# \[WS\] Discogs (pone mod) **URL:** \ **Category:** Broken Web Sources\ **Created:** [October 29, 2009, 3:18am UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/ws-discogs-pone-mod/9226 "2009-10-29T03:18:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![s\_PLASH](https://community.mp3tag.de/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@s\_PLASH](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/s_PLASH)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2011, 5:02pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/ws-discogs-pone-mod/9226/181 "2011-10-08T17:02:41Z")
no suggestions but many thanks 😆 your updates are essential for me once again and so you are. thank you, pone! one question: i noticed FORMAT include MEDIATYPE and RELEASETYPE. at least for this release: [http://www.discogs.com/Cuthead-Murdoc/release/1985039](http://www.discogs.com/Cuthead-Murdoc/release/1985039) ![](https://community.mp3tag.de/uploads/default/original/2X/f/ffea7ee29cee96f626067e019a7666c6013d47d4.JPG) can i assume it the case for every relese? ![](https://community.mp3tag.de/uploads/default/original/2X/f/ffea7ee29cee96f626067e019a7666c6013d47d4.JPG) ---
**Author:** ![pone](https://community.mp3tag.de/user_avatar/community.mp3tag.de/pone/32/272_2.png) [@pone](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/pone)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2011, 11:57pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/ws-discogs-pone-mod/9226/182 "2011-10-09T23:57:01Z")
> [@s\_PLASH](#): > > one question: i noticed FORMAT include MEDIATYPE and RELEASETYPE. at least for this release: > [http://www.discogs.com/Cuthead-Murdoc/release/1985039](http://www.discogs.com/Cuthead-Murdoc/release/1985039) > > ![](https://community.mp3tag.de/uploads/default/original/2X/f/ffea7ee29cee96f626067e019a7666c6013d47d4.JPG) > > can i assume it the case for every relese? yes **DISCOGS\_FORMAT** is the exact same what is on the discogs page at "Format: ...." **DISCOGS\_TOTALDISCS** , **DISCOGS\_MEDIATYPE** and **DISCOGS\_RELEASETPYE** are just the same splitted into the different parts of this. In your example: DISCOGS\_FORMAT = 20 x File, MP3, Album, VBR0 DISCOGS\_TOTALDISCS = 20 DISCOGS\_MEDIATYPE = File DISCOGS\_RELEASETPYE **=** MP3, Album, VBR0 The coming update will see an massive improvement for **DISCOGS\_TOTALDISCS**. You will be able to choose in the options if you want to treat File releases like your example as 1 or 0 discs. You will be able to choose if you want to write totaldiscs (and discnumber) for one-disc-releases. The script will be able to recogise releases with CD, CD as 2 discs (like here: [http://www.discogs.com/release/1819379](http://www.discogs.com/release/1819379) ). And you will have the option to combine discnumber and totaldiscs in one field like 1/2, 2/2. ---
**Author:** ![s\_PLASH](https://community.mp3tag.de/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@s\_PLASH](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/s_PLASH)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2011, 9:50pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/ws-discogs-pone-mod/9226/183 "2011-10-10T21:50:12Z")
thank you for this information! exciting news also ![:book:](https://community.mp3tag.de/uploads/default/original/1X/0036d5b68f6226c53f6c68abfd0a7b8096fd4505.gif ":book:") hope you are not working too hard on it.. another question i have and its why Format in "Search results..." is not the same value? ![](https://community.mp3tag.de/uploads/default/original/2X/a/a7409d2e25c5ea12d87c97448f7cbe93a48cd778.PNG) ![](https://community.mp3tag.de/uploads/default/original/2X/a/a7409d2e25c5ea12d87c97448f7cbe93a48cd778.PNG) ---
**Author:** ![pone](https://community.mp3tag.de/user_avatar/community.mp3tag.de/pone/32/272_2.png) [@pone](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/pone)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2011, 9:56pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/ws-discogs-pone-mod/9226/184 "2011-10-10T21:56:25Z")
> [@s\_PLASH](#): > > thank you for this information! exciting news ![:book:](https://community.mp3tag.de/uploads/default/original/1X/0036d5b68f6226c53f6c68abfd0a7b8096fd4505.gif ":book:") hope you are not working too hard on it.. > another question i have and its why Format in "Search results..." is not the same value? > ![](https://community.mp3tag.de/uploads/default/original/2X/a/a7409d2e25c5ea12d87c97448f7cbe93a48cd778.PNG) Search results... / Ergebnis der Suchanfrage is only displaying the mediatype. Catalog# is also displayed different there, without spaces and extra characters. Don't ask me why, ask discogs. The script is just reading their search results page: [http://www.discogs.com/advanced\_search?art...Search+Releases](http://www.discogs.com/advanced_search?artist=element+of+crime&release_title=an+einem+sonntag+im+april&btn=Search+Releases) p.s.: update is almost finished. some more testing,... will go online tonight. ---
