EDIT (28.09.22):
Thread rendered useless thanks to some people insisting on strict RSG enforcement and blocking every attempt to come to a feasible solution. No more voting required.
The proposed guidance is meant to complement RSG §5.9, not circumvent it.
BAOI descriptions are not forbidden but for the sake of legibility,
- do not add "etched" or "stamped", etc. to the runout descriptions unless this is important to distinguish releases,
- in case of 2 or more variants, the BAOI descriptions should be moved to the Release Notes,
- complex descriptions (e.g. some parts are etched and others are stamped) should be in the Release Notes,
- only edit BAOI descriptions when other corrections are required,
- do not change the descriptions e.g. from "Runout side A" to "A-side runout".
Beware: simply removing existing BAOI descriptions could be voted EI as preference edit.
------------------
Original post:
After numerous discussions in various threads on how the BAOI description fields should be used, two compromises have been found and were subsequently added to the current guidance for runouts as follows:
4) The BAOI description fields should be used for very short notes only: "Runout side x, stamped / etched, variant #" (where necessary).
Complex runouts (e.g. 2 or more parts of the matrix are etched while others are stamped, etc.) should be described in the Release Notes. See example here.
The "Runout guideline" was a first compromise for all those who consider etched or stamped important (and previously have created dedicated BAOI lines for etched parts and for stamped parts). And the second, recent compromise, was to also allow brief differentiations for etched and stamped parts (also serving as preservation of the status quo for many such entries).
However, this second compromise is still disputed. Oggers have complained that legibility suffers, that descriptions are longer than the BAOI fields themselves, etc.
Therefore I thought I have this discussed and decided again in a dedicated thread, which may then serve as future reference [EDIT:] and may also be adopted by RSG §5.9.
So, let's come to a definitive solution on BAOI descriptions then!
Variant 1: "Etched" or "stamped" or "etched / stamped" only
Example: "Runout side A, etched / stamped, variant x".
Variant 2: Also short differentiations for etched and stamped parts
Example: "Runout side A, etched; SAE MASTERING stamped". Or "Runout side A, stamped, UTOPIA etched".
Variant 3: No distinction at all
Example: "Runout side A, variant x".
Archived status as per 01 July 2022:
103 votes, for
var. 1: 4 (3 %)
var. 2: 41 (40 %)
var. 3: 56 (54 %)
Undecided: 3 (3%)
For some here, 54% isn't a majority though but draw your own conclusions.
sebfact
Variant 2: Also short differentiations for etched and stamped parts
Example: "Runout side A, etched; SAE MASTERING stamped". Or "Runout side A, stamped, UTOPIA etched".
Variant 2: Also short differentiations for etched and stamped parts
Example: "Runout side A, etched; SAE MASTERING stamped". Or "Runout side A, stamped, UTOPIA etched".
sebfact
Variant 1: "Etched" or "stamped" or "etched / stamped" only
Example: "Runout side A, etched / stamped, variant x".
No, lack of information.
sebfact
Variant 2: Also short differentiations for etched and stamped parts
Example: "Runout side A, etched; SAE MASTERING stamped". Or "Runout side A, stamped, UTOPIA etched".
This one for me ^
sebfact
Variant 3: No distinction at all
Example: "Runout side A, variant x".
sebfact
Variant 1: "Etched" or "stamped" or "etched / stamped" only
Example: "Runout side A, etched / stamped, variant x".
I prefer this and if requried I add more info to notes (same as it was previously worded in your guidance).
sebfact
Variant 2: Also short differentiations for etched and stamped parts
Example: "Runout side A, etched; SAE MASTERING stamped". Or "Runout side A, stamped, UTOPIA etched".
I can live with that compromise, but it should be limited to very short ones. I also don't like longer descriptions than baoi fields themselves.
I like option 2.
If the entire string is etched or stamped, I feel like either the submission or release notes should suffice.
But what's best when descriptions need to be longer? Notes?
I've run into places with half etched and half stamped and end up entering half the string in the description. It does feel like it's cluttering up the description field, especially when variants appear.
I'm sorry I don't have a good example on hand, but I'm sure you've come across this as well.
sebfact
Variant 2: Also short differentiations for etched and stamped parts
Example: "Runout side A, etched; SAE MASTERING stamped". Or "Runout side A, stamped, UTOPIA etched".
