Concept:
A row with two menus and a free text description field.
can add as many rows as necessary.
• Menu 1: main descriptors like "Made In", "Manufactured In", "Printed In", "Pressed In", "Distributed In", "Released In", etc. (To be determined later in detail)
• Menu 2: list of countries and regions; combined countries are redundant
• Free text field to add optional descriptive content (like BAOI)
Form section layout: [↕] [Menu 1] [Menu 2] [Free text field] [✕]
[+ Add row]
Application idea:
• At release page level, the "country of release" as we knew it doesn't matter. All known country-related details will be displayed non-hierarchically, giving a precise description of the release. Facts only, no guesswork.
• A "hierarchical concept" could be applied in list views like the Master Release, in order to make the lists manageable in of layout. The actual hierarchy of which country field has priority over another one is to be determined when there's a final list of usable country credits descriptions. Priority list example diagram, showing a hierarchy possibility: -1 Country of label
--2 Country of owner company
---3 Country of distibutor
----4 Country of manufacturer
-----5 Country of the rights society
------6 etc.
For example, if countries of label, company and distributor are unknown, country of manufacture would become the highest priority data and appear in compact views like MR.
FAQ: Q: But "Country/market of release" is an important factor, or not?
A: No, apparently not: it's not even mandatory. But fear not, you will still have the option to add "Marketed In", "Released In", or "Distributed In" nonetheless.
Q: Won't multiple country fields cause a chaos in discography list views and MRs?
A: An even bigger chaos than today with all the releases already tagged as "Europe" because they may have been distributed in more than one European country? Hardly. Besides, that's a display issue and as such a job for the front-end programmers and designers to solve. It's none of our concern for the accuracy goal at the release level which is the actual base of this database. (1 release = "1 Discogs database record")
Q: Why is the "Country of label" more important than the "Country of distributor" in your "Priority list example diagram"?
A: It's just an EXAMPLE how the hierarchy concept may work, neither the "final list", nor the "final hierarchy"! :P
Q: But the management has already turned your proposal down before!
A: 1) That's not a question, and 2) that won't prevent me from keeping on bugging them with it until they finally give in. ;)
loukash
Q: But "Country/market of release" is an important factor, or not?
A: No, apparently not. It's not even mandatory.
I think it's pretty important a large number of us, probably more so than where a release was made for that country of release. To me, where it was sold as a primary market is the country.
Opdiner
To me, where it was sold as a primary market is the country.
And you will still have the option to add that "primary market country"; even countries.
Except that you won't have to be guessing anymore in order to determine the "least absurd" country choice. You'll just list anything that's based on facts.
loukash
Q: But "Country/market of release" is an important factor, or not?
A: No, apparently not. It's not even mandatory.
Opdiner
I think it's pretty important a large number of us
Thinking of it some more:
If you add enough other required or optional identifiers like label, companies, catalog#(s) and BAOI stuff which all clearly determine a release to be unique compared to other already existing submissions, it's still not mandatory to add a "country" by any means of RSG §1.3.1. ff.
But yeah, usually we all do add it, as "best" as we can… :P
1. It’s based on sound data modelling principles. Clearly loukash knows how to design a relational database properly.
2. It will allow a more nuanced, accurate, and meaningful description of releases, as opposed to the current restrictive approach.
3. It ought to be feasible to implement it (See #1).
4. It will be good for Discogs (See #2).
I recently suggested something not unlike this approach for handling Dates.
I think it is a good proposal. We could even add a field "country of origin of artist", with "multinational" for bands with mixed bases of operations/mixed origins etc.
tam89rds
We could even add a field "country of origin of artist", with "multinational" for bands with mixed bases of operations/mixed origins etc.
What purpose would this serve? If nationality is notable for an artist, list that on the profile page instead of cluttering up releases with that info.
loukash
• A "hierarchical concept" could be applied in list views like the Master Release, in order to make the lists manageable in of layout. The actual hierarchy of which country field has priority over another one is to be determined when there's a final list of usable country credits descriptions.
As I said in the other thread, the problem with this is that the hierarchy can be different for different releases. For the most accurate end result, the MR display country has to be pretty much chosen manually. It could be done easily with a tick box, a drop down option or something similar.
