nicest would be something like this (I think)

Yes. The variant currently sitting in the description field is quite a problem. If there was an aspect to the BAOI section which basically asks for new variant which would then set the data as follows:
http://screencast.com/t/WGTSaSnFN

Should there also be a limit to the amount of variants added? I came across a release the other day (wish I have saved it), had close to 20 variants added. A bit too much information?

In my image above, I put a "+ collapse" thing on it (it didn;t work as it's a jpeg). I did this because this information can run into the figures you've mentioned, particularly with the heavier runs of the most popular artists. This is one of the reasons why a clean separation of all three variant components is a must, on those larger ones, it;s very easy to get muddled and make a mess when making just a simple edit. If the "add variant" function didn't allow you to add a variant number and assigned it automatically, this would also be very good. particularly if it automatically sorted it by matrix number in ascending order so later stampers automatically get sorted as later variants.

this Radiohead - OK Computer is a great example why the "(variants 1 to 4 & 9)" method sucks.

I know that method has it's ers, but the only benefit of it is that it groups "data descriptions" together rather than holding the data itself in order. When looking at the information that's collated, surely is better that the data is coherently ordered rather than the headings? I'm not convinced of any genuine the benefit of that method, that example is quite perfect in how I feel it causes mistakes many mistakes. Whilst the Data Type fields are neat, the data itself is a pure mess.

http://i.imgur.com/88QGWAu.png and the outcome would look something like

Eviltoastman
http://screencast.com/t/WGTSaSnFN

anssisal
http://i.imgur.com/88QGWAu.png and the outcome would look something like

Eviltoastman: http://screencast.com/t/WGTSaSnFN

Excellent.

anssisal
http://i.imgur.com/88QGWAu.png and the outcome would look something like

Eviltoastmanhttp://screencast.com/t/WGTSaSnFN

Have to say it looks good, a possibility to put them after each other instead of under each other is that possible. By a lot of variants you keep scrolling in this way. The right side of the page is at that area not used normally so ...

Regarding this possible solution:
How do we get along with releases which have 2 Mould SID Codes. At this moment I put them loose as seperate SID Codes (and mention in the submission that it has two Mould SID Codes), but maybe it is better to put both in one selection, which will give then something like this:

Mould SID Code: IFPI 7308 & IFPI 3205.

Seeing some releases some people could put a little bit more effort in there contributions.

There were "Recent changes affecting releases in my Discogs collection" and one of the edits was: http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=367220#latest
I don't think grouping data like that just so it looks nicer is the solution.

anssisal
There were "Recent changes affecting releases in my Discogs collection" and one of the edits was: http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=367220#latest
I don't think grouping data like that just so it looks nicer is the solution.

I've noticed the same.

For sure the update was well intentioned but clearly against RSG §1.10.3.

Please don't do updates just to change the order of data (such as in the format or credit fields).
Only do updates to correct or add information.
It was not incorrect before.

I was the last editor before this 'better living'-update -
and it was really easy for me to determine if my variant was in that list or not.

Now (but that's just me) I would need more time to decrypt every variant to check them accordingly and to add my variant afterwards.

Also I think the way it is now is risky.
If someone make a silly mistake now - he can easely mess up 4 different variants same time with only one typo.

anssisal
this Radiohead - OK Computer is a great example why the "(variants 1 to 4 & 9)" method sucks.

Eviltoastman
I'm not convinced of any genuine the benefit of that method, that example is quite perfect in how I feel it causes mistakes many mistakes. Whilst the Data Type fields are neat, the data itself is a pure mess.

indeed

anssisal: http://i.imgur.com/88QGWAu.png and the outcome would look something like
Eviltoastman: http://screencast.com/t/WGTSaSnFN

perfect

There really should be a guideline for these matrix variations. Here's another example why: http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=383624#latest
only added the mould SID variant, changed my first variant to variant 2 (and also changed its ifpi to IFPI) and didn't number the variant 1 matrix nor the mastering SID code.
So does this mean his copy has the same matrix and mastering SID code? Or what?
I mean come on now...

anssisal
There really should be a guideline for these matrix variations.

Agree.
The images shown earlier in the discussion will solve a lot of problems if it is done that way.
Only the Mould SID Codes could give a lot of variants which could be minored if you put those in one "variant" For example.

Variant 1
Matrix/Run out: 1234-5698 A0 1-1-2-XY
Mastering SID Code: ifpi L123
Mould SID Codes: IFPI 3611 IFPI 3612 IFPI 3614

With the possibility to add more Mould SID Codes to the "Variant"

Maybe my first idea was not a winning one but the one mentioned earlier today was messy in my opinion. If the Matrixes were put under each other, then Mastering SID Codes en then the Mould SID Codes it would be more clear then how it is done now.

anssisal
There really should be a guideline for these matrix variations.

I'm sure this would be part of 6. Formulate new guidelines

anssisal
I mean come on now...