A thousand times this. I would always expect the descriptions in the descriptions field. I can buy that if an essay is needed, move brunt of it to notes...
cereal
I can live with that compromise, but it should be limited to very short ones. I also don't like longer descriptions than baoi fields themselves.
Agree, can live with that. I have done so in the past, basically just following others' example.
But more and more I have been getting annoyed with runouts that don't fit on one line because of this and especially long lists of variants that don't align because of these different descriptions. (Also, repeating parts from runouts verbatim in their description makes long lists even more confusing to look at.)
So if we're really going to vote on the preference than:
sebfact
Variant 1: "Etched" or "stamped" or "etched / stamped" only
Not 3, because after all there is a description field for BaOI so those who want to describe it (briefly) should be able to make use of the appropriate field).
rdvriese
Not 3, because after all there is a description field for BaOI so those who want to describe it (briefly) should be able to make use of the appropriate field).
Sure, but Runout side X is also a nice description. To compare, you don't often see people describing the way IFPI is marked/written for SID codes.
Violent-Power
To compare, you don't often see people describing the way IFPI is marked/written for SID codes.
I honestly wouldn't even have an idea how this is done either :-)
In fact, as it turned out in one of those other threads that brought this up, I (together with many others) am not even capable of recognizing a stamped from a laser-etched runout. So who knows how many errors based on this are out there anyway...
rdvriese
I (together with many others) am not even capable of recognizing a stamped from a laser-etched runout.
It feels a bit redundant to add "GZ runouts are always laser etched" to the GZ profiles, and then we can all add "laser etched" to their runout descriptions. But if that's what people want (and it seems it is) I'm not against it.
sebfact
Variant 2: Also short differentiations for etched and stamped parts
Example: "Runout side A, etched; SAE MASTERING stamped". Or "Runout side A, stamped, UTOPIA etched".
My preference would be to add all descriptions to the descrition field no matter how long or ”unreadable” it gets as it is a dedicated field for that and staff ( at least nik have advised us not to do work arounds for display issues. )
But I also know I’m not in the majority here. Variant 2 is a good compromise for me.
According to Columbia Records Pressing Plant, Pitman's P stamp, etc. These are all not arbitrarily stamped strings, but stamps with a certain letter font and size and belong therefore (IMO) in the field itself (just like logo's). For other information (e.g. stamped matrix numbers) the stamped indication could be added to the description.
I agree, especially when there are long etchings paired with long stamps, add to that a scratched out symbol, or some letters mirrored, and it's awful from UX point of view.
sebfact
Variant 2: Also short differentiations for etched and stamped parts
Example: "Runout side A, etched; SAE MASTERING stamped". Or "Runout side A, stamped, UTOPIA etched".
100% Yes.
Absolutely against adding laser. To tell the difference between stamped and etched is relatively easy. Determining laser is difficult.
I'd suggest leaving off the word Runout altogether. Matrix/Runout is already in the field name. The only other time that field is used is for Label characters (and adding Side A, Label is simple).
Thanks for bringing this up in such a concise way.
I have yet to see more than maybe one or two examples where the same bit of runout info was stamped on one copy and etched on another. And in the end those weren't split as unique versions here. It seems so incredibly arbitrary to describe this detail.
So I’m +1 on your variant #3 above. I would be okay with compromising one #1, and dislike #2.
thank you for taking time and care of this, sebfact !
sebfact
Variant 1: "Etched" or "stamped" or "etched / stamped" only
Example: "Runout side A, etched / stamped, variant x".
’etched’ or ‘stamped’ only, do not matter (imo) !!!
‘etched / stamped’ are pointless in baoi fields, if described in notes (imo).
sebfact
Variant 2: Also short differentiations for etched and stamped parts
Example: "Runout side A, etched; SAE MASTERING stamped". Or "Runout side A, stamped, UTOPIA etched".
should belong to the notes, since this DTF post (3 years ago...). would say : ’where usual lccn cap’ rules should be applied’, by the way ! also, such updates are easily editable (‘corrigeable’) by each one of us (imo).
sebfact
Variant 3: No distinction at all
Example: "Runout side A, variant x".