**Author:** ![s\_PLASH](https://community.mp3tag.de/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@s\_PLASH](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/s_PLASH)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2011, 10:18pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/ws-discogs-pone-mod/9226/185 "2011-10-10T22:18:38Z")
hm, it feels like a déjà vu issue, like i remember this ask and answer about format and mediatype.. strange feeling. whatever! do you think, you can make it possible to see the real Format value and, maybe, total tracks value in that first "List of search results..."? it would save even more time. imagagine the case you don't need to check is it album or single or "which of this 7 album versions is my 16-tracks-version? -ah, here it must be, cuz i see 16 in total tracks column only one time! -great! i'm so happy! thank pone!" 😆 ---
**Author:** ![pone](https://community.mp3tag.de/user_avatar/community.mp3tag.de/pone/32/272_2.png) [@pone](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/pone)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2011, 10:35pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/ws-discogs-pone-mod/9226/186 "2011-10-10T22:35:27Z")
> [@s\_PLASH](#): > > hm, it feels like a déjà vu issue, like i remember this ask and answer.. strange feeling. whatever! do you think, you can make it possible to see the real Format value and, maybe, total tracks value in that first "List of search results..."? it would save even more time. imagagine the case you don't need to check is it album or single or "which of this 7 album versions is my 16-tracks-version? -ah, here it must be, cuz i see 16 in total tracks column only one time! -great! i'm so happy! thank pone!" 😆 I know this problem very good. Try to tag classic albums which are about 30 years old. You can get 30 different versions here with bonus tracks, different track versions, different tracklist arrangement, all kind of things. I have tried in this dirrection, but there is nothing I can do. I can only present what discogs is presenting on one page without haveing to click on following links. The only thing which helps in some cases is the info text. If you scan it you can often detect words like album, compilation, promo there or the country of the release. But in hard cases I open the discogs master page in the browser and open all different versions. ---
**Author:** ![s\_PLASH](https://community.mp3tag.de/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@s\_PLASH](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/s_PLASH)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2011, 11:03pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/ws-discogs-pone-mod/9226/187 "2011-10-10T23:03:42Z")
k, i see you want it at least as much as i do. so here is nothing to change for me, let's celebrate ability to reason 😃 honestly, i can't tell i'm not lazy but a drop-down-menu-button to emulate a "click on following links" is something it's worth to dream of.. by then i use double click on releases ans the back button when they are not the right ones. still its a matter of seconds in normal cases and i'm impressed how fast your script help me to get exactly what i need. for this i can't thank enough! i wish you not so many hard cases and a very good night! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![pone](https://community.mp3tag.de/user_avatar/community.mp3tag.de/pone/32/272_2.png) [@pone](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/pone)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2011, 11:11pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/ws-discogs-pone-mod/9226/188 "2011-10-10T23:11:02Z")
