Discpedia.com a wiki for record collectors

[TheGhostOfRandySavage]

I think the hostility comes from the fact that just about every new user here comes first with something along the lines of how much is this record worth or something along those lines. The majority of members here give no shits about the "value of our collections". I myself buy records to listen to, and don't care what they're worth.

Also this. The only time I care about how much something costs is if I'm trying to sell something and I do 30 seconds of research at that time.

[discpedia]

I think the hostility comes from the fact that just about every new user here comes first with something along the lines of how much is this record worth or how much can I get for x record. The majority of members here give no shits about the "value of our collections". I myself buy records to listen to, and don't care what they're worth.

If you have never looked at a price guide, or anything of that matter, I might consider believing you. There are different types of record collecting for sure. Even on these discs themselves, there are advertisements to "Complete your collection." Back then, you could obviously order records from a catalog for a few dollars... now you have to go out and seek them... Records are no longer the main outlet for audio sales, and they are becoming rare. This in turn creates value. Maybe you don't care about the value of your records, but consider this: One record you own, but don't particularly enjoy, is worth $1,000. Now you have no idea about this, so you trade it to another collector for a worthless record. If you had known the value of that record, you could have sold it with proceeds to buy many other recordings.

 

Sure, not everything is about value. But value is created based on the desires of the market. NM records are worth more than P records--they also sound better. Record collecting is a mixmatch of collectors who appreciate a record's sonic quality as well as those who appreciate their rarity, appearance, etc. It is an inescapable fact. Records are not knick knacks meant to sit on a shelf--but even there, the purpose for the value attached to these items is their created value. Collectibles are not innately valuable, but gain the value that we, as collectors, place on them.

[discpedia]

Not trying to be hostile, and I'm saying records in general are not a great investment. If the only reason something is collectible is supply/demand, then why would you need a site explaining why a certain album is collectible? You can't oversimplify something like that and also say that people need to look up reasons why something is collectible.

 

This whole scheme just seems unnecessary to me. This site functions mainly as a place to come and talk about records, whereas the main function of discogs is to catalog, with a side function of forum.

 

You just don't seem to be able to accept the fact that making an unformatted, non-membership based aggregator of all things vinyl related is going to be a mess that will need an army of mods to keep in check. When someone doesn't listen to reason, hostility follows.

Certainly they're not a great investment if you buy them at face value. But if you go into a warehouse and look around... If you know what to search for, you can find great items. If not, you might as well be in any other useless pile of paper and plastic.

 

There is no scheme.. The formatting is innate in the wiki--it's the same as Wikipedia. There is no reason here... only personal opinion and prejudice against any new ideas. Again, I'm not presenting this as a genius idea... just something new.

[Sidney Crosley]

Dibs on writing the wiki page for VYNL.

[discpedia]

Dibs on writing the wiki page for VYNL.

I just looked that up... Unless you mean the Hell's Kitchen restaurant, that's a brilliant idea to sell worthless records to hipsters  . Interesting video of members holding up VG copies of "Elton John's Greatest Hits."

[discpedia]

Also this. The only time I care about how much something costs is if I'm trying to sell something and I do 30 seconds of research at that time.

First of all, if you care at all, then you care. Nobody is making you tally up the total value of your record collection so you can sit on it like a miser, but it's helpful to know the value of something if you want to sell it. I think that's one big "DUH."

 

So the question is, wouldn't a wiki make that a little easier?

 

What's the website you always go to when you want to look something up? I can almost guarantee it's Wikipedia.

 

In my experience, it can be difficult to find an easy to read website or price guide, etc. Now imagine if Wikipedia had everything useful regarding record collecting written into it. One search on Wikipedia and you instantly know what your record is worth. It would be that, with a different domain name... a little less support, and a smaller, more directed community.

[aarondltd]

Unfortunately the interwebs make it too easy for people who know nothing to look things up and charge crazy prices in thrift stores and on ebay or similar places.