+ ONE !!! apart if rogs are 100% stamped or 100% etched, respective descriptions should appear in baoi and stylized etchings and / or stamps should belong to the notes (imo).
dlebryk
I'd suggest leaving off the word Runout altogether. Matrix/Runout is already in the field name. The only other time that field is used is for Label characters (and adding Side A, Label is simple).
Been there, done that ... wasn't appreciated.
cereal
As for now it is up to the submitter/contributor to choose, if they add "runout" and/or "side" into the description field, but once added it must not be removed (valid info).
sebfact
Variant 3: No distinction at all
Example: "Runout side A, variant x".
This is my de riguer entry now, and here are my reasons why.
1. On explaining stamped vs. etched portions of runouts in BaOI descriptionfields, Diognes_The_Fox says in this Forum thread:
"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."
DtF’s statement describes his feeling, which I share, that making the distinction is generally not useful. Granted, my expertise is in US records; European or Asian pressings may be different. Note his use of the phrase “extreme cases”. I myself can think of very few, most of them bootlegs where the legitimate record’s runouts were stamped but the boot is etched.
2. The difference is visible when you are physically examining the runouts visually, yes? And if you are looking right at them, then there is no need to have the distinction in the Discogs sub, because it is in front of your eyes.
My only concession is when identifying the pressing plant ID in release notes, with a cross-link to the plant profile. I’ve never had anyone complain that one of my contributions is incomplete or unidentifiable because it lacks “etched vs. stamped” in BaOI descriptions.
As I’ve said in other threads, I think the entire issue is a holdover from the days before RSG §5.3c, when people obsessively separated the stamped and etched portions of runouts simply because it was allowed - and not because doing so imparted any special knowledge.
dlebryk
I'd suggest leaving off the word Runout altogether. Matrix/Runout is already in the field name. The only other time that field is used is for Label characters (and adding Side A, Label is simple).
Disagree here, I've seen way too many times people adding label info with just "Side A:"
sebfact
Variant 3: No distinction at all
Example: "Runout side A, variant x".
This is what I would propose be the cleanest, easiest way to mark the BaOI Fields, and any other important information should go into the Release Notes.
As soon as you get above two variations of a Runout/Matrix on a release all other options look not just cluttered but have consistently led to confusion, multiple of the same variant being added, and making the release difficult to interpret.
We don't apply the differentiation of text on CDs the same way - we don't add "small font, subscript, superscript" descriptors to CD Matrix info the same way we do Vinyl and I've never seen anyone care. Calling it out on vinyl is largely unnecessary. Is there an example anywhere where knowing if a portion was etched or stamped has helped or differentiated a release?
Variant 1. Not opposed to Variant 3 as I've never encountered a situation where knowing something is stamped or etched has improved my life, but I understand the argument that it's data and should be captured.
What I would like to see is the nixing of releases that have 17 variants and every single description includes text along the lines of "STRAWBERRY is stamped". Put it in the RN and keep the description clean.
sebfact
Variant 3: No distinction at all
Example: "Runout side A, variant x".
I'm in favor of 'keeping the description fields clean'.
There should be only few cases where distinction is crucial and can go to notes; as suggested before.
Thankssebfact for your work on runout regulation. It also is important, if there is a broad agreement here (hopefully), to suggest how to deal with existing (cluttered) runout descriptors. Only revise/clean them when adding information to BaOI (implying that one can complain valid information is been removed) or leave the existing scheme as it is.
sebfact
Variant 3: No distinction at all
Example: "Runout side A, variant x".
I'm most in favour of this.
Just simply the complete runout in baoi.
And the notes to explain any further details.
It helps readability of the boai fields.
The notes have a lot more possibility to actually describe any further details in words that are actually clear and nuanced.
Above that, they can describe all variants at once and thus avoid repetition in the baoi field of similar descriptions for all runouts.
Using additional baoi fields to (additionally) declare parts of the runouts is also ok. (For instance isolating the matrix#, pressing plant identifier, ...)
Especially when multiple variants are entered, it really looks a bit amateurish to have descriptions repeated for all variants. Especially when the same description is not always entered in the same words.
sebfact
Variant 1: "Etched" or "stamped" or "etched / stamped" only
Example: "Runout side A, etched / stamped, variant x".
I could live with this too
sebfact
Variant 2: Also short differentiations for etched and stamped parts
Example: "Runout side A, etched; SAE MASTERING stamped". Or "Runout side A, stamped, UTOPIA etched".
