New to Equipboard? Dazed? Confused? Start here. 😎

I do have a question that I have already made a thread for but nobody has answered and its about 2 or more submissions of the same item. I have seen in multiple artist's gear pages that many submissions are of the same item. For example, Tyler Joseph's squier vm jaguar bass short scale has been submitted 4 times. Billie Joe Armstrong also has multiple submissions of the les Paul junior (this might be right because he has approximately 20 les Paul juniors in his collection). What should I do about this?

we merge these as we go, its so out of hand its taking awhile

I do have a question that I have already made a thread for but nobody has answered and its about 2 or more submissions of the same item. I have seen in multiple artist's gear pages that many submissions are of the same item. For example, Tyler Joseph's squier vm jaguar bass short scale has been submitted 4 times. Billie Joe Armstrong also has multiple submissions of the les Paul junior (this might be right because he has approximately 20 les Paul juniors in his collection). What should I do about this?

I do have a question that I have already made a thread for but nobody has answered and its about 2 or more submissions of the same item. I have seen in multiple artist's gear pages that many submissions are of the same item. For example, Tyler Joseph's squier vm jaguar bass short scale has been submitted 4 times. Billie Joe Armstrong also has multiple submissions of the les Paul junior (this might be right because he has approximately 20 les Paul juniors in his collection). What should I do about this?

if you feel its a full duplicate there's a 'submit duplicate' form (accessed from beneath the item name when you search for it on the top bar search ie https://equipboard.com/search?search_term=les%20paul%20jr) and if we agree we'll merge them.... there's some debate raging about vintage instruments as they "don't make 'em like they used to" supposedly LOL

Honest question about how this site views adding gear to artists that they did not directly use, but the items are replicas of those items. For example almost anything for the Jimi Hendrix page. Current production Fuzz Faces from Dunlop/MXR and the many branded series of products are being flagged as "completely incorrect" even though these are new production of models he supposedly used. I thought this site is meant to be a resource not simply, "if it isn't the exact model and year then it's not right". Seems counter productive to the listed "contributor guidelines". What the communities thought here?

Honest question about how this site views adding gear to artists that they did not directly use, but the items are replicas of those items. For example almost anything for the Jimi Hendrix page. Current production Fuzz Faces from Dunlop/MXR and the many branded series of products are being flagged as "completely incorrect" even though these are new production of models he supposedly used. I thought this site is meant to be a resource not simply, "if it isn't the exact model and year then it's not right". Seems counter productive to the listed "contributor guidelines". What the communities thought here?

my opinion is that they are completely incorrect as stated but that you could find those new versions using the gear recommender tool and marking them up as "newer version" and "simialr sounding item" although some of those dunlop effects sound nothing like old ones. They don't sound bad for a guy looking to make his own sound and I encourage that attitude but if you're starting a hendrix tribute band then you might want to dig a bit deeper gear wise. Not to mention all the roger mayer claims and stuff....s eriously, hendrix is minefield enough without promoting dunlop's marketting propaganda.

Honest question about how this site views adding gear to artists that they did not directly use, but the items are replicas of those items. For example almost anything for the Jimi Hendrix page. Current production Fuzz Faces from Dunlop/MXR and the many branded series of products are being flagged as "completely incorrect" even though these are new production of models he supposedly used. I thought this site is meant to be a resource not simply, "if it isn't the exact model and year then it's not right". Seems counter productive to the listed "contributor guidelines". What the communities thought here?

my opinion is that they are completely incorrect as stated but that you could find those new versions using the gear recommender tool and marking them up as "newer version" and "simialr sounding item" although some of those dunlop effects sound nothing like old ones. They don't sound bad for a guy looking to make his own sound and I encourage that attitude but if you're starting a hendrix tribute band then you might want to dig a bit deeper gear wise. Not to mention all the roger mayer claims and stuff....s eriously, hendrix is minefield enough without promoting dunlop's marketting propaganda.

That's just one moderator's opinion, but I'm pretty detail oriented.

Thanks for clarifying. It may be worth noting that the site guidelines suggest the alternate and should probably be changed. Specifically "Please make sure you are submitting the actual item, or the closest available item, used by the artist." should be "Please make sure you are submitting the actual item used by the artist." It would maybe push the use of the gear recommender tool and alternate options on the gear to be updated more than the artist pages.

Cheers!

