discogs hall proctor watch

Occasionally, for self-torture, it's fun to look at the Discogs forum and see what the hall proctors are debating.
In the screenshot below, venetian-guy asks why LolH has given him a EI (Entirely Incorrect) vote for some information he added to the database, and LolH replies:


Since Discogs uses fixed, hard-coded forms for data entry, ambiguities arise which drive the proctors -- unpaid "power users" who act as unpaid staffers -- into a frenzy. Individual egos and preferences vie in determining "what's best for the database." Proctors smugly quote the guidelines and claim to have a definitive interpretation. In the exchange above, the weighty issues to be decided are (i) whether "Lacquer Cut at" should precede "Pressed at" in a release's list of credits, and (ii) how to accomplish that manually, since the software doesn't allow reordering.
As for "Lacquer Cut at" -- that's a fad. Vinyl mastering (cutting the acetate or "lacquer" used to make a stamp for pressing records) is different from CD mastering (compressing and adjusting levels in a digital file). The difference is well known and understood in the audio world, yet some proctors have begun substituting "Lacquer Cut at" for "Mastered at" in vinyl descriptions. They're gradually changing thousands of releases, one entry at a time, and scoffing at any newbie with the temerity to question this. Eventually some anti-lacquer faction will emerge and change it all back.