But not this, this is just too messy. It's the point where the notes are far more efficient and readable.
cellularsmoke
This is what I would propose be the cleanest, easiest way to mark the BaOI Fields, and any other important information should go into the Release Notes.
As soon as you get above two variations of a Runout/Matrix on a release all other options look not just cluttered but have consistently led to confusion, multiple of the same variant being added, and making the release difficult to interpret.
We don't apply the differentiation of text on CDs the same way - we don't add "small font, subscript, superscript" descriptors to CD Matrix info the same way we do Vinyl and I've never seen anyone care. Calling it out on vinyl is largely unnecessary. Is there an example anywhere where knowing if a portion was etched or stamped has helped or differentiated a release?
sebfact
Variant 2: Also short differentiations for etched and stamped parts
Example: "Runout side A, etched; SAE MASTERING stamped". Or "Runout side A, stamped, UTOPIA etched".
This one
Take a look at Hölderlin* - Hölderlins Traum rare but it happens. If we use 1 or 2 we will loose this kind of variants.
sebfact
Variant 3: No distinction at all
Example: "Runout side A, variant x".
This is my strong preference, with details, as required, in Notes.
sebfact
Variant 1: "Etched" or "stamped" or "etched / stamped" only
Example: "Runout side A, etched / stamped, variant x".
Is my relatively happy 'compromise choice'. It still stops the Description field from being longer than what it's describing, in most cases.
My only minor 'objection' is, yes, it's information, but is it relevant information? I'm pretty firmly in the camp of
baldorr
I have yet to see more than maybe one or two examples where the same bit of runout info was stamped on one copy and etched on another. And in the end those weren't split as unique versions here. It seems so incredibly arbitrary to describe this detail.
and
Showbiz_Kid
On explaining stamped vs. etched portions of runouts in BaOI descriptionfields, Diognes_The_Fox says in this Forum thread:
"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."
Also agree that we absolutely need to keep using 'Runout' (or 'Label' as appropriate):
a) where the string appears is probably the most important thing to mention, in my opinion
b) the contents of the runout are very often more than just the matrix numbers
kjmahee
What I would like to see is the nixing of releases that have 17 variants and every single description includes text along the lines of "STRAWBERRY is stamped". Put it in the RN and keep the description clean.
+1 and 'amen' to that!
It's bad enough that we've got instances like at The Wall, with
"TML-M in runouts is stamped, rest is etched.
1VΛ, 2=, 3=Λ and 1Λ= in runouts are mirrored." in Notes and
"Matrix / Runout (Etched / machine stamp runout side A): 0298861 A RE1 TML-M BB50619-01 A2 1VΛ," etc., in Matrix/Runout.
I'm aware that we might have been advised "not to do work arounds for display issues," but a description that's longer than the runout string and features fractured parts of that string makes the information difficult to decipher (particularly where it ends up going over one line just because of the description).
If we allow 'short' notes on what parts are done in what way, I think we open ourselves up to endless bickering about what constitutes "short".
Variant 2.
Only variant 2 allows you to clearly understand what exactly and in what way is applied in a full line. It is possible to explain this through the release notes but when there are many variants this method becomes much more complicated. In addition, it is inconvenient to have the content of the inscriptions in one section of the submission, and the description for them in another section.
Just another 2c for the "no descriptions in description field please, because I can't read all the BaOI then"-crowd: in a database, how does it help to move information to an unstructured, free text field where there's no governance on in which order things should be noted and no formatting? The "description" field is basically a "notes" field - only it refers to one single item of data. Why not use it to describe this data???
poorlonesomecowboy
The "description" field is basically a "notes" field - only it refers to one single item of data. Why not use it to describe this data???
Because of
rdvriese
But more and more I have been getting annoyed with runouts that don't fit on one line because of this and especially long lists of variants that don't align because of these different descriptions.
and
zin
I agree, especially when there are long etchings paired with long stamps, add to that a scratched out symbol, or some letters mirrored, and it's awful from UX point of view.
and
cellularsmoke
As soon as you get above two variations of a Runout/Matrix on a release all other options look not just cluttered but have consistently led to confusion, multiple of the same variant being added, and making the release difficult to interpret.
BertVinyl56
poorlonesomecowboy
The "description" field is basically a "notes" field - only it refers to one single item of data. Why not use it to describe this data???
