Adding explanatory characters to vinyl record runout data entries

Hi all. This is a topic that's been weighing on me for some time now and I'd like to discuss it and hopefully come to a resolution.

My understanding has always been that Discogs is a database first and foremost, therefore our duty as contributors is primarily to record accurate data. One part of that striving for accuracy, at least among those who enter data for vinyl releases, has been attempting to indicate which parts of the runout strings are etched and which are stamped. We've seen many discussions about effective ways to do this. My purpose with this topic is not to debate which of those ways is best, but to address what I think amounts to a corruption of data within the system, i.e., the addition of explanatory characters to the BaOI Runout data fields.

What I'm beginning to see a lot of lately are entered runouts that look like this:

Matrix / Runout (Side A Variant: (Etched) [stamped]): [O] (LPS-1514-A) [XCSV125601-1D] (A)
Matrix / Runout (Side B Variant: (Etched) [stamped]): (LPS-1514-B) [0 XCSV125602-1B D] (2)
Matrix / Runout (Side C Variant: (Etched) [stamped]): (T 1 LPS 1514 XCSX-125603 Side 3-1 15345 [D] (5 S STM-4118-1)
Matrix / Runout (Side D Variant: (Etched) [stamped]): [XCSV15604-1D] (LPS-1514-P) [P]

This is an actual example taken from a recently-observed edit. Obviously the subber is trying to delineate visually what portions of the runouts are stamped vs. etched.

My question is this: If we are striving for data accuracy of runouts, does the addition of these characters constitute a corruption of data? My feeling is 'yes'.

We have [5.2.c], which prohibits multiple spaces between portions of runout data for the stated reason that "using other separators may cause problems for people searching for a specific data string." Extrapolating from this, doesn't the addition of characters intended to divide etched portions of runouts from stamped portions also cause problems with data string searches?

Also, adding characters to a data field which do not appear on the release itself constitutes IMO an inherent corruption of the entered data by introducing a deliberate inaccuracy.

Like I said, my purpose here is not to debate the relative merits of the many styles Oggers have of explaining stamped vs. etched runout portions, but rather to ensure the integrity of the data by determining whether this specific approach is permissible or not.

To get this started, I'd like to invite input from hafler3o. Thanks in advance for your participation.

Showbiz_Kid
What I'm beginning to see a lot of lately are entered runouts that look like this:
Matrix / Runout (Side A Variant: (Etched) [stamped]): [O] (LPS-1514-A) [XCSV125601-1D] (A)
Matrix / Runout (Side B Variant: (Etched) [stamped]): (LPS-1514-B) [0 XCSV125602-1B D] (2)
Matrix / Runout (Side C Variant: (Etched) [stamped]): (T 1 LPS 1514 XCSX-125603 Side 3-1 15345 [D] (5 S STM-4118-1)
Matrix / Runout (Side D Variant: (Etched) [stamped]): [XCSV15604-1D] (LPS-1514-P) [P]

For a novice , I would imagine that this method would be quite confusing.

Showbiz_Kid
We have [5.2.c], which prohibits multiple spaces between portions of runout data for the stated reason that "using other separators may cause problems for people searching for a specific data string." Extrapolating from this, doesn't the addition of characters intended to divide etched portions of runouts from stamped portions also cause problems with data string searches?

Yes. That is definitely the case, by reason of the guideline. Defeats the intent

As much as I can understand the strive for differentiating etched vs. stamped (erm, just joking), such additional characters are not allowed. The only exceptions being "[SRC Logo]" or "[Big W Logo Type]" or "[Symbol of Stickman]" etc. to indicate logos/ or images.

As I understand it, any characters that are not part of the string are not allowed. There are exceptions for logos (I know).

I see some s adding (stamped) or (etched) or similar as part of the actual string...when commenting or changing I've received various comments such as 'I always do it like this' or 'no one else has a problem with it'.

This is already covered (I think) in the handy tips at the top of the runout thread.
https://discogs.programascracks.com/forum/thread/743281?page=1
2) Do not split the runout strings up into stamped or etched parts - they should be left in one line.
3) Please enter the runout strings as they appear (e.g. all caps, no pipes or separators, wide lettering).
14) Logos / logo types should be added in the runout strings as [Name Logo], e.g. [SNA Logo].

Showbiz_Kid
What I'm beginning to see a lot of lately are entered runouts that look like this:

I've not seen any of those but what an unfathomable mess. No, it's not allowed at all.

Showbiz_Kid
does the addition of these characters constitute a corruption of data?

100% yes.
Just recently I've stumbled upon a years old discussion with nik strongly discouraging any use of such additional characters.

Showbiz_Kid
determining whether this specific approach is permissible or not

Absolutely not.

A solution is to additionally split the runout string into separate fields, with a description "stamped" and "etched" respectively.

If there is a good reason for differentiation, it might be a good place to expand that information out in the release notes rather than trying to come up with some system to force it into the matrix area.

I have had some instances where knowing about stamped/etched differences was useful, but those are pretty extreme cases.

Thanks everyone. This makes things very clear.

andygrayrecords
As I understand it, any characters that are not part of the string are not allowed. There are exceptions for logos (I know).

This is already covered (I think) in the handy tips at the top of the runout thread.
https://discogs.programascracks.com/forum/thread/743281?page=1
2) Do not split the runout strings up into stamped or etched parts - they should be left in one line.
3) Please enter the runout strings as they appear (e.g. all caps, no pipes or separators, wide lettering).
14) Logos / logo types should be added in the runout strings as [Name Logo], e.g. [SNA Logo].

Agreed!

loukash
A solution is to additionally split the runout string into separate fields, with a description "stamped" and "etched" respectively.

Does this not violate: "Do not split the runout strings up into stamped or etched parts - they should be left in one line."
In my early days I added in single string with explanation in description, but at times was onished for lengthy / messy descriptions. It would be useful if Discogs made a firm decision on how run-outs and Descriptions are to be added. Suggested "guidance" on sebfact's Forum is very, very useful, but is still just a suggestion.
I am a bit puzzled by: "...Hand-etched or Hand-etched Script". Does "Script" = cursive?

I think Lou meant that you could enter the separate etched & stamped portions in addition to the full runout string.

I don’t get the “script” bit myself. IMO etched & stamped are sufficient without embellishments. But each to their own :)

Chapp33.3
Hand-etched Script

It's like handwriting, as seen here. We have had a few discussions how to change it but it never really came to a conclusion... :-)

EDIT:

Showbiz_Kid
I think Lou meant that you could enter the separate etched & stamped portions in addition to the full runout string.

Oh well, we shouldn't forget "Mirrored", "Rotated to the left", "Rotated to the right", "Upside down" "Counter clock-wise", "Age of the Engineer", "Weather at time of cut".... Where is this leading to?

Chapp33.3
Does this not violate: "Do not split the runout strings up into stamped or etched parts - they should be left in one line."

Showbiz_Kid
I think Lou meant that you could enter the separate etched & stamped portions in addition to the full runout string.

Exactly

loukash
100% yes.

Actually it's not a "100% yes", after all. :)

I forgot about cases where we have to mark the usage of logos, pictograms, illegible text etc.
That goes by using the square brackets standard, e.g. like this:
Matrix / Runout (Runout A): AB-1234-A [illegible signature] 567
Matrix / Runout (Runout B): XY-0987-B SWISS MADE [crossbow logo]
etc.

