Comments to remove (Not On Label Self-released)

I received comments on submissions which had Not On Label (ArtistName Self-released) as label. Willow.the.Wisp is obviously going through those on a general basis, not related to my submissions I guess, and asks to use only Not On Label (see discogs.librosgratis.biz/history?release=3528430#latest ) and remove the (ArtistName Self-released) portion.

I believe this interpretation is actually not correct. I read The Oh Hellos have several releases self-released as far as I can see so the it would be even a "distinct set of releases "(menaing more than one), but I would believe this even applies if they only would have one release (more might show up at any time).

Any opinions?

Edit: Removed "a series of" in order to calm down the issue.

Hello Mop66

nik
[...] Also, the "Not On Label (ArtistName Self-released)" thing is getting overused here. Guidelines are:

4.4.2. Not On Label pseudo-labels have been created to gather distinct series of releases without labels.

A solitary release is not a distinct series, so simply "Not On Label" is fine here.

Source: http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/forum/thread/342766#521513029469733cfcfa9075

edit*

Mop66
I received a series of comments

unless you use different names - AFAIK you received exactly one comment regarding a incorrect label name as per RSG §4.4.3. at this time.

+
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/forum/thread/544efd114c5e2e772aedcc3d

The fact the guidelines still says Not On Label (ArtistName Self-released) -- for music released specifically by an artist, as found on tours and made available via personal websites, I would enter like so.

Mop66
Any opinions?

Yes:
The "Not On Label" thing is getting overused here. :P
Just actually look at http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/label/1818 …

In other words:
I disagree with Willow.the.Wisp. Because what was a "solitary release" just a minute ago can always become a "distinct series" at any given time.

In other other words:
This is the same nonesense as e.g. RSG §6.1.6.

Mop66
Oh Hellos, The have several releases self-released as far as I can see so the it would be even a "distinct set of releases

Yup - I agree here.
The issue was .. the Label Name was incorrect written as per RSG §4.4.3
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/label/377047-Not-On-Label-Oh-Hellos-The-Self-released
And the release in question should be changed according RSG §4.4.2.
Thats done right now.

Mop66
but I would believe this even applies if they only would have one release

nope - the guideline do not your opinion.

Willow.the.Wisp
AFAIK you received exactly one comment

Maybe I should have written "some" but it was actually 2 so far and I guess you have left it more than this, am I right? And no, I am not using different names.

Willow.the.Wisp
The issue was .. the Label Name was incorrect written as per RSG §4.4.3

You did not write that in the comment, you specifically mentioned 4.4.2. and "A solitary release is not a distinct series", which leads me to the interpretation you have a prespecifed text that you copy and paste to releases and here you took the wrong one ;-) . That is fine but confirms my suspicion you are leaving these comments on more than just 2 subs. Nothing wrong with that as long as the comments and the implications are really in line with how the RSG should be interpreted and that is what I try to resolve here. You kind of confused me quite a bit with this.

Willow.the.Wisp
nope - the guideline do not your opinion.

Well, I disagree with the management, but ok. So we change it back and forth then whenever a second release comes along. Does not make sense to me, but whatever. Just make sure you leave the right comment not to confuse submitters, please. I know it easily happens as it happened to me as well before.

Mop66
Just make sure you leave the right comment

Yup - will do. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Mop66
Well, I disagree with the management

In general - It isn't my choice to say what is right or wrong here -
I've to follow the guidelines and managements advice.
In many situations we don't follow individual "rules" -
because this database has an international character and own standards.

The current set of guidelines and additional advice was not revised and I'm not in the position to disregard managments advice.

We should respect managements opinion. Anything else leads to chaos.

Mop66
You kind of confused me

Is this better?
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/history?release=3516778#latest

I wasn't aware of this interpretation, so I think I have some of these as well - no need to comment, I'll check them myself.

But just a question: If an artist has only one master release but with more than one release under it, should it then be with (artist self-released) or just Not On Label?

Mop66
Just make sure you leave the right comment not to confuse submitters, please. I know it easily happens as it happened to me as well before.

I think I got a similair "Chain type comment", (& copied below) on a sub' of mine .
Joe Stead's "Hearts On Fire" r5495991 (sorry no link) which left me, kinda confused, especially the bit when "Pseudo" came up?. Wrong I was, but with a bit of detective work hopefully fixed to everyone's satisfaction, but hell guys come on I'm 93 next year!!, and never encountered this strange word pseudo before.