Because of rdvriese
But more and more I have been getting annoyed with runouts that don't fit on one line because of this and especially long lists of variants that don't align because of these different descriptions.
Aha - what if I have been increasingly annoyed about the massive amounts of text in the Notes field then?
and zin
I agree, especially when there are long etchings paired with long stamps, add to that a scratched out symbol, or some letters mirrored, and it's awful from UX point of view.
This should be largely unapplicable when we no longer use unicode in the fields.
and cellularsmoke
As soon as you get above two variations of a Runout/Matrix on a release all other options look not just cluttered but have consistently led to confusion, multiple of the same variant being added, and making the release difficult to interpret.
This is what the search function is for though, right? This is why we try to get the data fields themselves clean.
and Dr.SultanAszazin
It helps readability of the boai fields.
Again, search function. And less characters in description field does not really help data field readability, does it?
That is what I said! Only - it relates to one single point of data, not "any factual, objective notes about the release, or to list information that cannot be entered into other dedicated fields."
Are you suggesting we simply remove the description field(s)?
kjmahee
What I would like to see is the nixing of releases that have 17 variants and every single description includes text along the lines of "STRAWBERRY is stamped". Put it in the RN and keep the description clean.
Oh yes, agree with this. However, in a more complicated case than "Strawberry" what about entering of subsequent variants? If you have 5 of them and in notes "Z in runouts is mirrored and etched for all variants". Will the submitter of variant 6 note/confirm this? And how do we know they did? The reason I ask is that one argument for not having descriptions in description fields is that it makes it hard to read and can lead to mistakes....
I'm struggling with what point you are making then. No matter.
poorlonesomecowboy
If you have 5 of them and in notes "Z in runouts is mirrored and etched for all variants". Will the submitter of variant 6 note/confirm this?
If the 6th submitter is to submit valid data then absolutely they need to review the RN and ensure that what they are submitting is in line with the existing Notes or expand on the Notes to cover their sub. That should already be happening across all data for a release. There is no automated validation of the data entered into RN or Descriptions so anything can go in there. A lousy submitter can not check the Notes just as much as they can copy/paste the description from one of the other variants to their own without checking whether it does indeed apply.
poorlonesomecowboy
And how do we know they did? The reason I ask is that one argument for not having descriptions in description fields is that it makes it hard to read and can lead to mistakes....
"Can lead to mistakes" is an argument but not one I am particularly invested in. People don't need help/hindrance in cocking up a sub and without some form of automated validation (not going to happen) then it is down to everyone to police it as it is now, for better or worse.
I think variant 2 would lead to more discussion what a "short differentiation" is...
And you have no unified proceeding for all releases: Some stamped/etched info is in description field some in RN.
A database should be read easily, having the info not always at the same place is the opposite of a database.
DINOSGR
Take a look at Hölderlin* - Hölderlins Traum rare but it happens. If we use 1 or 2 we will loose this kind of variants.
I'm not sure those are even variants - I'm pretty sure Variants 2 & 3 are the same; The only thing that differentiates Variant 1 is the "||" part. And I'm pretty sure that mess of "variants" is there specifically because of the poor notation of stamped vs etched in the BaOI descriptors. A full and proper description in the Release Notes of what parts are etched vs stamped could avoid all that confusion.
That's the way that you get clean data. IMO would also be welcomed for recording Variant numbers (not a dropdown - but a specific field for recording the variant number) and would also allow different visualisations of Variants specifically for M/R, Mastering SID and Mould SID data on CDs rather than the data entry determining the visualisation of that data.
Dr.SultanAszazin
Personally I also prefer to use v1, v2, ... instead of variant 1, variant 2.
kjmahee
If one is on Team Anti-Variant-2 then Variants 1 and 3 may end up splitting the vote!
Exactly what I was thinking:
sebfact
Status as per 25.11.21 7:45pm (my time):
Var. 1: 10
Var. 2: 15
Var. 3: 13
Not to be purposely awkward, but to play Devil's advocate a little (and this will always be the problem with a choice of 3 options):
This could be construed as 23 to 15 against allowing anything beyond "Etched" or "stamped" or "etched / stamped" or
(at a bit more of a stretch), clear votes against one of the other 3 options.
sebfact
Variant 3: No distinction at all
Example: "Runout side A, variant x".