**Update 3.9:**** NEW:** You can now choose between different formats of the tracknumber. You can also choose more than one format and write it to different tag fields. These are your possibilities: **_Counting Numbers:_** - 1, 2, 3, ... This is the standard output for Mp3tag web sources scripts as you have got it until now. You will still get this into the %track% field if you don't put "track" into one of the following fields. - 01, 02, 03, ... = **DISCOGS~TRACK NUMBER WITH LEADING ZEROS FOR 01-09**. Counting numbers with leading zeros for tracknumber 01-09. No leading doubles zeros if more than 99 tracks: ... 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, ... - 01/10, 02/10, 03/10 ... = **DISCOGS~TRACK NUMBER WITH LEADING ZEROS / TOTALTRACKS** Counting numbers with leading zeros for tracknumber 01-09 combined with the total tracks as found at discogs. This does only work up to 99 tracks. After this it continues with normal numbers: ... 97/120, 98/120, 99/120, 100, 101, 102 ... **_Track Positions as written on discogs pages:_** - exact the same as you see it on the page = **DISCOGS~TRACK POSITION AS ON RELEASE PAGE** - only written when discogs has something different as standard counting numbers, combinations with discnumber appear without discnumber = **DISCOGS~TRACK POSITION (SAME AS BEFORE VERSION 3.9, NOT ALWAYS WRITTEN)** This is the same as until now in **DISCOGS\_TRACK POSITION**. I would have left it away if I would present the script for the first time, but I don't want to delete things which you are used to. So this will have the same value (= mapped tag-field) in your option file as you had in DISCOGS\_TRACK POSITION before. Basically DISCOGS\_TRACK POSITION is just renamed to avoid confusion with all the new track fields. I would not map this to "track" because i stays empty at normal CD releases. **_Three more track position field, whith speciall functionality. You can map this fields to the same fields as above. They will only be written if they make sense. Otherwise your standard track field from above is written._** - 01, 02, 03, ... 01, 02, 03, ... = **DISCOGS~TRACK\_ONLY FOR MULTI DISC CDS: NUMBER STARTING FROM 01 AGAIN FOR EVERY DISC** Tracknumbers come here always with leading zeros for 01-09 and are set back to 01 for every disc. This is only written for discogs releases which are mediatype CD or CDr and only if these have more than one disc and only if these are proper numbered at discogs with the discnumber as a part of the track position. If you want to use this I would advice you to use DISCOGS\_DISCNUMBER, too. Because only in comination with that field it makes sense to start from 01 for every disc. - 101, 102, 103, ... 201, 202, 203 ... **DISCOGS~TRACK\_ONLY FOR MULTI DISC CDS: NUMBER COMBINED WITH DISCNUMBER** Same as above, but combined with the discnumber. So you don't need DISCOGS\_DISCNUMBER in an extra field if you have that (but you can, if you want). This field has an extra option: **TEXT OPTION: COMBINE DISC&TRACKNUMBER WITH:** Whatever character you put into that option field will appear between disc- & tracknumber. So you can have 1.01 / 1-01 / 1 01 / 1\_01 / 1001 / ... whatever you want. If you put "no" into this field you will get 101 - a1, a2, b1, b2, ... = **DISCOGS~TRACK\_ONLY FOR VINYL & CASSETTES: POSITION AS ON RELEASE PAGE** This is only written for discogs releases which are mediatype Vinyl, Cassette, Acetate, Shellac, Microcassette & Lathe Cut. So all types which have two sides and where the numbering at discogs typically has letters for each side. It gives always the same out put as seen on the discogs page, so you can also have A1, A2, AA1, AA2 or other more uncommon counting systems. And finally, you have now also the option to leave %track% blank if you want: **DISCOGS~TRACK\_OPTION: LEAVE TRACK EMPTY?** = yes / no **NEW:** You have a new options in which you can state if you want to write DISCOGS\_DISCNUMBER and DISCOGS\_TOTALDISCS if there is only one disc: **OPTION: DISCNUMBER: WRITE DISCNUMBER FOR SINGLE DISC RELEASES** and **OPTION: TOTALDISCS: WRITE TOTALDISCS FOR SINGLE DISC RELEASES** **NEW:** You have now the option if you want to treat releases with mediatype File 1 or 0 discs. Regardless if Discogs says 10 x File, 20 x File or just File. **OPTION: TOTALDISCS: COUNT DIGITAL RELEASES (FILE) AS 1 (YES) OR 0 (NO) DISCS** **NEW:** If you put the same value into DISCOGS\_DISCNUMBER and DISCOGS\_TOTALDISCS (= map them to the same tag fields), they will be combined in that field by an slash (/). So you can have discnumbers like 1/4, 2/4, 3/4, ... **NEW:** You can now change the field in which the track tiles are written or leave the title away like all other fields: **DISCOGS\_TITLE** = title / no / whatever you want **NEW:** The