Opdiner
I think it's pretty important a large number of us, probably more so than where a release was made for that country of release. To me, where it was sold as a primary market is the country.
+1 However, that doesn't preclude the idea of a pull-down menu similar to lccn.
auboisdormant
For the most accurate end result, the MR display country has to be pretty much chosen manually.
Agreed. I'd leave the intended market (Marketed In, if you prefer) as the default.
auboisdormant
For the most accurate end result, the MR display country has to be pretty much chosen manually.
+1 really good idea and proposal. I see only one problem with it however. For example, I submit a lot of Yugoslav releases (although I am sure this situation could be applied to many other countries as well). With the exception of a really small number of indie records pressed in Czechoslovakia at the beginning of the 90s (and one record that I know for sure was sold in Hungary as well as Yugoslavia), all our records were printed, manufactured, distributed and marketed in Yugoslavia only. I think it would be redundant to enter the same country several times - I suggest the option of having a "primary country" (or something like that) field among all those other fields, akin to the current country field. For example. If a selects "Primary Country" from the drop-down, he would be unable to open any additional fields as this field would mean: Manufactured In, Printed In, Marketed In, Distributed In and Everything Else In. If he selects one of the other fields, then it would be as loukash suggests, you can open as many fields as you like to accommodate all the data.
Maybe I didn't read the suggestion well and this is already covered? My apologies if it is. +1 once more because I think this is a really great idea to eliminate all the arguing about releases with ambiguous countries of release.
Yukabacera
all our records were printed, manufactured, distributed and marketed in Yugoslavia only. I think it would be redundant to enter the same country several times
I understand what you mean.
The seeming redundancy is the same as we already have in LCCN fields:
The issue here is that you need to group the attributes by some means. It would be necessary to introduce sort of the same mechanism as we now have for Index Tracks, i.e. to mark the beginning and the end of a country attributes group. Is it really easier than to simply add a new line with a new pair "attribute+country"?
Yukabacera
If a selects "Primary Country" from the drop-down, he would be unable to open any additional fields
That's sounds more like a complication rather than having much benefit. ;)
loukash
Priority list example diagram, showing a hierarchy possibility:
-1 Country of label
--2 Country of owner company
---3 Country of distibutor
----4 Country of manufacturer
-----5 Country of the rights society
------6 etc.
Would these fields be filled to some extent with extra-release information, as in a label's country / countries, even if not printed anywhere? For something like a rights society I'd think it would normally have to be. If so, I'd like to see additional lines for the sometimes conflicting verbatim countries listed as "Printed in / Made in" on: the disc surface and matrix; the insert(s) and sleeves; the tray card; distribution stickers; etc., as well as the country of the pressing plant, if known, which may be different from stated data.
It would end a huge class of time-wasting arguments here. Don't know, or can't figure out the country of release? Leave it out! Just list what you've got. Perfect.
loukash
Menu 1: main descriptors like "Made In", "Manufactured In", "Printed In", "Pressed In", "Distributed In", "Released In", etc. (To be determined later in detail)
Instead of the Primary Country field I suggested, we have two different market fields: Primary Market and Secondary. For example, on a record that I have. (Changes) The primary market is Singapore as the record was made, recorded and printed there. However there are also secondary markets of Malaysia and Hong Kong. It states it like this:
(P) (C) 1983 Polygram Records Pte Ltd
Then it has "Marketed By" and a large PolyGram logo. Below the logo in much smaller print it says:
Polygram Records Pte Ltd (Singapore)
Polygram Records Sdn. Bhd. (Malaysia)
Polygram Records Ltd (Hong Kong)
This is the case on a lot of HK and Singapore records - sometimes Thailand is included as an additional market as well.
Yukabacera
Instead of the Primary Country field I suggested, we have two different market fields: Primary Market and Secondary.
Why not?
The menu should accomodate any tags that will turn out as useful.
We'll just have to keep this in mind:
RSG §1.1.2. Sources of information external to the release itself may be added, but the physical release must always be the main source. External sources of the information (for example websites, word of mouth, books etc) must be declared in the submission notes, explained in the release notes, and be verifiable as far as possible. Unsubstantiated information may be removed or rejected.
In other words:
If a Mythical Market Of Release™ is not credited, you must provide a valid source why it should be included.
~~~
On a related note:
One of the next steps of the concept could be a "Country" tag for entities.