(Comment from) Willow.the.Wisp

Hello
Please note:
Not On Label pseudo-labels have been created to gather distinct series of releases without labels (RSG §4.4.2.).
For a distinct series of releases self-released by an artist, please use: Not On Label (ArtistName Self-released) and replace "ArtistName" with the actual artist name. (Please note specificities in RSG §4.4.3.).
Related guideline: Not On Label
If you have further question(s) or need help - you could also post within the Discogs Help Forum.
Best regards

1 day ago

--------------------------------------------------

jim51 (my response and edit)

Edit Release

Label change advised, noted and correctly changed to, please see below.Thanks

JOE STEAD "Hearts on Fire" On A Private Label APL1 (To save confusion "On A Private Label" is the name of the record label). Anne Jones"
Info from: "The Living Tradition magazine.This album was reviewed in Issue 6 of The Living Tradition magazine"

Sorry 63, see how confused I've become !!!, but with more Pils should recover.

jim51
(sorry no link)

here we go ...
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/history?release=5495991

jim51
never encountered this strange word pseudo before.

This means you've never read the related guideline.

jim51
Wrong I was

Indeed.

regarding:
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/history?release=5495991
and:

jim51
I think I got a similair "Chain type comment", (& copied below) on a sub' of mine .
Joe Stead's "Hearts On Fire" r5495991 (sorry no link) which left me, kinda confused

hmm ... okay I'm the original commenter - but I can't see anything confusing with my comment related to your submission at this point.

I've specially written down:
If you have further question(s) or need help - you could also post within the Discogs Help Forum.

So - good to see you here.

Are you able to some pictures related to your submission:
Joe Stead - Hearts On Fire
?
So we can determine / the label?
I mean - you changed the "Label" from A Private Label to On A Private Label ...
hmm ... looks strange to me.

TheTurtle
But just a question: If an artist has only one master release but with more than one release under it, should it then be with (artist self-released) or just Not On Label?

I was wondering the same: I know a band that released a record in 2006 on CDr, then he reissue it on pressed CD in digipak in 2010/2011: should both be Not On Label or Not On Label (Band Self-released) ?

TwinPowerForce
I was wondering the same: I know a band that released a record in 2006 on CDr, then he reissue it on pressed CD in digipak in 2010/2011: should both be Not On Label or Not On Label (Band Self-released) ?

As long as there's more than 1 submission, use Not On Label (Band Self-released).

loukash
I disagree with nik's post from June 2012 and I won't remove "Artist Self-released" from any of the submissions commented by Willow.the.Wisp. Because what was a "solitary release" just a minute ago can always become a "distinct series" at any given time.

While I agree, the guidelines are very clear, as stupid as they may (seem to) be.

loukash
In other other words:
This is the same nonesense as e.g. RSG §6.1.6.

If we would use the FTF for packaging details of every single item, the database would become very messy. What we need is a dedicated packaging field.

I agree with Nik, Willow and the guidelines.
The Not On Label artist self released pages are faux labels purely to tie a bunch of releases together and they are being misused by people who misread the guidelines.

Eviltoastman
misused by people who misread the guidelines.

Ok...kill me ;-) ...I still do not agree, but will follow. However to imply it would have been an on purpose act of going against the guidelines would be...well... just evil :P

Mr-Love
As long as there's more than 1 submission, use Not On Label (Band Self-released).

Hello Mr-Love Thanks for your comment.
I do not agree with this opinion. E.g. - If the same release was submitted as MP3 version and as additional FLAC version - it is not a distinct set of releases as described per RSG §4.4.2..

Mop66
Ok...kill me

please no! ... I was hoping this issue popped up here in the Help Forum to gather distinct examples and gain more attention for this very common mistake.

Also I've noticed also a lot of issues with incorrect given advice by experienced s in submission histories. Hopefully this will change.

So - Thanks to everyone who has commented here. Appreciated!

Willow.the.Wisp
I do not agree with this opinion. E.g. - If the same release was submitted as MP3 version and as additional FLAC version - it is not a distinct set of releases

It's still 2 releases, isn't it? I guess it depends on how you define a release.

Mr-Love
It's still 2 releases, isn't it?

no - Just two different Format variations of the same release who Discogs RSG allows to submit stand alone.

The example, i was thinking of was actually a self-released 7" in two different vinyl-colors. Personally, I don't think of them as different releases as such, but they are different releases in Discogs, so it all depends on the interpretation of that "distinct set of releases".

Eviltoastman
Not On Label artist self released

Personally, I feel the whole thing should be scrapped and Not On Label for everything.

This is however, my opinion as a contributor and not any form of staff judgement on this.

Diognes_The_Fox
Personally, I feel the whole thing should be scrapped and Not On Label for everything.

I agree with that opinion. I don't see what we gain by using these pseudo-labels.

TheTurtle
they are different releases in Discogs, so it all depends on the interpretation of that "distinct set of releases"

Exactly.

TheTurtle
I don't see what we gain by using these pseudo-labels.