+1
This has become my preference (and yes, it took some time as a contributor to get there...).
As others have stated above, anything else becomes a judgment call/preference as to what is short, what is needed to be documented, what is extraneous. And attempts to try to be brief but feature-encoming in descriptions often lead to very cryptic abbreviations or symbols that make it very difficult to read or understand.
sebfact
Variant 2: Also short differentiations for etched and stamped parts
Example: "Runout side A, etched; SAE MASTERING stamped". Or "Runout side A, stamped, UTOPIA etched".
One of my concerns here is that with all these prevalent mastering firms' stamps appear identically on all their releases, does the database benefit from it being described 100,000 times as stamped? Or for those who want to learn more about why a company appears in LCCN, they can simply go to that label page.
Somewhat similar, we already prevent speed from being added to LP in format, FTF from being used to describe "Gatefold" when an entire release is gatefold, and FTF from describing "vinyl" as "vinyl" or black vinyl as a carrier color. There are many things that are taken as understood in the database. I think we can consider that "TML-X," "TML-M," "Masterdisk," etc., are stamped as one of those.
rdvriese
(Also, repeating parts from runouts verbatim in their description makes long lists even more confusing to look at.)
Same point. And while some may consider all the additional runout description as "data" in and of itself (as far as Discogs is concerned), I actually see it only as a description of data. But that's probably another topic...
This. I still see value here from a usability standpoint. Until BaOI dropdown labels are split to differentiate between runout (deadwax) and printed matter on media, descriptions are needed to identify the data's location.
sebfact
Variant 3: No distinction at all
Example: "Runout side A, variant x".
This is my de riguer entry now, and here are my reasons why.
1. On explaining stamped vs. etched portions of runouts in BaOI descriptionfields, Diognes_The_Fox says in [url= https://discogs.programascracks.com/forum/thread/779522#7732376]this Forum thread[/url]:
"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."
DtF’s statement describes his feeling, which I share, that making the distinction is generally not useful. Granted, my expertise is in US records; European or Asian pressings may be different. Note his use of the phrase “extreme cases”. I myself can think of very few, most of them bootlegs where the legitimate record’s runouts were stamped but the boot is etched.
2. The difference is visible when you are physically examining the runouts visually, yes? And if you are looking right at them, then there is no need to have the distinction in the Discogs sub, because it is in front of your eyes.
My only concession is when identifying the pressing plant ID in release notes, with a cross-link to the plant profile. I’ve never had anyone so plain that one of my contributions is incomplete or unidentifiable because it lacks “etched vs. stamped” in BaOI descriptions.
As I’ve said in other threads, I think the entire issue is a holdover from the days before RSG §5.3c, when people obsessively separated the stamped and etched portions of runouts simply because it was allowed - and not because doing so imparted any special knowledge.
+1
My sentiments as well.
Etched/stamped CAN be useful in understanding a release that I don't have myself, but more or less, only really, really, "valid" with bootleg/counterfeit items.
poorlonesomecowboy
what about entering of subsequent variants? If you have 5 of them and in notes "Z in runouts is mirrored and etched for all variants". Will the submitter of variant 6 note/confirm this? And how do we know they did? The reason I ask is that one argument for not having descriptions in description fields is that it makes it hard to read and can lead to mistakes....
And I have to once more point out that capturing “data” just to say we did is not useful or desirable. A demonstrable benefit must be conferred by such action, and 9,999 times out of 10,000, this is not so.
And again - if you’re LOOKING at your runouts (which you ought to be) you can see with your own eyes what’s what.
kjmahee
If one is on Team Anti-Variant-2 then Variants 1 and 3 may end up splitting the vote!
Indeed.
I have therefore removed the double votes and considered the first opinion, i.e. in case of "I favour variant 1 but not oppose variant 3", etc. - variant 1 counts. That has had quite an impact on the voting, now leaning towards variant 3 with 18 votes (while variants 1 and 2 have 6 and 13 votes respectively).
kjmahee
If the 6th submitter is to submit valid data then absolutely they need to review the RN and ensure that what they are submitting is in line with the existing Notes or expand on the Notes to cover their sub. That should already be happening across all data for a release. There is no automated validation of the data entered into RN or Descriptions so anything can go in there. A lousy submitter can not check the Notes just as much as they can copy/paste the description from one of the other variants to their own without checking whether it does indeed apply.