But using parentheses or brackets as a sort of markup to make a connection to the description text, that's 100% no-no.

Hmm? So I enter the complete string - then re-enter again showing stamped parts and then another entry showing etched parts? Never seen this on any entry. Maybe I am misunderstanding.
I will just enter info in description. Will need to go back and make a number of edits on earlier submissions.

Chapp33.3
Hmm? So I enter the complete string - then re-enter again showing stamped parts and then another entry showing etched parts? Never seen this on any entry

It's not mandatory, however it's provided for in Guidlines if anyone wants to do it. I have seen it done, but personally I find it clunky, as you do. But it's allowable, is what Lou is saying.

Chapp33.3
I will just enter info in description.

That's what I do :)

Whether that's allowed or not, it's giving me a headache just trying to read it. I know that matrix numbers are already pretty nerdy but this is some especially OCD stuff.

itsgreatshakes
this is some especially OCD stuff.

Got that right ;)

Hi Chapp33.3, This is the format I was menotored towards some years back. If you want examples, I've entered so many this way but now I'm conforming to this method. Format is important and efficient in comparing the multitude of 'matrix variations' currently trending.
Agree

Chapp33.3
Hmm? So I enter the complete string - then re-enter again showing stamped parts and then another entry showing etched parts? Never seen this on any entry. Maybe I am misunderstanding.

+1

Showbiz_Kid
I find it clunky, as you do.

haiyai2u
This is the format I was mentored towards some years back.

What format is this? I'm a bit lost on what you are attempting to convey.

Sorry, regarding your comment..[q? So I enter the complete string - then re-enter again showing stamped parts and then another entry showing etched parts? Never seen this on any entry. uote=Chapp33.3]What format is this? I'm a bit lost on what you are attempting to convey.[/quote]

RSG §5.2.c Matrix / Run-Out information is often stamped in the run out grooves of records, or in the inner ring of CDs. Vinyl run out etchings can also contain mastering engineer / mastering studio / pressing plant information (often as initials), and extra text. This information should all be added to one 'Matrix number' field.

CykoMF
This information should all be added to one 'Matrix number' field.

Amen! I'm sick of explaining that.

Bumping this thread because I've been seeing this done quite a bit lately.

IMO if the brackets aren't actually in the runout don't put them in the runout strings, there is a text field called a description that can be used to describe the data in the BOI field. The only exception being:

sebfact
The only exceptions being "[SRC Logo]" or "[Big W Logo Type]" or "[Symbol of Stickman]" etc. to indicate logos/ or images.

Anyone else seeing this more?

Always.........

trailoff
Anyone else seeing this more?

I'm correcting [bladibla] found outside the agreed "norm" for logos.

Yes, after a brief lull it has returned.

I'm also noticing much more preferential editing concerning runout / label matrix descriptions, with editors claiming others told them they needed to "conform to other submissions." This stuff is infuriating.

Tell me aboudit! I'm growing very tired of the BS

Thing I struggle with is when I'm updating a release if the runouts have already been added and they're split (etched and stamped) - we're not supposed to change that are we (old ruling by nik I think) - so invariably I end up leaving as it is or adding the string on one line in addition to the etched/stamped parts.

I think we should be able to blitz the etched/stamped bits and just put it on one line as per the guideline.

I believe RSG §5.2c gives us that right. Whatever Nik said, back in the wayback, is superseded by the amended Guideline.

Showbiz_Kid
I believe RSG §5.2c gives us that right

Just put that to the test.
https://discogs.programascracks.com/release/931160-Velveteen/history#latest
Grab some popcorn :)

andygrayrecords
I think we should be able to blitz the etched/stamped bits and just put it on one line as per the guideline.

Absolutely x100

andygrayrecords
Just put that to the test.
https://discogs.programascracks.com/release/931160-Velveteen/history#latest
Grab some popcorn :)

I would put "side A, stamped "JA" etched" as the description, just to say what part is what.

wow https://discogs.programascracks.com/release/484319-Talking-Loud-And-Clear/history?utm_campaign=submission-activity&utm_medium=pm&utm_source=relationship#latest

Silvermo
andygrayrecordsJust put that to the test.
https://discogs.programascracks.com/release/931160-Velveteen/history#latest
Grab some popcorn :)
I would put "side A, stamped "JA" etched" as the description, just to say what part is what.

To put that in context your suggestion (which makes sense) would in full read something like :
"Matrix / Runout (side A runout, stamped "JA" etched): MCG 6050A -1U-1-1 JA"

I have a similar, though after looking at the labels, slightly different take on that:
Matrix / Runout (side one runout, stamped; JA etched): MCG 6050A -1U-1-1 JA

Nowadays, I'll use a descriptor that matches the side indicators: - the labels read "side one" & "....two", (though the label matrices end with an A or B).

Makes for more certainty on the part of any - side descriptor matches image.

sebfact
As much as I can understand the strive for differentiating etched vs. stamped

I can't say I agree. IMHO, there's no reason to even indicate whether a part of the run out is "etched" or "stamped" (anyway, technically, they're all stamped because it's pressed in there, obviously no one's etching each individual run out into the wax). It lends almost nothing to our knowledge of the record unless there happen to be two different versions - one with the text at "stamped" one with the text "etched". Aside from that it just seems to be just one more thing to nitpick and battle over.

Diognes_The_Fox
If there is a good reason for differentiation, it might be a good place to expand that information out in the release notes rather than trying to come up with some system to force it into the matrix area.

^^^I'm kind of here. If it's that important, just add a note saying "such and such part of run-out is etched"

loukash
A solution is to additionally split the runout string into separate fields, with a description "stamped" and "etched" respectively.

I'd really like to avoid this. Too messy, and just not a solution, to me.

Earjerk...
IMHO, there's no reason to even indicate whether a part of the run out is "etched" or "stamped". It lends almost nothing to our knowledge of the record unless there happen to be two different versions - one with the text at "stamped" one with the text "etched".

I've listed numerous LPs where one side's runout is made with a different hand (be it stamped or etched), and sometimes some parts (of the matrix) is stamped on one side and etched on the other.

When first listing the "only" edition of something in Discogs it may not seem to matter to record "Stamped" or "etched", though, as more editions are listed the differences between them, and the accurate recording of those matrix details, begins to tell a story.

That story can include: -
* the sequence of the lacquer cuts
* the use of plates from other territories, factories.
* the use of the same (basic) lacquer being used in different parts of the world.
* the use of "non-matching" plates to press an Lp (from different times and/or places)

In Australia, where I am, I often use runout matrix detail to search for the source Lp, or source of the plates used.

Festival Records used to use plates from overseas, then cut their own, and sometimes still used plates from overseas. The style of the runout can be used to determine some of these aspects.
RCA Australia used to (most of the time) import US plates, then started cutting locally, using the same matrix numbers.

I urge anyone in a decision making position to retain the use of stamped or etched in the descriptors for the runout matrices. Without them the database becomes much weaker.

As to implementation - if a straight "stamped, then etched" (or vice versa) it's not too difficult to layout it out clearly (see my example a couple of posts previously).

If it's a case of mixed back and forth (e.g. "stamped then etched then stamped" etc), then it's a little more difficult. If keeping to one line per side, then I'd select the style that is the most to be described generally

(e.g.".........runout, stamped")
and the style that's there is less of, to be identified.

