Allow for users to be able to contribute to adding to catalog

Avatar
Anonymous
  • updated

A lot of sets are organized poorly when trying to add various cards via the set type such as having the card numbered 1, 2, 3 and not 01, 02, 03 etc so it’s taking the numerical sorting out of order and another thing is some sets are out of 10 or 25 cards but will only have 5 of the cards randomly in the set to be added to collection. Being able to request a review and possibly using a crowd work to fill out the rest of the set collection is necessary for tracking collections regardless if a value can be associated with it. Even pairing with Beckett to use their complete catalog as a basis for tracking would be an improvement

Replies 5
Avatar
0
mister_insert

This probably has become increasingly frustrating for me as well. I've started flagging cards in sets where the set checklist is incomplete. I don't have time to open my email, copy the information from the card set, draft details of the issues, then check if I get an email reply. So I just write a note with in the price issue flag. But at this point, I've started saving all the sets I'm running into that are incomplete. 

I asked before, but there needs to be an automated scrub of all the sets listed. It should be possible to run a script that cross references the set, number of cards in that set checklist here on the site, and confirm from the data's source of truth that the  number is the same. 

Example: 1992-93 Stadium Club basketball. The database source of truth should declare that there are 400 cards in the set and 400 "Member's Only" parallels. When the script runs, it looks at the set checklist and says, "hey, there's 801 listed here. fyi, that's 1 extra item. you should check it out". 

IMHO, I could be wrong, but this seems like an easy project. Might take a while to clean the checklists and ensure the source of truth is up to date, but it would be worth it. 

Avatar
0
jj

We have two people working on this project full time.  They are working on the most popular sets now and ones that users mention as needing attention.

Avatar
0
jj
  • Under review

The "extra card" in the 1992 Stadium Club set is the Sealed Box.  To get an accurate count of cards, you should exclude sealed items from the set lists.  

But yes, we do plan to clean more sets

Avatar
0
mister_insert
Quote from jj

The "extra card" in the 1992 Stadium Club set is the Sealed Box.  To get an accurate count of cards, you should exclude sealed items from the set lists.  

But yes, we do plan to clean more sets

I knew that was going to be caught. It was a bad example, but it was the first set that I had a tab open for a set. lol 

The point of the post was to share an idea on a possible script to check for accurate checklist:source_of_truth ratios. 

If we need better examples where this would easily find outliers that need updated, here's a few I've saved: 

These are examples of too few cards in checklists. I've shared sets with too many (mainly 1980s Topps football). But if there was an easy way to flag sets that don't match the true checklist, it would make things easier. 

Avatar
0
jj
Quote from mister_insert

I knew that was going to be caught. It was a bad example, but it was the first set that I had a tab open for a set. lol 

The point of the post was to share an idea on a possible script to check for accurate checklist:source_of_truth ratios. 

If we need better examples where this would easily find outliers that need updated, here's a few I've saved: 

These are examples of too few cards in checklists. I've shared sets with too many (mainly 1980s Topps football). But if there was an easy way to flag sets that don't match the true checklist, it would make things easier. 

No worries.  We will work on these examples now.  We will continue the process of doing the most popular set cleanups.  I will make a note about a streamlined way to report a set as being incomplete/inaccurate.


Reply to
Customer support portal powered by UserEcho