Jump to content
tkelly426

Is dead format.........dead?

Recommended Posts

Actually can I start making my first complaint against Discogs. I love it for a lot of things, but there are some people who just want to relive their days as a teachers pet, i.e. they follow the rules way to closely or think they know what the hell they're talking about.

 

Example: Just got in my August Burns Red - Phantom Anthem /700. Went to add it, but it says "This page is marked for deletion-see release history". So I went there. It was put up less than 24 hours ago, someone put on the stock photos. So someone got pissed and disabled those because that's a rule, you can only use the real image. Then some other dude came along knowing everything and said " This release does not exist, it's been delayed for weeks to come. The manufacturing plant has not even pressed these yet." So he marked it for deletion 17 hours ago, 7 hours after it went up. So now someone like me that "has a copy" has to go in, duplicate one that does exist, change everything out that's unique to this release, add the photos etc. Such a pain for someone who's just a little too quick on that delete button.

Edited by MCDELTAT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MCDELTAT said:

Actually can I start making my first complaint against Discogs. I love it for a lot of things, but there are some people who just want to relive their days as a teachers pet, i.e. they follow the rules way to closely or think they know what the hell they're talking about.

 

Example: Just got in my August Burns Red - Phantom Anthem /700. Went to add it, but it says "This page is marked for deletion-see release history". So I went there. It was put up less than 24 hours ago, someone put on the stock photos. So someone got pissed and disabled those because that's a rule, you can only use the real image. Then some other dude came along knowing everything and said " This release does not exist, it's been delayed for weeks to come. The manufacturing plant has not even pressed these yet." So he marked it for deletion 17 hours ago, 7 hours after it went up. So now someone like me that "has a copy" has to go in, duplicate one that does exist, change everything out that's unique to this release, add the photos etc. Such a pain for someone who's just a little too quick on that delete button.


Don't worry, someone will come here to defend Discogs and tell you your legitimate criticism is unfounded. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mesi said:

He clearly states that he has it in hand, so why should he not be allowed to add it?

Are you referring to this:

https://www.discogs.com/release/11070743-Phantom-Anthem/history#latest

If so, the original submitter does not say he has it in hand...he says he knows someone who has it in hand.

 

That being said , it does appear other people have it in hand now and they are just going to merge the multiple entries into one.  Problem solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stl_ben said:

Are you referring to this:

https://www.discogs.com/release/11070743-Phantom-Anthem/history#latest

If so, the original submitter does not say he has it in hand...he says he knows someone who has it in hand.

 

That being said , it does appear other people have it in hand now and they are just going to merge the multiple entries into one.  Problem solved.

But what a headache... with websites such as this and instagram, we should be able to just add it if we know it EXISTS, as in, I saw at least one person post that they have it. Now they're going to vote it to stay, which takes a few days, then we have to merge them which takes a while, and let's not neglect the fact that I had to go out of my way to duplicate something that basically already existed minus the photos. It's dumb. 

I'm all for rules, but there are also times when rules should be stretched a little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MCDELTAT said:

But what a headache... with websites such as this and instagram, we should be able to just add it if we know it EXISTS, as in, I saw at least one person post that they have it. Now they're going to vote it to stay, which takes a few days, then we have to merge them which takes a while, and let's not neglect the fact that I had to go out of my way to duplicate something that basically already existed minus the photos. It's dumb. 

I'm all for rules, but there are also times when rules should be stretched a little.

That person (the one who requested the removal) thinks they know everything. They got into a flame war in the submission notes for some Silverstein album and got called out by staff for it. Shit was hilarious. They were in my notifications for weeks "fixing" things that, for the most part, didn't need fixing. People need to start voting his information as incorrect so he can't request stuff like this anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, SBarry said:

Shot in the dark but does anyone happen to still have their link for their tradelist in plain text in their emails? I assume it's the same for everyone just have to enter your username at the end of the link. 

I believe you can email Nick and he can send you your list. The email address is on the Deadformat splash page. I don't think that link would work if you had it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SBarry said:

Shot in the dark but does anyone happen to still have their link for their tradelist in plain text in their emails? I assume it's the same for everyone just have to enter your username at the end of the link. 

https://deadformat.com/exportcollection.php?name=

Edited by dethrock
fixed link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vinyl addict said:

LOL at all the people who can't/don't want to follow the rules.

It's not that complicated

I'm just saying that in a digital age, rule 1.1 can easily be rewritten to include the circumstances I outlined above. I.E. as long you can provide a public link to evidence that it exists, then it should be allowed to be added to the site. So for example, if I can link someone instagram page where someone posted a photo, I should be able to say "It exists" and not have it deleted. If some random dude that didn't even buy that variant wants to add it in, he should be allowed to. That's the point of having a community collaborative database, is that it's easy for anyone to contribute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought Discogs was clear about being an academic-like database project rather than a fun, loose "here's my collection" tool. I haven't combed too far into their Help or About pages but maybe they need to do a better job of explaining their mission and why they have rules, since it seems like a fair amount of people are frustrated that the rules are getting in their way.