(e.g. "........runout, stamped; JA, eee, 434 all etched)

6338041
as more editions are listed the differences between them, and the accurate recording of those matrix details, begins to tell a story.

I stand corrected. This is something that was beyond the scope of how I'd even conceived of the data being used.

I do still think it would be easier to capture in a note. Especially, as you mentioned, in cases of

6338041
mixed back and forth (e.g. "stamped then etched then stamped" etc),

Etched vs. stamped, early stamp vs. late stamp, all those kinds of differences could be entered in the notes. In the notes it would become more obvious to people and also be educational, possibly leading to more accurate entry of matrices in the future...

Earjerk...
I stand corrected. This is something that was beyond the scope of how I'd even conceived of the data being used.

I do still think it would be easier to capture in a note.

I've found it fascinating really - the stories that only the matrices can tell.

I'll try and locate a "difficult" one and see what I did, and post a link here when I do find one.

6338041
Nowadays, I'll use a descriptor that matches the side indicators: - the labels read "side one" & "....two", (though the label matrices end with an A or B).

It is, or at least was, consensus to use the same as what is used in the tracklist positions...usually Side A, B, C...

Sides get a letter, variants get a number...and this makes the BaOI easier to read/follow.

leeving
6338041Nowadays, I'll use a descriptor that matches the side indicators: - the labels read "side one" & "....two", (though the label matrices end with an A or B).

It is, or at least was, consensus to use the same as what is used in the tracklist positions...usually Side A, B, C...

Sides get a letter, variants get a number...and this makes the BaOI easier to read/follow.

It's a common misunderstanding : descriptors that describe a side as on the release are allowed.

See guideline 5.9 (BAOI)

"5.9. The description field can be used to add any further information regarding the identifier, ........... If an identifier is associated with only a subset of the total labels on the release, you can include the exact label name/s it is associated with."

I've trotted this one out a number of times - to my thinking it should be mandatory to describe the side "as is". Sometimes it's an "side A", sometime it's a "side 1", sometimes it's a "side one", occasionally it's the "other side".

Whatever it is, by recording it "as is", provides more certainty for the . Also captures changes when the sides are called something else on a different release. (Like a few multiple copies I submitted today).

6338041
See guideline 5.9

See RSG §12.2.7 instead: “For side identification, please use A, B etc in place of 1, 2, One, Two, Side One, Side Two etc, including variations in any language. This includes program identification on multi-program cartridges such as 8-tracks, ”

Showbiz_Kid
6338041See guideline 5.9
See RSG §12.2.7 instead: “For side identification, please use A, B etc in place of 1, 2, One, Two, Side One, Side Two etc, including variations in any language. This includes program identification on multi-program cartridges such as 8-tracks, ”

Yes I know about that one - it refers to track positions (section name) - using A,B etc for program sides- but we're talking BAOI descriptors here, which is 5.9. They're different things.

Read commentary on https://discogs.programascracks.com/release/13445271-Greatest-Hits-Vol-2/history#latest
for Diognes_The_Fox determination of same issue. Comment from 6 months ago.

Q. "Side 1/2" needs to be changed to "Side "A/B", to match the positions in Tracklist" - Answer from DTF "No, it doesn't."

Q to Showbiz_Kid.

Why would you wish to push for something which misrepresents what is on the item itself? The descriptors are easy to fill out, and as I said before, today I listed copies of things I'd listed before and the side descriptors were one of the few differences. (earlier edition "Side one", later edition "side 1". Both blue labels.

DtF can be wrong sometimes.

Why have it used one way in the track positions and credits. But use something else in the BaOI?

Notes can be used if "on release" is really important.

leeving
DtF can be wrong sometimes.

He was referring to the guideline (5.9) which specifically say that the "exact name" of the subset (one side is a subset of two sides) can be used in the descriptor. The guideline is clear with no ambiguity.

leeving
if "on release" is really important.

For a site that requires a new listing if a label is reset 1/2 cm, or a word has been italicised, how can "on release" be anything but important.

6338041
For a site that requires a new listing if a label is reset 1/2 cm, or a word has been italicised, how can "on release" be anything but important.

I'm not saying it's not important, but you have more space to expand the description in the notes vs the description field of the BaOI....hence my use of "really important".

Using / changing from Side 1 or One to Discogs standard positions in the BaOI has been a thing for a while now...maybe DtF isn't aware. But having to use it in the tracklist positions and credits to then use something totally different in one single field is bad data collecting.

leeving
6338041For a site that requires a new listing if a label is reset 1/2 cm, or a word has been italicised, how can "on release" be anything but important.

I'm not saying it's not important, but you have more space to expand the description in the notes vs the description field of the BaOI....hence my use of "really important".

I hope you realise that my comment was not an attack on you - it was designed (and hopefully will be) read as a bit of a "wake-up" call by all. Continuing to use A, B etc in the side descriptors, when accurate recording takes either the same amount of key-strokes or only a few more is, to me, the opposite of what the site is trying to achieve - an accurate recording of every published recording.

Over time I guess many of us find better and simpler way of listing information that describes the items efficiently. With regards to the runout matrices, occasionally I uses the notes to expand on the runouts - maybe they're is a different hand or style, maybe they're imported, maybe they're the same plates as on another edition and so on.

Have a look at my recent submissions (via profile) and you'll get the gist of what I'm saying.

6338041
"wake-up" call by all

It's not needed. And I didn't take anything you said as an attack.

Differences in what the labels say compared to another sub should always be explained in the notes anyway and a link to the other sub is useful - changing the side specification for only one field seems pointless and confusing.

6338041
Over time I guess many of us find better and simpler way of listing information that describes the items efficiently.

We have - that's why we have/use standard Discogs positions for the BaOI....and anywhere else a side specification is needed.

I guess we'll have to agree to differ.

There exist standard Discogs track positions (12.2.7), but not for the BAOI descriptors, and as I've said before, the guidelines are clear and unambiguous. "Exact label name" (5.9) means just that - if the name of a particular label is "Another side", then it's perfectly OK to record it as that in the descriptor.

Possibly people have assumed that because when identifying sides to locate the position of the tracks, they also assume that applies to all else. It doesn't.

The artist credits use the track position recorded in Discogs for clarification (this artist composed this/these tracks).

The BAOI descriptors assist in describing the BAOI information, if need be. BAOI information is recorded accurately, as on release, so s can check for an exact match. An inexact match may mean a different release. Maybe that's why the descriptor is also allowed to be an exact match.

6338041
I guess we'll have to agree to differ

https://discogs.programascracks.com/forum/thread/798021

andygrayrecords
6338041I guess we'll have to agree to differ
https://discogs.programascracks.com/forum/thread/798021

You may have missed this, but I've made the same comment in that thread, and it's not been challenged from a guideline - the guidelines on BAOI descriptors are clear, and they are not the same guidelines for side indicators for track positions, which is primarily what that thread is about.

After my comment, some could see the difference between BAOI and track position side indicators, and other chose to refer to section 12 which is not about the BAOI. That's section 5. They are two different things.

Just because RSG §12.2.7 is in the "Tracklisting" part of the guidelines doesn't mean that is the only field where it is applicable.

We still use it elsewhere in the submission, including the BaOI.

