The "Forgotten Registries". Should PCGS Eliminate?

braddick

It would seem PCGS could install, fairly easily, a program that automatically shoots of an email to the owner(s) of Registries that show no activity for an extended period of time.
These would also be sets that contain say less than 50% of the coins in the series.
It would be a polite email simply inquiring of the owner if he/she is still interested in maintaining the Registry or if the appearance of lack of regard for it is valid.

The respondent can then confirm their continued interest and the set remains intact, or either state a no desire or a no response.
The Set would then be eliminated.

It's not so much the Sets with just a sprinkling of coins in them that bug me, it's the ones where the Collector had all good intentions of building the Set but then changed their mind without taking the time or trouble to REMOVE the set from the Registry.
THESE sets should not exist, again, AFTER PCGS makes every effort to solicite a positive reply.

sonofagunk

they want to keep inflated numbers. Just like how they say that they have over 4,000 sets when a lot of the are just duplicates (with and without varieties). An intereresting number to know would be how many PEOPLE have active sets.


I like the idea. I use to run an one line dating service and we deactivated accounts after 4 months. Hotmail deactivates email accont now after 30 days of inactivity (to short IMHO)

Steve27

The following rule already exists:

"Current sets that are not at least 10% complete and have not been
updated for at least 12 months will be deleted from the registry."

BJ

Steve is right. Sets that have not been updated in a year and are 10% or less completed are deleted. We use 10% as the deliminator because some collections may take longer than others to complete and some pockets are deeper than others. I try to keep the registry as clean as I possibly can. Also, every few days, I diligently remove sets under 90% complete that have been deleted from current.

BTW, Braddick, at this point nothing is simple in the Set Registry as far as programming goes, although we are getting there. The IS department at CUI is working feverishly to combine all of our databases, so that yes, someday soon we will be able to pull email addresses using certain parameters.

son of a gunk - The number of registrants is no secret. You can have that information anytime you ask me for it. Right now we have 1,225 registrants - an average of 3.54 sets per person. If you go to the news page and view some of the reports, you can get an idea of the activity. For example, in the last 5 days 101 new sets have been added and 437 sets have been updated. As far as the total number of sets goes, as I explained above, I try to keep the registry as clean as I can. With over 1,200 registrants, I'm sure you can appreciate the amount of work that requires. Yes, you may view the variety sets as duplicates, but the reality is that the number of variety sets would not substantially effect the overall number if we pulled them out of the count. As it is, we view the variety sets as unique, not dups.

Please let me know if there are any other statistics about which you are curious.

keithdagen

How about "forgotten categories?" There are a lot of areas that have no sets registered, and it seems that they will have no activity. How about inactivating those sets until they are requested to be competitive again?

relayer

Actually I don't think the number ever goes down.

I deleted a set and the count remained the same.

BJ

Keith - With the exception of all the new mint sets we have been adding in the last week, there are ONLY 9 categories (out of 318) that have no listings. I'm a little unclear about what you mean by "a lot of areas." Please advise.

Relayer - If your set was under 90% complete and you deleted it, it won't automatically delete from ATF. We do those deletions in batches, generally every Mon, Wed & Fri. I have already taken care of today's deletions, so your set will be removed from ATF on Wed.

keithdagen

A few more guys must have showed up since I last looked.

BJ

Keith,

No problem. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something!

BJ

braddick

I think yours is a fair policy.
I wasn't aware it was even in place when I started this Thread.
-Looks like CU is MORE than just one step ahead of me. . .