It could be better...

look at this one:
http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=3639777&diff=15
Someone added a variant to an alternate version...

Quatroo66
The images shown earlier in the discussion will solve a lot of problems if it is done that way.

For multiple Mould SID Codes, maybe something like this then: http://i.imgur.com/lRVt9dt.png
With that "Add indentifier" button you could add more than one matrix field or mould sid code field etc.

Willow.the.Wisp
look at this one:
http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=3639777&diff=15
Someone added a variant to an alternate version...

Nice one. :D

Here's another example where this subject led to a lenghty discussion, mutliple changing of the layout, while the number of variations doubled in that process: http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=66148&page=1&diff=48

anssisal
For multiple Mould SID Codes, maybe something like this then: http://i.imgur.com/lRVt9dt.png
With that "Add indentifier" button you could add more than one matrix field or mould sid code field etc.

please keep in mind - there exists CD copys with two Mould SID Codes as on the same CD
(like these Björk examples above)

How do you explain then that variation 1 has two Mould SID Codes and the 3rd Mould SID Code belongs to another alternative version?

I prefer to 'split' every version/variant.
(Also if the only difference is another mould SID code.)

anssisal
Quatroo66The images shown earlier in the discussion will solve a lot of problems if it is done that way.
For multiple Mould SID Codes, maybe something like this then: http://i.imgur.com/lRVt9dt.png
With that "Add indentifier" button you could add more than one matrix field or mould sid code field etc.

Almost my idea, only I preferred to have the Mould SID Codes on the same line after each other ( if possible). And if you create a variant, you need to fill in the 3 fields, Matrix, Mastering and Mould SID Codes ... Even if there not there, fill in none.

So "Creating" a variant should be as complete as possible. Not filled in, you can't save it!

Sometimes that's hard enough. Using Magnifying Glasses, Play with light on the disc and even then it is sometimes hardly to read.

Willow.the.Wisp
anssisalFor multiple Mould SID Codes, maybe something like this then: http://i.imgur.com/lRVt9dt.png
With that "Add indentifier" button you could add more than one matrix field or mould sid code field etc.
please keep in mind - there exists CD copys with two Mould SID Codes as on the same CD
(like these Björk examples above)

How do you explain then that variation 1 has two Mould SID Codes and the 3rd Mould SID Code belongs to another alternative version?

I prefer to 'split' every version/variant.
(Also if the only difference is another mould SID code.)

If a release contains more then one Mould SID Code it should be filled in one field then, because they belong together. Mould SID Code: IFPI 3625 & ifpi 12ZG

nevermind.

anssisal
this http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=83182#latest is a great example why the "(variants 1 to 4 & 9)" method sucks.

Now it sucks even more... Somebody added mould code variant without matrix or mastering sid code...

anssisal
Somebody added mould code variant without matrix or mastering sid code...

this happens all the time...
and to be honest... it looks to me in many cases impossible to solve. that means - whatever the new guidelines brings... probably we end up in thousands of 'phantom-variants' - and every day that goes by - the situation escalates more and more. :/

BTW has anyone sent a Request about this?

anssisal
BTW has anyone sent a Request about this?

I'm pretty sure this topic is on nik's "radar" ...
and he and the dev's follow this thread/discussion ...
maybe the issue should be higher priorised then some other look and feel update in the header ;-)

it was annoying to see that the last step here needs 6 months

anssisal
anyone sent a Request about this

look at these guys...

http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=1729490&diff=20

what a mess...

this is a 1991 CD release
SID codes were introduced in 1994! ( RSG §5.3 )

now someone changed the variant 3 without SID's to a complete other one ...
And it gets even better... he added also a different Rights Society variation!?!
not at all ... he changed the matrix string of variant 2

Submission Notes: DADC Austria corrected plus Matrix/credits (removed a lot of doubles).

This BaOI section is now a complete mess!

and the worst thing over all .. he get's a "correct" vote for this!?!
http://www.screencast.com/t/zyY4tFOF7

so even if I would vote now 'Entirely Incorrect' it would not change this mess :/

here's another fine way of "sorting" things
http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=359744#latest
Pressing Codes somehow got separated from the matrix string and it's better that way....

I submitted a Request about this, so hopefully nik can give us his opinion on how to enter these variations.

Willow.the.Wisp
look at these guys...

http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=1729490&diff=20

what a mess...

this is a 1991 CD release
SID codes were introduced in 1994! ( RSG §5.3 )

now someone changed the variant 3 without SID's to a complete other one ...
And it gets even better... he added also a different Rights Society variation!?!
not at all ... he changed the matrix string of variant 2

Submission Notes: DADC Austria corrected plus Matrix/credits (removed a lot of doubles).