If you feel that mentioning "Side 1" is on the release rather than "Side A" - then the notes is a perfect spot for this....or add label images.

As for "Exact label name" - I'm perfectly fine with it when it is something other than "Side 1", "Side II" etc...but it would be best to use it along with following RSG §12.2.7...

Side A runout [White Side]

While I wouldn't do it this way...I'd use headers - I wouldn't change someone else's edit.

As seen here.
Queen - Queen II - Side White / Black in headers

Discussion about how to describe a side, A&B 1&2 etc., in the BOI description field is not the topic of this thread. It's concerned with BOI strings entered with extra elements that aren't actually there, such as:
Matrix / Runout (Runout, Side B, [stamped] etched, variant 2): MX8005 B JWOLF [STERLING] Ⓗ A-2 [↔]
The example this is from doesn't actually have [ or ] in the runout.

trailoff
Discussion about how to describe a side, A&B 1&2 etc., in the BOI description field is not the topic of this thread.

Thank you trailoff.

Anyone wishing to beat the drum for Side delineation, please post over in https://discogs.programascracks.com/forum/thread/798021 .

I think now that this discussion has led to the extreme and now, instead of just removing etched vs. stamped from matrix strings, they're now also being removed from descriptions. I have had three releases recently where one of two big differences was in the fact that a matrix string was stamped rather than etched. I believe removing these descriptions (description... the field is called description) to be short sighted. An argument was made to put the descriptions in the notes but that is not always being done. It's also very cumbersome, while searching for matrices, to then have to scroll down to notes to see if there are any additional descriptions down there. I would strongly argue to keep etched vs. stamped in descriptions. It doesn't even have to be that hard. I find it funny that we still can't pin down whether we right in variant, variation or version yet we're pulling valid information out of the description fields. My $.02

I know I was involved in one of these edits (here, for those interested), and in that case, the combination of the runouts into a single string facilitated the removal of the description of repetitive etched / stamped explanations for each of three variants - logical since the only stamped portion of the runouts is an Artisan logo.

I do agree that when the etching, vs. stamping, is a primary differentiating factor, things should be made plain. But we should figure out a rational way to do this without constructing elaborate run-on descriptions (on the one hand) or no descriptions at all (on the other). And we need to concede that sometimes, the method by which the runout was inscribed is of no consequence at all. ( I know, heresy. I can hear the gasps of shock from here. )

Showbiz_Kid
And we need to concede that sometimes, the method by which the runout was inscribed is of no consequence at all. ( I know, heresy. I can hear the gasps of shock from here. )

Shock horror !!

Seriously though, I have records that have exact same runout matrices, yet one is stamped, the other etched. Something I noticed whilst processing my 10k collection.

They seem to be mainly from the late 50's and early 60's.

The inclusion of "etched" or 'stamped" in all matrix descriptors ensures that when, at some time in the future, a person is adding a copy of something, that person can be certain it is either the same or different.

One can never rule out with certainty that the etched/stamped varieties won't appear.

Diognes_The_Fox
If there is a good reason for differentiation, it might be a good place to expand that information out in the release notes rather than trying to come up with some system to force it into the matrix area.

I have had some instances where knowing about stamped/etched differences was useful, but those are pretty extreme cases.

I guess I'm just surprised. This seems to be the first time I've seen a push for LESS information to be given. Usually we are so nit-picky about making sure that every bit of the data is recorded and documented and now we're saying "eh, it's not that important". I mean, it's called the "description" field. I can understand streamlining it so it's not so clunky, but to purposefully leave out descriptors... well, again, just surprised.

celtrock
This seems to be the first time I've seen a push for LESS information to be given.

This information is just marginally descriptive reading instructions. The trade off between excessively complicating the baoi so that it is practically indecipherable and being instructed beforehand whether to read a stamp or handwriting is not worth it.

I have encountered only 1 release in my Discogs career where this was arguably worth documenting (one variant of a record had a Masterdisk stamp, the other had Masterdisk etched).

Agree to disagree. Maybe you haven't been around as long (though I don't think that's true) but I've had a number of releases, most notably one only a month ago when a new tried to merge my copy with another until it was determined that etching vs stamped were quite different. Can't recall the others but there's been more than one. Again, just surprised anyone would push for less information...

6338041
The inclusion of "etched" or 'stamped" in all matrix descriptors ensures that when, at some time in the future, a person is adding a copy of something, that person can be certain it is either the same or different.

I agree with this. If one doesn't add stamped/etched into their runout descriptions, you don't know that there is a difference that needs to be documented.

It doesn't come up often, but I also can count a few times where what was in the runouts were the same, but one variant was stamped and mine was etched. I wouldn't have known this difference existed unless "stamped" was in the BaOI already.

leeving
If one doesn't add stamped/etched into their runout descriptions, you don't know that there is a difference that needs to be documented.

+1

If the descriptions become too complicated just replace it with "see notes" and expand on it in the notes. Most of the time it's just a couple of words and it fits in the description field. There are already tons of variants missing from the database because adding runouts is a bit too obscure for new s, skipping descriptions will only ensure that more is missing.

Details matter.

seveninch
If the descriptions become too complicated just replace it with "see notes" and expand on it in the notes.

That’s the point DtF was making...if y’all will read the relevant parts of the thread.

And also that when the only stamped part of a runout is the STERLING or MASTERED BY CAPITOL string, it’s useless to note it because some things are **always** stamped - much less repeat it in
Every.
Single.
Runout.
Description.

...if you see my point.

seveninch
Details matter

Sometimes.

But other times, an over abundance of needless details are just fidget toys for the OCD driven. (I mean, I’m guilty sometimes too! But let’s use common sense.)

If everyone would just re-read what Diognes_The_Fox wrote above, we could put out attention back to entering the records :)

If there are truly situations where it matters, I'd also think that the font used, spacing, etc. would be important as well.

For what we're doing, that level of detail would probably be best in the form of an image of the runouts or describing what's what in the release notes instead of trying to shove it into the BaOI field.

Would it be possible to say have stamped in normal lettering and etchings in a different font eg italics. This could make things very much simpler and satisfy both camps...I realise that whilst simple in thought the implimentation will be far from simple. Nevertheless this merry-go-round needs to be brought to a conclusion that satisfies all and stops the messy runouts. Cheers

progpicsbystans
satisfies all

I do not think this is actually possible XD

progpicsbystans
Would it be possible to say have stamped in normal lettering and etchings in a different font eg italics.

Italics and other special formatting which require markup are not ed in data fields. Even if the programmers agreed to do this, the markup characters required to make the differentiation would substantially change the data contained in the fields, again adding information that is not on the actual release...so, null game :)

I believe that what Diognes_The_Fox has said is the simplest and best solution.

Showbiz_Kid
I believe that what Diognes_The_Fox has said is the simplest and best solution.

Yes in principle but capturing images to show stamps and etchings will be a challenge for most at the best of times let alone when the stamps can be so faint.

progpicsbystans
capturing images to show stamps and etchings

I believe Brent was only suggesting the use of images as a solution for highly complex situations where the fate of the entire world hangs in the balance and seconds are crucial to avoiding a galactic implosion.

His first comment in this thread, which I will restate yet again:

Diognes_The_Fox
If there is a good reason for differentiation, it might be a good place to expand that information out in the release notes rather than trying to come up with some system to force it into the matrix area.