[eight1echo]

Records are only "worth" what someone is willing to pay for it. A wiki page with the value of a record makes no sense, this is why people use and will continue to use Discogs, Popsike and eBay Sold Listings to determine the value of a record they are selling. These websites are an archive of what real people have paid for records.

[TheGhostOfRandySavage]

First of all, if you care at all, then you care. Nobody is making you tally up the total value of your record collection so you can sit on it like a miser, but it's helpful to know the value of something if you want to sell it. I think that's one big "DUH."

 

So the question is, wouldn't a wiki make that a little easier?

 

What's the website you always go to when you want to look something up? I can almost guarantee it's Wikipedia.

 

In my experience, it can be difficult to find an easy to read website or price guide, etc. Now imagine if Wikipedia had everything useful regarding record collecting written into it. One search on Wikipedia and you instantly know what your record is worth. It would be that, with a different domain name... a little less support, and a smaller, more directed community.

Absolutely not. Pricing fluctuates too much for a wiki (which is why records are a poor investment overall). How do you plan to adjust prices based on going rates on a day to day or even monthly basis?

 

Also, as far as looking things up, I almost never trust wikipedia because it contains half information and untrue "facts" often enough to be considered untrustworthy. There is a reason my teachers all through school never accepted wikipedia as a source. I don't know why you think discogs/popsike are hard to read. The other question become, what makes you think it will be more complete than discogs? If it's user controlled, the information on the site will be biased by the users who create the content and it will only contain the information they care about.

It's like this site, we don't have a ton of info on classical records here because most people here aren't really interested in them. Who's to say the people who use your site will be interested in every type/genre of record?

Especially as a new site it's going to start out as just you and your friends adding information that you know/care about, which will be limited to your interests and the info you have in your head since you seem unsure about how to use the other sites that give you info on releases.

[Dusted_By_Space]

I had typed a whole long response, but by the time I got done I read the newest posts and just will leave it at what Mr.'s Olvsik and Savage have said. However, once you get your site up and running just post a link, I myself would be more than happy to take a look at it. I would like to point out though that the majority of the established members here have traded or sold records to each other for far less than the "going rate." Its what this place was created for, for like minded people to come together and discuss records and help each other out. On the flip side of that, we have all sold records for more than we paid for them, its the nature of the beast. But again, anytime i have a question on somethings value, i just look it up on discogs, its takes like 30 seconds.

[llamaface]

Whether this is a dumb idea or not is debatable (it is a dumb idea, though), but I think it is very clear that you are presenting this to the wrong audience. As Olsvik and Macho Man stated, there are already a number of ways to determine a record's current value. Generally speaking, people around here are not out looking for that one extremely valuable record in a warehouse or someone's garage.

[discpedia]

Unfortunately the interwebs make it too easy for people who know nothing to look things up and charge crazy prices in thrift stores and on ebay or similar places.

I can't tell you how many garage sales, etc. I've been to with buckets and buckets of records. It takes a lot of effort and knowledge to search through all of them. Before I started collecting, I went to many websites to figure out what was worth paying money for.

[discpedia]

Records are only "worth" what someone is willing to pay for it. A wiki page with the value of a record makes no sense, this is why people use and will continue to use Discogs, Popsike and eBay Sold Listings to determine the value of a record they are selling. These websites are an archive of what real people have paid for records.

I use Popsike and eBay all the time. I also completely agree with your first statement, because that's exactly how I buy and sell records.

 

I'm not saying a set table with a value of records, though there are plenty out there. (but if anything, at least a list would set a relative value) The content would be up for the users to decide. That's the whole point.

 

A lot of you are taking the wrong angle towards this. Again, the whole idea is that it would just be a space where things could be possible. The idea was never to replace anything or compete with another business. If anything, I was just wondering whether it would be worth my time to write anymore or continue paying hosting fees. And to me, if people are reading anything on the website, it's worth it.

[llamaface]

Before I started collecting, I went to many websites to figure out what was worth paying money for.

Answer: if you want to listen to it, then it's worth paying money for.

