What the FTF?

I've noticed some people adding very strange things to the FTF (Free Text Field) under the argument that it helps in distinguishing one issue from another. Well, that may be the case with some simple listings, although the 3 letters displayed from the FTF in discographies can be way too cryptic to make any sense.

Some examples?
Can - Tago Mago Barcode

I could imagine if this were to continue we're going to get listings with the likes of...
Tec Nim Dis Doc Pol Pos
.. which will make no sense to anyone

And what if there are variations of items with and without barcode manufactured by different companies as with the Can Tago Mago CD releases? Or in fact those also with more valid differences like Digipaks?

In fact, is it valid use of the FTF to add?...
1. Manufacturing company
2. Barcode

ultimathulerecords
if this were to continue we're going to get listings with the likes of...
Tec Nim Dis Doc Pol Pos

^^^ This...
It's a very slippery slope. Whatever is there should be clear and helpful.

Personally, I liked it better when everyone seemed to agree it was only used for things related to the format.

ultimathulerecords
In fact, is it valid use of the FTF to add?...
1. Manufacturing company
2. Barcode

And to answer your question... No. (IMHO)

ultimathulerecords
In fact, is it valid use of the FTF to add?...
1. Manufacturing company
2. Barcode

It's been ruled valid to use FTF to include rights societies and other non-format related distinguishing features.
See https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/401634#3721777

Also note this clarifying statement announced a guidelines update that never happened as far as I know.

Per RSG §6.1.5 the FTF can be used for 'any significant differentiating factor between releases'.

However, I don't feel that the word "barcode" alone is the best choice in wording for differentiating it from another copy.

Diognes_The_Fox
However, I don't feel that the word "barcode" alone is the best choice in wording for differentiating it from another copy.

I agree.

You would still need to open up 2 (or more) release pages to see what's going on.

My current favourite is sellers going round adding advertising and extra allure in FTF, '3 bonus tracks' etc...

ultimathulerecords
Soft Machine Legacy - Steam Disc Makers

Would be ok
You see on US releases especially, things such as Winchester Pressing.
I've used Nimbus Pressing if I have felt the need.

I don't think Barcode or Non-barcode helps anyone as you still need to open up the release page to see what Bar or Non mean.

Another great one also is with Island releases.
People add Pink i label, as well as Pink Rim label, causing original issue and reissue to appear identical in MR.

Many releases the same catalog number but one has a barcode. Bar is pretty transparent. And it is an easy way to distinguish many releases. Is there an alternate suggestion?

n0r
People add Pink i label, as well as Pink Rim label, causing original issue and reissue to appear identical in MR.

The same MR problem with Disc Makers and Disctronics

MarquisSmith
Many releases the same catalog number but one has a barcode. Bar is pretty transparent. And it is an easy way to distinguish many releases.

Unique packaging types and colours are clearly allowed.

But what would you do in this theoretical situation?
RELEASE Jewel Case, No Barcode
RELEASE Jewel Case, Barcode
RELEASE Digipak, No Barcode
RELEASE Digipak, Barcode

Assuming all had the same catalogue number, how would you differentiate them in the FTF?

I think you can only add one description to the FTF
And then, what if there are manufacturer differences?

how hard is it to allow up to ten characters from the free text field to appear in the MR view?
it's not an issue of lack of space between the release title and the label column, as when there is a lack of space for the full format to go next to the title it wraps around and appears beneath it.
see: https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/Legowelt-The-Rise-And-Fall-Of-Manuel-Noriega/master/354708

Just gonna mention Packaging Section With Tickboxes again.
Then the FTF doesn't have to be used for digipak, gatefold etc. anymore, and then the FTF can be used for something actually relevant.

n0r
Just gonna mention Packaging Section With Tickboxes again.

It's a great idea, and so simple (although maybe a packaging selector would also need and FTF too?)

I'd go with the case first, but either makes it easier to use.

the FTF is a mess in general, the rules are too vague and the shortened 3-letter display is useless in many cases.

ultimathulerecords
... gonna mention Packaging Section With Tickboxes again.
It's a great idea, and so simple...

Can we please ...

Agree on tick boxes. Disagree sharply that bar requires you to look further. The presence of a barcode is a commonly accepted way to distinguish pressings in the outside world and helps a lot when scrolling down a list of 200 subs.