I have had some instances where knowing about stamped/etched differences was useful, but those are pretty extreme cases.

The cases which Brent refers to, which are "pretty extreme", are few and far between.

If documenting the fact that a Columbia Customatrix "o" mark, for example, is stamped is very important to you, then put it into Notes. But please, let's not start submitting photos of runouts all over the place, which essentially stomps all over RSG §13.1.6. I can just see scads of blurry runout pics, one for every variant, crapping up subs...

Showbiz_Kid
But please, let's not start submitting photos of runouts all over the place, which essentially stomps all over RSG §13.1.6. I can just see scads of blurry runout pics, one for every variant, crapping up subs...

Exactly my point. I'm no expert but I see no significance of stamps and etchings myself and just want to see an end to the inconsistant, clunky and sometimes over long BaOI entries.

Three points :

1. The cluttering of the runout matrices and their descriptors can be lessened, not by removing vital and significant information (etched /stamped), but by separating some of it out, effectively making it easier to read :

- when a runout(s) includes a general identifying pressing stamp (Ie "Manufactured in " or a plant logo) this could have a separate entry field (which many do/did have, but have recently been encouraged to be included in the one string). The descriptor becomes simple ("stamped both sides" or (eg) stamped side 1).

If this practice was (re) adopted, it would also help ensure that only variants of THAT cut were included on the one listing.

2. Runout marking practises vary from (manufacturing) country to country. Here in Australia it's wasn't that uncommon for a record to be recut and/or repressed, and often it can be (visually) seen that the cut of one side was done at a different time and/or by a different person than the other side. One side may be etched, the other stamped, or the style of etching or stamping may differ.

The knowledge that stems from these observation can be of significant interest to anyone tracing the history of a disc.
"Why was this side recut (later) and the other not? - was it damaged, or more prone to wearing out due to the groove profiles?"
"Was there an error in the cutting?
Why did later WEA pressing use the same plates as the earlier (unconnected) Festival release?
"This issue uses UK plates, whereas that pressing using locally cut plates."

and so on.

3. Photos? Not necessary as a rule, but very useful in some situations :
- Identifying a counterfeit that is meant to fool the consumer, and only the spacing and size of the runout matrices is a tell-tale sign (for the disc).
- Identifying a locally cut disc to one using (eg) UK plates where the matrices are similar if not the same. (Occurs on some of The Beatles LPs).

You've made your points very cogently, but I still disagree because what you've described is regressive - it takes us backward to a cluttered, unreadble BaOI. And every distinction you've outlined can just as easily be described in Notes.

Showbiz_Kid
You've made your points very cogently, but I still disagree because what you've described is regressive - it takes us backward to a cluttered, unreadble BaOI. And every distinction you've outlined can just as easily be described in Notes.

I fully agree.
At times I think this whole BAOI / Runouts thingy is getting way too academic and towards minority ruling. 99,9% are entered smoothly but for the 0,1% there's noise and discussions. Proportionality, anyone?

I think often times the runouts are often horribly messy, But....
As others above have mentioned, why can we not agree to standardize Variation 1, or var. 1, Variant 1 etc.. Where in the description does the variant label go beginning, middle, end? It's everywhere now.

Why the He..double hockey sticks can't we standardize Side A runout, A side runout, Runout side A etc., etc., etc...... How many times have I come across a description which is "Side A"....missing label or runout tags, & if no images.......crickets
There are other similar issues as above which make this DB look unprofessional/childish. These issues create far more confusion & problems in the description field IMO, than the stamp & etched do. The issues I bring up make the BaOI look just as crappy if not more so than stamped & etched tags.

Sure start someplace fine, but what your removing from the description field 1st (in the name of neatness) at least contains information however useful it may be.
These other problems (which seem effin' intractable) cause far more problems both searching/sorting & visual. All this energy that is about to be used to remove "VALID" descriptions (and make no mistake dozens of s are going to go out & start removing the labels just like I saw a wave of Stereo & Mono only edits begin a while back), should be used to tackle the other far more messy & childish problems. So surprise me & tackle the other issues.....That would sure put me in my place.

Rant over, Thanks for reading, I'm going back into my cave now, don't hate me too much I'm not worth it.

I'm new to this thread, but it's relevant to what I've been dealing with lately trying to correct runouts of releases I own to comply with RSG §5.2.c. The problem I see with the inclusion of stamped, etched, etc. to the description fields is that it becomes very difficult to compare a string on your record to one on the screen because the descriptions aren't of even length and prevent the runout strings from aligning for easy comparison. If that's the only problem with the runouts, of course, I leave it alone, but if I'm trying to combine split strings to meet the guidelines, I clean up the descriptions and move etched, stamped, rotated, faint, etc., to the release notes as suggested here:

Diognes_The_Fox
If there is a good reason for differentiation, it might be a good place to expand that information out in the release notes rather than trying to come up with some system to force it into the matrix area.

Showbiz_Kid
t's not mandatory, however it's provided for in Guidlines if anyone wants to do it. I have seen it done, but personally I find it clunky, as you do. But it's allowable, is what Lou is saying.

I came across an example of this --^ yesterday and it was a little jarring until I figured out what they were doing. It's not too bad as long as the separate strings are directly above the runouts.
The problem is when you get multiple variants. No matter what's in the description of the common entries ("All runouts" for example), you're never quite certain that it really applies to the newer additions except for those rare occasions that the submitter of the newer variants specifically mentioned it in the history.

celtrock
It's also very cumbersome, while searching for matrices, to then have to scroll down to notes to see if there are any additional descriptions down there. I would strongly argue to keep etched vs. stamped in descriptions.

Hmm. On my browser window, the notes are directly above BaOI, which makes it very easy to see. As I said above, etched vs. stamped in the descriptions causes the runouts to start at different places on the lines and can cause line breaks in the middle, making it more cumbersome IMHO.

Here's a good example of before and after I do a cleanup.
Elvis* - Moody Blue
Here's what it looked like before:

Barcode and Other Identifiers
Matrix / Runout (Runout side A, stamped (variant 1)): AFL1 2428A 30
Matrix / Runout (Runout side B, etched (variant 1)): AFL1-2428-B-1S
Matrix / Runout (Runout side A, etched (variant 2)): AFL1-2428-A-1S Masterfonics GAM
Matrix / Runout (Runout side B, etched (variant 2)): AFL1-2428-B-1S Masterfonics GAM
Matrix / Runout (Runout side A (variant 3)): AFL1-2428-A-1S Masterfonics GAM Ⅰ A4W
Matrix / Runout (Runout side B (variant 3)): AFL1-2428-B-2S Masterfonics GAM Ⅰ A4UU
Matrix / Runout (Runout side A, etched.(variant 4)): AFL1-2428-A-2S-Masterfonics Gam A2 D
Matrix / Runout (Runout side B, stamped (variant 4)): AFL1-2428-B 30 - A1AA
Matrix / Runout (Runout both sides, stamped all variants): I
Rights Society: BMI
Rights Society: ASCAP
Pressing Plant ID (Runouts): Ⅰ

You can see the stamped "I" supposedly common to all runouts. None of the variants have an "I" in them except for variant 3. So does 3 have an additional "I" or did they just not remove it? This release had a lot going on in the history, but after working on it for a while, here's how it wound up.