For artists with many self-releases, they certainly serve a purpose, just like any label, e.g. Not On Label (Monolake Self-released).

no - Just two different Format variations of the same release who Discogs RSG allows to submit stand alo

I really dont agree with it. Flac and MP3 is different and both separate releases. Like a Cdpressed by PMDC, UK and PMDC, are separate release even if the cat number and scans are same (Minus the matrix pressing)

Self Released should not be scrapped. Having Them all Not On Label would make it harder what is a bootleg or white label. It's been like for years, why try and fix something what isn't broken.

Diognes_The_Fox
Personally, I feel the whole thing should be scrapped and Not On Label for everything.

Opinion:: Using similar reasoning with the Home Studios.

MusicNutter
...why try and fix something what isn't broken

+1 Agreed. Digital releases aside, there is a subtle, semantic difference between Not On Label and Self-Releases - especially when there's a printed catalog number but no releasing label noted.

Question: Not On Label (Mike Agranoff Self-Released) is
a. Prohibited on discogs due to the >1 guideline
b. Allowed, because there are at least 2 other self released titles: 2001 & 2007

Not On Label (ArtistName Self-released) -- for music released specifically by an artist, as found on tours and made available via personal websites

a is not prohibited.

JohnBckWLD
Question: Not On Label (Mike Agranoff Self-Released) is
a. Prohibited on discogs due to the >1 guideline
b. Allowed, because there are at least 2 other self released titles: 2001 & 2007

Allowed if at least 1 of the other 2 titles is added to the database - otherwise prohibited.

MusicNutter
a is not prohibited.

Again: RSG §4.4.2 "Not On Label pseudo-labels have been created to gather distinct set of releases" - 1 release is not a "distinct set of releases".

How would I do my Richard Bell Cd submission

JohnBckWLD
Opinion:: Using similar reasoning with the Oh. Hello. release in the OP, The Oh Hello's Home Studio should be done away with in favor of generic "label" page for all Home Studios.

I rather think this should go into the direction of how we create credits for unnamed groups on releases as in RSG §2.9.1.: Sometimes, a release will credit a group of people or performers involved in the release, such as Chorus, Choir, Orchestra, Ensemble, Cast, Company etc, but not give them a proper artist name. When entering such vague groups, a full artist name of the group should, if possible, be taken from the release , film, show, etc title, and added to the front of the group, for example; the Chorus from the musical Paint Your Wagon should be credited like this: "Paint Your Wagon" Chorus

Apply the same logic and you get
Sometimes, a release will credit a company, entity, location or similar, such as recording, mastering or design studio or a recording venue but not give them a proper company name. When entering such vague companies, a full company name of the company should, if possible, be taken from the release , film, show, etc title, and added to the front of the group, for example; the home studio for the musician John Doe should be credited like this: John Doe Home Studio

Makes more sense to me than creating a page that will gather all home studios in the world. They are, at all, different locations.

MusicNutter
How would I do my Richard Bell Cd submission

It should be Not On Label (Richard Bell (8) Self-released) and not Not On Label (Richard Bell Self-Released) as you have it now.

But, as stated above, I'd also like to scrap the whole thing and just use Not On Label for all of them.

Why break something thats been like that for ages

If you use Not On Label how would you tell unofficial releases or bootlegs to releases released by a artist who self released it.

MusicNutter
If you use Not On Label how would you tell unofficial releases or bootlegs to releases released by a artist who self released it.

Unofficial releases should be tagged as Unofficial.

Yes I know that but majority is on Not On Label

Actually, unoffical releases by "Artist X" usually use "Not On Label (Artist X)".

RSG §4.4.2 again: "Not On Label (ArtistName) -- for unofficial releases containing music by a certain artist".

OK, the only problem I have with adding Not On Label to everything self released is the work involved

Willow.the.Wisp
So - good to see you here.

Good to be here again, I think.

Are you able to some pictures related to your submission:
Joe Stead - Hearts On Fire
?
So we can determine / the label?
I mean - you changed the "Label" from A Private Label to On A Private Label ...
hmm ... looks strange to me.

Images, might be not as you'd like them ,but yes I should think so. Re your comment on my change of label from "A Private Label" to "On a private label" being strange, nothing strange there I can assure you. That IS the label, from memory the "A private Label" was used incorrectly by me in the first instance being quoted on the release and with hindsight, does in actual fact refer to an unknown label, namely the one I changed to. It is not shown on the release, but I can assure you now, it is the correct one, the one I found following my search to find a source which I duly did and quoted. Haven't a clue whether the artist planned to use his label again for any of his subsequent releases or if indeed he did.

Willow.the.Wisp
never encountered this strange word pseudo before

Not a word I associated with "Not On Label or something to do with an "Artist or A Self Released CD", so you've got the drop on me there. Yes you're right, I've not read, memorised or understood all of the guidelines, and I never will I suppose. Nor do I pretend to understand those you quoted in your original comments, though I did try. Must be losing too many grey cells. Sorry, and good night.

