Can we have at least one more decimal place?

carkim

Can we have at least one more decimal place for the Set Rating and GPA? Some sets are so close that the (at least) one extra decimal point could make a difference in your ranking.

Also, I would be nice to see a change when I upgrade my set. I could add 4 PSA 9's to my set and my rating would still be the same.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

Carlos

Virtualizard

Carlos,

I agree completely. It is rather frustrating to upgrade several 8's to 9's and see no difference in GPA or Set Rating.

On a similar note, I track the top 20 on many of the sets that I collect. I've always wondered how the set registry treats 2 or 3 sets that have the same set rating. I think that the set with the highest GPA should be above another set with the same set rating, but lower GPA. This is not the way it is currently done and I can't figure out how it is determined - it seems random. Check out the 1969 Topps Baseball set for example. I am currently tied at number 20, yet I am not on the current list even though my GPA is 0.98 higher than the set that I am tied with.

It's no big deal, but I just wondered how it worked.

JEB.

RayBShotz

JEB-

The only thing I can figure is: in the case of a tie for set rating it seems that the PSA software gives preference to the set that was there at that rating first. if you have recently moved into a tie with another registrant it appears that that registrant holds a priority position in the event of a tie.
My observation.
I could be wrong though.
Any other obsevations out there?
RayB69Topps

Virtualizard

Ray,

I should have mentioned it, but I know that is also not the case. Check out the past 2 weeks on the 1975 Topps set. The #6, 7, & 8 sets have switched it up quite a bit. I don't see any logic here.

I hope that I can present this in a way that makes sense:



If anyone sees something that I am missing, please let me know.

Thanks.

JEB.

mikeschmidt

I honestly don't think it matters much. Sure -- if we add decimal places, it might do well to serve our needs, but I know that I keep a personal spreadsheet where I can take out my weighted set GPA to one hundred decimal places if it is necessary. I think that the vast majority of collectors don't care about other's collections so much that a 8.14983492 is considered significantly different than 8.14783492.

I think that PSA's software does take the ranking out to many decimal places for determining rankings -- even though it does not show it. I understand it's use from a personal tracking/inventory status -- but I don't think that for the purpose of sharing, that too many people out there are really interested on a day-to-day level when a low number common gets upgraded from PSA 8 to PSA 9.

LuxuryWines

Jeb,

I assume you are wonering how the ANFLPRO set with 8.04 avg grade beat out the other 2 sets which have much higher Avg Grades... and similar % Completion rates? The answer is in what cards they have listed in their sets and at what grades. ANFLPRO probably has all the star cards (which have greater weightings) While the other 2 set are probably missing those cards....

1420sports

Virtual, I think the reason you are not in the top twenty even though you are tied for the 20 spot, is based on alphabetical order. One more addition and you are #19.

Virtualizard

Marc is correct about the rankings being based on set rating calculated to more than 2 decimals. That was the whole point of this thread - One more decimal would clear it all up. The way they have it now, 3 different sets have the same rating. One set updates an 8 to a 9 with no change in GPA, % Complete, or rating to 2 decimals, yet the set moves up one spot in the rankings. The next day, another set does it, with the same results. We know what has happened, but it would be nice to see a noticeable change.

It's all psychological and really no big deal.

JEB.

brucemo

I think there should be no decimal places at all. For that matter, I'd delete all of the figures to the left of the decimal place as well. I think the notion that graded set collecting can't be enjoyed without a spreadsheet program is perverse.

I certainly like the idea of graded set collecting. The set registry is okay, it's a way of sharing what you are doing. But the competition aspect of it is just sick. Collect them because they are cool, not because you want to go from 8.03 to 8.06 in some very arbitrary formula. The whole idea that sets, especially high-end sets with lots of superior cards, can be "ranked", is bizarre and twisted.

Sorry to cause a problem by going against the grain, but I feel strongly that the numeric aspects of this whole thing are a distraction. Some people end up collecting numbers, not cards.

bruce

helionaut

I think in grouping the DB query results, it puts people in order of set rating first, then something else that's not shown second, and that second sorting could be date of alteration, latest date last. In the example shown, on 5/5 there is Steve at 7.10 with 87.73% and 8.68 GPA. On 5/6 all 3 have the same rating, but SE has dropped down to last. His rating is and completion is the same, but it looks like he upgraded a card from 8 to 9, I guess, which changed the GPA. I never heard of anything where improving your set lowers your ranking, unless it is something completely objective like a sort by date. The other 2 have the same rating but are either 1/2 or 2/1 in the other categories. On 5.7, ANFLPRO did about the same thing, changed his set so that the rating was the same but the GPA went up .01. The numbers and order then stay the same until 5/10 when places 2 and 3 get swapped, even though the numbers stay the same. Maybe ANFLPRO made an upgrade that didn't change any of the math, but he did get dropped.

That makes me think the time of change contributes to sorting people with the same rating. This sounds fair in the long run, so that if one person reaches a certain level, he should retain his place in the listing even if someone comes along later to match it. But while sets are in flux it can seem a little unfair, especially if one person has a much higher GPA and the other person has an equal rating by having a higher completion. It would just be a matter of the order in which the sets are verified, beyond the control of the collectors.

I'd be in favor of adding a third decimal. With the rounding off, on larger sets adding 2, 3, or more cards won't move your GPA or rating, but sorting by date can make it appear that you have a "lesser" set when on a tiny level you don't. Of course, being tied for a spot means exactly that, tied, so set #9a is essentially as good as set #9d, but two sets are hardly ever really exactly alike. Besides, it works for baseball, so it should work here, too.

waitilltheytrytosell

The 2002 Olympics Men's Skiing Super-G results.
1, Kjetil Andre Aamodt, Norway, 1:21.58.
2, Stephan Eberharter, Austria, 1:21.68
3, Andreas Schifferer, Austria, 1:21.83.
4, Fritz Strobl, Austria, 1:21.92.
Had the time been measured in only whole seconds, you would have had an apparent 4-way tie for the Gold medal. The competition is so close that time must be measured to the hundredths of seconds to determine a clear winner. If PSA is ever to become an Olympic event, then it is obvious we need accurate measurement to the thousandths in the calculation of the set rating.

carkim

I don't think this proposal will HURT anyone, and if it helps a few WHY NOT?

The whole idea that sets, especially high-end sets with lots of superior cards, can be "ranked", is bizarre and twisted.

Most of us never claimed to be sane.

Carlos

acowa

< certainly like the idea of graded set collecting. The set registry is okay, it's a way of sharing what you are doing. But the competition aspect of it is just sick. Collect them because they are cool, not because you want to go from 8.03 to 8.06 in some very arbitrary formula. The whole idea that sets, especially high-end sets with lots of superior cards, can be "ranked", is bizarre and twisted.>


sick...twisted...perverse...HIGHLY PROFITABLE.

POP QUIZ:

One of these things is not like the other...One of these things just doesn't belong...Which of these things drives a business decision to make a very simple change to a website?


Regards,


Alan

OhioTaz

JEB

I would like to annoint you, "Master of the Spreadsheet"!



Taz

Virtualizard

Taz,

Thanks.

JEB.