Disclaimer. I did not vote on this so this is not a biased discussion.
Ok, so we start again with merges. These take time to analyse so it would be good if ones like these can be given some final decision by staff thus avoiding repeated merge requests. Queen - Studio Collection
The merge seems purely based on the issue of a card. This card appears to be in some boxes outside of USA\Canada but not in others.
My point of view is a Repress and/or a published\printed year later than the original re-issue would warrant a new submission.
The problem here is I do not believe the so called 2019 repress has any identifying marks to show this is a repress so on that basis this should not be a new submission.
However going back to the card issue. First you would need to know if you bought the repress or not and that is down to dealer honesty. Secondly assuming you know you have the 2019 repress, how many of the current 71 s on discogs have the card or not.
Then if it can be categorically be proven no card for 2019 repress then the new submission is valid.
It would be interesting know if any of the 1289 s of the 2015 release received no code.
So this all sounds easy really but then I know you can buy a CD and it contains a booklet and advertising leaflet. The leaflet may not get mentioned when submitted, but you know that your own identical release\pressing has one. Do you then create a new entry for someone later to say, "but mine had the leaflet lets merge". Wasted work all round.
Personally I add a note to state some copies may contain an advertising leaflet.
Yes maybe I'll get burnt at the stake for doing something wrong.
This is why at the end of the day a staff decision should make the final decision on the repeated merge requests where no new evidence is forthcoming.
Then rightly or wrongly we will all have to agree on the outcome.
Thoughts
Oh yes, for developers I've often thought a voting button would be a good idea for some forum questions, thus avoiding the deviations in replies that often occur. Unless I've missed something.
I bought this box and instigated the initial merge. A code was meant to be included, as per the product page on Queen's website. The fact that the webstore are willing to provide the code to anyone with proof of purchase eliminates - to my mind, anyway - the argument that the card is even 'absent'. The two releases are otherwise TOTALLY identical.
The_Strange_Boutique
I bought this box and instigated the initial merge. A code was meant to be included, as per the product page on Queen's website. The fact that the webstore are willing to provide the code to anyone with proof of purchase eliminates - to my mind, anyway - the argument that the card is even 'absent'. The two releases are otherwise TOTALLY identical.
I warming to the point that it should be merged. As if you were to buy this there is no way of really telling if you are getting the initial release or the repress. The card seems to be there or not even on the initial release.
AgentCat00
EustaceWalkedI bought this box and instigated the initial merge. A code was meant to be included, as per the product page on Queen's website. The fact that the webstore are willing to provide the code to anyone with proof of purchase eliminates - to my mind, anyway - the argument that the card is even 'absent'. The two releases are otherwise TOTALLY identical.
I warming to the point that it should be merged. As if you were to buy this there is no way of really telling if you are getting the initial release or the repress. The card seems to be there or not even on the initial release.
Thanks for responding.
Exactly. Add to that: that it was intended to be there in the second box, AND the content is available from the webstore with a simple e-mail... you've got yourself an answer then, methinks! :)
I think that's why there was so much antagonism on the thread - it seemed that virtually no-one was willing to weigh in on the debate; just arbitrarily deny the merge.
+1 for merging. If there's no way to tell the difference between the two, then they can't really be separate releases. The existence of a card is not a reliable way to differentiate releases, IMHO.
I think we were getting the measure of the feelings of voters and it would appear only for merging posted here. So I guess do we go for another merge request.
My guess is though it get turned down again.
If they really could be distinguished from each other then I would disagree with merge.
As they cannot other than the card ifs and buts and as I said that can be mentioned in the Notes.
Otherwise every release out there where some have an advertising insert in the packaging or not would also need to be split. I usually just say some may come with an additional advertising leaflet. When all the other data matches it seems fine to me.
I really wish that maybe one of the staff could state what they think then we will all take their decision either way.
The trouble is there are no matrix/run-outs listed in the first version. Mine are still sealed as, knowing my luck, the needle would decide to scratch them to blazes on the first play.
We need someone else who bought the box before this year to compare their matrices.
As a footnote, whenever I've tried adding bits, the super-anals have had a right go at me, so most of my collection doesn't match what's published in here.
WallaceEMann
The trouble is there are no matrix/run-outs listed in the first version. Mine are still sealed as, knowing my luck, the needle would decide to scratch them to blazes on the first play.
We need someone else who bought the box before this year to compare their matrices.
A different matrix/runout doesn't automatically mean a seperate submission on Discogs!
WallaceEMann
the super-anals have had a right go at me
my two /ot cents: after giving a quick look at your subs (a bit more specifically the extreme one), those you called super-anals were right, as they just respected this site guidelines.
/ot
'Funny' thing is that all those NO-voters, can't wait to cast NO-votes again and again each time a merge process is started, but they don't bother to participate in this forum discussion (which was clearly announced in the submission history!) to explain their reasons.