Just got 2 EI votes for 2 100% correct credits even though I was referring to the relevant guidelines - it's obvious many s don't think they make any sense/don't understand them/don't care about them:
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/history?release=4916793#latest
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/history?release=4778154#latest

Willow.the.Wisp
Are you able to some pictures related to your submission:
Joe Stead - Hearts On Fire

ed images to r5495991, for checking. Any good?, as an ogger once disabled a set of mine, added his own, so I then stopped ing images. Will now follow this thread with interest, in silence and from a distance.

Hello jim51

jim51
Any good?

Yeah! Indeed. I've ed straight away another ogger (before I corrected the order) - it could be possible the label is correct.

jim51
an ogger once disabled a set of mine, added his own

hmm .. that's sad to hear in fact your added images are pretty good.
If you feel someone did a questionable image - You're are always welcome to bring this up - eg here: http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/forum/thread/52aba3722ec4b348921f0092 .
Hope this helps.

tsivihcra
I'd also like to scrap the whole thing and just use Not On Label for all of them.

Why?
Traditional.
The solution for this issue on the data level is always data normalization.

Good this pops up here, I have rather a lot of my contributions that may be concerned, many self-released cassettes. Although it's quite a lot of work, will go over those where there's only one release. On the other hand, if an artist has several such releases over the years (not the same in different formats, but different releases), then I will leave those untouched. Now there are artists who self-released several items over the years that I know of, but I either do not have them or I did not submit until now, for these I will keep the Not On Label (Artist Self-released) and add this information to the submission notes , here will be an example: http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/artist/3721035-Gogo-Frei . I expect to be voted after this rather large job....

Willow.the.Wisp
Also I've noticed also a lot of issues with incorrect given advice by experienced s in submission histories. Hopefully this will change.

When I first started submitting I was pestered and voted into change a number of Not On Labels into Not On labels (Joe Bloggs Self-released).
2 years down the line I am being asked to change them back.
In another 2 years down the line I will find I am reverting them back again when the next bee is buzzing in a bonnet.
So goes the ways of Discogs.

The fact there is so much actually you can find in factual error on the database (wrong cat numbers, duplicated releases based on misunderstandings, CDrs called CDs, wrong country applications creating false entries, credits wrongly applied and not found on releases, so many copy to draft inherited errors, etc etc etc) and yet we fuss about things like Not On Label into Not On Label (Joe Bloggs Self-released) and back again.
Something which is primarily about internal database management and not about the accuracy of the actual data on the release.
So goes the ways of Discogs.

Yeah I'm not sure what is right anymore

TheTurtle
I agree with that opinion. I don't see what we gain by using these pseudo-labels.

It's easy to see the benefit and agree with the reason they came about. It;s to gather more than one self released item. but the same artist. Not a difficult concept and immensely useful.

prometheusrussell
Something which is primarily about internal database management and not about the accuracy of the actual data on the release.
So goes the ways of Discogs.

hmm ... I beg to differ - I've noticed due this interaction also a bunch of submissions who possibly have been voted correct by the same .
If this would be true - This should not gonna happen IMO.
check this recent example:
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/history?release=2263566#latest
Should I report this suspicion / incident?

I find it funny, we been told it's incorrect now, when a few years ago,

http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/forum/thread/5214fdaa946973361118f9ce#5214fdaa946973361118f9c9 - Nik didn't like all them brackets and even stated

I would use Not On Label (The Majority Self Released) for the moment

It was like that for over 6 years until now by Willow

http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/forum/thread/52150014946973361119a511#52150014946973361119a50d

http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/help/forums/topic/342766#3215368 - Changed mind here, seriously nik

What do we believe

I am bringing this up for discussion with the database committee at this time.

MusicNutter
What do we believe

The guidelines are in a constant change, that doesn't apply to just this matter.

Anyone care to make a comment on my 2 edits that were incorrectly voted EI? I've filed an SR.
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/history?release=4916793#latest
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/history?release=4778154#latest

Willow.the.Wisp
hmm ... I beg to differ - I've noticed due this interaction also a bunch of submissions who possibly have been voted correct by the same .
If this would be true - This should not gonna happen IMO.
check this recent example:
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/history?release=2263566#latest
Should I report this suspicion / incident?

A)
I don't understand how any submitter can vote on their own submission when there have been (according to that submission history) no later edits by anyone. That is an important and worrying question - but ultimately that's not specifically relevant to their use of an inaccurately formed not-on-label/self-release
[Unless you think this is somehow connected with the label issue in a way I don't understand..?]
It seems very suspicious. That should surely be reported so that management can ascertain how that submitter was able to vote on that submission.

B)
That label formulation of Moth In Flames Self-Released is clearly not correct. They should have tried to formulate Not On Label (Moth In Flames Self-released) and as this is a single issue example your argument that it should just be Not On label will apply.
But do you think that sufficiently warrants
Willow.the.Wisp - Needs Major Changes (about 4 hours ago)
..?
That seems incredibly heavy-handed to me.

