I've started to add my collection of music magazines. Since I prefer to do my subs as complete as possible I want to add all credit info, but when you have more than 20 credits per issue, that are more or less the same, a "copy to draft / copy and paste" utility is the only way to this without getting mad.
More and more profile entries are generated via the "about/subject" field. It would be helpful to split the info on the profile page into "Works By" and "Works About" links.
I always hated the simple artist name convention on discogs, where you have sometimes more than 50 names with just a different number behind the name. This will be the same here in a few years (or even worse). We should think about an alternative, like a name tag or something similar to avoid clicking on every existing profile with the same name, when searching the correct profile.
hey indy133, happy to have you submitting here and we appreciate the diligence.
On every bookpage in the dropdown in the right hand side column there is an option to
Add one like this, which is pretty similar to the
Copy to draft functionality on Discogs
This is a good point and has come up before. It is something we plan to address on credit pages eventually, but it is not on our immediate roadmap.
This has been discussed here, I'm not sure if the community reached a firm consensus on the way to go. I agree that the numbering system isn't ideal, but a good way to distinguish between entities with the same name is important. There are no technical reasons to use the same format on Bookogs.
Found it, thx ;-)
I'm not sure if the community reached a firm consensus on the way to go.
Nope. indy133, you're not alone with your dislike toward the Discogs naming convention. If you have any suggestions, feel free to bring them up for discussion.
There are no technical reasons to use the same format on Bookogs.
Well, because of the individual numbers already assigned to credits, we don't necessarily need anything added to the name. Though, when you're submitting, if the name already exists, the system automatically matches to the existing entry even if you choose to "Create" the entry. So you're forced to add something to the name at that point.