MarquisSmith
Disagree sharply that bar requires you to look further. The presence of a barcode is a commonly accepted way to distinguish pressings

Ah, but you are the only one I know to have entered Barcode into the FTF as yet. And you never enquired to find out if it was valid to do so before hand. Or, did you see someone else doing it first and thus thought it was acceptable? If it were to be acceptable then several hundred thousand Discogs entries will need updating.

Also, if adding pressing plants / manufacturers is okay too, what do you do if you want to add both (example): Disctronics and Barcorde to the FTF?

"Barcode" also refers to several label names and also a manufacturer.

Diognes_The_Fox Three questions...
1. Can multiple different items be added to the FTF?
2. Have you considered lengthening the FTF field in label/artist discographies and MR pages?
3. Have Discogs considered the idea of an optional packaging selection list on the Submission form?

All-Day
the FTF is a mess in general, the rules are too vague and the shortened 3-letter display is useless in many cases.

This.

I still feel FTF is overused by a lot of people. If I can identify a release by cat# etc. and there is no release that it can be mixed up with , it should not be used IMO exept for things like edition names. There is no need to mention a specific label artwork, if that artwork is not the one and only difference i.e. the cat# or country is different anyhow from all other releases int the same MR. It is just clutter in this case.

MarquisSmith
Disagree sharply that bar requires you to look further.

You were probably the only person who knew what Bar meant, so obviously everyone will have to look further.

Diognes_The_Fox Can the staff put this request near the top of the to do list?
First choice tick boxes ..... if that is not feasible, second choice lengthen the field?

Bar could mean Barley as in a colour, see: https://www.google.co.uk/#q=barley+colour&gws_rd=cr

ultimathulerecords
3. Have Discogs considered the idea of an optional packaging selection list on the Submission form?

Expanded packaging section has been asked for so many times already and repeatedly pops up every odd month (same as with CNV - hint hint). As usual though, you soon had 5 people with 8 opinions on what to include, or the most obscure packaging was proposed, let alone that there even was no common understanding if it should be Digipak or Digipack or whatelse. So for Management it was easy to shrug off.

ultimathulerecords
2. Have you considered lengthening the FTF field in label/artist discographies and MR pages?

Which would actually a quick win to start with. 6 characters should suffice to actually distinguish pressing plants (e.g. PMDC F(rance), PMDC G(ermany, PMDC U(K)), or colours (e.g. RED and RED TR(anslucent)).

ultimathulerecords
Diognes_The_Fox Three questions...
1. Can multiple different items be added to the FTF?
2. Have you considered lengthening the FTF field in label/artist discographies and MR pages?
3. Have Discogs considered the idea of an optional packaging selection list on the Submission form?

1) I use a comma. Not officially otherwise, no.
2) Officially, not sure? I'd like to.
3) I know it's been discussed a lot. Probably not something I could get on the radar anytime in the forseeable future though.

I have to say that having the FTF as a differentiator between otherwise identical releases in a MR is a great idea, but one incredibly poorly implemented by only showing the first three characters of whatever is written in it. If you have to open a release page just to see what the FTF is telling you then the irony of using this as a differentiator should be clearly obvious!

ultimathulerecords
Also, if adding pressing plants / manufacturers is okay too, what do you do if you want to add both (example): Disctronics and Barcorde to the FTF?

I only add one redeeming feature to the FTF, as in the MR view, all you're going to see is three characters, so anything else is surplus to requirements and goes in the notes.
But I have seen other s add all manner of things to FTF.

Diognes_The_Fox
2) Officially, not sure? I'd like to.

Then please place this high up on the development agenda. I can't think of a huge development and implementation effort to enhance a field from 3 to 6 chars. After all, it's only display, right ;-)

sebfact
I can't think of a huge development and implementation effort to enhance a field from 3 to 6 chars. After all, it's only display, right ;-)

I'll see what can be done.

Bar(code) is actually much more intuitive and straightforward than much of what goes in FTF. Gat(efold)? SP( Matrix)? SRC (Matrix). Pit(man)? CSM? None of these make more sense than Bar(code) and are in regular use. Once people see it in use, then will adopt it, which will help radically reduce the amount of time it takes to find the right pressing.

MarquisSmith
Bar(code) is actually much more intuitive and straightforward

Actually, from the point of a collector, who would be looking for originals which do not have a barcode (and less common than those with a barcode) the opposite "no barcode" would be the preferable unique factor.

I'm not suggesting that would be a good idea, as I don't think the barcode is anything to do with the format of a release, whereas packaging and vinyl colours are.

