Same here regarding one and the other unpopular release
![Smile :) :)]()
But most of the time I add new versions of already existing releases, like the newest pressing of release X with a different matrix than the previous entries...
While Discogs has the "one entry per different release" approach (and different - besides the obvious - means different matrix, smallest differences in the artwork/printed text etc.) I am not yet sure about the approach at MusicBrainz. I first thought (and hoped) that MB understands a "release" more from the record company point of view - so basically a different release for a different catalog number, different barcode etc. So when you have the (fictional) 2002 release of "Thriller", it remains one release in MB when that same release is being repressed by different manufacturers in 2005, 2011 and 2016. On Discogs, that might all be separate releases which can be identified by the matrix.
But sometimes (rarely) MB also has separate entries for this, with hints in the release notes. As you can also link to a Discogs entry from an MB entry and possibly even to a manufacturer (in the relations section), I am not sure what their aim is. If they want to primarily be a metadata provider regarding albums and recordings, it does not make much sense to copy Discogs in listing each and every different pressing. In general, the data quality at MB is lower than at Discogs, but on the other hand they have information that Discogs does not have (especially about same recordings on different releases) and which have quite the potential.