Wow! OK. So what is your argument against then? “It looks not great”? We are obviously on the same page when it comes to contributors responsibilities - so why do you think we should move descriptions from description field?
Without an explicit indication of which parts of the inscriptions are applied in one way or another, we sometimes lose important nuances.
For example: in EMI Records Ltd., the information in the runouts was always stamped, but if any manufacturing steps for EMI were made by Musitech then the corresponding inscriptions were applied by hand.
motosanta2011
For example: in EMI Records Ltd., the information in the runouts was always stamped, but if any manufacturing steps for EMI were made by Musitech then the corresponding inscriptions were applied by hand.
Then that's a simple 'xyz is etched' in the description.
poorlonesomecowboy
However, in a more complicated case than "Strawberry" what about entering of subsequent variants? If you have 5 of them and in notes "Z in runouts is mirrored and etched for all variants". Will the submitter of variant 6 note/confirm this? And how do we know they did? The reason I ask is that one argument for not having descriptions in description fields is that it makes it hard to read and can lead to mistakes....
That's a good point.
I think this might be solved if the guidance asks to name the variants when described in the notes, and never use the term "all"
So for your example, 5 variants are there. So notes should say:
"Z in runouts is mirrored and etched for variant 1 to 5"
When v6 is added, it should either be changed to "Z in runouts is mirrored and etched for variant 1 to 6"
or (depending);
"Z in runouts is mirrored and etched for variant 1 to 5,
variant 6 is etched but not mirrored."
in case variant 6 doesn't change the notes: this should be seen as variant 6 hasn't defined how the Z looks like.
Texts added (and existing already) without defining a variant can be resolved using the release history.
(It's never bad to check release history from time to time regarding runouts and other variable information, not seldom obsolete runouts exist when a release has a complex 'version' history, especially entries which existed already before detailed versions were documented.
motosanta2011
Without an explicit indication of which parts of the inscriptions are applied in one way or another, we sometimes lose important nuances.
For example: in EMI Records Ltd., the information in the runouts was always stamped, but if any manufacturing steps for EMI were made by Musitech then the corresponding inscriptions were applied by hand.
Excellent example.
I’d still say that info belongs in Release Notes just as you’ve stated it, rather than BaOI descriptions.
Brilliant idea - only if we were to do that - why the hell would we bother with a description field to begin with? Why would we have a “Matrix/Runout” field?? We’d have - in that drop-down - CD matrix, Side A runout, Side B runout, Side C runout… we can build that out with “Vinyl side A etched runout”, “Vinyl side A stamped runout” and in eternity…
poorlonesomecowboy
so why do you think we should move descriptions from description field?
Putting metadata in the descriptions is ugly to look at, can make it much more difficult to assimilate information quickly/correctly and, from the perspective of a database, introduces redundancy. There will be other negatives but the last of these is awful practice. I would contend that where all variants have the same repeating and predictable patterns in the data then state the pattern in the RN and do not unnecessarily pollute the descriptions with egregious repetition. So ... STRAWBERRY is always stamped? In the RN. KT is always rotated 90° clockwise? Put it in the RN. The last three characters are etched but everything prior is stamped? Put it in the RN. Hopefully that is clear enough as it is beer o'clock.
baldorr
I have yet to see more than maybe one or two examples where the same bit of runout info was stamped on one copy and etched on another. And in the end those weren't split as unique versions here.
I've have added a few and did split them.
this is for Swiss turicaphon pressings where my assumption is that they first did a hand etched repress and later the stamped version.
problem with option 3 is thst nobody will write in the notes if it's stamped or etched unless they know that there are both versions but most people won't ever know as they won't have both versions in their hand at the same time.
I only knew because I often had 5 to 10 copies of the same record.
velove
problem with option 3 is thst nobody will write in the notes if it's stamped or etched unless they know that there are both versions but most people won't ever know as they won't have both versions in their hand at the same time.
If someone don't care for stamped/etched he won't put it either to the description field nor the release notes...
adrian.schmitt.96
If someone don't care for stamped/etched he won't put it either to the description field nor the release notes...
people add it to the description field currently. not sure they would nor if it wo uld make sense to add a
runouts are stamped note for simple runouts. or do you expect people to do that if option 3 gets chosen?