Notes
.
.
.
Runout details:
Variant 1 - Side A is stamped. Side B is etched.
Variant 2 - Both sides are etched.
Variant 3 - Stamped vs etched state not specified.
Variant 4 - Side A is etched except for the final "Ⅰ". Side B is stamped.
Variant 5 - Both sides are etched except for the "B1" on side A, the "A4" on side B, and the single "Ⅰ" on both sides.
Barcode and Other Identifiers
Pressing Plant ID (Stamped in runouts): Ⅰ
Rights Society: ASCAP
Rights Society: BMI
Matrix / Runout (Runout side A, variant 1): AFL1 2428A 30
Matrix / Runout (Runout side B, variant 1): AFL1-2428-B-1S
Matrix / Runout (Runout side A, variant 2): AFL1-2428-A-1S Masterfonics GAM
Matrix / Runout (Runout side B, variant 2): AFL1-2428-B-1S Masterfonics GAM
Matrix / Runout (Runout side A, variant 3): AFL1-2428-A-1S Masterfonics GAM Ⅰ A4W
Matrix / Runout (Runout side B, variant 3): AFL1-2428-B-2S Masterfonics GAM Ⅰ A4UU
Matrix / Runout (Runout side A, variant 4): AFL1-2428-A-2S-Masterfonics Gam A2 D Ⅰ
Matrix / Runout (Runout side B, variant 4): AFL1-2428-B 30 - A1AA Ⅰ
Matrix / Runout (Runout, side A, variant 5): AFL1-2428-A-1S Masterfonics GAM Ⅰ B1 2
Matrix / Runout (Runout, side B, variant 5): AFL1-2428-B-2S Masterfonics GAM Ⅰ A4 FF

None of the content was removed from the release. Everything is still described as originally entered, just in different places.
The stamped vs. etched detail is directly above the BaOI. The variants line up nicely, making it easy to tell if yours is already listed. I've moved the variants to the bottom of the list to make it easier for additional variants to be added and to keep viewers from having to scroll past them to see the rights societies and pressing plant ID.

100% agree with jeffjones22

jeffjones22
This release had a lot going on in the history, but after working on it for a while, here's how it wound up.

I really like this.

jeffjones22
Runout details:
Variant 1 - Side A is stamped. Side B is etched.
Variant 2 - Both sides are etched.
Variant 3 - Stamped vs etched state not specified.
Variant 4 - Side A is etched except for the final "Ⅰ". Side B is stamped.
Variant 5 - Both sides are etched except for the "B1" on side A, the "A4" on side B, and the single "Ⅰ" on both sides.
Barcode and Other Identifiers
Pressing Plant ID (Stamped in runouts): Ⅰ

(the actual runouts follow the above)

It looks really neat, but I'm not sure that the listed example should not be separated into different listings.

Putting aside any visual difference in the packaging, the example contains a single listing with different lacquer cuts - and different lacquer cuts may sound different. (Unlike different stampers of the same lacquer cut).

Combining different lacquer cuts, which may contain different sounding versions of the same album, into the one listing greatly reduces the buyers ability to be certain that they are buying a particular (usually preferred) lacquer cut. I seen listings on DIscogs which combine different lacquer cuts like this example does, though I am of the opinion that different lacquer cuts (due to the fact they are not the same) should be listed separately.

The website "45 worlds" combines different versions of the same catalogue release into the one listing, appealing to the person where potential sound differences between different lacquer cuts is of no interest; I've been under the impression that Discogs attempts to catalogue each variation, identifying that these variations can both be of significant importance to the buyer and collector.

6338041
Combining different lacquer cuts, which may contain different sounding versions of the same album, into the one listing greatly reduces the buyers ability to be certain that they are buying a particular (usually preferred) lacquer cut. I seen listings on DIscogs which combine different lacquer cuts like this example does, though I am of the opinion that different lacquer cuts (due to the fact they are not the same) should be listed separately.

I don’t think you understand the difference between different masters and stamper generations.

We absolutely document cuts by different ENGINEERS separately, even if they are pressed by the same plant. But we do not split up subs just because one stamper set is first off the mother and the next set is pulled 4th. That would be overwhelming and unnecessary.

6338041
It looks really neat, but I'm not sure that the listed example should not be separated into different listings.

Yes, variant 1 doesn't belong with the others. Different credits.

Showbiz_Kid
6338041Combining different lacquer cuts, which may contain different sounding versions of the same album, into the one listing greatly reduces the buyers ability to be certain that they are buying a particular (usually preferred) lacquer cut. I seen listings on DIscogs which combine different lacquer cuts like this example does, though I am of the opinion that different lacquer cuts (due to the fact they are not the same) should be listed separately.

I don’t think you understand the difference between different masters and stamper generations.

We absolutely document cuts by different ENGINEERS separately, even if they are pressed by the same plant. But we do not split up subs just because one stamper set is first off the mother and the next set is pulled 4th. That would be overwhelming and unnecessary.

I don't think you understood my comment nor read the example carefully.

Referring to the majority of the string (not just the stamper number/identifier) If one item has an etched runout and the other a stamped runout, then they are cut at different times and possibly by different people. They are different lacquers (which in turn produce different stampers). They are unlikely to sound identical.

In the example one of the variants has a stamped side, two are specified to have both sides etched. This is a difference in the lacquer cut, not just the stamper.

Please reread the example provided by jeffjones22. For all these to belong in the one listing the main matrix string for each side will be the same as all the others for that corresponding side (both content and etched or stamped), though stamper ID will differ both in content and possibly method. This is not the case in the example.

For what it's worth, I have a number of titles where I have a number of copies made in the same factory. Some use different stampers only, some use different lacquer cuts.

The following listings are examples where more than one lacquer cut is combined into the one listing. Examples chosen clearly delineate lacquer cuts from stamper IDs.

David Bowie - The Rise And Fall Of Ziggy Stardust And The Spiders From Mars
(1E/1E, 2E/2E and hybrid)
stamped matrix, etched stamper (correctly mentioned) in most.
(should be 3 listings - two different lacquer cuts and one hybrid)

David Bowie - The Rise And Fall Of Ziggy Stardust And The Spiders From Mars
(6E/4E and one stray 2E/2E)
etched stated for all, 2E should be "stamped"
(2E/2E belongs in different listing, and error corrected)

David Bowie - The Rise And Fall Of Ziggy Stardust And The Spiders From Mars
(6E/4E, 2E/2E, 1E/2E) - most with stamper ID
etched/stamped not mentioned.
(Should be three different listings).

It's possible that some of the above are misplaced rather than requiring a completely separate listing. It may also underline the importance of clear inclusion of how the matrix runout is presented (etched and/or stamped).

I think we’re getting off topic here. Discussion of which runout variants belong to which releases should be handled in their own threads.

trailoff
I think we’re getting off topic here. Discussion of which runout variants belong to which releases should be handled in their own threads.

Maybe but I think the point 6338041 makes, raising these examples, is the need for a clear explanation of how a runout is constructed and what the different elements of the string mean and therefore what would constitute a different sub. I'm guessing the majority of on Discogs have limited understanding of this and I include myself in that group. A better understanding would help everyone to create cleaner variant subs and hopefully minimise errors. Just my 2 pence worth.