This BaOI section is now a complete mess!

and the worst thing over all .. he get's a "correct" vote for this!?!
http://www.screencast.com/t/zyY4tFOF7

so even if I would vote now 'Entirely Incorrect' it would not change this mess :/

Looks like I was the one giving a CV for that.
Unfortunately I didn't know enough about SID codes etc back then and sincerely thought it was a correct change.
By now I have learned a lot about this and know it is not, but unfortunately there's no way I can retract my CV....

[quote=Willow.the.Wisp][/quote]

Well guys. I am the one having the Variant 3. I have missed that my variant has been changed to complete mess. I agree we have to have clear rules about how to ad variants and when to change them. The lack of SID codes on my variant is of course because its from 1991.

The faults I may have done in the beginning is, due to the fact I was newbie back then, I might put my version as a variant, despite it has different rights society. Honestly I don't know if it is a variant or a separate release from variant 2. Hope you tell me!

I do agree the release should be split because of the complete different runout on version 1 as suggested. I would put my variant where it should belong if we agree split it. What should I do about the variant 3 mess as it is now? Go home and redo the ad of variant 3 or make a new release? Hope you guys help me do the right. Thanks

... http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=368516#latest

added
Matrix / Runout (Variation 3): W CD 936248140-2.3 V01
Mastering SID Code (Variation 3): IFPI L012
and Mould SID Code (Variation 6): IFPI 05R5
So everything else in his release is Variant 6, but matrix and mastering SID code are variant 3...
and then he also adds a second mastering sid code as variant 6??

Getting worse by the day.

I've tried to understand what's going on there ...
IMO this update should be voted instantly 'Entirely Incorrect Edit' with the comments:

RSG §14.1.3. Even if it seems obvious, always try to explain your update fully using the submission notes. This will always be appreciated by other s, and is vital when we need to look back over the submission data's history.

RSG §1.10.1. [...] Take care when altering the data, explain your edits when needed, respect the database [...]

please try again

"Matrix / Runout (Variations 1 , 4 , 5 & 6):" - All Glass Mastered by Warner Music Manufacturing Europe.
"Matrix / Runout (Variation 2): 936248140-2.4 V01 UIB
Matrix / Runout (Variation 3): W CD 936248140-2.3 V01" - Glass mastered (and pressed by) by Cinram GmbH.

So a split is needed. Variant 1,4,5,6 - unsure when they were pressed so a pressed by credit really shouldn't be made as it could have been glass mastered by WMME but pressed later by Cinram. Variants 2 and 3 are mastered and pressed by Cinram GmbH.

Quatroo66
Matrix / Runout (Version 1): 936245740-2 WME
Matrix / Runout (Version 2): 936245740-2.2 WME
Matrix / Runout (Version 3): 936245740-2.3 09/99
Mastering SID Code (Version 1+2): IFPI L011
Mastering SID Code (Version 3): IFPI L012
Mould SID Code (Version 1.1): none (Not mentioned, so maybe remove it)
Mould SID Code (Version 1.2): IFPI 0525 (could be version 1 see ^)
Mould SID Code (Version 2): IFPI 0531
Mould SID Code (Version 3): IFPI 05A8

This seems the best way to me. If I have the release in my hand, I can look at the matrix, then match it to one of the matrices listed there, than have to scan through a long jumbled list and try to find it.

I an not convinced about 'Version 1.1' etc though. Keeping 1, 2, 3 seems easier.

Combining version on one line seems ok, but I don't like the '+' sign, better just a comma "Versions 1, 2".

nik
I don't like the '+' sign, better just a comma "Versions 1, 2".

"Versions 1, 2" can be confusing because in many languages a comma denotes decimal separator. In particular when folks don't add whitespace after a comma (and there are many of them), a description like "Versions 1,2" can be easily mistaken for "Versions 1.2".

"Versions 1+2" doesn't leave nearly as much room for confusion.

nik
This seems the best way to me. If I have the release in my hand, I can look at the matrix, then match it to one of the matrices listed there, than have to scan through a long jumbled list and try to find it.

With respect, this method is causing us a lot of problems as outlined above by myself and other s through several examples.

The method I advocate avoids those issues:

Eviltoastman
Matrix / Runout (Variant 1): 936245740-2 WME
Mastering SID Code (Variant 1): IFPI L011
Mould SID Code (Variant 1): none
Matrix / Runout (Variant 2): 936245740-2.2 WME
Mastering SID Code (Variant 2): IFPI L011
Mould SID Code (Variant 2): IFPI 0531
Matrix / Runout (Variant 3): 936245740-2.3 09/99
Mastering SID Code (Variant 3): IFPI L012
Mould SID Code (Variant 3): IFPI 05A8
Matrix / Runout (Variant 4): 936245740-2 WME
Mastering SID Code (Variant 4): IFPI L011
Mould SID Code (Variant 4): IFPI 0525

Eviltoastman
The method I advocate avoids those issues

Agreed.
However, it's hard to read. The frontend programmer should fix it by some means.
Either by making strictly left-aligned columns:

Matrix / Runout           (Variant 1):       936245740-2 WME
Mastering SID Code   (Variant 1):        IFPI L011

Or at least by centring at the colon:

       Matrix / Runout (Variant 1): 936245740-2 WME
Mastering SID Code (Variant 1): IFPI L011

With all due respect Eviltoastman on this.
Also I think "Variant" would be better word than "Version".

nik
This seems the best way to me. If I have the release in my hand, I can look at the matrix, then match it to one of the matrices listed there, than have to scan through a long jumbled list and try to find it.