Wow! Quite a discussion.

When I first started with Discogs, I was told by a couple long term to change about 50 Not On Label to Not On Label (Artist Self-released) and I have used the later ever since. I have no problem going back to Not On Label again - takes much less time.

I don't think that anyone deserves NMC votes for not changing the labels after they receive a Comment because those labels are already in the system and can be helpful if another release shows up by the same artist. As for other releases by an artist, Discogs does not have all the releases that have ever been generated so how do we know that another release is not out there or will soon be coming to Discogs?

Perhaps it might be a good idea to have Not On Label for all self-released listings. It would definitely be less confusing.

dmitrirex
Perhaps it might be a good idea to have Not On Label for all self-released listings. It would definitely be less confusing.

Or allow Not On Label (Artist Self-released) even if there's just 1 self-released release by that artist.

dmitrirex
As for other releases by an artist, Discogs does not have all the releases that have ever been generated so how do we know that another release is not out there or will soon be coming to Discogs?

Exactly. And if I submit the first (to Discogs that is) self-released release by a certain artist, with label "Not On Label", and there's later another submission by another , also self-released by the same artist, how is that supposed to know about the release I submitted? By browsing through the entire discography of the artist? That may prove to be a very lengthy task, just for the sake of adding a label that doesn't exist, in order to follow a guideline that many s find hard to understand.

prometheusrussell
But do you think that sufficiently warrants
Willow.the.Wisp - Needs Major Changes (about 4 hours ago)
..?
That seems incredibly heavy-handed to me.

Yes I think so - per: RSG §20.2.1.

Needs Major Changes

Summary
For release, artist, or label data that need some large or important changes to make it correct

How To Use
Major changes would be considered to be incorrect artist and label names, large problems such as an incomplete tracklist, and / or many minor errors that add up to a lot of errors in the data. The voter should point out the items that need changes.

+ I especially voted this case in fact of the incorrect c+c vote - because votes are also there to flag submissions with incorrect information.

prometheusrussell
That should surely be reported so that management can ascertain how that submitter was able to vote on that submission.

Thanks for your suggestion - I will do that.

Changing the self-releases to Not On Label be hard to ascertain what ones are self released stuff and what ones are bootlegs and such like.

MusicNutter
Changing the self-releases to Not On Label be hard to ascertain what ones are self released stuff and what ones are bootlegs and such like.

Again, bootlegs should be marked as Unofficial, so no problem I think. Also you may always mention something about self-released in the release notes.

True the profiles states for white labels and such like. Does everyone read the release notes?

jim51
ed images to r5495991,

Thanks, have now updated the label profile from info on the CD, I had been to quick to block it. On A Private Label

Amsreddevil
have now updated the label profile from info on the CD

You're welcome! Thanks for this :)

jim51
Will now follow this thread with interest, in silence and from a distance.

Thanks again for your input (additional images) to clarify this issue. Appreciated!

prometheusrussell
I don't understand how any submitter can vote on their own submission when there have been (according to that submission history) no later edits by anyone. That is an important and worrying question

Second , 1 is TrollH2, still not OK though.

prometheusrussell
Needs Major Changes (about 4 hours ago)
..?
That seems incredibly heavy-handed to me.

Incorrect label = Needs Major Changes. Why heavy handed when they obviously voted their own sub correct? Deserves a ban on both s as I have noticed more of these types of similar interactions between the profiles. Others have been banned for a lot less.

dmitrirex
When I first started with Discogs, I was told by a couple long term to change about 50 Not On Label to Not On Label (Artist Self-released) and I have used the later ever since. I have no problem going back to Not On Label again - takes much less time.

Same here. It was misused by people giving advice who were either not party to the original discussion.

The thing is a tool, that was needed and is still needed. When we don;t need the tool, we don't use it. Nothing needs to be discussed or reversed. Perhaps the guideline could be slightly clearer but the tool still serves a function and its misuse should be clamped down on.

Diognes_The_Fox
EviltoastmanNot On Label artist self released

Personally, I feel the whole thing should be scrapped and Not On Label for everything.

This is however, my opinion as a contributor and not any form of staff judgement on this.

Well, that would avoid a lot of confusion like we are seeing here and give space for more stuff in the Guidelines.

Amsreddevil
Second , 1 is TrollH, 2 is TrollH2

Ahh... I hadn't spotted they weren't the same.

Amsreddevil
Why heavy handed when they obviously voted their own sub correct?

Well, we should be voting on the accuracy of the data presented in the submission - the inappropriate voting behaviour is a separate manner and that should be reported and the investigate or sanctioned as necessary.
"The primary function of voting is to tag the current correctness of the information."
We are never supposed to be using the voting to penalise poor behaviour by the submitter, no matter how we may feel they warrant it.

