https://archive.org/details/whatcdcrawl https://archive.org/details/whatcdcrawl Although I doubt there's anything in there that isn't also in the Goodbye Relea

https://archive.org/details/whatcdcrawl https://archive.org/details/whatcdcrawl Although I doubt there's anything in there that isn't also in the Goodbye Release: https://twitter.com/whatcd/status/923941782253121539 https://twitter.com/whatcd/status/923941782253121539 > I feel like we truly have failed to a common, lasting, platform for storing arbitrary data. As wonderful as What.CD was, and as much of a void as it left, it wasn't that. I'm increasingly convinced that any general purpose metadata store is going to be insufficiently granular for true specialists, while conversely, most specialist metadata stores are going to be overwhelming for a casual user. For example, What.CD's most successful successor has not one, not two, not seven, but forty-two different releases of Wish You Were Here. And even that is a small portion of the 768 versions listed on Discogs[0]. But does a casual user even care? Hell no. They'll keep listening to the CD they got at Wal-Mart some time in the mid-'90s, happily, and none the wiser. This only becomes a problem when, eventually, there is something that casual user does care deeply about – model trains, or Funko Pop! figures – but they're turned off (or banned) from contributing the site because they got in a flame war with a moderator over the omission of one particular re-release of Star Wars: Episode V. Über-metadata sites are either insufficiently granular (see: Wikipedia), insufficiently well-curated (see: Internet Archive), or inaccessible (in both meanings of the word; see: the hypothetical combination of all specialist, private filesharing sites). [0]: https://www.discogs.com/Pink-Floyd-Wish-You-Were-Here/master/11703 https://www.discogs.com/Pink-Floyd-Wish-You-Were-Here/master...