When has anyone made a compilation of "Side-B's".....They are commonly titled "B-sides" due to standard english grammar.
I also believe when speaking we would naturally say "A-side runout" instead of "runout A-side". We don't form sentences in reverse order when we speak do we, so why do this on Discogs?
Unfortunatelysebfact I think you've started this consensus with the terminology in the wrong order.
A-side and B-side only please!
TLDR.... I still haven't decided between variant 1 and 3.
people add it to the description field currently. not sure they would nor if it wo uld make sense to add a
runouts are stamped note for simple runouts. or do you expect people to do that if option 3 gets chosen?
I'm really not sure...
That's why I would maybe suggest a fourth variant where "stamped" or "etched" can be entered to the description field if the complete runouts are either stamped or etched. If they are mixed this info should go to the RN. (That's how I currently do it and I think it works pretty well!)
But not sure if a fourth variant helps us now or makes this discussion even more complicated...
Russ.Rockwell
I will only write A-side and B-side not Side A or Side B.
Well ... personally I would use A-side and B-side only for singles. I can't recall ever referring to the 'other' side of an album as the B-side. Side B or Side 2 yes, but not B-side.
Additionally, that wiki link is very clearly talking about singles and not albums.
kjmahee
Well ... personally I would use A-side and B-side only for singles. I can't recall ever referring to the 'other' side of an album as the B-side. Side B or Side 2 yes, but not B-side.
Same here, whenever writing music reviews or talking to friends I use 'side A' not "A side", sounds weird.
cellularsmoke
I'm not sure those are even variants - I'm pretty sure Variants 2 & 3 are the same; The only thing that differentiates Variant 1 is the "||" part
Forget about "||"
1 and 2 have "Made in " only on side A
1 and 3 have "main" runouts etched
kjmahee
personally I would use A-side and B-side only for singles. I can't recall ever referring to the 'other' side of an album as the B-side. Side B or Side 2 yes, but not B-side.
This may be a bit off topic to the forum thread, but agreed with this interpretation. There are many LP/album releases in the database/my collection with side indicators printed as Side A/B, Side I/II, Side 1/2, etc. Certainly there may be some as A-side, B-side, but agreed, this generally refers to singles, or colloquially ... "a collection of B-sides."
velove
I have yet to see more than maybe one or two examples where the same bit of runout info was stamped on one copy and etched on another. And in the end those weren't split as unique versions here.
Yes, and this is a good reason for voting 2. By voting 1 or 3 there is a possibility of losing a "unique version".
DINOSGR
velove
I have yet to see more than maybe one or two examples where the same bit of runout info was stamped on one copy and etched on another. And in the end those weren't split as unique versions here.
Yes, and this is a good reason for voting 2. By voting 1 or 3 there is a possibility of losing a "unique version".
(Editing to restate...)
I have seen that happen too.
However, based on RSG §1.5.4. -- with release notes per RSG §11.2.: Note any distinguishing features of the release that may help distinguish it from other versions of the release.
I see how that can be a solution to help prevent these types of incorrect merges. And in my opinion ... relying solely on BaOI descriptions to differentiate a release, especially verbose descriptions ... may not prevent such merges either, as the readability of lengthy, detailed descriptions can easily get lost.
kjmahee
Well ... personally I would use A-side and B-side only for singles. I can't recall ever referring to the 'other' side of an album as the B-side. Side B or Side 2 yes, but not B-side.
Additionally, that wiki link is very clearly talking about singles and not albums.
zin
Same here, whenever writing music reviews or talking to friends I use 'side A' not "A side", sounds weird.
j_lit
This may be a bit off topic to the forum thread, but agreed with this interpretation. There are many LP/album releases in the database/my collection with side indicators printed as Side A/B, Side I/II, Side 1/2, etc. Certainly there may be some as A-side, B-side, but agreed, this generally refers to singles, or colloquially ... "a collection of B-sides."
Thanks for your comments and opinions. Based on your logic and reasoning I will now change my position and follow the order whatever the final variant consensus is.
I hadn't really thought about the fact B-side's is generally a term used for singles. DOH!
I guess it doesn't even really matter does it, A-side, Side A are interchangeable. Sorry for derailing the thread somewhat.
