discpedia

Also, Turdburgers guy. Really funny. Well, now the TALK (wasn't even a page) listing is deleted and your ip address is banned from the site.

Yes, that's fair. You're not interested and don't think anyone else on this site will be. That's why I posted. This posting has, however, received a surprising amount of attention, negative or not.

Yes, but the end result would theoretically look like "Many people believe xxx pressing is the best while others believe xxx is." Or, "xxx is the most sought after pressing of Metallica "Zzz" because of its blah blah blah blah." That's just how wikis and articles in general are written. There are different standards for different websites. ie here we are talking to one another. Wiki articles aren't so personal and interactive between members. There are talk boards behind each article, however, where people can discuss. So the end result of that would be you get an article, and behind that article you can find a discussion of it. Right now I wish I could combine this all into a wiki article because it's a lot to read.

I don't think the first one is a wiki. But the fact that it's the top search result on Google isn't too shabby. The second one is a wikia.com website and it looks like there's virtually no content.

Two minutes was sort of just a number he through out. But what exactly are you trying to say? If all the information is in one place, that's how.. Why does nobody here recognize the innate power of a wiki? This was brought up a while ago, and everyone starting dissing the credibility of Wikipedia. But the bottom line is that wikis are fast and generally present great information.

..and it continues I was referring to seeking out desirable records. I don't typically buy records new, so our view on collecting is different. Anyway, someone has to find the records that most people want to buy. I'm guessing it's just me, but that sounds like an exception to the rule. When I walk into a record store, for example, I usually look for something that might interest me. Without having any ideas, though, it's pretty difficult without listening to every single LP. Fair enough. Most pop songs do not have different composers and arrangements. Instrumental albums, including classical and jazz (which are both very collectible), however, do. So the relevancy can't be discounted that easily. Yes that is what I am proposing. That is what Wikipedia does, and I do believe it is better than millions on millions of other websites, even if Google does direct to them. The difference is that users cannot make edits at will to pages encountered on Google, nor again are the pages all so easily accessible. Yes, I can appreciate how you came to understand what you wanted to purchase. I do that same exact thing all the time. What I don't understand is how you can deny that it would be easier if there was one webpage that said the differences between pressings and the original pressing master. Then, you could log onto Discogs or what have you and find a price. You just cut out three of four web searches.

Fair enough. Who is 'we'? How exactly is "unusable clusterfuck" constructive criticism? Full disclosure: I see your point now. You are very mature and I should listen to you.

I don't feel like replying to these anymore. If you believe I'm the only one who thinks this is an argument, maybe you should look at the first several comments up until Kurts'. There are a lot of personal attacks in a majority of these comments that are really just completely pointless. Pointing out anyone's personal flaws does not change the idea. But yes, I agree the server is terrible. Godaddy is the cause, not me. The server upgrade to a VPS is an extra $25 a month on top of $8 that I'm already paying. $8 is manageable for now, while I'm trying to figure out what to do. Dedicated servers are $120, so, you know. Regardless, I appreciate that you visited and tried to make an entry in the first place. Sounds like a step to me. Everything has to start somewhere.

"

It is running. I don't know why that link didn't work, but the main page loads. There are apparently some server glitches, but all it needs is a continued source of content. Being reasonable doesn't hurt.

I think the main issue here is that of close mindedness. Rather than consider the ways that a wiki could potentially ever be useful, (other than the "yay!"), a lot of people here are deciding to call me out, as if I insulted everything they hold dear to record collecting. And truly, the arguing gets old. If this ever does turn into anything, you will probably feel pretty silly. If nothing happens, then I'll just say so be it and move onto other things.

The hyperbole you continue to employ are pretty irritating. No, because obviously that's not possible. But what is possible is for one user maybe to compare two different pressings. He writes something down. Another reader happens to have knowledge about other variations and builds onto it. The point is, instead of referring to one website created by one or a few others, refer to a website created by many people with many different sources of knowledge. Wikipedia itself is not complete. If you search something relatively unheard of, you will likely find no answer. When I search my name (because I'm a nobody, clearly), nothing comes up. But I have the option to create something. Maybe I'll make myself sound amazing, "Basically a real life superman." If someone reads this and disagrees, they can change it. If nobody reads it, chances are it's pretty unimportant in the first place. (that adds onto what whoever was saying about the neglected articles). There are also features in the Mediawiki core to allow for revision of neglected pages.

One of the most popular Beatles collecting books is by Bruce Spizer. It's an out of print two volume set that regular commands a premium on eBay due to its desirability. One book is basically a biography of the Beatles. But the other is a huge book describing variations, rarity, dates, etc. No prices.

