 | gregs45s SUBS
Member since Apr 2012 7614 Points | @MM,Surely it's not that Discogs is wrong per se,it's just that they have the same disparity between releases as we do,i.e,some CD's are entered by where they were made,and some by where they were released/issued/put on sale/distributed (or however you wish to name it;).
So i think it's about how we want to identify a release,and what i suggested was that both sets of information be used,where it was made,which is surely one thing we can all agree on,which we can pretty much all just read off the actual CD/artwork,and where it was issued if known,if not known at the time,by the input from members,as an ongoing thing,i.e,i bought mine in so and so,so please ad such and such a flag.
Surely we still have to use countries to differentiate between releases?,it's what defines them,i wouldn't for example search for a Stones CD by using the barcode,or even the Cat.No.(unless looking for a "specific" release of course)
If you wanted to find the Australian (or wherever) release of a particular CD,you wouldn't search by barcode,
I am certainly no expert on barcodes,but i don't think they identify specific countries?,"7243" for example,is quite often seen on European releases,the "7243" prefix often being followed by a part of/all of the Cat.No.,with the last digit sometimes varying,indicating the type of packaging used i believe,i.e,it ends in an 8 (jewel case),or a 9 (Digipak) (i have just picked two random numbers here by the way;)
So,surely,country identification is still the way to go in terms of defining a particular release,it's just about deciding how we input that,either using country of manufacture,country of issue,or both,as i have suggested.Either way,entering as much definite/known info as we physically have in front of us (i.e,country of manufacture,etc) would ensure greater accuracy,instead of having to guesstimate,where a CD might have been released.
Again,just throwing it out there;)
|