original track position as written on the discogs page is now always displayed behind the length of the tracks in the "Adjust tag information" dialog. This has no effect on the written tags, it's just for better overview for albums where the tracknumbering is not straight forward. **NEW:** In the searchbox title appear of all "search" scripts appears now the following message: _Add &page=2 For Next 20 Results_ This is just a little reminder for what you can do if the release you are searching doesn't appear in the list of the first 20 results. Append **&page=2** to the search querry, and you will see the next twenty results. And &page=3, &page=4, page=5... for the next 20 after that. **FIXED:** **DISCOGS\_TOTALDISCS** has been simply the number at "Format: ..." at discogs. If the format was "2 x CD, Compilation; CD, Compilation, Mixed", totaldiscs was 2 instead of three. For format "CD, Compilation; CD, Compilation, Mixed" it was an empty output. There was also no summation for numbers, for Format "2 x CD, Compilation; 2 x CD, Compilation, Mixed", the output was "2, 2". And File release were treated if each file was an extra disc (see new option above). Now all these things are proper regognized and summarized. And the pseudo discogs mediatpes "Box Set" and "All Media" are not counted at discs. FIXED: Discnumbers are now also proper recoginzed if they are written with text in front of the number at the discogs page. Like: CD1-01 / CD1 01 / Disc 1 1 FIXED: If multiple artists of one track are seperated with a comma at discogs, there has been a space in front of the comma at the script. This is fixed now. FIXED: The script had a little problem at displaying the search results with some releases which have quotationmarks in the title. This is fixed now. FIXED: The new discogs series do not always have a catalog#. In those cases you could have got results which ended with ", " for the catalog# tag (depening on your settings). This is fixed now. FIXED: Several tag fields could not be written when another field was set to "no". This is fixed now. The field with problems were: DISCOGS\_RELEASE URL could not be written without DISCOGS\_RELEASE ID DISCOGS\_ARTIST could not be written without DISCOGS\_ALBUMARTIST CHANGED: The tag fields DISCOGS\_RELEASE\_ID (DISCOGS\_RELEASE ID) and WWW (DISCOGS\_RELEASE URL) appear now at the end of the tag fields list in the "Adjust tag information" dialog. That gives a better overview of the more relevant other tag fields without the need to scroll down. CHANGED: A purely technical change which makes the scripts smaller and so a little bit faster. I changed the way the tag fields are treated which you set to "no". The coding for these fields doesn't appear in the scripts now. This is a larger update with many new possibilities. I have done lots of test with different settings and on different discogs pages, and I hope that I have found and solved most discogs problems and script errors. Especially the modifications on %track% and %title% caused lots of troubles, since this is originally not provided for Mp3tag web sources scripts. However, if you find some problems with certain discogs pages or get errors from conflicting settings in the settings mp3 file, please tell me. All new fields are set to "no" after the update because I don't like to change the way you are tagging without asking. You have to make the changes in the setting files yourself. - download in the starting post - ---
**Author:** ![s\_PLASH](https://community.mp3tag.de/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@s\_PLASH](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/s_PLASH)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2011, 12:50pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/ws-discogs-pone-mod/9226/189 "2011-10-11T12:50:32Z")
thank you for you massive effort! again i have a question. the picture above show new values in the left "Length" column. what do they mean? and can i disable them? it comes for every element of crime studio album. eg [http://www.discogs.com/Element-Of-Crime-Ro...release/1149816](http://www.discogs.com/Element-Of-Crime-Romantik/release/1149816) ![](https://community.mp3tag.de/uploads/default/original/2X/2/297de32ef044a3d81b2e31b1ceb8b2dbce4f6e94.PNG) ---
