The not lost but hard to find art of vinyl records

I’ve got a bunch. About 1200 on the shelf that are in rotation. Others in plastic bins for later.

I use Discogs. I think it has gotten worse over time with their upgrades.

There used to be more information in each listing but now not as much.

Probably millennial logic enhancements.

I just had an album in my want list. I bought it so added to my collection.

Now it won’t show in my collection or want list, but if I search the version, it shows 1 in my collection. It just won’t show it when viewing my collection or want list.

Wish there was something better.

I invested a lot of time adding thousands & adding pressings that weren’t listed.

I wish I could export my data & put it in something better.

What 17,000 lps WOW,that's the most important ever heard of a guy owning  unless he's a store also...WOW...

I also use discogs.  For those of you who are discogs users and also have another separate accounting of the records, you are wasting your time.  It is very easy to export your collection in an excel type report.

Another great reason to use discogs, if you do it correctly(according to my view), is to force you to dig into the dead wax and find your exact (or close) pressing.  In vinyl, pressing order and plants largely determine fidelity.  Albums that I was sure were first pressings turned out not to be so.  In that circumstance, I would seek out a first pressing of the disc from well known quality plants such as Santa Maria or Monarch, to name a few, and be rewarded with a much better listening experience.  I only purchase mint or near mint pressings and use only high rated sellers with an extensive review history if possible. 

@inagroove I'm not sure what you are referencing in terms of the discogs police "denying all your work" if the indices don't match.  I have roughly 1200 LPs registered.  Many do not have indices that match up with known versions in their data base. I get as close as I can with the proper pressing plant and there has never been any blow back.  I don't bother creating a new version, but my brother has and he had no issues either.  

My physical sorting is exactly like @o_holter 

KISS. Excel spreadsheet. If it is a duo or non-standard record, go by the first artist or group it with a more defined group. It happens with jazz records sometimes.

They are physically organized alphabetically by groups to try to listen to them at least closer to the same frequency so I don't always have to decide what to listen to. For example Tom Petty and Springsteen are in the same grouping since they are close alphabetically and the total records between them is 9 or 10. I try to keep the groups between 8 and 10 in rock and a little bigger in jazz. Exceptions are Miles, The Beatles and Steely Dan. They get their own area. A few others have their own grouping within a bin/area- The Police/Sting, Grateful Dead, Neil Young/CSN(Y), Boz Scaggs  - maybe one or two others. I listen to each record 3 or 4 times a year roughly.

There are a few records that seem to get recategorized because of the sizes of the sections or storage. They're one off jazz/watercolors types, but it is annoying. I don't want them in the single record area since that is rock. Seems like every time I buy a new record it's an adventure, which is why I mainly upgrade records for sound quality. I know, I make it overly complicated, but I know what I have and very rarely can't find any given record within 10 seconds.

I'm always trying to perfect it....I'm probably a bit OCD with the matter.