We have 83 different entries for Gibson Les Paul Studio...

"pkennethk" · 2025-11-30T20:02:17Z

"It's time to clean up and consolidate the way Equipboard handles the Gibson Les Paul Studio. Below is the current state of the database. This is a hot mess, even with all the Epiphone models removed. We recently received an honest request to add yet another Les Paul Studio. **How many entries SHOULD we have for this long-tenured, ugly-but-good Les Paul model?** * [Gibson Les Paul Studio](https://equipboard.com/items/gibson-les-paul-studio) * [Gibson Les Paul Studio '98](https:/..."

jimmarchi1|41029 MODERATOR

GEAR:

In reply to pkennethk:

I'm ok with this.

WHAT DOES SME STAND FOR???!!!

WHO DOES NUMBER 2 WORK FOR!!!!!!

7 months ago

GEAR:

michael|42641 ADMIN

GEAR:

In reply to pkennethk:

Yes, exactly. This approach gives us the strongest canonical reference for identifying models, especially on the used market.

We’re already moving in this direction by letting you include year and finish in artist submissions, and we’re actively cleaning up duplicate items that differ only by finish. We’re about halfway through solid-body guitars at this point and reviewed roughly 5,000 pages last month.

Giulio is also developing additional methods to identify duplicates systematically.

It’s a large project, but the progress has been steady.

7 months ago

GEAR:

pkennethk|26907 MODERATOR

GEAR:

In reply to jimmarchi1:

WHAT DOES SME STAND FOR???!!!

Subject

Matter

Expert

7 months ago

GEAR:

pkennethk|26907 MODERATOR

GEAR:

In reply to michael:

Yes, exactly. This approach gives us the strongest canonical reference for identifying models, especially on the used market.

10-4. In this specific case, should we also keep a general "Gibson Les Paul Studio" entry that doesn't list a year range? We'd be out of sync with Reverb if we kept the generalized entry, but I think we're stuck with it? We'd have to re-assign all the existing artist user gear and artist submissions under "Gibson Les Paul Studio" to more specific categories, which sounds logistically insane.

We’re already moving in this direction by letting you include year and finish in artist submissions, and we’re actively cleaning up duplicate items that differ only by finish. We’re about halfway through solid-body guitars at this point and reviewed roughly 5,000 pages last month.

Giulio is also developing additional methods to identify duplicates systematically.

It’s a large project, but the progress has been steady.

Good to know. Should mods and EB Allstars just steer clear of tackling any dupes that may be related to this kind of fundamental re-org, and let you and Giulio tackle it holistically and programmatically?

7 months ago

GEAR:

michael|42641 ADMIN

GEAR:

In reply to pkennethk:

should we also keep a general "Gibson Les Paul Studio" entry that doesn't list a year range?

Yes, I think so. At the very least, I see this as a use case for the "representative" tag, where people can choose it if they spot someone using a Les Paul Studio, but can't identify specifics beyond that.

Should mods and EB Allstars just steer clear of tackling any dupes that may be related to this kind of fundamental re-org, and let you and Giulio tackle it holistically and programmatically?

No need to hold back. Continue using the site as usual. We already rolled out the year and finish options for submissions, and are moving quickly through the color queue to surface and consolidate duplicates. From there, we’ll rely on additional signals like link collisions and overlapping products on partner pages to catch others.

7 months ago

GEAR:

pkennethk|26907 MODERATOR

GEAR:

In reply to michael:

should we also keep a general "Gibson Les Paul Studio" entry that doesn't list a year range?

Yes, I think so. At the very least, I see this as a use case for the "representative" tag, where people can choose it if they spot someone using a Les Paul Studio, but can't identify specifics beyond that.

Should mods and EB Allstars just steer clear of tackling any dupes that may be related to this kind of fundamental re-org, and let you and Giulio tackle it holistically and programmatically?

