|
45worlds Forums » Vinyl Albums » View Topic
| A question for OC |
Add Reply
Page 1 of 2 : Previous : Next :
| 22nd Oct 2013, 4:37 PM | #1 REPORT | |
 | carryonsidney a happy disposition is an omnious sign.... Member since Feb 2010 1707 Points Moderator | Is it technically possible [to code], so when you are looking at your own collection, to be able to organise your own contributed records into ones with & without scans? |
| 23rd Oct 2013, 7:19 AM | #2 REPORT | |
| carryonsidney a happy disposition is an omnious sign.... Member since Feb 2010 1707 Points Moderator | To be clear - I meant looking at the collection on the site, not a downloaded version! |
| 23rd Oct 2013, 4:58 PM | #3 REPORT | |
 | Orbiting Cat Member since Jan 2008 1183 Points Administrator | Sorry this isn't possible to do at the moment  |
| 23rd Oct 2013, 6:52 PM | #4 REPORT | |
| carryonsidney a happy disposition is an omnious sign.... Member since Feb 2010 1707 Points Moderator | Ok dokey. I have another suggestion for you, due to the large number of gatefold sleeves, how about an option for uploading a gatefold size pic? the Ratio in pixels would be 1600 x 800 so 2:1 ? |
| 23rd Oct 2013, 7:12 PM | #5 REPORT | |
| Orbiting Cat Member since Jan 2008 1183 Points Administrator |
carryonsidney wrote:
Ok dokey. I have another suggestion for you, due to the large number of gatefold sleeves, how about an option for uploading a gatefold size pic? the Ratio in pixels would be 1600 x 800 so 2:1 ?
You already can upload 2:1 ratio images, it's just that the maximum size of the height or width is 800 pixels. So in this case the image would be 800x400. Images that are 1600 pixels wide wouldn't display properly in many people's browser or mobile device. |
| 23rd Oct 2013, 8:52 PM | #6 REPORT | |
 | TopPopper Member since Mar 2013 2612 Points | While suggestions are being floated - I have one. We have Stereo/Mono editions of the same LP grouped under one discography entry. I would like to suggest that we extend the prinicple to include all editions and re-issues of a given LP. ELO are a case in point - an LP might have been issued in, say, 1975, re-issued around 1978, plus a coloured vinyl edition and maybe another issue with a new cat number. How about just having the LP listed (chronologically of course) once - at the point of first release - then subsequent editions of same just listed as variants. Same album, after all. It would tidy up the discographies a fair bit, I think - and also encourage users to look for the "alternative" pressings where, at present, a mono/stereo variant can easily be overlooked out in that right-hand column. |
| 24th Oct 2013, 11:26 AM | #7 REPORT | |
 | An6y66 Member since Jul 2012 1817 Points | Yeah I agree that the the reissues are making the order look untidy. ELO's list is a bit of a mess as there are so many different labels reissuing it. Also could picture discs be included in the link the same as the mono and stereo link. If you look at a band like Marillion where everything was on a pic disc and a standard label but with different cat number. |
| 24th Oct 2013, 11:59 AM | #8 REPORT | |
 | nboldock Lend me ten pounds and I'll buy you a drink. Member since Feb 2012 7198 Points Moderator | I'm not sure about this one. We already have "Linked Releases" which fulfil the objective you quite rightly highlight. But I do think reissues and so on do need to be fully visible in the discographies. We also need to be mindful that not all contributors will be regular users like your good selves, and we don't want to make it harder to find a particular version of an album. Also I'm unsure how it would look, visually speaking, if we implemented something like has been suggested. |
| 24th Oct 2013, 1:36 PM | #9 REPORT | |
| TopPopper Member since Mar 2013 2612 Points | "linked releases" does fulfill a useful function, but that isn't the issue I was meaning. I was more concerned with cleaning up the album listings for each act, so that it reflects their output. Personally I think it muddies the water having (in ELO's case again, to illustrate the point, although the issue is by no means peculiar to them) the album "A New World Record" listed in 1976, then again in 1978 (straight after the second appearance of "Out of the Blue"), then again in 1984 (following "Secret Messages"). Wouldn't it be better to just have it when it was recorded and released - 1976, so that the discography illustrates the act's work, rather than the behind-the-scenes actions of the various label owners? The idea is that subsequent re-appearances of the same album would be available through a link, in the same was mono/stereo is so that it reads (in this case: - Original pressing - Red vinyl edition - Epic edition ...and so son (I'll bet there are more yet to come). Edited by TopPopper on 24th Oct 2013, 1:38 PM |
| 24th Oct 2013, 1:46 PM | #10 REPORT | |
 | getalife So many questions, so few answers Member since Nov 2010 877 Points Moderator |
TopPopper wrote:
"linked releases" does fulfill a useful function, but that isn't the issue I was meaning. I was more concerned with cleaning up the album listings for each act, so that it reflects their output.
Personally I think it muddies the water having (in ELO's case again, to illustrate the point, although the issue is by no means peculiar to them) the album "A New World Record" listed in 1976, then again in 1978 (straight after the second appearance of "Out of the Blue"), then again in 1984 (following "Secret Messages"). Wouldn't it be better to just have it when it was recorded and released - 1976, so that the discography illustrates the act's work, rather than the behind-the-scenes actions of the various label owners? The idea is that subsequent re-appearances of the same album would be available through a link, in the same was mono/stereo is so that it reads (in this case: - Original pressing - Red vinyl edition - Epic edition ...and so son (I'll bet there are more yet to come). My two pennies worth, I thought we had the system TopPopper is proposing in 45cat, regarding first, second, third issue being under one place, other than different cat#. Edited by getalife on 24th Oct 2013, 1:47 PM |
| 24th Oct 2013, 2:13 PM | #11 REPORT | |
| nboldock Lend me ten pounds and I'll buy you a drink. Member since Feb 2012 7198 Points Moderator | Indeed we have, though in the ELO example the three issues are different catalogue numbers. Here's another thing. Let's say Joe Bloggs logs on to the site for the first time and he's looking for the 1984 issue of A New World Record. He looks under the ELO discography, scrolling down to 1984, and can't find it. So he enters it again. Then we have a problem. |
| 24th Oct 2013, 3:02 PM | #12 REPORT | |
| Orbiting Cat Member since Jan 2008 1183 Points Administrator | Interesting discussion this. With 45cat, we create a new entry if the record is on a different label etc, and we've copied that method over here for vinyl albums. I think it works well. TopPopper said: Quote:
Wouldn't it be better to just have it when it was recorded and released - 1976, so that the discography illustrates the act's work, rather than the behind-the-scenes actions of the various label owners?
But we don't do that at 45cat, and I don't think we should do it here. We're not going for a pure list of primary releases, but for a list of all the different records that have been released. Edited by Orbiting Cat on 24th Oct 2013, 3:02 PM |
| 24th Oct 2013, 3:06 PM | #13 REPORT | |
| TopPopper Member since Mar 2013 2612 Points | @nboldock, We would have to delete the duplicate entry. But in all honesty, I think that would happen very rarely. Would a first-time user be specifically looking for a re-issue edition by its year (which, incidentally, is rarely printed on the label) and then rather than look further and find out how the site works, instead take his own scans and add it in? Maybe occasionally, but not as a rule. I would think it more common that people think they'd like to look up a certain act, find the relevant discography and browse through, and click on albums they like - and wouldn't it be better if the discography appeared to them to be ordered, chronological and accurate? They'd soon spot re-issues and linked editions, etc. I think in ELOs case (again!) many of the reissues came about only because there was a change in the company distributing the LPs. So, in the late-1970s and 1980s we have what seems to be a random sequence of earlier albums popping up two or three times each - which is not attractive to a first-time visitor, in my view, Edited by TopPopper on 24th Oct 2013, 3:08 PM |
| 24th Oct 2013, 3:12 PM | #14 REPORT | |
| TopPopper Member since Mar 2013 2612 Points |
Orbiting Cat wrote:
Interesting discussion this. With 45cat, we create a new entry if the record is on a different label etc, and we've copied that method over here for vinyl albums. I think it works well. TopPopper said:
Quote:
Wouldn't it be better to just have it when it was recorded and released - 1976, so that the discography illustrates the act's work, rather than the behind-the-scenes actions of the various label owners?
But we don't do that at 45cat, and I don't think we should do it here. We're not going for a pure list of primary releases, but for a list of all the different records that have been released. I understand that point, but I think the issuing policy of singles and albums is different, so there's no absolute reason to make the two sites the same. You could, for example, go out now and buy a new edition of perhaps half a dozen Stevie Wonder LPs from the 60s and 70s - but try and find new reissues of his singles - they aren't reissued in the same way. And also, we've already merged mono and stereo, despite their being different editions with different cat numbers, so there is inconsistency as it stands. Edited by TopPopper on 24th Oct 2013, 3:12 PM |
| 24th Oct 2013, 3:17 PM | #15 REPORT | |
| nboldock Lend me ten pounds and I'll buy you a drink. Member since Feb 2012 7198 Points Moderator |
TopPopper wrote:
Orbiting Cat wrote:
Interesting discussion this. With 45cat, we create a new entry if the record is on a different label etc, and we've copied that method over here for vinyl albums. I think it works well. TopPopper said:
Quote:
Wouldn't it be better to just have it when it was recorded and released - 1976, so that the discography illustrates the act's work, rather than the behind-the-scenes actions of the various label owners?
