A totally random mix of extras on mine. Some added by Vivaldi, and then others I have added over the years. The search results pop-up in a new tab making it real quick to chase.
I add the custom searches in a similar way to Firefox, but it is much more usable on the right click like that. Makes it really handy when adding a new release here at MB as I can quickly find the Wikipedia\data and Discogs links from within the page.
I really should add a few more on here like ISRC searches. In my old Opera Browser this list was about 50 items long. And get rid of junk like Startpage\Yahoo\Ecosia\Qwant - never used
… and I can’t set any specific search options, I think.
I was very happy with Opera for some years, but later my then old machine struggled with its system requirements. And then I was used to Firefox again and didn’t like to change back. But I think, I’ll try Vivaldi.
Thought on these myself after I sent my post, but you have to avoid placing it over the hub, probably.
Firefox is a bit dumb here. It lets you select different searches for the default. There is probably an add-on that mimics Vivaldi.
Vivaldi also does the search shortcut letters like Opera used to do. And then add in DuckDuckGo’s !Search !Bangs. But these both rely on typing into the address bar. Not as quick as selecting the text (like a barcode) on screen and immediate searching.
I have just the nine different browsers installed on this PC (and none of those are Chrome). I use Vivaldi as my “daily driver”, but have the others for separate tasks. For example - I’ll use Firefox to open Discogs or Wikipedia or some other reference on a second monitor whilst working on a new Release in Vivaldi in my main monitor.
I pop the sucker on the edge of the CD, but then end up having to polish off marks it can sometimes leave. Need to make sure you got a sucker with a release tab.
The cleaner the scanner and CD, the more likely it will stick…
I’ve checked - I’ve got one installed. On my old machine I had installed all available … and used one. Since I’ve installed a new system in 2016, I’ve got only one - Firefox, but maybe I will like Vivaldi.
I never believe in going all “fanboy” and picking only one browser. They all have pros and cons so I use more than one.
I like Vivaldi’s attitude - privacy is built in, even if it is using Chromium underneath. But little things like how that Right Click search work can save so much time. It just seems to fit my odd head.
I was a user of Opera until v12 then I had to migrate do Vivaldi and Firefox, depending on needs.
But I was able to migrate my custome searches from Opera presto to both of them:
In Vivaldi, it’s just a search like in Opera.
But in Firefox:
I press Ctrl+B to display bookmarks/favourites
I created a “Searches” folder in there (right click, add)
I add a favourite/bookmark in this folder (right click, add)
4.2 I call it minc (catalogue number)
4.3 I put a keyword for it mc
Well found @kellnerd - every browser usually has a way of nicking the ideas from every other browser.
This certainly speeds up those extra searches for further information. Discogs search is excellent as it takes * anything * you through at it: Cat Numbers, Barcodes, etc. I also check for missing Wikipedia\data links at the same time. Google\Amazon\EBay also can be useful when desperate.
Tricks like this make tracking down more details on a release much quicker.
It’s not about fandom. One part is loyalty to a great open source project. There are numerous useful plugins and if I use Vivaldi as standard browser, I have to have an additional repository integrated for updates (sometimes malfunctioning, was with Opera).
I prefer this one too!
And it’s necessary to speed it up. I roughly calculated how long it would take, to add all of my records to MB - properly! I’ve got no huge archive (about 500 CDs and <100 Vinyls). But I’ve spent most of the day adding only scans for two existing releases, including a check for matching details. Okay, there was a 24 page booklet included, but there are nearly no scan images available in MB even for more popular releases.
And there will be lots of relations to add too. It will be a lifetime project (if I’m lucky!). I’m a bit depressed right now …
And the “funny” disco stripes on scanned CDs make the images almost useless.
And there are no new Doctor Who episodes for a long time.
Yeah… time consuming is the word. I lost my Sunday to a six disc boxset which I wasn’t even planning to look at for ages. Just someone changed a date at Discogs and kicked off a chain reaction of research and scanning. One of those cases where I had looked at this in my first pass through of identifying my discs, only to now realise with my current knowledge levels that I had a “new to MB” version. At least there wasn’t any booklets - just the six jewel cases.