Needs Major Changes
"For release, artist, or label data that need some large or important changes to make it correct"
So they put Moth In Flames Self-Released when they should have put Not On Label (Moth In Flames Self-released)... large and important changes..?
"Major changes would be considered to be incorrect artist and label names, large problems such as an incomplete tracklist, and / or many minor errors that add up to a lot of errors in the data. The voter should point out the items that need changes."
Amsreddevil has now noted on that record that the OS failed to provide a source for the .

I'm not in any way condoning this submitter or the record which deficient - and it looks like this trail of related profiles warrants full investigation - but going overboard on voting is not going to win friends and influence people to follow the tenet of this thread.

I sincerely hope no-one else is voting Not On Label (Joe Bloggs Self-released) should be changed to Not On Label needs major changes.

prometheusrussell
Needs Major Changes
"For release, artist, or label data that need some large or important changes to make it correct"
So they put Moth In Flames Self-Released when they should have put Not On Label (Moth In Flames Self-released)... large and important changes..?

Incorrect label is an important change, you may not think so, but it is a major part of a submission: adding the correct label. The vote was fine according to the RSG. The label was totally incorrect.

A voter mistakenly thought I'd entered the wrong label and voted NMC. If he'd been correct, so would his vote.
WtW has done no wrong.

Amsreddevil
you may not think so

You're particularly adept at destroying the straw men you've created, aren't you..?
I haven't said that at all - but it suits your purpose to give that impression and belittle others.

"For release, artist, or label data that need some large or important changes to make it correct"
Moth In Flames Self-Released is incorrect.
It however does not need changes that most fair-minded people would describe as "large" to change Moth In Flames Self-Released into Not On Label (Moth In Flames Self-released)...

Amsreddevil
prometheusrussellNeeds Major Changes
"For release, artist, or label data that need some large or important changes to make it correct"
So they put Moth In Flames Self-Released when they should have put Not On Label (Moth In Flames Self-released)... large and important changes..?

Incorrect label is an important change, you may not think so, but it is a major part of a submission: adding the correct label. The vote was fine according to the RSG. The label was totally incorrect.

This type of thinking is why Nik or staff member in official capacity needs to respond officially and grandfather current Not on Label (Arttist name self-released), and why the Guideline needs to change.

if nothing else, after reading this thread, every voter should know that Not on Label (Arttist name self-released) is significantly more complicated than being " totally incorrect." and, under some circumstances, is not incorrect at all.

prometheusrussell
When I first started submitting I was pestered and voted into change a number of Not On Labels into Not On labels (Joe Bloggs Self-released).
2 years down the line I am being asked to change them back.
In another 2 years down the line I will find I am reverting them back again when the next bee is buzzing in a bonnet.

I have more or less the same experience, in fact.
This is beyond ridiculous.

loukash
I have more or less the same experience, in fact.

Isn't this a common thing we do here? IT seems once in a while every submission needs to get turned from left to right in order not to get stiff.

Diognes_The_Fox
I am bringing this up for discussion with the database committee at this time.

i recently read the beginning of a thread or post by staff, that (Not On Label xyz-Self-Released) is overused
and in most cases not valid since there is no series just single or few titles...

edit: found it
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/forum/thread/521513029469733cfcfa907f#521513029469733cfcfa9075

Can anyone explain to me what being self-released has to do with whether or not there was more than one item similarly released by the same artist? An item is somehow not self-released until another item by the same artist is? How is that rational?

In the world as I know it, something is self-released or it is not.

ChampionJames
Can anyone explain to me what being self-released has to do with whether or not there was more than one item similarly released by the same artist? An item is somehow not self-released until another item by the same artist is? How is that rational?

In the world as I know it, something is self-released or it is not.

very well put, thanks.

oyabun666
ChampionJamesCan anyone explain to me what being self-released has to do with whether or not there was more than one item similarly released by the same artist? An item is somehow not self-released until another item by the same artist is? How is that rational?

In the world as I know it, something is self-released or it is not.

very well put, thanks.

Completely agree.

ChampionJames
An item is somehow not self-released until another item by the same artist is

hmm ...
Let's take this example here:
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/history?release=2336771

Beside the fact the label is incorrect anyway per RSG §4.4.3. -
perhaps it's enough to mention the fact this release was self released by the artist in release notes as per RSG §11.1.1.

Release notes is a free text field. It is used to add any factual, objective notes about the release, or to list information that cannot be entered into other dedicated fields.

Means Dio's personal feeling:

Diognes_The_Fox
Personally, I feel the whole thing should be scrapped and Not On Label for everything.

is a interesting option at this point. This should be discussed further IMSHO.

Willow.the.Wisp
hmm ...
Let's take this example here:
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/history?release=2336771

Beside the fact the label is incorrect anyway per RSG §4.4.3. -
perhaps it's enough to mention the fact this release was self released by the artist in release notes as per RSG §11.1.1.

