Guideline update request - digital release dates

Most (if not all) major stores list the original physical release date as the digital release date. This has lead to a huge mass of digital releases in the database where the release date is listed as over a decade before a single store even existed, or (worse yet) the entire format even existed. Also, a large chunk of these are actually voted correct by people who probably shouldn't be voting in the first place.

There really needs to be something in the guidelines about not using the original (physical) release date for digital re-releases. I know it probably wouldn't change much, but at least the submitters would have no excuse.

StaticGuru
There really needs to be something in the guidelines about not using the original (physical) release date for digital re-releases.

+1

StaticGuru
There really needs to be something in the guidelines about not using the original (physical) release date for digital re-releases. I know it probably wouldn't change much, but at least the submitters would have no excuse.

definitely +1

StaticGuru
There really needs to be something in the guidelines about not using the original (physical) release date for digital re-releases. I know it probably wouldn't change much, but at least the submitters would have no excuse.

+1

Yupp, +999

absolutely 'yes'. i've spent hours on this already. it's a bit like fighting against windmills.

Yes, ineed, but mentioned thousand times before and still nothing happened... Also, the subbers MUST mention sources for their digital subs: Copied info from the web site, deep link of that site and link; if necessary; Internet Archive links.

This would be nice, +1.

Gabbahead
Also, the subbers MUST mention sources for their digital subs: Copied info from the web site, deep link of that site and link; if necessary; Internet Archive links.

...to be included as part of the submission notes, not the release notes.

Of course. ;)

(And up...)

SR sent.

It's funny I came across this exact issue yesterday with a couple of subs on one label (see Callin' You Love for instance). Something definitely needs to go in the guidelines about it.

See also http://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/52e3bc735e75a76c00462a19 about non-DRM reissues (2007+) of releases previously released with DRM.

Let's do it.

Any suggestions on how to word the guidelines would be appreciated.

And up for a guideline. ;)

(Saving this.)

Diognes_The_Fox
Any suggestions on how to word the guidelines would be appreciated.

Done. You have a few new paragraphs to wade through (per SR attachment).

Thanks hmvh!

So, no answere from management?

Hi folks. We have been discussing it via a request, but haven't been able to agree on the wording or extent of changes. This is a summary of where we are at right now. Any comments of further proposals are most welcome, thanks!

Proposed change: 8.1.1. Do not make the common mistake of entering "2010-04-01" to represent the month of April 2010, enter "2010-04-00" instead.

My reply: The guidelines already state what to use. I don't think making them longer by reiterating parts will help any case where it is being entered incorrectly

Proposed change: 8.1.4. Items can be submitted before the official street release date, but you must always have the physical copy in your possession when submitting. Please point out in the Submission Notes how you came to have copy prior to the street date.

My reply: The warning already stated "The release date is in the future. Please check and confirm you have this release in your possession, and the release date is confirmed." I am not convinced more text will help here.

Proposed change (condensed by myself): 8.1.5. For file based releases, be wary of any digital release dates prior to the year 2000. If in doubt, it is safest to omit the date entirely. For example, the MP3 format was standardised in 1995, and Apple's ALAC format was introduced in 2004. Any digital release in those formats indicated as being as having been released before those dates cannot be correct.

nik
as being as having been

One "being/been" too many?

(Up & Saving)

DonHergeFan
(Up & Saving)

nik
Proposed change (condensed by myself): 8.1.5. For file based releases, be wary of any digital release dates prior to the year 2000. If in doubt, it is safest to omit the date entirely. For example, the MP3 format was standardised in 1995, and Apple's ALAC format was introduced in 2004. Any digital release in those formats indicated as being as having been released before those dates cannot be correct.

I'd like to see this added to the Guidelines. It's a good addition that should help alleviate some mistakes.

I worked internet technical from 1999 to 2005 and before I started work there were plenty of official sites offering MP3 s - particularly smaller record labels like Ipecac.om and artist sites like feederweb.com which added a full track sample of it's first album... all subsequent samples were snippets ineligible to the database. I think that date might need to be wound back a bit to 1997 (advent of Winamp - wiki actually backs up my memory of proliferation of MP3 - take from that what you will) instead of 2000. In fact 2000 saw a brief decline in MP£ proliferation as Napster, Audio Galaxy frightened the crap out of labels and artists and saw them flock to an alternative (also developed in 1995) to Real Audio after they developed a streaming version. I;d go 1997 or 98 as the warning year.

DonHergeFan
(Up & Saving)

DonHergeFan
(Up & Saving)

Time to wind this one up again, it's been almost two years: The original SR is long gone, so let's kickstart the forum:

nik
My reply: The warning already stated "The release date is in the future. Please check and confirm you have this release in your possession, and the release date is confirmed." I am not convinced more text will help here.

Understood. Any text, even flashing marquee, will happily get ignored anyway.

nik
Proposed change (condensed by myself): 8.1.5. For file based releases, be wary of any digital release dates prior to the year 2000. If in doubt, it is safest to omit the date entirely. For example, the MP3 format was standardised in 1995, and Apple's ALAC format was introduced in 2004. Any digital release in those formats indicated as being as having been released before those dates cannot be correct.

nik summarised it rather eloquently.

This was the original text it was condensed from:

8.1.5. Commercial digital audio file based releases are usually available in the popular MP3 format (standardised in 1995) or Apple's ALAC format (introduced in 2004). It therefore stands to reason that any digital release in those formats indicated as being as having been released before those dates cannot be correct. Even the most well-known etailers are sometimes not immune from displaying inappropriate release dates: the Beatles' albums, to use a famous example, were not officially made available as digital s until 2010 -- although the store shows the original release dates from the 1960's.
Another example could be the case of a small cassette label that was active during the 90's, and in the year 2012 decided to make their entire catalogue freely available via a site such as archive.org: the release date of an original cassette would be 199x, that of the file versions can obviously be no earlier than 2012.

As a general rule of thumb, be wary of any digital release dates prior to the year 2000. If in doubt, it may be safest to omit the date entirely.

Eviltoastman
I think that date might need to be wound back a bit to 1997 (advent of Winamp - wiki actually backs up my memory of proliferation of MP3 - take from that what you will) instead of 2000.

The first time I personally was exposed to MP3 was around 1998/9, so I suppose 1997 couldn't be far off the mark. Does anyone else 1997 as a suitable cut-off date?

More opinions and ideas appreciated, please, lest this topic gets forgotten again.

As the MP3 codec existed from 1995 - it's widespread use doesn't mean anything. There could be MP3 releases from 1996 that are perfectly valid.

We have historical data as to the created and final accepted codification date of the codec - that should be used. Not a vague "I didn't see them commonly used until..."