If a company can be assigned to a country – and usually it can – then it would be tagged in profile.
E.g. "Polygram Records Pte Ltd" would get a "Singapore" tag
Then, if "Polygram Records Pte Ltd" is credited for ℗ in LCCN, the system can fetch the entity's country and assign the country to the most useful attribute for that release automatically, for example: "Copyrighted In: Singapore"
The possibilities how to work with such "atomized" database data are almost unlimited.
All we need are the proper tools.
I like the proposal a lot. It's better than what we have now.
I read all three previous threads. None of them has one comment from HQ.
That is a bit disappointing :(
I do like this idea, I think it would improve accuracy, and possibly ease of data entry as well, even with more fields. It is a matter of development priorities, however. I have listed it in our possible feature updates, but no promises or time scales at this time.
Great idea, however there's an issue that more data means more incorrect use of the countries as a whole.
A few examples would be good to show new and other Oggers how to properly use these in time.
...and you could clone it even for release date issues regarding dates as "Official release date, date on release, original date, mastering date.
It would lead to easier input and to better discogrphies, since Unknown years/countries are listed aside of the known years (and I guess only 30% of those have release dates with real factual background)
Opdiner
I think it's pretty important a large number of us, probably more so than where a release was made for that country of release. To me, where it was sold as a primary market is the country.
It's massively important. in fact i most cases it;s more important than the country fields that are set to replace it.
Please read again properly before spreading FUD.
Nothing is set to replace anything.
We'll just stick to facts.
You do like facts, don't you.
I knew that you do. :P
All I know is I don't like having to change releases on Homestead to US even though they were manufactured in England or Dischord from to US because they used MPO or countless US indie CDs which were manufactured in Canada.
Feel free to bring in more ideas. That's what this thread is for.
Calle_jr
I suppose all existing subs would be (automatically) retagged "Marketed in".
That would be a possibility.
However, such a direct conversion may actually distort many data if there's no literal "Marketed …" credit on a release.
So the best solution would be: with the introduction of the new section each release would remain as is at first, with a tag that doesn't appear in the Country attribute list at all. Only if a chooses to update the Country attributes it would be necessary to assign one of the specific tags anew. (As far as I recall, the same principle was done before with some legacy Style tags which would remain with the submission unless someone changed them manually.)
I suspect that would be post-manufacture and nothing to do with a release by a company (not unless it's the record company exporting and distributing).
Maybe the credited Distributors are enough, as long as they are added correctly, in any case I can see a "Country" tag for entities being of great help too.
I see the issue affecting a release I just received a query over this CD: Quincy Jones - The Dude was manufactured in Japan [also packaged for that territory with a different cat#] and for both the US and UK markets; apparently a sticker was added [IMO not post-manufacture as it wasn't produced by an external company] to the copies distributed to the UK; it's also quite likely that US copies were packaged in a longbox... at the moment we maybe do need two separate entries but with the change discussed above would they be unified?
Tarantxon
I suspect that would be post-manufacture and nothing to do with a release by a company (not unless it's the record company exporting and distributing).
At least I was thinking of releases exclusively manufactured for export, e.g. Beatles, Stones, Who etc.
Tarantxon
I suspect that would be post-manufacture and nothing to do with a release
That's why my concept includes a FTF for each row where you could add e.g. "Uncredited". Of course, as with any uncredited data, such a credit must be well justified in the submission comments to be acceptable.
Speaking of justification: in fact I seriously miss that in the currently valid market of release guesswork "concept". :P
Perhaps ing images ought to be compulsory before 'advanced' release edits are allowed and s at an introductory level should maybe only be able to access and edit some of the data.
Having seen one or two "discussions" in the forum recently, I think this thread could do with a bump.
Too many people are confused by the country field, or they just put in whatever takes their fancy. The rare(ish) occasion when an 'ogger asks in the forum "What country for this record?" usually ends up getting all argie-bargie.
Not confused, but would prefer a country of origin or similar in place of the "market" country.
I realise this can be difficult as sometimes the media and sleeve can be produced in different countries too.
Just do away with the country field, nowadays, the country is the world isn't it?
A label I collect is based in the US so their releases are mostly tagged as US, yet they have their own online distribution and sell through bandcamp also so the "market" is worldwide.