6338041
It looks really neat, but I'm not sure that the listed example should not be separated into different listings.

Putting aside any visual difference in the packaging, the example contains a single listing with different lacquer cuts - and different lacquer cuts may sound different. (Unlike different stampers of the same lacquer cut).

Not to get too far off topic here...

It's easier to tell the difference between the variants when they're cleaned up this way. They line up more closely, making the different ones stick out like a sore thumb. When you have etched, stamped, rotated, etc., in the description fields, it's much more difficult to see and who wants to sort through that just to make sure they have the right release...

Which brings up the problem of incomplete runouts. I never assume ANY variant is complete except for the one I enter. Some people think they just need to entered that "first string of numbers". There's always the chance someone missed some characters, particularly pressing plant indicators. God bless Terre Haute for their heavy-handed T's. I don't think I've ever missed that one. Pitman can be pretty tough to find, but Santa Maria is a master of hiding their marks. The Indianapolis "I" can be though to see as well. The Jacksonville "0" is usually pretty clear, but positioned where it is, you have to look for it or you'll miss it.. I could go on and an, but my point is, there are a TON of reasons to assume every runout entry is incomplete unless it matches yours exactly. In this instance, variant 1 could very well have "Masterfonics" printed in the runout and the person who entered that variant left it off intentionally or by oversight. ittedly it's hard to miss, but this record is translucent blue vinyl and "Masterfonics" is etched. So rather than just remove it, especially since it's the first one, a better idea would be to ping the who entered it and get them to double-check. One of four things usually happen. No response. They have it, check it, and either confirm or update it. They don't have it anymore.
But incomplete runout entries is an entirely different situation.

seveninch
Yes, variant 1 doesn't belong with the others. Different credits.

Variant 1 doesn't belong, but that's because it is terribly incomplete. It should be completed or removed on this basis, but it's probably not a different cut.

6338041
I don't think you understood my comment nor read the example carefully...The following listings are examples where more than one lacquer cut is combined into the one listing. Examples chosen clearly delineate lacquer cuts from stamper IDs.

In my opinion, separating every single record entered by primary lacquer cut is a very poor idea, as it will lead to nearly innumerable entries for every major release. You think that 996 entries for Pink Floyd - The Dark Side Of The Moon is an enormous amount? This will lead to an explosion of entries with an exponential curve across the board - a very poor idea for a database that already contains so many arcane procedures and rules that new s are confused as to how to even begin finding the proper sub to add to their collection. It would make life immeasurably harder for even experienced s - imagine having to drill down through dozens of entries for "Rumours", with tens of millions of copies produced on every continent, to find the one that matches your specific lacquer cut! This would be truly awful and I think might even result in the demise of the site.

jeffjones22
It's easier to tell the difference between the variants when they're cleaned up this way. They line up more closely, making the different ones stick out like a sore thumb. When you have etched, stamped, rotated, etc., in the description fields, it's much more difficult to see and who wants to sort through that just to make sure they have the right release...

Quite. That's the issue that started this whole thread.

jeffjones22
Which brings up the problem of incomplete runouts. I never assume ANY variant is complete except for the one I enter. Some people think they just need to entered that "first string of numbers". There's always the chance someone missed some characters, particularly pressing plant indicators. God bless Terre Haute for their heavy-handed T's. I don't think I've ever missed that one. Pitman can be pretty tough to find, but Santa Maria is a master of hiding their marks. The Indianapolis "I" can be though to see as well. The Jacksonville "0" is usually pretty clear, but positioned where it is, you have to look for it or you'll miss it.. I could go on and an, but my point is, there are a TON of reasons to assume every runout entry is incomplete unless it matches yours exactly. In this instance, variant 1 could very well have "Masterfonics" printed in the runout and the person who entered that variant left it off intentionally or by oversight. ittedly it's hard to miss, but this record is translucent blue vinyl and "Masterfonics" is etched. So rather than just remove it, especially since it's the first one, a better idea would be to ping the who entered it and get them to double-check. One of four things usually happen. No response. They have it, check it, and either confirm or update it. They don't have it anymore.
But incomplete runout entries is an entirely different situation.

Agree 100% with this assessment.

Hi,
Do you think these runouts should be edited? (maximun two lines per variant, now 16 lines for 4 variants) Amanda Lear - Follow Me
Matrix / Runout (Runout side A, variation 1): 11950 A-2 /78S II Made in
Matrix / Runout (Runout side B, variation 1): 11950 B-2 /78S Made in III
Matrix / Runout (Full runout info side A, variation 2): 11950 A-2 /78S Made in 055 020
Matrix / Runout (Runout side A, variation 2, stamped): 11950 A-2 /78S Made in
Matrix / Runout (Runout side A, variation 2, etched): 055 020
Matrix / Runout (Full runout info side B, variation 2): 11950 B-2 /78S Made in 055 020
Matrix / Runout (Runout side B, variation 2, stamped): 11950 B-2 /78S Made in
Matrix / Runout (Runout side B, variation 2, etched): 055 020
Matrix / Runout (Full runout info side A, variation 3): 11950 A-2 /78S Made in 055 0̶2̶0̶
Matrix / Runout (Runout side A, variation 3, stamped): 11950 A-2 /78S Made in
Matrix / Runout (Runout side A, variation 3, etched "020" is striked out with "X"): 055 0̶2̶0̶
Matrix / Runout (Full runout info side B, variation 3): 11950 B-2 /78S M̶a̶d̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶G̶e̶r̶m̶a̶n̶y̶ 055 020
Matrix / Runout (Runout side B, variation 3, stamped "Made in " is striked out with "X"): 11950 B-2 /78S M̶a̶d̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶G̶e̶r̶m̶a̶n̶y̶
Matrix / Runout (Runout side A, variation 3, etched): 055 020
Matrix / Runout (Runout side A, variation 4, stamped): 11950 A-2 /78S Made in
Matrix / Runout (Runout side B, variation 4, stamped): 11950 B-2 /78S IV Made in III

I have to add (another) variant but not like has been made from 1 to 3 and 4 says "stamped" but roman numbers are generally etched.
I think
Matrix / Runout (Runout side A, var. 4): 11950 A-2 /78S Made in
Matrix / Runout (Runout side B, var. 4): 11950 B-2 /78S IV Made in III
and the same from 1 to 3
would satisfy guidelines, rules and comments.
(And var. 3 maybe doesn't belong to this release as already mentioned in comments)

Roby17
Do you think these runouts should be edited? (maximun two lines per variant, now 16 lines for 4 variants) Amanda Lear - Follow Me

Roby17 I absolutely think they should be edited. They're in violation of RSG §5.2.c. If I were doing it, I'd merge each side and add text to the release notes identifying the etched / stamped portions of each variant.

If you do it, a clear explanation of everything you did and why you did it will help future editors.

jeffjones22 Now, it looks more readable - A simply note explains what's stamped and what's hand etched. And I leaved message about guidelines and the further guidelines.
Thanks for you !

