Hi all,
I am working on getting my collections entered here and am rather new to the submission process.
Seems many of my discs are the older versions of (pre-barcode) releases and often times I am finding the non-barcoded versions to be absent from the current DB listings.

Looking through some existing shops I notice sellers commonly listing items for sale and simply mention barcode or no barcode in their descriptions. Is this an accepted practice here?

Seems to be to be a bit misleading. Sometimes they are slightly different, I.E. 4 sides vs 3 sides or something.

Perhaps a feature request for easier submitting of an otherwise identical release, without a barcode seems like it could be usefull. However since I have no experience in coding and such... who knows?

Discogs uses a 'copy to draft' feature that is really simple to modify the draft to match your submission and then submit. Not sure how that'd go over here but, something to consider.

Just my $0.02 on the matter.
Thx

Back when I was entering discs from the first couple years of production, this problem cropped up from time to time. What I ended up doing was simply putting a note in the comments section that the first pressing of the title did not have a barcode. Any title released before 1983 did not have one. Hope this helps.

I started a clean up work last year on these (usually USA) releases who started their lives without UPC and ended up with one.
Lots of people would update a "none" into an UPC or send updates saying "mine doesn't have one". Ratkins, as usual, was good at providing accurate details.

I made splits into 2 different entries when something was definitely different between the 2 releases such as adding Digital Audio, different cover, different track list, etc. Otherwise I left a note about the possibility of having a barcode or not.

On popular titles, a quick eBay lookup will quickly show both versions nearly identical, with just the UPC to distinguish them.

Eventually the 2nd batch with UPC cover were pressed at a different factory and then the Mint Markings notes would mention (with UPC) and (no UPC) to differentiate them.

Julien

With my Admin view, I added a "CLONE" control that does exactly that.
Maybe it would be nice to extend it to all users.

Julien

Thanks for the info.



I suppose that is adequate enough. As long as sellers mention this when they list items for sale. Sometimes buyers can get picky about specifics and have found the best practice is to provide an accurate disclosure.

RE: Clone and opening it to all users.

That might turn out to be a source of many mis-entered titles. If the user is not careful to sort out all the information that differs from the cloned entry compared to their intended submission.

I wouldn't mind giving it a try though. I'm only about 10% into entering my stuff and find most of what I'm looking for. When I do get stuck it's usually the barcode issue.

Tried to enter one, a Grover Washington Jr concert title, and hope all was well with it. As a first submission from a new user, I had some questions and certainly would value any feedback from more experienced users.

http://www.lddb.com/laserdisc/submit/53 ... cert-(1981)

That one is actually my 2nd try. The first one did not turn out so well. In fact it could/should be deleted. Since I've got the Admin's attention... It's located here:
http://www.lddb.com/laserdisc/submit/53 ... cert-(1982)