Thanks for clarifying. It may be worth noting that the site guidelines suggest the alternate and should probably be changed. Specifically "Please make sure you are submitting the actual item, or the closest available item, used by the artist." should be "Please make sure you are submitting the actual item used by the artist." It would maybe push the use of the gear recommender tool and alternate options on the gear to be updated more than the artist pages.

Cheers!

the gear recommender is maybe 2 months old

Hi all,

I've been searching the Guidelines and FAQ but still a little unsure what the rules or etiquette are when an item hasn't been identified entirely correctly. The FAQ mentions you can edit the source and description, but doesn't seem to say whether you ever gain the ability to change the item itself (after accumulating a certain amount of IQ).

Take Pomme's Epiphone where both the original submitter and I agree it should be a Casino Coupe, but neither of us can change the item.

I'd like to know what the preferred way to deal with this type of correction is. Do we just ask someone to edit it? I've noticed other instances where users will create a new submission for the correct item, also leaving the incorrect one in the database. Is that considered an acceptable workaround, and should the older incorrect item then be marked 'Entirely Incorrect' for deletion, or can we request a merge somewhere?

Thanks in advance, and sorry if any of this is already covered somewhere on the site and I missed it.

I'd like to know what the preferred way to deal with this type of correction is. Do we just ask someone to edit it? I've noticed other instances where users will create a new submission for the correct item, also leaving the incorrect one in the database. Is that considered an acceptable workaround, and should the older incorrect item then be marked 'Entirely Incorrect' for deletion, or can we request a merge somewhere?

Thanks in advance, and sorry if any of this is already covered somewhere on the site and I missed it.

Great question! I just confirmed the following details with the Admins. This is a snapshot of where things are right now... everyones thoughts on what could/should be improved are, of course, welcome.

1. Once you submit an item to an Artist, you have a 1 hour window to delete the entry or change its item. After this deadline passes, only an Admin can change the item or delete the entry.

2. If an item is discovered to be incorrect after the 1-hour deadline passes, it is recommended that you make a new submission with the correct item. If you wish, you may also request the offending entry to be removed via a forum post. Additionally, you can add a comment to the incorrect submission that links to the new correct entry.

3. If the offending entry described above is rated as Incorrect, it will (as of the very recent Artist page redesign) be automatically filtered from the Artist's profile. So at least nobody is going to see your incorrect entry going forward :).

https://imgur.com/YTiLOyR

Do you want me to go ahead and mark that Pomme entry Incorrect, so it essentially goes away?

Sorry for taking so long to get back here, been a particularly busy week.

Do you want me to go ahead and mark that Pomme entry Incorrect, so it essentially goes away?

Sure, I've just added (what I think is) a correct version here.

I just confirmed the following details with the Admins. This is a snapshot of where things are right now... everyones thoughts on what could/should be improved are, of course, welcome.

I think it's fine, now that I know it's the recommended course of action. So maybe the easy improvement would be for it to be advertised more clearly somewhere in the Guidelines.

To clarify what lead to me asking the question:

I was hesitant to add submissions that are essentially duplicates, as in pertaining to the same real life item used by the artist. But if changing the item requires an admin to intervene each time, whereas creating new submissions for corrections is not only allowed but encouraged, then I think the latter makes more sense. Of the two, it is probably the quicker path to correct and complete data.

The second reason why I was a little reluctant, is that it won't always be your own submissions you're correcting. I'm guessing it will seem harsh to some contributors when their stuff gets marked 'Entirely Incorrect' just so it will be hidden in favor of a more exact ID. This is probably mostly a choice of words thing. The wording on the quality rating drop-down also suggests that option should be used carefully. If an entry has a good source and some useful details in the description, but the item is misidentified... I could argue that is not "100% wrong" or without value, in the sense that the submitter did at least put the item on the map, so to speak.

Sorry for taking so long to get back here, been a particularly busy week.

No worries. I've been traveling this week, so now I'm the one taking days to respond.

I think it's fine, now that I know it's the recommended course of action. So maybe the easy improvement would be for it to be advertised more clearly somewhere in the Guidelines.

Once we work out the kinks and streamline the wording a bit (see below), I'll gladly suggest that to the Admins.

The second reason why I was a little reluctant, is that it won't always be your own submissions you're correcting. I'm guessing it will seem harsh to some contributors when their stuff gets marked 'Entirely Incorrect' just so it will be hidden in favor of a more exact ID. This is probably mostly a choice of words thing. The wording on the quality rating drop-down also suggests that option should be used carefully. If an entry has a good source and some useful details in the description, but the item is misidentified... I could argue that is not "100% wrong" or without value, in the sense that the submitter did at least put the item on the map, so to speak.