Oh, okay, I see the game you're playing here.

Instead of answering a perfectly valid question your tactic is to use the search engine to find a sub from 3 years ago to try to humiliate me with.

Congratulations. Carry on then.

ChampionJames
Instead of answering a perfectly valid question

hmm .. could be I'm too fast forward - I was already at this point to seek a solution for this issue in fact your question is self explanatory to me. A release released by the artist himself is self-released regardless if the same artist has just one or many different releases.

But the Database Discogs has his own ruling how we handle such issues per RSG §4.4..

Willow.the.Wisp
hmm .. could be I'm too fast forward

Oh, yes, you're just way ahead of the rest of all of us.

[insert links to subs where you've made mistakes]

honestly, even if I'm not against decision (but the guideline change recently), I think we should distinguish self-released from not self-released. Many s here are maybe not familiar with small artists, but I have many releases of some artists that are offer on artists' bandcamp or website, some bands don't have website and a friend of them put it for on his blog (with band's permission) .
Think it's pertinent to distinguish what is self-released and what is not (in the DIY punk scene, not self-released and not on label doesn't mean unofficial, see above examples or the case of many 'dead' bands available for on ex- blogs).

Also, for those who give Negative Votes on release that have "Not On Label (Artist Self-released)" with one release on releases not edited since 9 years (Nik's proposition was changed 2 years ago), it's a little bit abusive: imagine s vote on your first subs and vote need minor change because IFPI codes are entered as Other (Mastering SID Code) instead of Mastering SID Code

TwinPowerForce
Think it's pertinent to distinguish what is self-released and what is not

Absolutely. It makes a great deal of sense to have sortable pseudo-label pages that list these releases, and it is very easy to accomplish this if we get rid of this terribly silly "more than one" principle.

TwinPowerForce
t's a little bit abusive: imagine s vote on your first subs and vote need minor change because IFPI codes are entered as Other (Mastering SID Code) instead of Mastering SID Code

Yes. The idea here should be to discuss what is best and most useful and makes the most sense for everybody and then to calmly implement those principles. Not for self-righteous people to unthinkingly go around trying to make others look foolish for not having the prescience years ago to create pseudo-labels in accordance with illogical and awkwardly-written guidelines. The whole spirit of this campaign has been anti-social and mean-spirited.

ChampionJames
TwinPowerForceThink it's pertinent to distinguish what is self-released and what is not
Absolutely. It makes a great deal of sense to have sortable pseudo-label pages that list these releases, and it is very easy to accomplish this if we get rid of this terribly silly "more than one" principle.

TwinPowerForcet's a little bit abusive: imagine s vote on your first subs and vote need minor change because IFPI codes are entered as Other (Mastering SID Code) instead of Mastering SID Code

Yes. The idea here should be to discuss what is best and most useful and makes the most sense for everybody and then to calmly implement those principles. Not for self-righteous people to unthinkingly go around trying to make others look foolish for not having the prescience years ago to create pseudo-labels in accordance with illogical and awkwardly-written guidelines. The whole spirit of this campaign has been anti-social and mean-spirited.

Definitely agree with both of you. Might look like I am changing positions here but I always understood the rationale for adding the self-released component and the previous release segment makes no sense at all because of what I have previously stated. Although it is much simpler for everyone to just put Not On Label, will it make that much difference to add self-released to label rather than just stating the fact in Notes?

Somewhat off the basic topic but related to parts of the discussion, the time is long overdue for an appeals process for incorrect negative votes and consequences taken for those who are incorrectly heavy handed with their votes.

dmitrirex
Although it is much simpler for everyone to just put Not On Label, will it make that much difference to add self-released to label rather than just stating the fact in Notes?

Could be a option IMHO.

dmitrirex
process for incorrect negative votes and consequences taken for those who are incorrectly heavy handed with their votes

Yes - I agree. Eg. such incidents with incorrect cast votes should be reported via https://discogs.librosgratis.biz//new

ChampionJames
subs where you've made mistakes

Off topic but - Surely I am not free of mistakes. Any mistakes or oversights in my subs are honest mistakes, I don't claim to be perfect. I'm more than happy to fix any errors or omissions and learn how to handle this database correct according the guidelines.

ChampionJames
Not for self-righteous people to unthinkingly go around trying to make others look foolish for not having the prescience years ago to create pseudo-labels in accordance with illogical and awkwardly-written guidelines. The whole spirit of this campaign has been anti-social and mean-spirited.

I'm not the OP - but this statement is not a good basis for a resonable discussion IMO.
The Database Management just reminded some important points here: http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/forum/thread/54495458c131f31d82e33c7a

You're the one who's been out of line, not me. Unlike you, I have absolutely nothing to apologize for.

loukash
I have more or less the same experience, in fact.
This is beyond ridiculous.

I also had the same experience, but Nik has stated more than once the labels are over-used and should not be used for one-offs.