But I don’t mind this sudden deep research. Not only did I put that music on for the first time in ages, but I also learnt a heap more about the band due to having to read up on an error. And it was an interesting one as Wikipedia had the wrong release date, which had led to the band’s own website copying that wrong date in the blurb for an anniversary release! The research on Discogs in the edit notes especially helped chase out proof of the date. A few other outside sources helped. Along with the paperwork in the boxset in hand. And MB had the correct date all along. But an interesting lesson in not trusting sources. Even when you think they are the “trustable” ones.
My physical collection is a similar size to yours. Probably took a year to rip them all to FLAC. Now three years in to getting proper tags via MB. Clocked my 100,000th edit to MB this weekend. Haha… yeah, addictive, but I have rediscovered so much music I had forgotten about. (Problem is my Digital Only collection is probably double the size of the physical… never ending )
But there are many old episodes still out there to watch. I’d rather watch repeats of the 60s\70s\80s. (But this is really off topic and you’ll get us told off )
I’m delighted. I haven’t known about that. And in this manner you probably may build even more complex search strings.
Yes, that’s the the core problem. If you really take it seriously, it’s getting very time-consuming. It’s no longer only about a matching catalog number. So you have to do scans, research about distribution, manufacturing (thanks again for the List of SID codes!) … and then you have to think about it. ‘Is it possible that it’s a British release although it’s manufactured in Germany?’ and so on.
Only, you do edits for relaxation. I lay down, listening to music, that’s less helpful.
But today my spirits are raised again (at least a bit). I’ll continue adding scans of albums in (relatively) good condition. Relationships may be added later and can be done by anyone once the information is available in the form of images. Til then I have to find a structure for my efforts. Maybe there will be no full optical documentation of some releases.
Probably it will be a lifetime project, but even if it’s only three years … that’s a long time standing at the start. I probably should stop thinking about how to finish it as fast as possible. I have purposely tagged my files with the wrong release because of a brighter cover image, so why panicking that there’s no fully matching release available.
Me too, and it was interesting and joyful.
The same, but with a slightly higher chance, that they are tagged correctly. And for sure it’s a good thing that there will never be an end. The collectors worst nightmare - the completion of the collection. Nothing more to collect!
None I haven’t seen I suppose. Except there would be a newly released animated reconstruction. But I haven’t noticed something like that. But, of course aside the new reconstructions, I haven’t viewed most of the Hartnell episodes for a long time. Surely worth watching again. But it was the first Sunday with this year without a new one.
When I add scans it depends on mood and today’s OCD level. Bare minimum is a front scan and a rear scan. That usually covers the main differences in this release and keeps the taggers happy with a new cover. Next I’d add a CD scan and maybe the page in the booklet with the credits.
I have seen this then used by other editors to then scour for more details of the credits. And I have done similar myself.
Many booklets I will never scan due to the effect of scanning damaging the book due to having to flatten it out. In those cases I have often “borrowed” images from Discogs - but with full credits to source.
But when my OCD really kicks in I want to fully scan something rare. Like the boxset I did at the weekend. I could probably have cheated by reusing other images for the common bits, but that’s not the way I work. I also see that MB is giving me a backup of the scans once I have uploaded them. It works both ways.
For me this is part of a project of making my music more and more accessible through a KODI media centre. Music and artwork sitting on one server to be accessed arodun the house. Or taken out on a phone\MP3Player\Car Stereo. I see my mission of “rip n tag” as also sharing knowledge of my collection.
We all work at different levels of details. So never think you are “not doing enough”. Even just adding one new Release a year is a positive for MB. So many people work in this project in so many different ways. We are all equally important
For most of my booklets that’s not the worst thing they’ve experienced. For new ones I will try to be carefully, but if I don’t, I would end up devastating my CD archive again. I like to have all in digital form.
An hour ago I found my ordered Billie Eilish CD in my post box. That was quite a surprise as I paid € 9.50 for tracked shipping from Germany…
Of course I scanned and added it instantly. Easy. Though 11 releases it shared the DiscID with one of them. The related Discogs release has a matching Mastering SID and a slightly different Mould SID, both 94xx - that’s from Austria. Lets say a true European release.