Pressing plant isn't format either. The guideline is simply for distinguishing factors. I still don't comprehend the objection to using it. For instance with the Tago Mago cd listed above, there are six copies with identical catalog numbers (some additionally have two extra letters in some places). It's easy to see whether or not you have a barcode, so the use of FTF cuts down your work in figuring which one you have. What's the problem?

And by the way, many collectors want every version, not just early versions.

MarquisSmith
so the use of FTF cuts down your work in figuring which one you have. What's the problem?

1. The many points I've raised here, and 2. this...

ultimathulerecords
If it were to be acceptable then several hundred thousand Discogs entries will need updating.

MarquisSmith
Pressing plant isn't format either.

I don't think pressing plants should be added to the FTF either.

If the only difference between 4 versions is the pressing plant in the matrix it is vital that the FTF shows this
PDO
UML
EDC
PMDC etc.

FTF is not a format, it is a way of allowing same format pressings to be differentiated.

ultimathulerecords
MarquisSmithPressing plant isn't format either.

I don't think pressing plants should be added to the FTF either.

Why do you think that staff rulings can be ignored?

nik
"Swedish pressings" should not be repeated three times. There should be an "All Media" tag, with "Swedish pressing" as the free text field for that.

Other than that, if that is the only differentiating factor between the releases, it is eligible for the FTF.

https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/368277#3432957

THE_E.TremontStevieB
Due to the ideas and opinions expressed in this thread, staff is in agreement that it is indeed okay use the Free Text Field to describe any significant differentiating factors between releases where that difference would otherwise not be apparent when viewing two similar releases on the Artist, Label, or Master Release pages. Ideally, there would be a short explanation in the release notes as well.

https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/53e8e031aba9e80e5eec1d83#3721777

Diogenes_The_Fox
Hochelema
Difference to [xxxx] and [xxxx]: Pressed by by Shelly Products, Huntington Station, NY, see 'LY' in matrix# on labels" in the NOTES seems to be by far the better and more consistent way.

That should definitely go in the notes, but adding the code to the FTF helps identification at the MR level.

https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/696817#6988043

Diogenes_The_Fox
I don't think putting a runout etching symbol in the FTF is a good solution. I understand the logic behind it, but there's really got to be a better way.

What's put in the FTF must make sense and be usable to differentiate it from another release in the DB. ━◁ is not explanative. Something like "Winchester Plant Pressing" would be.

https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/691331#7031479

emphasis mine

el_duro
Why do you think that staff rulings can be ignored?

No rulings there, just suggestions and ideas. I tried to find some definite guidelines and/or "rulings" in the forums but could find nothing to the inclusion of such things.

If anyone has found anything that does, please post it here.

Any actual staff comments we tend to get these days are generally non-committal. I think we need some clear guidelines as to what is acceptable and what is not.

As to...

el_duro
LowEnd91
Due to the ideas and opinions expressed in this thread, staff is in agreement that it is indeed okay use the Free Text Field to describe any significant differentiating factors between releases where that difference would otherwise not be apparent when viewing two similar releases on the Artist, Label, or Master Release pages. Ideally, there would be a short explanation in the release notes as well.

I see that's a staff member I've never encountered. That depends on what they mean by "significant differentiating factors"

Diognes_The_Fox
I'll see what can be done.

If the 3 letters seen in MR view are extended to say 6, please make sure that if fewer than 6 letters are used, like "Red", empty spaces (3 in this case) won't be added at the end.

I really haven't seen a single meaningful argument against using FTF to make the MR view at least a little usable. Is there one other than it's a kludge which could be better handled by rewriting the whole database structure?

As far as "creating" thousands of entries which "need" to be updated, a) nearly every entry in the db could be improved anyway, and b) the rule is that minimal info is required and nothing else is "needed." Improving the db will always create a desire to meet new standards on existing subs.

MarquisSmith
As far as "creating" thousands of entries which "need" to be updated

Really, my argument there was originally that it would be better to document those with no barcode, which nowadays is the exception to the rule, and is the unique identifier of such releases. That would be far more useful, if such things can be added to the FTF. Also, adding barcode to the FTF doesn't say which barcode, which can vary on some releases.

It depends on the release whether there are more versions with or without barcode. But No Barcode is a lot less transparent as it shows up in MR view and it is distinguishing regardless, which is the only requirement for FTF.