I agree completely. With all due respect to nik proposed is much easier to read to me. I hope it gets added to the Guidelines.

anssisal
I think "Variant" would be better word than "Version".

I agree with this.

Some people like my way, others the variant by variant way.

Personally I like the info of the Matrix and SID Codes on one line for each variant as mentioned earlier, but with the possibility to add different SID Codes to the Matrix/Runout as variants.

Variant_ Matrix Runout_Mastering SID Code_Mould SID Code
1._____SQ66P-01_____IFPI L666_________ifpi 0999
____________________IFPI L666_________ifpi 0997
____________________IFPI L664_________ifpi 0991
2._____SQ68Q-02_____IFPI L222_________IFPI1436
3._____SA9990-39_____IFPI L234_________none

I used the _ to get a little bit more visibility in what I meant. Maybe someone can provide an image to make it more clear for everyone.

So you create a variant with a matrix/runout and the existing combinations of SID Codes are all in the Matrixvariants as subs.

Just an idea

And I agree about variant instead of version

timetogo
what nik proposed is much easier to read to me

And the result is chaos as advised in depth by myself and others above. Please read the examples linked above (also listed below for ease of finding:
http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=368516&diff=33
http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=83182#latest
http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=83182&diff=99

There is not benefit of splitting the variants up only the field names are easier to read with the proposed scheme - it;s logically flawed and orders the information in a way that it;s extremely difficult to consider a variant as a whole which in turn makes entering data harder. The variants must me grouped in distinct blocks to avoid problems.

If you read this thread aad the one I linked above, the majority consider the method I advocate the superior due to how it orders the variants in a logical method meaning you don;t have to scan around the place looking for the other parts of the variant. For ideas on how to split the variants sensibly, we also discussed this above, something not commented upon by management, seems like a superficial reading of the thread which is a slap in the face to those who have made a decent amount of effort into offering solutions and their opinions and through what appears to be an insensitive reading of the situation, the solution appears to be a superficial one which disregards ease of data entry, logical ordering of data in favour of a very superficial method of sorting this information with no practical benefit.

Why use that method? Its shinier? Are we seriously reduced to that level of shallowness? Please keep things simple, logical and sensible.
"Look at the shiny-shiny!!!"

Willow.the.Wisp
http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=1729490&diff=20

what a mess...

First of all, it's not quite fair to put all the blame on me. This sub was allready messed uo by adding the first Matrix and codes. I only build on that.
As I see it:
This is a 1991 release. Sid codes weren't introduced before 1994. So the first added Matrix (by becane) is incorrect. If this version is really from 1991, then there shouldn't be IFPI Codes. See: http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=1729490&diff=11
If I'm not mistaken is that Matrix a Sony Music Manufacturer Matrix? The next Matrix added is from evdg, me, and is a DADC AUSTRIA one. See: http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=1729490&diff=13 (the BIEM was always there, so this is a BIEM release). See: http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=1729490&diff=13
That is incorrect, with the knowledge of today. My version should have been an new submission, because of the difference with the first Matrix and the present of codes.
ovelar03 adds Matrix 3, with another Rights Society BIEM/STEMRA and no IFPI codes. See: http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=1729490&diff=17
That's probably the correct Matrix belonging to a 1991 version, due to the lack of IFPI codes. BUT: that Matrix doesn't belong there, due to BIEM/STEMRA (while the original one had only BIEM). That deserves another new submission (a 1991 one with BIEM/STEMRA and no codes. I can't find another matching one in the MR). See: http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=1729490&diff=17
Then Nostrezzz adds a fourth Matrix Variant, see: http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=1729490&diff=19
That's difficult, because if the DADC AUSTRIA doesn't belong here, hence this variation doesn't either.
At last I added 'DADC AUSTRIA' to my former added Matrix (that is correct) and removed 'Other (SID Code, Variant 3): No IFPI codes' together with 'Rights Society (Variant 3): BIEM/STEMRA' . That is incorrect for the 'no IFPI Codes' part, but correct for the BIEM/STEMRA bit.
I think the best to do is, lift the incorrect ones out (mine and overlar03) and add the variations of the Matrixes and the codes to the repsective ones (new ones).
So this is a 1991 release without codes, as it should be.

If nobody objects, I'll make the necessary changes, the way above described.