Sound quality on a personal level is subjective... but it's also quantifiable at the same time. First of all, sound waves are measurable--so I don't see how you missed that. Isn't one of the main reasons people prefer vinyl the difference between sonic qualities of analog and digital reproduction? Please correct me if I'm wrong. And regarding the message board analogy... yes, but not cluttered. That's the point. And more readily searchable. Wouldn't you rather have one article titled "Discpedia: the Idea We at VinylCollective Think is Stupid" than read through this whole posting?

Fair enough, it doesn't seem misguided... but then again, it depends on who's the content creator. I never explicitly stated that I would create a wiki price guide. I have been on Discogs but never really liked it. Obviously that's the point. You're still trying to compare apples and oranges here. There was never any insinuation of being a replacement for Discogs. I love Popsike, but the information can be hard to find. Most tools work best together. Regarding my 'desires' and the problems with them, I really don't see how those are valid issues. Believing they are is refusing to have trust in the idea of a wiki itself and the record collecting community. There are Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings wikis for God's sake.

I don't usually purchase 1,000/1,000 records, otherwise my house would be full to the brim. Typically I'll look through for ones that I want to buy. The hope is that there will be content to advise people which records to pick and which to reject.

First post was "YAY," so I'll take that to the bank. Actually, someone signed up since yesterday. Go figure. I did ask for opinions. I didn't ask for people to start an internet battle.

Still trying to figure out why you all take so personally the intrusion of a new website

How in the hell is that an argument?

I don't think you care about the idea per se, but you certainly have a vested interest in arguing when there was no argument to begin with.

This gave me some perspective, because I do occasionally go to garage sales and look through crates. The records you are buying have to come from somewhere--I guess you prefer other people (like me) to do the dirty work. That being said, if you have a list in your head of every possible album ever that you'd like to listen to or buy, so be it. I am defeated. My speculation, though, is that part of you is always curious as to which album you would like to listen to next. When I'm listening to classical records, yes I am thinking of specific pieces. But I have to do research to find the best arrangements and pressings. When I went to buy my "Abbey Road" album, I didn't know the difference between an original pressing or a repressing. It took research to understand this. Sure, it was a personal thing, but I wanted to have an original record that was pressed when the Beatles were playing. But there are other reasons too, again. I couldn't find any information on Discogs about sonic differences between pressings, just a bunch of label variations and numbers. And to me that would be very helpful.

I think the problem is that you don't understand the 'way I think it will work'... First of all, you are speaking in definite which is a logical fallacy. Nobody has any idea who would do what. The only thing you know is what you would do--and you can speculate about other people. Never once in this entire thread did I advocate for a wiki dedicated to pricing information. Your diatribe about releases and variants is exactly what could potentially make a wiki like this successful. If you look something up and notice that a variant isn't there, you might just decide to add information about it. Only a small set of information is supposed to be changed. THAT'S HOW A WIKI WORKS.

I don't think a misunderstanding is a try. Not really sure why you're deliberately insulting me, either. The question then becomes, is it worth what someone is asking for? Yes, again, Discogs (apparently) and Popsike have sale data. But if you're in front of a seller, presented by 1,000 records, are you really going to look them up individually? No, because the seller might not be too happy, and it will take forever.

No offense, but that's a terrible answer. My first purchase was probably "Abbey Road" or something like that. I paid what it was worth based on my knowledge at that time. The reason something has a 'set', if fluid value, is based on the marketplace. Perhaps you should consider taking general economics. If listening to Abbey Road was worth $100 to me, I would pay $100. All the while not knowing I could've picked up a copy for $10 somewhere else because that is the market value.

I don't plan to adjust anything on a micromanagement level... the content is up to the users. If someone sees something incorrect or wants to add something, the whole point is that they can take the initiative to change it. I have yet to see anyone write an academic paper on record collecting. But when that day comes, I wouldn't make them use a wiki either. A wiki is a point of reference that is easy to find and with fluid information. Take Encyclopaedia Britanica. It used to be all printed, obviously, and it was very reputable. Where are they now? They are no longer in print and are relegated to an online website. Search anything on google to look up and your first option is Wikipedia. Now obviously, if you want to go deeper, you will need to find a more in depth and trusted source. But for the most part, people do not write articles on Wikipedia to intentionally mislead their readers. As for what else you're saying about bias... I hope you'll realize how ridiculous that is. Here's a link you might find interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia's_oldest_articles ANY website with user controlled content has to start somewhere. That information attracts other readers, and with them writers. Its a snowball effect. That's the whole goddamn point.