Edited by swb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this could be a very ridiculous question, but is there a way for me to set my settings so that when I link someone to my list on discogs, they can see it in alphabetical order?  The reason I ask this is because every time I link someone to it, they end up seeing the newest added records first, and I can change it on my computer, but then linking anyone still sees 25/page with newest added first.

 

Hopefully that makes sense.  I'm doing my best to get into this website, there's just so much little ridiculous things about it.  The fact that a seller can just place a random shipping price annoys the shit out of me because I utilize the "Make Offer" button, and they'll accept my offer, only to pump up the shipping price to a ridiculous amount just to get the end price close to where they originally priced the album, which LITERALLY defeats the purpose of sending an offer to them for me.  Because he "accepted" my offer, I am not forced to either purchase the item, or risk losing reputation, or whatever the hell it is.  I swear I'm trying, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kyle_ftl said:

this could be a very ridiculous question, but is there a way for me to set my settings so that when I link someone to my list on discogs, they can see it in alphabetical order?  The reason I ask this is because every time I link someone to it, they end up seeing the newest added records first, and I can change it on my computer, but then linking anyone still sees 25/page with newest added first.

 

Hopefully that makes sense.  I'm doing my best to get into this website, there's just so much little ridiculous things about it.  The fact that a seller can just place a random shipping price annoys the shit out of me because I utilize the "Make Offer" button, and they'll accept my offer, only to pump up the shipping price to a ridiculous amount just to get the end price close to where they originally priced the album, which LITERALLY defeats the purpose of sending an offer to them for me.  Because he "accepted" my offer, I am not forced to either purchase the item, or risk losing reputation, or whatever the hell it is.  I swear I'm trying, lol.

Sellers are required to have clear shipping prices in their Shipping Information section, so you can know the cost BEFORE you place an order or make an offer. If they don't provide prices or it's vague like "I charge USPS rates", they're in the wrong and, if you're so inclined, you can share their account with Discogs support and they'll be asked to update their terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, swb said:

Sellers are required to have clear shipping prices in their Shipping Information section, so you can know the cost BEFORE you place an order or make an offer. If they don't provide prices or it's vague like "I charge USPS rates", they're in the wrong and, if you're so inclined, you can share their account with Discogs support and they'll be asked to update their terms.

The sellers have had clear shipping prices in their Shipping Info section, but they'll use the argument that Discogs has no counter offer feature, so they are forced to accept and then mark up the shipping.  The reason this annoys me is because I made an offer because I want it at the price + shipping that I offered, and when they come back with a counter offer, I'm not interested in that at all!  In the end, my sales have ended up being cancelled without hurting me, but one of them got kind of ugly.  I just wish there was a way for the buyer to back out after the "agreement" without being penalized, regardless of the reason.  If I have yet to pay, I should be able to back out without a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kyle_ftl said:

The sellers have had clear shipping prices in their Shipping Info section, but they'll use the argument that Discogs has no counter offer feature, so they are forced to accept and then mark up the shipping.  The reason this annoys me is because I made an offer because I want it at the price + shipping that I offered, and when they come back with a counter offer, I'm not interested in that at all!  In the end, my sales have ended up being cancelled without hurting me, but one of them got kind of ugly.  I just wish there was a way for the buyer to back out after the "agreement" without being penalized, regardless of the reason.  If I have yet to pay, I should be able to back out without a problem.

So, they'll "reject" your offer but, as a hack, they'll send you a counter offer by accepting your offer and just adding to the shipping total? If I'm reading it right, that is 100% bonkers. You aren't bound to follow through on that and Discogs support will gladly help you avoid negative feedback and cancel the order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, stl_ben said:

Sellers are not allowed to adjust shipping as a counter pricing tool.  If someone does that you can easily report them and you will not be penalized.

Thank you for letting me know.  This has 100%, legitimately happened to me.  I would not make it up at all!  Like I said, I've gotten out of the orders without penalization, but I appreciate that for future reference.  Both of you guys have been helpful in that regard.

 

Back to my other question now, is there a way for me to format my page layout so that I can send a link to people without them seeing the newest items first and only 25 items per page?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kyle_ftl said:

Back to my other question now, is there a way for me to format my page layout so that I can send a link to people without them seeing the newest items first and only 25 items per page?

If you sort it up to your liking and send them the URL of the page after it's loaded, doesn't it open that way?

 

for example, here's my collection, displaying 250 at a time, sorted by label. you should see 5 releases on 100% Breakfast first. https://www.discogs.com/user/mctape/collection?sort=label&folder=0&sort_order=&limit=250

Edited by tape

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, tape said:

If you sort it up to your liking and send them the URL of the page after it's loaded, doesn't it open that way?

 

for example, here's my collection, displaying 250 at a time, sorted by label. you should see 5 releases on 100% Breakfast first. https://www.discogs.com/user/mctape/collection?sort=label&folder=0&sort_order=&limit=250

I dont believe that is correct.  I just clicked your link and it shows Zoo Entertainment at the top.

That being said....if you are sharing the link why exactly does it have to be alphabetically?  Why not just let the person looking at it sort it however they prefer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for Vinyl Collective. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×