realianstanford Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Or is it more acceptable to use Discogs or deadformat? I just ask because for one, I'm still new to this site and I'm trying to build at least a positive reputation, so it would be a good idea to follow the pack so to speak, and also because anyone's profile I've gone to when sending a PM they haven't used the application at all to plug in records. thanks! jameswiersema 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Have you tried using it? That will probably answer your question. But to save you time, no. Most folks go with the ones you mentioned or Google Docs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippielauryn Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Personally I prefer discogs. Haven't even tried to do it via VC. I think it's all up to preference though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derby625 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 The VC collection function seems to pull info from discogs. I like the functionality and ability to add variants in discogs. Plus it's a good platform for selling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caninesapien Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Would be great if we could import from Discogs somehow. I don't know if that's possible or not, the internet is all glitter and spaghetti as far as I'm aware verb1999, mdclanahan, deletedunknown and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamalatapes Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Had no clue it existed eskimosnow27 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aflycon Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I prefer Deadformat for sure. Pressing/variant info on Discogs is wildly inaccurate, it's unorganized as shit, and the whole thing looks and feels dated to me. DF is super easy to manage and you can list your records however you want, which is a big plus for me. Just my two cents, anyway. If the VC collection function were similar to DF, I'd use it. Discogs is nice for buying and selling, but not so much for managing a collection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FailureByDesign Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I use the VC collection. It works a bit weird, but once you get used to it, it's easier to use. I don't have very many records though. If I had more, I'd probably use deadformat or discogs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hipsterasfolk Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I prefer DF, tried to use the VC function a long time ago and it did not go over so well :/ cool concept, just not on the top of my priority list :/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seangj Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I prefer DF, tried to use the VC function a long time ago and it did not go over so well :/ cool concept, just not on the top of my priority list :/ This Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derby625 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 ...Pressing/variant info on Discogs is wildly inaccurate, it's unorganized as shit... It's much more accurate than DeadFormat because users provide sources for the information (whereas DF has a lot of what people "think" it is) How is it unorganized for a collection? You can create folders, sort, add/remove easily, export to excel, etc. DF is a list. Maybe some the artists that you are adding to your discogs collection have really shitty entries by users who don't understand how to properly add information to the database. I know I've spent countless hours fixing crap entries so they make sense and are correct. Seems like every time I go into New Found Glory's or Blink 182's pages there are numerous fixes needed nothingnatural 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allenh Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I prefer Deadformat for sure. Pressing/variant info on Discogs is wildly inaccurate, it's unorganized as shit, and the whole thing looks and feels dated to me. DF is super easy to manage and you can list your records however you want, which is a big plus for me. Just my two cents, anyway. If the VC collection function were similar to DF, I'd use it. Discogs is nice for buying and selling, but not so much for managing a collection. I found the exact opposite,I couldn't understand Deadformat at all and found Discogs dead easy to set up exactly how I wanted, must be because I'm old people or it's whichever you go to first is the one that you find easiest but it looks like either is good and whatever works suits Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allenh Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Maybe some the artists that you are adding to your discogs collection have really shitty entries by users who don't understand how to properly add information to the database. I know I've spent countless hours fixing crap entries so they make sense and are correct. Seems like every time I go into New Found Glory's or Blink 182's pages there are numerous fixes needed This a lot though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smailtronic Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Nope. The VC feature was very late to the game. Most folks were already entrenched with Google Docs, or DF. I agree with aflycon that the lists on Discogs are messy, and all over the place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daegor Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Discogs 100%. 9/10 whatever it is I have to add to the list is already there. Occasionally the listing requires some clean up (so I do so). When the item isn't there, I can easily create the listing (and do it right). Using the want list has bagged me countless steals on items I wanted. And it seamlessly transitions to a sales system that's better than eBay. If I could export my list from Discogs to VC I totally would so that I could more easily facilitate trades and sales with VC members, but last I check this isn't possible. tonyfranciosa and caninesapien 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xadamhudsonx Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 As someone mentioned above, it really depends on the size of your collection. If you're starting out or working with smaller numbers it much easier to begin keeping a list using the VC or Discogs option. If you've already got a sizable collection searching each one of those items and finding the one that matches exactly what you've got on the shelf could prove to be incredibly time consuming. (I do love Discogs for the WANT option though). Personally I use DeadFormat and love it. Keep the list ordered and arranged however I like. Entries look however want them formated and I don't have to rely on someone else having already added the item to the database to add it to my list. jos464 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aflycon Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I can't use the quote function on my phone, so I'll try this the best I can.. Derby: It's no fault of Discogs - you're right, it is the users. When I look at a record and see that there are 130 versions, I'd much rather just list on Deadformat; most of them are duplicates or could be condensed. Concerning the pressing info on Deadformat: I actually had never noticed that. You're right, it's terrible on DF. I use Discogs and other sources to find my own information and be as accurate as possible. Some of the information I find on Discogs is accurate and I can corroborate it with info from the label or pressing plant. Other times, I just have to take their word for it or do more research. Allenh: I think it is a "to each his own" kind of thing. Deadformat is definitely my preference, and I'm only discounting the collection feature of Discogs; I'd rather have a collection listed that I've put together myself with the most accurate information possible than one put together by others with potentially questionable information. The other side of that coin, of course, is that I guess I could go in and fix the info on Discogs myself. Again, I can't say that I don't love Discogs. As inaccurate as it may be, it has helped me immensely. Got some great deals there, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billya Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Has nobody made the joke about if people actually use the VC search function yet? I just use deadformat. And I struggle to keep it up to date/complete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjb2k1 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 i started to, then it stopped working for a while, then i stopped caring tokimedo 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thoughtsky Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I prefer Deadformat for sure. Pressing/variant info on Discogs is wildly inaccurate, it's unorganized as shit, and the whole thing looks and feels dated to me. DF is super easy to manage and you can list your records however you want, which is a big plus for me. Just my two cents, anyway. If the VC collection function were similar to DF, I'd use it. Discogs is nice for buying and selling, but not so much for managing a collection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danionly Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Have you tried using it? That will probably answer your question. This. As a new member also, I started and then gave up. I find Discogs much easier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horrorbusiness138 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I did when I first signed up, but now I'm just going to use discogs at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoneyFrosted Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 When the item isn't there, I can easily create the listing Show me your ways. I have never had an easy time making a Discogs listing. I had to take a tutorial to create it correctly months ago, and I know I won't remember now so I just haven't been making them even though they should be there. Like Nah, for example. I have so many of his tapes and I just got his LP but 6/7 of his listings are mp3 listings, I'm kind of afraid to fuck up badly for some reason. It's not like I'll be banned, why am I scared? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koljou Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I use Deadformat to catalog my collection, but if I can't find pressing info on things from the band/label I'll go to Discogs to find it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derby625 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Show me your ways. I have never had an easy time making a Discogs listing. I had to take a tutorial to create it correctly months ago, and I know I won't remember now so I just haven't been making them even though they should be there. Like Nah, for example. I have so many of his tapes and I just got his LP but 6/7 of his listings are mp3 listings, I'm kind of afraid to fuck up badly for some reason. It's not like I'll be banned, why am I scared? There are a lot of users that like to pick apart every mistake in submissions. Do your best by looking at other submissions that have been voted correct (this designation will be on the right side of the release page and also on the release history) You can also ask in the forums for help. Lots of users are super helpful. Or ask me, I do decently on the site after submitting over 600 unique releases Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.