You know, you can all attack WTW, but he is following the guidelines. It is about time something was done about these labels, and most were incorrect to start off with anyway, self release, Self-release, Self Released etc. 100 different incorrect ways, not even close to the way we add pseudo labels. I don't know why you are all falling all over this. Don't shoot the messenger, you don't like the guidelines? Attack the person who created them instead of the person who just tries to add info according to the RSG.

Surprised at you, L, you usually don't the lynch mobs.

Amsreddevil
It is about time something was done about these labels

Okay then.

ChampionJames
Okay then.

Amsreddevil
I also had the same experience, but Nik has stated more than once the labels are over-used and should not be used for one-offs.

I am correcting the ones I added incorrectly due to the same mass-misconception we all seemed to have, there are more subs I need to fix I did myself. But this is typical, you remind me of another who uses this tactic. Let's just leave it at this until the 'committee' comes back with their decision.

Amsreddevil
Surprised at you, L, you usually don't the lynch mobs.

Huh?

Amsreddevil
Let's just leave it at this until the 'committee' comes back with their decision.

I've just got a reply on my SR regarding the unjustified EI votes I got for applying the guideline (see http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/history?release=4916793#latest and http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/history?release=4778154#latest ), and that makes clear my edits were correct - to use Not On Label (ArtistName Self-released) there has to be more than 1 such release. Edits re-applied.

Amsreddevil
But this is typical, you remind me of another who uses this tactic.

I should think so. He used it against me in this thread, and you defended him.

Mr-Love
there has to be more than 1 such release

Do they even pretend to have a logical reason for this, or...?

Mr-Love
to use Not On Label (ArtistName Self-released) there has to be more than 1 such release

Which is were we came in, isn't it?

ChampionJames
He used it against me in this thread

Try and focus on the issues for once, thanks. I am not defending anybody, I just do not see why many are aiming their anger at him when he is following the guidelines. As I said, don't shoot the messenger, you don't like the guideline, don't blame others, blame management for making this guideline.

He has done a shed-load of cleaning up, a lot of totally incorrect labels to start off with, along with a few other s, it is something that needed addressing for a long time, and when somebody steps up, they get shot down for doing it...

I am sure management will stick to what they have so far in their statements. But we will wait and see.

ChampionJames
Do they even pretend to have a logical reason for this, or...?

Well they are referring to the "distinct set of releases" as a "series", and a series can obviously not consist of just 1 release.

Mr-Love
Well they are referring to the "distinct set of releases" as a "series", and a series can obviously not consist of just 1 release.

What I mean is simply this:

- Why should a self-released item not be marked self-released until a second item is self-released by the same artist? I am looking for a logical, rational answer to this that does not end up being "because we say so."
- Why should that same item magically "become" self-released if another item self-released by the same artist later makes its way into the database? I am looking for a reason that would justify the series of contradictory edits that would need to be made in this process.
- What harm is there in denoting an item as self-released if another self-released item by the same artist is not yet in the database? I am looking for somebody to explain how that would cause any problems or be disadvantageous in any way.

None of these perfectly valid questions have been answered so far as I can see.

Someone posted on an edit I made Sorry, police state, gotta play by the rules :)

Sure, question the ruling, but until it's changed we stick to it.

Amsreddevil
Try and focus on the issues for once, thanks.

That's all I tried to do. I came into this thread and asked a very general, very reasonable question directly related to the topic. And because some people seemed to agree it was a question worth asking, this apparently seemed to threaten the Police Action that began over this topic, and so instead of answering or even addressing my question in any way, a mistake I made on a sub from over 3 years ago when trying to improve a sub with another was dumped into the forum in an attempt to make me look foolish. It was the biggest scumbag move I've seen in these forums for a long time, which is really saying something. I take it damn hard, and I take it hard when someone defends it. So if I misunderstood your intentions, I apologize. I don't misunderstand his; they were malignant, and I don't apologize for calling it out.

ChampionJames
None of these perfectly valid questions have been answered so far as I can see.

I must say that I agree with you - either allow Not On Label (ArtistName Self-released) for any self-released release, or don't allow it at all. Yes, there'll be many pseudo labels with just 1 release, but how many such artists aren't there?

Mr-Love
Yes, there'll be many pseudo labels with just 1 release, but how many such artists aren't there?

Indeed, and there's a good argument for believing that having many psuedo-label pages is much more useful to us than having a huge dumping ground for "Not On Label" that is way too large to browse through. The smaller label pages would have to be better from data-control and data-usability points of view.

Mr-Love
I must say that I agree with you - either allow Not On Label (ArtistName Self-released) for any self-released release, or don't allow it at all.

That is why we should wait to see what management responds with. It is obvious there are opposing views on this, think all the points have been addressed, staff can read the responses here as to why some think the guideline needs changing, and can address this.