**Author:** ![pone](https://community.mp3tag.de/user_avatar/community.mp3tag.de/pone/32/272_2.png) [@pone](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/pone)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2011, 1:14pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/ws-discogs-pone-mod/9226/190 "2011-10-11T13:14:14Z")
> [@s\_PLASH](#): > > thank you for you massive effort! again i have a question. the picture above show new values in the left "Length" column. what do they mean? and can i disable them? > > it comes for every element of crime studio album. eg [http://www.discogs.com/Element-Of-Crime-Ro...release/1149816](http://www.discogs.com/Element-Of-Crime-Romantik/release/1149816) the screenshot must me from a different release, but that makes no difference 😃 The Length column is only for your orientation. What is displayed there is not written into the Tags. So I thought, with all the new options for tracknumbers it could be - depending of your settings - that you loose the overview for what is really displayed there at discogs. So i just displayed there the track position as written at discogs, seperated by " min. # " from the length to make clear what is what. or, as explained above: > [@](#): > > NEW: > The original track position as written on the discogs page is now always displayed behind the length of the tracks in the "Adjust tag information" dialog. This has no effect on the written tags, it's just for better overview for albums where the tracknumbering is not straight forward. Usefull at releases like this, where you might wonder where you tracknumber come from: [http://www.discogs.com/release/2529088](http://www.discogs.com/release/2529088) [http://www.discogs.com/release/2332348](http://www.discogs.com/release/2332348) [http://www.discogs.com/release/1763207](http://www.discogs.com/release/1763207) [http://www.discogs.com/release/2320106](http://www.discogs.com/release/2320106) [http://www.discogs.com/release/2271278](http://www.discogs.com/release/2271278) You can't disable it. Is there a need for disabling it? If so, I could make another option for that. I'm already updating anyway (call me crazy). This time I'm after Discogs' Master Release Pages. like this: [http://www.discogs.com/master/24371](http://www.discogs.com/master/24371) There will be script which lists all versions if you put in the master release id for search. And the "direct by www" and "standard search" scripts will be able write tags directly from the master page, for cases where you are to lazy to decide which release is exactly your file version. At this point I have a question: Does anybody know how to get master releases into the search results at Discogs' Advanced Search: [http://www.discogs.com/search?q=&btn=&type=all](http://www.discogs.com/search?q=&btn=&type=all) ---
**Author:** ![s\_PLASH](https://community.mp3tag.de/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@s\_PLASH](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/s_PLASH)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2011, 3:26pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/ws-discogs-pone-mod/9226/191 "2011-10-12T15:26:31Z")
> [@pone](#): > > the screenshot must me from a different release, but that makes no difference 😃 > > The Length column is only for your orientation. What is displayed there is not written into the Tags. > > So I thought, with all the new options for tracknumbers it could be - depending of your settings - that you loose the overview for what is really displayed there at discogs. So i just displayed there the track position as written at discogs, seperated by " min. # " from the length to make clear what is what. > > or, as explained above: > > Usefull at releases like this, where you might wonder where you tracknumber come from: > [http://www.discogs.com/release/2529088](http://www.discogs.com/release/2529088) > [http://www.discogs.com/release/2332348](http://www.discogs.com/release/2332348) > [http://www.discogs.com/release/2332348](http://www.discogs.com/release/1763207) > [http://www.discogs.com/release/2332348](http://www.discogs.com/release/2320106) > [http://www.discogs.com/release/2271278](http://www.discogs.com/release/2271278) > > You can't disable it. Is there a need for disabling it? If so, I could make another option for that. yes, because it's confusing to see **track** positions **in Length** column (especially when you don't know what it is, i mean, new users will wonder). my config now shows exactly the same values in track column. please make another option for that. maybe there is also a bug came with it? see here: ![](https://community.mp3tag.de/uploads/default/original/2X/2/26859d9a9b459313c3dbbafd29a167512657adf9.PNG) apart from that i wonder if those tracks here [here](http://www.discogs.com/release/1763207) really came only one each CD or ist it a mistake in discogs ![:huh:](https://community.mp3tag.de/uploads/default/original/1X/f15ee73c0fd9ec3b0db7481f0558638f8ee224ce.gif ":huh:") may i request another option? please eliminate leading zeros for one [release](http://www.discogs.com/release/2529088), you just mentioned. problem is maybe two options ![](https://community.mp3tag.de/uploads/default/original/2X/c/cfff872b4faf4b7d6aabc8842486916fa3308c89.PNG) which kind of incompatible, for the case that you don't want leading zeros at all, they come anyway. see results here: ![](https://community.mp3tag.de/uploads/default/original/2X/4/4101366a3ee9db04e9ca73432d297ebb8ce7ab1a.PNG) do you know, what i mean? ![](https://community.mp3tag.de/uploads/default/original/2X/c/cfff872b4faf4b7d6aabc8842486916fa3308c89.PNG) ![](https://community.mp3tag.de/uploads/default/original/2X/4/4101366a3ee9db04e9ca73432d297ebb8ce7ab1a.PNG) ![](https://community.mp3tag.de/uploads/default/original/2X/2/26859d9a9b459313c3dbbafd29a167512657adf9.PNG) ---
**Author:** ![pone](https://community.mp3tag.de/user_avatar/community.mp3tag.de/pone/32/272_2.png) [@pone](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/pone)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2011, 4:12pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/ws-discogs-pone-mod/9226/192 "2011-10-12T16:12:47Z")
> [@s\_PLASH](#): > > yes, because it's confusing to see **track** positions **in Length** column (especially when you don't know what it is, i mean, new users will wonder). my config now shows exactly the same values in track column. please make another option for that. ok, i will do that. although I'm afraid that too much options will be more confusing than the display of thracknumbers in a column which just says "Length" > [@s\_PLASH](#): > > maybe there is also a bug came with it? see here: > ![](https://community.mp3tag.de/uploads/default/original/2X/2/26859d9a9b459313c3dbbafd29a167512657adf9.PNG) no, that's no bug. i chose to display this if not track length present at discogs. so the track postions after that are still in line when length is missing only on some tracks of a release. > [@s\_PLASH](#): > > apart from that i wonder if those tracks here [here](http://www.discogs.com/release/1763207) > really came only one each CD or ist it a mistake in discogs ![:huh:](https://community.mp3tag.de/uploads/default/original/1X/f15ee73c0fd9ec3b0db7481f0558638f8ee224ce.gif ":huh:") why not? an album with a bonus cd with mp3 tracks. there are all kind of strange formats on discogs. i searched for these things to test the script on different pages. > [@s\_PLASH](#): > > may i request another option? please eliminate leading zeros for one [release](http://www.discogs.com/release/2529088), you just mentioned. > problem is maybe two options > ![](https://community.mp3tag.de/uploads/default/original/2X/c/cfff872b4faf4b7d6aabc8842486916fa3308c89.PNG) > > which kind of incompatible, for the case that you don't want leading zeros at all, they come anyway. > see results here: > > ![](https://community.mp3tag.de/uploads/default/original/2X/4/4101366a3ee9db04e9ca73432d297ebb8ce7ab1a.PNG) > > do you know, what i mean? the last screenshot is actually a good example why it is usefull to have the original track position of discogs displayed in the length column, don't you think so? so you want to start track numbers from 1 for every new disc instead of 01? 1, 2, 3, ... 1, 2, 3, ... instead of 01, 02, 03, ... 01, 02, 03, ... i can also make an option or a new DISCOGS~TRACK field for that. just thought there would be no need for that. i think most people prefer leading zeros because it's more comfortable when formating filenames. but with your options you will get leading zeros anyway for some releases. DISCOGS~TRACK POSITION AS ON RELEASE PAGE produces all kinds of formats, as there seem to be no strict numbering rules at discogs. ---
**Author:** ![s\_PLASH](https://community.mp3tag.de/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@s\_PLASH](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/s_PLASH)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2011, 4:57pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/ws-discogs-pone-mod/9226/193 "2011-10-12T16:57:06Z")
> [@pone](#): > > ok, i will do that. cool, thanks! > [@pone](#): > > why not? an album with a bonus cd with mp3 tracks. there are all kind of strange formats on discogs. i searched for these things to test the script on different pages. i didn't speak about bonus cd. i mean CD1 - CD12. they appear as one-track-CDs, right? > [@pone](#): > > the last screenshot is actually a good example why it is usefull to have the original track position of discogs displayed in the length column, don't you think so? your script added the zeros, is that right? if it wouldn't do so, the result of tracks and discnumber would be the same. i'm afraid that i didn't get it, still ☹ > [@pone](#): > > so you want to start track numbers from 1 for every new disc instead of 01? > 1, 2, 3, ... 1, 2, 3, ... instead of 01, 02, 03, ... 01, 02, 03, ... yeeees ![:w00t:](https://community.mp3tag.de/uploads/default/original/1X/cb01eca72fe9339ff6f3ec9f1e3c5fe002be0f0a.gif ":w00t:")😆 i don't like leading zeros as i don't tag vinyls with them nor in cases of Roman numerals. > [@pone](#): > > but with your options you will get leading zeros anyway for some releases. DISCOGS~TRACK POSITION AS ON RELEASE PAGE produces all kinds of formats, as there seem to be no strict numbering rules at discogs. it's ok, ill correct it afterwards with an action. ---
**Author:** ![pone](https://community.mp3tag.de/user_avatar/community.mp3tag.de/pone/32/272_2.png) [@pone](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/pone)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2011, 5:32pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/ws-discogs-pone-mod/9226/194 "2011-10-12T17:32:32Z")
> [@s\_PLASH](#): > > i didn't speak about bonus cd. i mean CD1 - CD12. they appear as one-track-CDs, right? ah, ok. no, that's what i meant with they have no fixed rules for numbering. It's of couse only one CD as stated under format. You see this system on several discogs pages, often when a CD comes with a DVD. There instead of CD1-01, CD1-02, CD1-03, ... CD2-01, CD2-02, CD2-03, ... they have CD-01, CD-02, CD-03, ... DVD-01, DVD-02, DVD-03, ... or, as in this case, without a dash and leading zero, which might be confusing. Anyway, my script reads it correct 😃 > [@s\_PLASH](#): > > your script added the zeros, is that right? if it wouldn't do so, the result of tracks and discnumber would be the same. i'm afraid that i didn't get it, still ☹ The original track number for the first track is "CD1 1" as you see in the length column. My script splitted the this in at the space into discnumber and tracknumber, deleted the "CD" in front of the discnumber and added a leading zero to "1" at the tracknumber. If you want to test all differnt options for track, just give every field in the setting file a different name (like track1, track2, track3, track4, ...) and you will see what you can get. > [@s\_PLASH](#): > > yeeees ![:w00t:](https://community.mp3tag.de/uploads/default/original/1X/cb01eca72fe9339ff6f3ec9f1e3c5fe002be0f0a.gif ":w00t:")😆 i don't like leading zeros as i don't tag vinyls with them nor in cases of Roman numerals. > ... > it's ok, ill correct it afterwards with an action. if you set all DISCOGS~TRACK NUMBER ... and DISCOGS~TRACK POSITION fields to no, you won't have to correct something afterwards, because you will get numbers without leading zeros for all releases expect multi disc cds (which i will correct soon) ---
**Author:** ![s\_PLASH](https://community.mp3tag.de/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@s\_PLASH](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/s_PLASH)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2011, 3:10pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/ws-discogs-pone-mod/9226/195 "2011-10-13T15:10:47Z")
> [@pone](#): > > Anyway, my script reads it correct 😃 🙂 which is great, well done! ---
**Author:** ![pone](https://community.mp3tag.de/user_avatar/community.mp3tag.de/pone/32/272_2.png) [@pone](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/pone)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2011, 4:14pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/ws-discogs-pone-mod/9226/196 "2011-10-13T16:14:47Z")
next update will be great: - fully integrated master release pages for search and album tagging - i finally found a way to display country and release description (album, single, promo) for most releases - i found a much more elegant way to write my own tracknumbers with two do ... while loops and some regexp magic. this makes the script faster again (i think) and allows now leading zeros fitting to totaltracks, i.e., 001 when over hundred tracks. will be finished the coming weekend, most probably tomorrow. the only thing I'm still searching for is my question from above: **Does anybody know how to get master releases into the search results at Discogs' Advanced Search???** like here: [http://www.discogs.com/search?q=&btn=&type=all](http://www.discogs.com/search?q=&btn=&type=all) ---