No need to hold back. Continue using the site as usual. We already rolled out the year and finish options for submissions, and are moving quickly through the color queue to surface and consolidate duplicates. From there, we’ll rely on additional signals like link collisions and overlapping products on partner pages to catch others.

10-4. When I have a moment, I'll propose dupe-mapping of sorts for these LP Studio entries based on conforming to Reverb's categories, then submit it all as a long series of dupes if community gives the green light.

Thank you!

7 months ago

GEAR:

jimmarchi1|41029 MODERATOR

GEAR:

In reply to pkennethk:

WHAT DOES SME STAND FOR???!!!

Subject

Matter

Expert

no kidding, I really had no idea and don't think of myself as an expert on a lot, just a loud mouth with a photographic memory, although in my late 40s its faltering

7 months ago

GEAR:

jimmarchi1|41029 MODERATOR

GEAR:

In reply to michael:

We’re already moving in this direction by letting you include year and finish in artist submissions, and we’re actively cleaning up duplicate items that differ only by finish. We’re about halfway through solid-body guitars at this point and reviewed roughly 5,000 pages last month.

Skywalker will not become a jedi.

Giulio is also developing additional methods to identify duplicates systematically.

systematically or automatically?

It’s a large project, but the progress has been steady.

yes my master.

7 months ago

GEAR:

pkennethk|26907 MODERATOR

GEAR:

In reply to michael:

Update: TIL Reverb's "landing page" schema is also a hot mess.

There are landing pages that appear to have been made internally, some that started life as user-generated, but then promoted to landing pages, and some that appear to be auto-generated for a single random model year. All of these have the landing page URL structure, the price history, specs, etc.

Behold, the Gibson Les Paul Studio landing pages of Reverb(dot)com:

If we focus on just the entries related to the vanilla LP Studio, we get Option A:

And if I streamline this a bit, we get Option B:

Gibson Les Paul Studio (1983–1989) — Original Studio
Gibson Les Paul Studio (1990–1997) — Classic Studio
Gibson Les Paul Studio (1998–2011) — Chambered-to-Pre-PCB
Gibson Les Paul Studio (2012–2015) — Modern/PCB (deviates from Reverb)
Gibson Les Paul Studio (2018–Present) — Modern Collection Revival (deviates from Reverb)

Note: 2016-17 was apparently the "T" and "HP" era, so there was no vanilla LP Studio those years.

@Michael, Jim and others, which option for organizing the vanilla LP Studios is best for Equipboard: A, B, or none of the above?

7 months ago

GEAR:

sprucebringsteen|28717 MODERATOR

GEAR:

I like B

7 months ago

GEAR:

michael|42641 ADMIN

GEAR:

In reply to pkennethk:

For the first pass, we’ll follow Reverb’s structure since it provides enough differentiation for a standalone page. Anything beyond that would require building a custom taxonomy for every individual guitar model, which is something we can tackle later. This approach should still eliminate most of the duplicates and give users a solid way to find the specific model they’re looking for.

7 months ago

GEAR:

pkennethk|26907 MODERATOR

GEAR:

In reply to michael:

For the first pass, we’ll follow Reverb’s structure since it provides enough differentiation for a standalone page. Anything beyond that would require building a custom taxonomy for every individual guitar model, which is something we can tackle later. This approach should still eliminate most of the duplicates and give users a solid way to find the specific model they’re looking for.

It sounds like you're telling me to pursue Option A. Is that your vote for this specific situation?

7 months ago

GEAR:

jimmarchi1|41029 MODERATOR

GEAR:

In reply to michael:

For the first pass, we’ll follow Reverb’s structure since it provides enough differentiation for a standalone page. Anything beyond that would require building a custom taxonomy for every individual guitar model, which is something we can tackle later. This approach should still eliminate most of the duplicates and give users a solid way to find the specific model they’re looking for.

I get all hot and bothered when you taxonomize!

7 months ago

GEAR: