3 ms·
>This is obviously due to lack of volunteers, or their volunteers have limited areas of interest, which is totally understandable. But I think some basic automa
by rhizome 6y ago
>This is obviously due to lack of volunteers, or their volunteers have limited areas of interest, which is totally understandable. But I think some basic automatic systems to at least add the new releases from major labels is needed for such database.
They don't exist. Look at SoundExchange, the US organization that handles music royalties from streaming. They don't even have complete records on the releases for which they collect money! You're talking about a myriad of Hollywood-accounting companies (if that) that were fired up and dismantled willy-nilly, for decades.
Oh, that Japanese label that put out two 45s in 1962...where would that be recorded except in the collections of music fans who own them? That's what Discogs is based on. You want those records to be in the database? Buy them and put them in. The fact that you don't is what you're describing as "limited areas of interest."
- fireattack 6y agoNot sure what you mean by "don't exist". I meant that they could write scrapers and fetch such information periodically from, say, recording companies' websites or more reliably, from e-commerce stores. I'm saying so because I know plenty of 3rd party fandom/crowdsourced databases are doing exactly this, for books, CDs, etc. The data obviously need some manual checks later, but this step saves lots of time. Again, Discogs already have a very complete database for old releases, especially for vinyls. But what I'm talking is that they are lacking for newer ones (CDs or digital releases) and just provide a systematic (and tried) way to improve in that regard (considering their goal now is "everything"). For something in 1962? Sure you're right. But you don't really need some fans to own a copy to prove the existence or get information for a hit album in 2010s.