I'm sure there isn't any standard to describe different matrix and SID code variations yet - but I came across with alt (means (abbrev.) alternative) -
http://discogs.programascracks.com/Various-The-Rolling-Stones-Rock-And-Roll-Circus/release/624643

IMO the most common way is Variant or Variation
but I doubt to use: alt

IMO it would be good to have something like an arrangement or rule unless the new guideline isn't ready.

Or doesn't matter?
Everyones own choice?

There is no standard as of now. I prefer Variant and I believe the Guidelines use that term, but nowhere do they dictate how to enter descriptions in the SID Code and matrix baoi fields. I think a standard would be a very good idea.

Willow.the.Wisp
Or doesn't matter?
Everyones own choice?

Imo, it does matter,

timetogo
I think a standard would be a very good idea.

and this for all info added. Keep it all uniform, easier for everybody. This is also part of the 'Interpreting run out information' threads nik had undertaken to get all these things sorted, latest installment:
http://discogs.programascracks.com/forum/thread/525bfeddad9d35785e2cc867

Amsreddevil
and this for all info added. Keep it all uniform, easier for everybody. This is also part of the 'Interpreting run out information' threads nik had undertaken to get all these things sorted, latest installment:
http://discogs.programascracks.com/forum/thread/525bfeddad9d35785e2cc867

yup .. these both threads linked each other
http://discogs.programascracks.com/forum/thread/525bfeddad9d35785e2cc867#525c135c2ec4b350e90fefd1

I hope we get the new rules soon.

I have been using using and liked the toastman favoured way of doing things, but reading through this thread I have been moved to more of a fence sitter as to which is preferred. Both methods have their benefits.

However regardless of which way is chosen I am firmly against the use of one line for more than 1 variant, I have found much confusion with this myself. I am of the opinion that there should be a separate line for each variant of mould/mastering/matrix regardless of how many are identical.

nik
Quatroo66Matrix / Runout (Version 1): 936245740-2 WME
Matrix / Runout (Version 2): 936245740-2.2 WME
Matrix / Runout (Version 3): 936245740-2.3 09/99
Mastering SID Code (Version 1+2): IFPI L011
Mastering SID Code (Version 3): IFPI L012
Mould SID Code (Version 1.1): none (Not mentioned, so maybe remove it)
Mould SID Code (Version 1.2): IFPI 0525 (could be version 1 see ^)
Mould SID Code (Version 2): IFPI 0531
Mould SID Code (Version 3): IFPI 05A8

This seems the best way to me. If I have the release in my hand, I can look at the matrix, then match it to one of the matrices listed there, than have to scan through a long jumbled list and try to find it.

Agreed.

nik

I am not convinced about 'Version 1.1' etc though. Keeping 1, 2, 3 seems easier.

Agreed.

nik

Combining version on one line seems ok, but I don't like the '+' sign, better just a comma "Versions 1, 2".

That's a matter of taste. I prefer "+" or mostly "&". And I find it useful to use "-", if you have more than two variants with the same matrix or SID code. Like "variant 1-5". That's how I do it usually.

While adding some release I found out what was meant by scrolling up and down to get your info. I have to agree that it is more clear to put all the info of the first CD first, 2nd 2nd etc.
So I add them in that way from now on.

If there is a variant of it, in my opinion it should be added then as follows

Matrix CD 1 Variant 1
Mastering SID Code CD1 Variant 1
Mould SID Code CD1 Variant 1
Matrix CD 1 Variant 2
Mastering SID Code CD1 Variant 2
Mould SID Code CD1 Variant 2
Matrix CD 2 Variant 1
Mastering SID Code CD2 Variant 1
Mould SID Code CD2 Variant 1
Matrix CD 2 Variant 2
Mastering SID Code CD2 Variant 2
Mould SID Code CD2 Variant 2

Another point which is still a point of discussion is, if in some cases the Mastering SID Code should or shouldn't be part of the Matrix. Personally I add it to the matrix when it is in line with the other info of matrix (and mention it as Mastering SID Code as well), otherwise I only mention it as Mastering SID Code.

For Example:

Matrix: Sony Music IFPI L555 A0124560000-0101 A3
Mastering SID Code IFPI L555

Sometimes commented with: IFPI L574 is not matrix. Duplicate info. please fix.
And agreed by someone else: Repetition of the SID codes would be redundant indeed.

So still not clear by me or by the others, maybe I overlooked something in the Guidelines. Is there anywhere guidelines/forums how it should be done (without discussion)?

Quatroo66
Sometimes commented with: IFPI L574 is not matrix. Duplicate info. please fix.

If it is on the same line as the rest of the matrix string, there is not reason you cannot add it in the matrix bit imo, it is presented that way on the release, and extracting the IFPI is not repeating the info. Many s leave out the manufacturer from the string for that same stupid reason, already added in lccns, so why 'repeat' it.