You make some great points here. Notice I asked for your consent before changing the rating of your submission to "Completely Incorrect", as nobody likes receiving one of those ratings out of the blue... I'm 110% with you on that dynamic. I don't think encouraging users to blindside well-intentioned submitters with red-status ratings is the necessarily the right path... but, to your point, the sequential "1,2,3" way I listed things in my earlier guidance suggests as much.

I'm on the fence re: softening the wording on the "Completely Incorrect" rating. I trust that all those warnings that pop up when you select "Completely Incorrect" are there in response to years of lessons-learned by the EB Admins.

Is there any other way EB could improve this workflow without softening the wording around "Completely Incorrect"? I'll keep thinking on it myself, just need some more coffee. :)

Is there any other way EB could improve this workflow without softening the wording around "Completely Incorrect"? I'll keep thinking on it myself, just need some more coffee. :)

Well the other obvious one, to me, would be to allow more people (either all or certain "classes" of users) to edit the item indefinitely. You can probably tell that when I first asked my question here I was sort of expecting it to work that way, actually. I'm sure the 1-hour limit was also established for good reason, but intuitively it did feel neater to me to edit the item rather than create an entirely new submission. There would be no implication that the original submitter was completely wrong, and both them and the editor(s) would be listed as contributors, as with any other edit.

But there's no one system that everyone will agree is best, hence the point about having clear guidelines. They'd give you something to refer to in case of doubt or a disagreement. Which, by the way, I haven't gotten into here yet... (I feel like I'm imagining all kinds of messy scenario's in this discussion, when the people I've come across here really don't seem all that finicky.)

Is there any other way EB could improve this workflow without softening the wording around "Completely Incorrect"? I'll keep thinking on it myself, just need some more coffee. :)

Well the other obvious one, to me, would be to allow more people (either all or certain "classes" of users) to edit the item indefinitely. You can probably tell that when I first asked my question here I was sort of expecting it to work that way, actually. I'm sure the 1-hour limit was also established for good reason, but intuitively it did feel neater to me to edit the item rather than create an entirely new submission. There would be no implication that the original submitter was completely wrong, and both them and the editor(s) would be listed as contributors, as with any other edit.

Once a second person has made contributions to an entry, I can understand the original author no longer having the ability to delete the entry, but I don't personally know why/how the 1 hour window for deleting your own entry came about. My initial gut feelings on matter align with yours: I'd prefer to have the ability to delete my flawed entry and/or change the item on anything I originated indefinitely, or for as long as I remain the only contributor.

But there's no one system that everyone will agree is best, hence the point about having clear guidelines. They'd give you something to refer to in case of doubt or a disagreement.

I'm game to help refine/improve the current guidelines. All changes are at the sole discretion of the Admins, full stop, of course... but there's no harm in talking through what the next version of revisions and additions could look like.

Which, by the way, I haven't gotten into here yet... (I feel like I'm imagining all kinds of messy scenario's in this discussion, when the people I've come across here really don't seem all that finicky.)

This is because you're an idiot in name-only. :) Go submit a piece of recently-released gear to a wildly-popular, but long-dead artist... it will get messy.

Hey I Was Trying To Submit Gear But It Keeps Saying It Isn't A Correctly Formatted Reverb Link

Hey I Was Trying To Submit Gear But It Keeps Saying It Isn't A Correctly Formatted Reverb Link

Reverb links must point to a product landing page, not an individual item for sale. All landing pages have a "/p/" in the link, like this:

https://reverb.com/p/teenage-engineering-op-1

These "/p/" links are curated by Reverb, so Equipboard can be sure the product names and photos are correct, and they can then pull in pricing data and other cool bits of info through Reverb's API.

Once you hit 500 GearIQ, you'll get access to a manual override option that will let you submit items that aren't supported under current restrictions. You're more than half way there already. You'll be @ 500 in no time.

Oh My God You Legend How Do I Get One Of Those On Certain Products

Not every product has a "/p/" link on Reverb, at least not yet. They only give "/p/" links to products that have attained a certain amount of sales volume on their site. If you need to add something that doesn't have a "/p/" link yet, just request it on the other thread like you've been doing.

Ok