**Author:** ![david.lynch](https://community.mp3tag.de/user_avatar/community.mp3tag.de/david.lynch/32/5682_2.png) [@david.lynch](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/david.lynch)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2011, 10:41pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/ws-discogs-pone-mod/9226/197 "2011-10-13T22:41:11Z")
thank you by the hard work, pone, we're looking forward to see the new version! ![](http://i.imgur.com/XtT2V.gif) & ![](http://i.imgur.com/jg2t4.gif) ---
**Author:** ![kexik](https://community.mp3tag.de/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/e36b37/32.png) [@kexik](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/kexik)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2011, 1:15pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/ws-discogs-pone-mod/9226/198 "2011-10-14T13:15:27Z")
Hi, I have request. I don't know if this has been made before, but here it is: Is there a way to replace certain characters (e.g. / or ) by other characters during the import. Those characters are not allowed in the renaming and creation process in tags used for the renaming (like album artist, album, title,...) I have in mind a solution as implemented in your copy source - target options: **DISCOGS~PONE COPY 1 SOURCE DISCOGS~PONE COPY 1 TARGET** This could look like this in the options: **TO REPLACE = /: REPLACE WITH = ,** e.g. here all ocurrences of the chars "/: " shall be replaced by ",". Maybe it is not the best idea to replace those chars for the purpose of file or directory creation, but there are certainly other reasonable scenarios for it. Maybe this is also extendable for whole strings. Thank you in advance Alex ---
**Author:** ![Mabba](https://community.mp3tag.de/user_avatar/community.mp3tag.de/mabba/32/8464_2.png) [@Mabba](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/Mabba)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2011, 1:22pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/ws-discogs-pone-mod/9226/199 "2011-10-14T13:22:52Z")
> [@pone](#): > > the only thing I'm still searching for is my question from above: > **Does anybody know how to get master releases into the search results at Discogs' Advanced Search???** > like here: [http://www.discogs.com/search?q=&btn=&type=all](http://www.discogs.com/search?q=&btn=&type=all) Cool, I did not even know, this search page. _Cool, kannte ich noch gar nicht, diese Suchseite._ ---
**Author:** ![pone](https://community.mp3tag.de/user_avatar/community.mp3tag.de/pone/32/272_2.png) [@pone](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/pone)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2011, 1:36pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/ws-discogs-pone-mod/9226/200 "2011-10-14T13:36:49Z")
> [@kexik](#): > > Is there a way to replace certain characters (e.g. / or ) by other characters during the import. Those characters are not allowed in the renaming and creation process in tags used for the renaming (like album artist, album, title,...) All character are allowed for renaming tag-fields (like album artist, album, title,...) in Mp3tag. If you want to rename filenames, use the **$validate(filename,to)** scripting function. Example: $validate(%artist% - %album% - %track% - %title%,',') This example replaces all invalid characters (/?\*"\<\>|:) to commas like you want it. why commas? wouldn't an underscore look somewhat better: $validate(%artist% - %album% - %track% - %title%,\_) Building that option into the web sources script would be possible, but I think it's not worth the work. I would have to change quite a lot for that. And the next question would be, disable those characters for all tag fields or only for some? If only for some, for what fields? So finally I would have to make an option for every tag field to diable those characters. [Previous page](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/ws-discogs-pone-mod/9226.md?page=9) [Next page](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/ws-discogs-pone-mod/9226.md?page=11)