/thread

[Dusted_By_Space]

Answer: if you want to listen to it, then it's worth paying money for.

/thread

[discpedia]

Absolutely not. Pricing fluctuates too much for a wiki (which is why records are a poor investment overall). How do you plan to adjust prices based on going rates on a day to day or even monthly basis?

 

Also, as far as looking things up, I almost never trust wikipedia because it contains half information and untrue "facts" often enough to be considered untrustworthy. There is a reason my teachers all through school never accepted wikipedia as a source. I don't know why you think discogs/popsike are hard to read. The other question become, what makes you think it will be more complete than discogs? If it's user controlled, the information on the site will be biased by the users who create the content and it will only contain the information they care about.

It's like this site, we don't have a ton of info on classical records here because most people here aren't really interested in them. Who's to say the people who use your site will be interested in every type/genre of record?

Especially as a new site it's going to start out as just you and your friends adding information that you know/care about, which will be limited to your interests and the info you have in your head since you seem unsure about how to use the other sites that give you info on releases.

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.

[discpedia]

Answer: if you want to listen to it, then it's worth paying money for.

/thread

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.

[llamaface]

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.

No offense taken because you misunderstood what I said. That seems to be a common thing for you.

I said it's worth paying for, not that it's necessarily worth what someone is asking for it.

Nice try.

[TheGhostOfRandySavage]

I don't plan to adjust anything... the content is up to the users.

 

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.

 

This is my point exactly. Nobody is going to be going in there and adjusting pricing. If this is a site for pricing that's obviously a major flaw.

 

Obviously I was referring to wikis as a whole being an unreliable source of information, specifically due to the reasons I cited.

The problem you're going to run up against is that people are going to keep the info you don't want to change "fluid" and the parts that actually need to be changed more regularly people won't keep up with. Do you realize how many different releases there are out there? How many variants of those releases? If users are in charge of changing the pricing information, only a small percentage is actually going to get changed. That's why discogs is good for that portion of this.

You're very clearly not getting what everyone in this thread is trying to tell you, so I'm done trying to explain to you why this won't work the way you think it will.

[discpedia]

No offense taken because you misunderstood what I said. That seems to be a common thing for you.

I said it's worth paying for, not that it's necessarily worth what someone is asking for it.

Nice try.

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.

[daegor]

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.

.....

Dude, you're out of touch, seriously.

Here's the process that any of us take:

1) hey, I like that Abby Road album, I should pick it up on vinyl.

2) I'll check online to see if I can find a good deal somewhere like Discogs, eBay, or Amazon.

3) hmm, cheapest I found was Discogs for $10 shipped, I bet I can find it cheaper locally.

4) Hey, this Thift Store has a copy for $2, deal!

What you are suggesting adds nothing to the process. Or any possible variation.

No one here does garage sailing, most of us don't even go crate digging for the purpose of finding a deal. We have a specific album we want to buy, and if we can find it for a price we're willing to pay then we buy it. That's it.

[Dusted_By_Space]

The day someone writes an academic paper on record collecting will be the last day of me having any faith in humanity.

[llamaface]

[discpedia]

This is my point exactly. Nobody is going to be going in there and adjusting pricing. If this is a site for pricing that's obviously a major flaw.

 

Obviously I was referring to wikis as a whole being an unreliable source of information, specifically due to the reasons I cited.

The problem you're going to run up against is that people are going to keep the info you don't want to change "fluid" and the parts that actually need to be changed more regularly people won't keep up with. Do you realize how many different releases there are out there? How many variants of those releases? If users are in charge of changing the pricing information, only a small percentage is actually going to get changed. That's why discogs is good for that portion of this.

You're very clearly not getting what everyone in this thread is trying to tell you, so I'm done trying to explain to you why this won't work the way you think it will.

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.

[TheGhostOfRandySavage]

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.

Or...you could just go to discogs where it is already listed.

 

A diatribe, eh? You obviously overestimate how much I care about this. I just think you're wasting your time. Discogs is essentially what you're suggesting without a bunch of extra useless shit.