Quatroo66
maybe I overlooked something in the Guidelines.

I believe nik made a statement about this, it was in a thread covering matrix info a while back, Evilt will surely .

Amsreddevil

If it is on the same line as the rest of the matrix string, there is not reason you cannot add it in the matrix bit imo, it is presented that way on the release, and extracting the IFPI is not repeating the info. Many s leave out the manufacturer from the string for that same stupid reason, already added in lccns, so why 'repeat' it.

I believe nik made a statement about this, it was in a thread covering matrix info a while back, Evilt will surely .

Tnx, I Will use your quote to make things clear at that release :)

Further: Maybe it won't be wrong to do something for the Matrix and SID Codes as in the label section: There should be a Cat# mentioned (or "none" of course) otherwise you could not save.

RSG §5.4. Matrix Numbers and other run out information can also be extracted from the whole run out inscription, and added as further 'Matrix Number' fields with descriptions and / or expanded upon in the notes as the submitter sees fit.

I think that covers it pretty much (referring to your initial question)

Amsreddevil
Evilt will surely .

Unfortnately it was people can cherry pick the data they wish to enter, there's no requirement to add the full string.

With regards to people removing the sid code from the matrix string if it's inherently part of it like some Canadian Cinram CDs, then I'd go to war over that crap:
http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-5103165-1384570035-3270.jpeg

Eviltoastman
there's no requirement to add the full string.

But nothing saying it can't be. I am sure there was a thread you also took part in where nik said something about this, and adding the string with the IFPI code was no problem, thought you might so Quatroo66 could refer to that if others complained, my short-term memory has been affected.

Quatroo66
Matrix: Sony Music IFPI L555 A0124560000-0101 A3

, really nothing wrong with entering it this way. Any neg votes on this would be incorrect.

Yeah, the guideline allows the full string, but that's part of what the matrix development thread is about.

As things stand you can add the full matrix and stamper info, manufacturing stuff, moudl data and sid codes all in one field - then extrapolate all the information in separate fields with descriptions.

loukash
making strictly left-aligned columns:

Matrix / Runout (Variant 1): 936245740-2 WME
Mastering SID Code (Variant 1): IFPI L011

Please.

Anyone with some free time?
- http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=378824#latest

xjoxjox
Anyone with some free time?
- http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=378824#latest

At least the roles are nice and neat. The fact that editing the variants or adding a variant is made extremely difficult should be ignored as the roles being grouped is far more important than the actual data being entered. If this was primarily still a database with clean and clear data entry the key focus there's be a point in pursuing the more practical and logical methods at our disposal. Instead we pander to the esthete.

xjoxjox
Anyone with some free time?
- http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=378824#latest

What the heck is going on there?

Can somebody please tell me the matrix & SID codes for variants 3 & 4?
And where do these two belong:
Barcode (Variation (2nd layer)): A0100858465-A911 16 A07
Matrix / Runout (Variation (1st layer), also A05 is very hard to see): A0100858465-B911 38 A05 ?

This is just a complete and utter mess.

Also, people really should add "none" when there's no mould SID code, not just leave it out.

I just commented there but missed the "none" for variant 4's mould.

Also where's the matrix numbers for variants 3 & 4?

i have never seen this 'Variant' before:
http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=1184135#latest

elchicofritto
i have never seen this 'Variant' before:

It's almost like we don't have guidelines on how to correctly add matrix/SID code variants... Oh wait...

anssisal
Oh wait...

...and wait.....and wait.....and wait......

It should also be nice if we can add "an empty line" (or ½line) for clarity.

Matrix/Runout (CD1)
Mastering SID Code (CD1)
Mould SID Code (CD1)

Matrix/Runout (CD2)
Mastering SID Code (CD2)
Mould SID Code (CD2)

Matrix/Runout (CD3)
Mastering SID Code (CD3)
Mould SID Code (CD3)

instead of

Matrix/Runout (CD1)
Mastering SID Code (CD1)
Mould SID Code (CD1)
Matrix/Runout (CD2)
Mastering SID Code (CD2)
Mould SID Code (CD2)
Matrix/Runout (CD3)
Mastering SID Code (CD3)
Mould SID Code (CD3)

This will make it more visible and maybe more understanding for everyone.
Some for variants of course.
Preferably would then be that the info will be mentioned in the following way

Info CD1 Variant 1
info CD1 Variant 2
info CD2 Variant 1
info CD2 Variant 2
etc.

Just my opinion~!

Continuing in this thread seems pointless. management aren;t monitoring it but they are in their own thread of the same topic:

http://discogs.programascracks.com/forum/thread/525bfeddad9d35785e2cc867#525bfeddad9d35785e2cc866

[saving this]

Eviltoastman
Continuing in this thread seems pointless. management aren;t monitoring it

If they can't be bothered and leave us hanging in limbo, I don't why we as s can't decide this instead. Somebody needs to do something. Baois are very messy with many different ways of entering the same info. If we don't get this moving, nothing will happen and this will continue to be a conflict point between submitters.