Matrix / Runout (Runout side A, var.1): 11950 A-2 /78S II Made in
Matrix / Runout (Runout side B, var.1): 11950 B-2 /78S Made in III
Matrix / Runout (Runout side A, var.2): 11950 A-2 /78S Made in 055 020
Matrix / Runout (Runout side B, var.2): 11950 B-2 /78S Made in 055 020
Matrix / Runout (Runout side A, var.3): 11950 A-2 /78S Made in 055 0̶2̶0̶
Matrix / Runout (Runout side B, var.3): 11950 B-2 /78S M̶a̶d̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶G̶e̶r̶m̶a̶n̶y̶ 055 020
Matrix / Runout (Runout side A, var.4): 11950 A-2 /78S Made in
Matrix / Runout (Runout side B, var.4): 11950 B-2 /78S IV Made in III
Matrix / Runout (Runout side A, var.5): 11950 A-2 /78S Made in 020
Matrix / Runout (Runout side B, var.5): 11950 B-2 /78S Made in 020

Note:
Runouts stamped except "055" and/or "020" when present (hand etched).

Roby17
Runouts stamped except "055" and/or "020" when present (hand etched).

"and/or"?
Has now the And/oritis Disease™ grown into pandemic proportions, too? :D
(There is no need for an "and/or" unless when lawyers are trying to confuse readers by cryptic legalese.)
(Not to speak of Chronic Parenthesia® of which I am way too often a victim myself, haha…)

In this context, a plain old-fashioned "and" actually describes exactly what happens:

Runouts stamped except "055" and "020" hand etched, if present.

Beacause if you use "and/or" (its semantic "nonsensity" notwithstanding), it would actually mean that either part of the string could also be stamped.

Other than that: all good! :)

loukash
Ahahahah My habit of writing like that in my letters, sometimes cryptic and sometimes it includes everything.

Done!

jeffjones22
here's how it wound up

Diognes_The_Fox
I really like this.

LOL, last time exactly this method earned eternally long texts that say nothing but "that's stupid" "why notes?" "there is a clear guideline" and "staff advice" blabla but today the same is O.K.and s refer to this . . . please do not musunderstand me i'm for that what jeffjones22 posted, but you guys are incredible inconsitent and change the way to do things according to the weather. why not implement agreements in the guidelines? if i'ts in the guidelines we don't need to discuss it again and again and nobody can refer to thread X or thread Y which is the opposite (and of course somewhere is thread F which mix both)

please dear Diognes_The_Fox may i ask why we can't establish something and keep it simple?

The more I read about what jeffjones22, the more I like it. I've seen some Ray Charles (early 60's Atlantic era) release pages where there is just so much information in the description fields that it makes it hard to read. Specifying if the LW for Longwear Plating is rotated, where the dots are located beneath or above letters, keyhole stamping, and lots of other things too, it's astonishing. So moving it to the notes would resolve that issue. But unfortunately, I don't know if we can always depend on the other people who make the new variants to add to the notes section what parts of the information are stamped and etched. In my experience it's hard enough for some s to even specify sides or put the variant number in to begin with. I have a reasonable forecast that it would make it harder to get that information cohesive and all together like that, rather than just having it in the description fields so it's right in front of them.

As for the original example used in this thread, yes I agree that's extreme! I would definitely be jarred by that even now, let alone being a new . But even so (and I am hesitant to even bring up this point), a lot of people type some characters differently in the runout information, so it's already difficult to just type in a string of information and get the correct release page in the first place. Some people see the Customatrix or Jacksonville, Illinois (Capitol Records pressing plant) markings as a "o" or a "0", some people type 1's as I's (as seen on Indianapolis, Indiana RCA pressings) or vice versa. So just for it being reliable, I don't think there's ever been a case where I've just looked up the side's runout by typing it, because it's possible you'll miss the one you're looking for because it was typed differently. Every time I get a new (not necessarily sealed) record or CD, I open up all the pages with that country and release format and check each one to narrow down which is mine. I don't have a problem with this now since I've been doing it so long, but if you're a casual of the website you may not want to do that. Think of if you just bought a copy of Dark Side Of The Moon from your local record store, you could be looking for a long time and may not even be sure you have the right one after it's all said and done because of how much you've second-guessed yourself looking through all the variants! It's the only way that you can be absolutely sure the copy you're adding to your collection is exactly the one you have in front of you. What I mean by all of this is that I wouldn't depend on runout information to the point of searching for specific strings because of how unreliable it can be, even before this (great) point was brought up.

For a final cap on what I have to say, if we were to go the route that Jeff is pitching, I would prefer (as I'm sure many others would as well) to have it say Side A / B before it says "Runout". You could argue that it would already be in the same place for all the other variants while looking at the variants, but the side designation is the most important part about those fields other than stating that it's runout information. From left-to-right reading, having you see that information first is key. Trust me, I can see how even more finite of a suggestion like this is to a discussion on overcomplicating something simple is, but I thought I should say it. I am glad we are all having a formal conversation about this matter without it being overly drawn out, and there have been agreements here too. I look forward to hopefully seeing this added to the Database Guidelines in the future. If it's there, it'll be easier to agree upon.

Do we really need to specify Runout or Martix, we already know that if it's vinyl it's Runout or CD then matrix so why bother to specify or am I being too simplistic. For me just Side A, variant # etc would be sufficient. Just my two cents worth.

progpicsbystans
we already know that if it's vinyl it's Runout or CD then matrix so why bother to specify or am I being too simplistic.

Some vinyl releases show a matrix # on the labels which differs from the runouts.

brunorepublic
Some vinyl releases show a matrix # on the labels which differs from the runouts.

Excellent point.....shame that can't be identified in a different way....but yeah I knew the answer wouldn't be so simple.

jeffjones22

Runout details:
Variant 1 - Side A is stamped. Side B is etched.
Variant 2 - Both sides are etched.
Variant 3 - Stamped vs etched state not specified.
Variant 4 - Side A is etched except for the final "Ⅰ". Side B is stamped.
Variant 5 - Both sides are etched except for the "B1" on side A, the "A4" on side B, and the single "Ⅰ" on both sides.
Barcode and Other Identifiers
Pressing Plant ID (Stamped in runouts): Ⅰ
Rights Society: ASCAP
Rights Society: BMI
Matrix / Runout (Runout side A, variant 1): AFL1 2428A 30
Matrix / Runout (Runout side B, variant 1): AFL1-2428-B-1S etc.

None of the content was removed from the release. Everything is still described as originally entered, just in different places.
The stamped vs. etched detail is directly above the BaOI. The variants line up nicely, making it easy to tell if yours is already listed. I've moved the variants to the bottom of the list to make it easier for additional variants to be added and to keep viewers from having to scroll past them to see the rights societies and pressing plant ID.

I endorse this approach wholeheartedly, but would even shorten up the notes even more.

Variant 1 - Side A: stamped. Side B: etched.
Variant 2 - Side A & B: etched.
Variant 3 - Stamped vs. etched not specified.
Variant 4 - Side A: etched; final "Ⅰ" stamped. Side B:stamped.
Variant 5 - Side A: etched; B1, "Ⅰ" stamped. Side B: etched; A4, "Ⅰ" stamped.

GParty
Variant 1 - Side A: stamped. Side B: etched.
Variant 2 - Side A & B: etched.
Variant 3 - Stamped vs. etched not specified.
Variant 4 - Side A: etched; final "Ⅰ" stamped. Side B:stamped.
Variant 5 - Side A: etched; B1, "Ⅰ" stamped. Side B: etched; A4, "Ⅰ" stamped.

Or...don’t. Because - here comes the heresy - it just. Doesn’t. Matter.