Do we need to have some compulsory fields?

I dont want to name and shame anyone here in case its just an innocent mistake but there are already a few users contributing many books with very little information, one user I looked at had no companies and nearly always an exact date. There is very rarely an exact date published in a book, and there is almost always a publisher. Seems like something that will cause future issues if left unchecked now.

Opinions?

well, my opinion is that pics of the credit page or pages should be mandatory. That's the only method to be sure that mistakes/lacking info may be corrected/added later. Otherwise will have a huge mess within a few months...

Publisher should absolutely be mandatory.

It can be confusing though what is the publisher, imprint, original and current publishers. Sometimes there is more than one form of the publishers name mentioned. This is all on it's infancy so to speak, I would think author is also compulsory and should be a separate field under title that is mandatory. Why lump the most important credit in with a whole row of other credits. The credits list/credits section in not handy, long list of credits to chose from, company credits mixed in with 'human' credits, does not encourage imo. Would have thought these types of things would have been addressed by now.

Like on discogs we have to add artist (author), title (title), label (publisher), format (format), etc
and like on discogs have those fields the most prominent & separate from the rest & of course not be able to save without these added.

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.