In my book, if you don't participate in the discussion you have lost the right to say something once a decision is made. nearperfection ?
Where were you when this was discussed here in the forums ??????
JeroenG8
'Funny' thing is that all those NO-voters, can't wait to cast NO-votes
it's getting more and more common: they're among the hundreds of other (often low ranking s) that don't even care to know how things work here.
that's why, as time goes by this database keeps getting more and more frustrating to deal with.
There is a gap of 4 years between the two editions. Although they are identical, the time lapse itself justify (for me at leat) why the two edition should not be merged. I understand your frustration but we are professionals and the collecting is a hobby. We cannot be above a pc to follow the discussion.
JeroenG8
'Funny' thing is that all those NO-voters, can't wait to cast NO-votes again and again each time a merge process is started, but they don't bother to participate in this forum discussion (which was clearly announced in the submission history!) to explain their reasons.
In my book, if you don't participate in the discussion you have lost the right to say something once a decision is made.
cawkyuk ?
christos2b ?
zeit_maschine ?
KMFDM23 ?
ruvo79 ?
Music-Donkey ?
nearperfection ?
Where were you when this was discussed here in the forums ??????
And another NO-voter that never participated in the forum discussion and gave zero reasons for voting NO. zepp69
christos2b
here is a gap of 4 years between the two editions. Although they are identical, the time lapse itself justify (for me at leat) why the two edition should not be merged.
Then explain to us HOW we can see the DIFFERENCE between the two editions.......
Discogs guidelines are crystal clear: A seperate submission is only valid if there is a visual difference.
And that a different matrix alone does NOT warrant a seperate submission either per Discogs guidelines.
christos2b
There is a gap of 4 years between the two editions. Although they are identical, the time lapse itself justify (for me at leat) why the two edition should not be merged.
things here work quite differently, please read the guidelines.
To me, as i have seen multiple times that people tried to make the two variants get merged, and it still isn't, would give me a sign to not do it. PLUS, there is a 4 year gap. As far as i know we call it a rerelease or reissue. And so, as far as i know that would not make the original and the later version the same. And yes, i used exclamation marks in my notes, because it is the whatever time again people try to merge the items. Merging has been so many times declined soni think we should let it rest and not merge....
This is clearly going to remain deadlocked. We need Staff input to make a ruling to resolve this.
christos2b
There is a gap of 4 years between the two editions. Although they are identical, the time lapse itself justify (for me at leat) why the two edition should not be merged. I understand your frustration but we are professionals and the collecting is a hobby. We cannot be above a pc to follow the discussion.
So, I have a copy of the second edition and have thrown the card away. Which version do I sell it under, seeing as they’re identical?
Sadly that will not happen. I tried to start this forum discussion with a neutral thought process but this appears a waste of time. My original box had a very random colour on the the gray disc. Should I raise a new sub because of that.
Look same presses masters and packaging used. If anythink the 2019 repress would be a lower quality as worn stampers. It will never become an investment so if that is why you object to a merge then you will be disappointed.
asrogger
it's getting more and more common: they're among the hundreds of other (often low ranking s) that don't even care to know how things work here.
that's why, as time goes by this database keeps getting more and more frustrating to deal with.
We try to. But the smallest of mistakes and we get laid into.
For me collecting is fun and I want to be able to safely catalogue what I have for free. I try to learn about how things work here (I now have a print out of how to do things to avoid making previous errors) but I'm too scared to try again because of fear of reprisals, especially the rudeness/holier than thou attitude, which has sapped a lot of my fun of collecting.
As a result I'm looking for another free cross platform database to use.
Finally, I couldn't give two hoots if they're merged or not. Let Discogs staff decide - without applying pressure on them - and be done with it.
Pheenixx
This is clearly going to remain deadlocked. We need Staff input to make a ruling to resolve this.
christos2bThere is a gap of 4 years between the two editions. Although they are identical, the time lapse itself justify (for me at leat) why the two edition should not be merged. I understand your frustration but we are professionals and the collecting is a hobby. We cannot be above a pc to follow the discussion.
So, I have a copy of the second edition and have thrown the card away. Which version do I sell it under, seeing as they’re identical?
If you are a decent seller, you will tell to the buyer which version you sell. Personally I bought the 2015 version at the same time they released the 2019 edition. I did not know that there won't be any differences between the two editions. I just wanted the first edition even I had to pay more. So one more argument for my NO is that I want to keep the two editions separate in order to protect my investment. Just like you, you made an investment and you want to gain profit by merging the two editions, it is my right to protect mine.
I think we need to really keep discogs a music database and attempt accuracy and hopefully learn more about the music we.
Please don't ever vote for financial reasons. The people that make money out of all the releases we see are the music conglomerates.
Buy for one reason only, you want the music.
Vote for one reason, accuracy.
Just think about all the time we lose when we could be improving things on the database.
Another No vote, this shouldn't need staff input as it is pretty straightforward, but at this rate this will stay locked until expired. The nay sayers are too stubborn to listen, so staff ruling needed to get this sorted
take22
Another No vote, this shouldn't need staff input as it is pretty straightforward, but at this rate this will stay locked until expired. The nay sayers are too stubborn to listen, so staff ruling needed to get this sorted
And again someone who didn't participate in the forum discussion and gave zero reasons for voting NO. Dj_Vinni_V, explain please ?
I'm afraid staff interference is indeed needed.
Can somebody make a SR for this?
IMO many of those No votes are for decoration, ie votes from owners that don't have voting privileges and those don't actually count towards the final decision. In other words, it may not be completely deadlocked.
But some staff input might be helpful, like in 30 or 250 other recent threads.
what i find really ridiculous, if not a joke, is that s who ed three months ago, with 0 contributions and 0 rank points (!!) can vote on merge reqs.
i mean, voting rights should be earned (and kept) by contributing to the database, not by talking about profit.
Hang in there. We can only keep plugging away. There may be some new people comming along with a sensible approach. Sometimes you have just to turn a blind eye.
Where is that coming from?
You just keep the initial release date and mention in notes: repressed in 2019.
Like it's done all over the database for identical represses.
Pheenixx
JeroenG8none of the NO voters cared to discuss the merge in this topic.
Be fair, Music-Donkey made some comments here.... but hasn't returned to address the questions he's been asked since.
I think i go with Idgent:
Merging the original and repress versions makes the submission dateless. The original release date can no longer be used in that case.
Merging the original and repress versions makes the submission dateless. The original release date can no longer be used in that case.
Which is wrong per Discogs guidelines:
_jules
Where is that coming from?
You just keep the initial release date and mention in notes: repressed in 2019.
Like it's done all over the database for identical represses.
I genuinly don't see the difference between 'Queen - Bohemian Rhapsody (The Original Soundtrack)' originally released in 2018 and probably already identically repressed several times in 2019.
Both are releases that have been repressed without changing anything to the release.
But I do think that I know where this whole discussion is coming from.
The 2015 release of 'Queen - Studio Collection' was presented as a release that would be only available for a limited time, and now that it's being repressed after all, buyers that bought the initial 2015 press are afraid that their copy would decrease in value when it's being merged with the later repress. Well, then I've got news for you: When it was repressed value already has decreased, regardless if the Discogs-submission get merged or not. Rejecting the merge process won't change this.
This is all really silly isn't it.
1. Just merge it
2. Make a note in Notes that there was a 2019 repress minus the card if it makes you happy
3. Except you all made a loss the day you bought it. You normally will.
4. Just play and enjoy the music.
5. Move on and add value to Discogs.
This is all really silly isn't it.
1. Just merge it
2. Make a note in Notes that there was a 2019 repress minus the card if it makes you happy
3. Accept you all made a loss the day you bought it. You normally will.
4. Just play and enjoy the music.
5. Move on and add value to Discogs.
AgentCat00
1. Just merge it
2. Make a note in Notes that there was a 2019 repress minus the card if it makes you happy
This.
And for everyone voting 'no', please explain how an owner of these box sets can distinguish between the two releases. From everything I've read, you can't. Therefore, it makes zero sense to keep them as separate releases if they are essentially exactly the same.
Music-Donkey
Merging the original and repress versions makes the submission dateless. The original release date can no longer be used in that case.
If I follow correctly, it can be used - and a note simply added about the repress.
After a long time I've learned to accept that a Discogs entry isn't required to be a 100% accurate representation of an item, but more of a ballpark one sometimes - given that many represses can be consolidated into one single entry if there's not enough of a manufacturing variation to warrant a unique entry (regardless of the fact that the date entered for the release clearly won't likely truly cover all such variations in that single entry).
My two cents after suggesting a forum discussion 23 days ago...
Apart from the different year of issue (which is not carried on the repress) I have yet to see any contribution from no voters explaining why there should be separate subs.
There IS a code available with the repress.
There are possibly minor matrix variations (a common thing for a repress) but NONE of this data has been sub'd and the guidelines say that minor matrix variations do not require their own sub.
Until proponents of the 2019 repress can show some VISIBLE DIFFERENCE between the subs then the merge should go ahead.
I feel a lot of this to and fro is about future values / resale etc.
Music-Donkey
I don't know, but did all YES-voters have given a contribution to the discussion? If the NO voters should, the YES voters should also, right?
why should they need to? By voting yes, s are agreeing with the reason for the merge, why do they need to reiterate this by posting here?