I think for sample if i put for first the runout:

AS 2345-A Precision L-1243 xxxx Runout area side A

if another add a variant

AS 2345-A Precision L-1243 ggg Runout area side A (Variation 1

for me as correct way, the original as no a variant, the others become after yes
What do you think?

Please no Variation or Version, only Variant 2 use.

Already mentioned before:

If there is a variant of it, in my opinion it should be added then as follows

Matrix CD 1 Variant 1
Mastering SID Code CD1 Variant 1
Mould SID Code CD1 Variant 1
Matrix CD 1 Variant 2
Mastering SID Code CD1 Variant 2
Mould SID Code CD1 Variant 2
Matrix CD 2 Variant 1
Mastering SID Code CD2 Variant 1
Mould SID Code CD2 Variant 1
Matrix CD 2 Variant 2
Mastering SID Code CD2 Variant 2
Mould SID Code CD2 Variant 2

Agree, it is the best way to make it more clear what goes where, grouping them together like that. And Variant is best to use as well imo.

Amsreddevil
Agree, it is the best way to make it more clear what goes where, grouping them together like that. And Variant is best to use as well imo.

Agree with Variant, but the first submission runout i think best without Variant, the others follows Variant 1, Variant 2 ecc, or not?

Sadly nikl's last word (whcih he promised isn;t his final word) went against my system of grouping the variants. As such sorting variants when new ones are added is deeply problematic, with parts of a variant found in different prts of the matrix list... I hope he runs with my proposal in the end as the ones I did like that (and I continue to to do it but stop short of sorting releases which group by role not variant) have had zero issues. Fingers crossed. Let's hope we go with ease of data entry and variant sorting instead of sorting by groups of the same role with aspects of the variant split over the whole section. I was asked last week to sort a release out in the forums which had [edit:]nine variants. It was sorted by role and was a nightmare as over time people trying to add variants and their missing sid codes screwed the data up as they got very confused. My method would stop that from happening.

Here's the thread:
http://discogs.programascracks.com/forum/thread/53f7ca0daba9e83cbc76d57b#53f8fe76ad9d3554459a68ef
Here's the mess I had to untangle and no, this is not a special or unusual cae. I see this a lot and it;s nasty.
http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=4231111&rev=8

This war of how best to display the BaOI could go on and on. Since I started using Discogs a few months ago, from a point of view. Trying to find the correct release to add to my collection has been hard at times with the bombardment of information you get when looking at some listing.

Granted some cases is purely down to s not submitting correctly. I know I have been guilty of that but I'm trying and I'm trying to get used to how you like it to look.

Here's my opinion on the matter if I may
Seeing as it appears to be new s that find it hard and don't like what they have to look at and then go about trying to make it easier. Maybe less information is better.

My suggestion is this (see below)
When in the editing page everything looks neat and easy to read with Spec - Code - Description.
When you then get to the listing preview the description is between the Spec and Code and it looks quite unsightly to be honest.

Seeing as only Martix, Mastering and Mould SID's get variants. Is it possible to implement a colour scheme so when Variant 2 is added to the description the font changes colour?
Also the bunching up of the info adds to it looking messy. So once out of editing mode, if it was then spaced like my example and I think a simple grid too. It would be easier on the eyes. You got to think of people who's vision is not so good or can't compute all that info in such a bunched up space like me (the computing part).

I think the order of the BaOI should be re defined to have all the Matrix/Runout, Mastering SID and Mould SID codes at the bottom too.

Please imagine tab gaps between Spec - Code - Description so they end up in columns.

Barcode: 0 16861 80284 4
Label Code: LC09231
Rights Society: STEMRA
Matrix / Runout (Warner W logo)168618028-2 V01 XBI (CD Variant 1)
Mastering SID Code IFPI L016 (CD Variant 1)
Mould SID Code IFPI 05M2 (CD Variant 1)
Matrix / Runout (Warner W logo)168618028-2 V01 XBI (CD Variant 2)
Mastering SID Code IFPI L016 (CD Variant 2)
Mould SID Code IFPI 05M9 (CD Variant 2)
Matrix / Runout (Warner W logo) 1686180284DVD/1.2 V01 JED (DVD Variant 1)
Mastering SID Code IFPI L016 (DVD Variant 1)
Mould SID Code IFPI 055H (DVD Variant 1)
Matrix / Runout (Warner W logo) 1686180284DVD/1.2 V01 JED (DVD Variant 2)
Mould SID Code IFPI L016 (DVD Variant 2)
Mould SID Code IFPI 055H (DVD Variant 2)

Last of all can I ask why all this agreed layout has not been added to the guideline? I think if people who look at the guidelines and see how it's meant to look including all permutations of variants they are more likely to stick to it.