But we don't do that at 45cat, and I don't think we should do it here. We're not going for a pure list of primary releases, but for a list of all the different records that have been released. I understand that point, but I think the issuing policy of singles and albums is different, so there's no absolute reason to make the two sites the same. You could, for example, go out now and buy a new edition of perhaps half a dozen Stevie Wonder LPs from the 60s and 70s - but try and find new reissues of his singles - they aren't reissued in the same way. And also, we've already merged mono and stereo, despite their being different editions with different cat numbers, so there is inconsistency as it stands. That's different though. (a) they would appear next to each other in the discography listing, and (b) a mono/stereo coupling is not two separate, distinct releases [generally speaking]. However for example if an album comes out on EMI and then a couple of years later comes out on Music For Pleasure, that is not the same release, even if it has the same track listing. Of course... a point unmentioned so far is that this would be a hell of a job coding-wise, for arguably little gain. Edited by nboldock on 24th Oct 2013, 3:19 PM |
| 24th Oct 2013, 4:38 PM | #16 REPORT | |
| An6y66 Member since Jul 2012 1817 Points |
TopPopper wrote:
"
The idea is that subsequent re-appearances of the same album would be available through a link, in the same was mono/stereo is so that it reads (in this case: - Original pressing - Red vinyl edition - Epic edition ...and so son (I'll bet there are more yet to come). What you are suggesting is a similar layout to discogs.com. Where there is the definitive catalogue of releases from a band is listed in chronological order and all re-released and label variations listed under that 1st pressing. This I think does make more sense, as at the moment releases with unknown dates such as many fame issues are appearing in random places over the discography. And this may be harder to find for Joe Bloggs who's using the site for the first time to find than thinking to scroll to page three because his fame reissue of the beatles oldies doesn't come next to revolver in the original discography. I though the 45cat rule was that second , third or whatever pressings subsequent to the original were included with the original unless there was a separate advertising campaign. I.E. when the beatles singles were all rereleased as picture discs this counts as a new entry as it was part of a new campaign. With many records (ELO again as an example) as toppopper pointed out is from the record label changing distributer. All the ELO Lps released on jet changed cat. numbers when the distributer changed and placed their numbering system to the record, so it was never advertised as a new issue. |
| 24th Oct 2013, 4:43 PM | #17 REPORT | |
| An6y66 Member since Jul 2012 1817 Points | Just to clarify I'm not having a moan about the site, I just think that instead of trying to fit the LP-word into the 45cat template maybe a new format should be used. I know that this means alot more work for you mods, and this is a great site regardless if it stays the same or a new layout is adopted. So i'm sorry if it sounded like i was having a go at the site I was just putting forward some suggestions. Andy |
| 24th Oct 2013, 6:57 PM | #18 REPORT | |
| TopPopper Member since Mar 2013 2612 Points | Same here - my comments weren't meant as a criticism or complaint, just a thought to try and make it even better! |
| 25th Oct 2013, 8:11 AM | #19 REPORT | |
| nboldock Lend me ten pounds and I'll buy you a drink. Member since Feb 2012 7198 Points Moderator | All suggestions are always welcome chaps.  |
| 25th Oct 2013, 8:26 AM | #20 REPORT | |
| Orbiting Cat Member since Jan 2008 1183 Points Administrator |
nboldock wrote:
All suggestions are always welcome chaps.
Indeed they are  Regarding ELO, our guidelines are just that, and common sense should be used. If the ELO records referred to above are the same issue, with a cat# change, then they could be placed on a single page, using the "Other Cat#" information. |
Page 1 of 2 : Previous : Next :
Add Reply
45worlds website ©2025 :
Homepage :
Search :
Sitemap :
Help Page :
Privacy :
Terms :
Contact :
Share This Page
Vinyl Albums : Live Music : 78 RPM : CD Albums : CD Singles : 12" Singles : 7" Singles : Tape Media : Classical Music : Music Memorabilia : Cinema : TV Series : DVD & Blu-ray : Magazines : Books : Video Games : Create Your Own World
Latest » Items : Comments : Price Guide : Reviews : Ratings : Images : Lists : Videos : Tags : Collected : Wanted : Top 50 : Random
45worlds for music, movies, books etc : 45cat for 7" singles : 45spaces for hundreds more worlds
:
Like us on Facebook
Vinyl Albums : Live Music : 78 RPM : CD Albums : CD Singles : 12" Singles : 7" Singles : Tape Media : Classical Music : Music Memorabilia : Cinema : TV Series : DVD & Blu-ray : Magazines : Books : Video Games : Create Your Own World
Latest » Items : Comments : Price Guide : Reviews : Ratings : Images : Lists : Videos : Tags : Collected : Wanted : Top 50 : Random
45worlds for music, movies, books etc : 45cat for 7" singles : 45spaces for hundreds more worlds