Music-Donkey
Maybe to show us WHY merging should be with this release.
Cool name used in Discogs but your profile states "Do i make a mistake? be free to tell so i can learn"
I think we have been trying. It will be impossible to agree with everything. A merge request by nature means that it is believed it is identical. The responsibility is the No vote to point out where there is a valid difference if it has been missed. It happens sometimes and a merge then fails.
Pheenixx
Music-DonkeyMaybe to show us WHY merging should be with this release.
It's all been explained above, repeatedly. Have you even read this thread?
Yes i did have. And to me it is all clear. But for some people, after reading it could be not. :)
AgentCat00
Music-DonkeyMaybe to show us WHY merging should be with this release.
Cool name used in Discogs but your profile states "Do i make a mistake? be free to tell so i can learn"
I think we have been trying. It will be impossible to agree with everything. A merge request by nature means that it is believed it is identical. The responsibility is the No vote to point out where there is a valid difference if it has been missed. It happens sometimes and a merge then fails.
Sadly very true. Some people just like collecting votes and clicking for the sake of it. The invention of the Like or similar button was a bad invention.
asrogger
i'm afraid that posting this merge on merge help thread would multiply the decoration votes....
I don't think it will, quite the contrary, it's "real voters" who check that thread ie those whose vote count in full towards a resolution because they don't have a one-off access to the button based on having item(s) in their collection.
As I first started to read this discussion I was like "Hell no, don't merge". At the end there were some really interesting facts I didnt know and my opinion changed. I have (at least I think I have) the 2nd 2016 edition even I cant tell the difference.
So, if I could vote I now would vote Yes...
AgentCat00
Yes and the last No has 0 rank points since 2013
so there was another No vote after my last post, argh. Why don't people read the history page instead of just blindly voting? Link to thread even given twice there, this should have gone through days ago, it's getting annoying now.
AgentCat00
So true and for just such a small thing.
And just think of it that after this merge is done, we have to do another similar merge with 'Queen - Studio Collection' as well, which will probably cause havoc again.
Documenting voting behavior for later use:
iamtheresurrection - Yes (7 days ago)
cawkyuk - No (7 days ago)
Pheenixx - Yes (7 days ago)
christos2b - No (7 days ago)
zeit_maschine - No (7 days ago)
mccontrol - Yes (7 days ago)
JeroenG8 - Yes (7 days ago)
mr_mando - Yes (7 days ago)
KMFDM23 - No (7 days ago)
Twelfth-Night - Yes (7 days ago)
SpyderTracks - Yes (6 days ago)
ruvo79 - No (6 days ago)
blutwoschd - Yes (6 days ago)
Music-Donkey - No (6 days ago)
nearperfection - No (6 days ago)
tkrwm - Yes (6 days ago)
velove - Yes (6 days ago)
AgentCat00 - Yes (6 days ago)
zepp69 - No (6 days ago)
_jules - Yes (6 days ago)
take22 - Yes (6 days ago)
ChrisEfterklang - Yes (6 days ago)
aldoxzx - Yes (6 days ago)
hmvdale - Yes (6 days ago)
ryp71 - Yes (6 days ago)
vinyl_fred - Yes (6 days ago)
Redspesial - Yes (6 days ago)
hatfulofelt - Yes (6 days ago)
oldschoolkid524 - Yes (6 days ago)
Dj_Vinni_V - No (6 days ago)
MissingPlanet - Yes (6 days ago)
meberl - Yes (6 days ago)
ldgendt - No (6 days ago)
7jlong - Yes (5 days ago)
Silver69 - Yes (5 days ago)
The_Beatles. - Yes (4 days ago)
Biker27 - No (4 days ago)
hafler3o - Yes (4 days ago)
bobpitman - Yes (4 days ago)
kkuenz56 - Yes (4 days ago)
allerhande - Yes (3 days ago)
FredBas - Yes (3 days ago)
QueenMuseum - Yes (3 days ago)
NOIZE_KIOSK - Yes (3 days ago)
mvcosta - Yes (2 days ago)
bydrum - No (2 days ago)
Plastic-Man - Yes (2 days ago)
typoman2 - Yes (1 day ago)
Aloysius2001 - Yes (1 day ago)
123stuba - No (1 day ago)
If this isn't voted through, I'm considering filing a Request for violation of guidelines by no voters.
JeroenG8
Another yes voted is added...
I have PM'd some 'friend s' and asked them to vote, hope that helps.
The no voters won't get through this time, but we still need another 14 yes votes for this to be merged, provided that all votes left until now really count.
take22
It's A Hard Life, don't let it turn you gaga or Stone Cold Crazy. If you're going slightly mad, feel Under Pressure, just Play The Game, Keep Yourself Alive, and you will have a Breakthru. The Show Must Go On, rely on your Staying Power.