Sorry for the long post and no offence intended for a site that has been long established.

Glacialpath

Sadly Glacial, whilst many in the community that method, the last word from staff was that they would prefer to group it by role and not by variant (which is causing a headache when it does happen) - whilst not a firm "you must" from management, it does sort of hamstring us from adopting a particular method. In the interim I would advise that we leave matrices as found until the preferred method is added to the guidelines or a firm statement on it is made. In other words if you find things ordered by role, leave it that way, if you find them ordered by variant, leave it that way. Not ideal and this has rumbled on. Hopefully we get official decision on the matter soon.

GlacialPath

Barcode: 0 16861 80284 4
Label Code: LC09231
Rights Society: STEMRA
Matrix / Runout (Warner W logo)168618028-2 V01 XBI (CD Variant 1)
Mastering SID Code IFPI L016 (CD Variant 1)
Mould SID Code IFPI 05M2 (CD Variant 1)
Matrix / Runout (Warner W logo)168618028-2 V01 XBI (CD Variant 2)
Mastering SID Code IFPI L016 (CD Variant 2)
Mould SID Code IFPI 05M9 (CD Variant 2)
Matrix / Runout (Warner W logo) 1686180284DVD/1.2 V01 JED (DVD Variant 1)
Mastering SID Code IFPI L016 (DVD Variant 1)
Mould SID Code IFPI 055H (DVD Variant 1)
Matrix / Runout (Warner W logo) 1686180284DVD/1.2 V01 JED (DVD Variant 2)
Mould SID Code IFPI L016 (DVD Variant 2)
Mould SID Code IFPI 055H (DVD Variant 2)

I disagree with the following of the BAOI as you mention. I Find the following more pleasant due to the fact the Matrix and SID Codes are most of the time representing the manufacturer which is, as you know, important for the "version".

Barcode: 016861802844 (String)
Barcode: 0 16861 80284 4 (Text)
Matrix / Runout [Warner W logo] 168618028-2 V01 XBI (CD Variant 1)
Mastering SID Code IFPI L016 (CD Variant 1)
Mould SID Code IFPI 05M2 (CD Variant 1)
Matrix / Runout [Warner W logo] 168618028-2 V01 XBI (CD Variant 2)
Mastering SID Code IFPI L016 (CD Variant 2)
Mould SID Code IFPI 05M9 (CD Variant 2)
Matrix / Runout [Warner W logo] 1686180284DVD/1.2 V01 JED (DVD Variant 1)
Mastering SID Code IFPI L016 (DVD Variant 1)
Mould SID Code IFPI 055H (DVD Variant 1)
Matrix / Runout [Warner W logo] 1686180284DVD/1.2 V01 JED (DVD Variant 2)
Mould SID Code IFPI L016 (DVD Variant 2)
Mould SID Code IFPI 055H (DVD Variant 2)
Rights Society: STEMRA
Label Code: LC09231

As far as I can we also preffered some seperation in the BAOI, like this, which makes it more clear

Barcode: 016861802844 (String)
Barcode: 0 16861 80284 4 (Text)

Matrix / Runout [Warner W logo] 168618028-2 V01 XBI (CD Variant 1)
Mastering SID Code IFPI L016 (CD Variant 1)
Mould SID Code IFPI 05M2 (CD Variant 1)

Matrix / Runout [Warner W logo] 168618028-2 V01 XBI (CD Variant 2)
Mastering SID Code IFPI L016 (CD Variant 2)
Mould SID Code IFPI 05M9 (CD Variant 2)

Matrix / Runout [Warner W logo] 1686180284DVD/1.2 V01 JED (DVD Variant 1)
Mastering SID Code IFPI L016 (DVD Variant 1)
Mould SID Code IFPI 055H (DVD Variant 1)

Matrix / Runout [Warner W logo] 1686180284DVD/1.2 V01 JED (DVD Variant 2)
Mould SID Code IFPI L016 (DVD Variant 2)
Mould SID Code IFPI 055H (DVD Variant 2)

Rights Society: STEMRA
Label Code: LC09231

I think those examples where shown with images earlier in this discussion.

Also another discussion http://discogs.programascracks.com/forum/thread/365107 stated the way of entering.

Also you show Logo's between ( ), as far as I seen them (and added them) [ ] is used for that.

Quatroo66 I copied and pasted the text for my example and the ( ) were already there. It does look better if [ ] are used so I in future will use them.

The spaces between each variant looks great and so much easier to look at.
I still think a simpler version of the editing grid could be carried across to the final listing view.

Ok so the Matrix and SID represent the manufacturers but I think as it is only them that get variants (surely a different Rights Society and Label Code to the one listed warrants a new listing?) To keep them at the bottom of the list would also make it easier.

I suppose finding a common ground that everyone likes will be impossible but I think having the description after the Spec and Code is a must as that's the order we edit in IMO.