I'd have to stand up for Discogs as well. They don't go out and track down every release's information and input it themselves; they rely on the contributors for accuracy but it doesn't always work out that way. I use it as a reference, not an end all...
Mike Grant -----Original Message----- From: jason kenjar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 4:20 PM To: Robert Taylor Cc: [email protected] Subject: (313) do not hate on discogs Pardon me "Mr. taylor", but I dont see how somebody who spams the list daily with one or two quick sentences of over-simplified arrogant generalizations has the guts to call the discogs website "sh!t". Im just one of the many free users and am not affiliated with the site by any other means, but I still have to stand up for them if you feel it necissary to besmirch their name. Discogs has been very helpful to me in the past. I can only recollect a fraction of the many times I have found discogs to be totally helpful. Knowledge is power, and there is a lot you can learn if your are willing to spend some time researching discogs. its also totally free, you dont even have to be a member to search its information libraries. And is it so unthinkable and unforgivable that there would be spotty information about Basic Channel? I consider myself a fairly well informed member of the under ground community, and even i think all the basic channel records look alike. Artists like von oswald arent about advertising themselves nearly as much as you do for yourself. On Monday, August 9, 2004, at 09:36 AM, Robert Taylor wrote: > Discogs is sh!t and there's loads of inaccuracies.
