Registry Update 1:10pm 10/8

BJ · October 5, 2004 7:02AM

We believe we finally have the ratings calculation problem resolved, however should you see that your set has not calculated correctly, please email me directly with your set name and the date/time you last updated.

We have temporarily deactivated the multiple card addition function as it was a little buggy. We'll get it up and running soon.

We have addressed the various formatting problems and suggestions and have updated the player page displays and the user admin so that the card# appears first.

Just a reminder - there will be many cards, especially in the player and HOF sets that do not have spec numbers in our system. This is mainly because those cards have not yet been registered by anyone. When you attempt to add a card without a spec, it will give you an error message that the card is invalid. All you need to do is email setregistry@collectors.com and we'll add the spec to the set. It is a very easy and quick process for us.

With regards to the population in the Registry, we believe the 10s are now being added into the pop higher column, however if you know of any card where this may not be true, please send me a link to the set (please email me directly and don't PM me!).

As far as what pops should be calculated in each column, please let me know what calculations for the pop higher column make sense to you by posting your feedback here. Currently, all cards graded higher (including Qs) are being added in the pop higher column.

Thanks in advance for your patience as we work through these issues. Rest assured, they will be resolved!

carkim · October 5, 2004 7:05AM

I suggest no "Q"ualified cards be added to the POP higher list.

rw2win · October 5, 2004 7:12AM

What Carlos said!

mudflap02 · October 5, 2004 7:48AM

Agree with Carlos. I definitely like the new format, making it simlar to the PCGS registry. For a sevice that is essentially free of charge, you guys have really outdone yourselves.

That being said, of course there is the mandatory whining! It's kind of weird how some of my comments that are a small paragraph or two are about

3 words stacked
on top of each
other for some
strange reason.

It's just kind of distracting, between that and having to scroll across the page. Maybe a format where comments could appear when a comment box is scrolled over with the mouse? Just a thought. I realize that the aesthetic improvements take a back seat to the technical issues at this point. I also don't mean to take anything away from all the hard work, time, and money you guys have put into this. Thanks again!

mudflap02 · October 5, 2004 7:50AM

To see what I mean, check it out, for anyone interested:

Link to my set

See how the first card I have listed takes up over a screen of information?

SDSportsFan · October 5, 2004 7:57AM

I've just glanced at my sets on the registry, but I really like what I see regarding your upgrades. THANK YOU!!!

Jeff, as for the concern about the words being stacked up on one-another...don't be so long-winded in your descriptions...that'll solve the problem right there

Steve

Paille · October 5, 2004 8:07AM

I also agree that cards with qualifiers should not be added to the higher pop list

George

bobsbbcards · October 5, 2004 8:11AM

Seems to be a bug in the table for player sets when the set owner is missing one of the cards. In Jeff's set, the "Year" column is too wide because when he is missing a card (1968 VENEZUELAN TOPPS METS ROOKIES KOOSMAN/RYAN), the Year, Company, Player Name, and possibly Variety are all jammed in the "Year" column. Once that bug is fixed, the table might fit on a 1024x768 screen, but it doesn't help the fact that the "Owner's Comments" column will still be narrow. If the "Owner's Comments" column widens after the bug fix, the viewer will still have to scroll horizontally.

mikeschmidt · October 5, 2004 8:21AM

don't include qualified cards!

theBobs · October 5, 2004 8:30AM

all I have is qualified cards

AlanAllen · October 5, 2004 8:45AM

Obviously qualified cards should not be included in the pop or pop higher, unless their reduced grade puts them in that slot. So, 9Q's should be included with the 7's, 8Q's should be included with the 6's, etc. If that cannot be done, just ignore the qualified cards all together.

Joe

bobsbbcards · October 5, 2004 8:51AM

I agree with Joe. Qualified cards should be put in the POP higher column if their adjusted grade is still higher.

JusttheFacts · October 5, 2004 8:56AM

Please do not include the qualified grades in the Pop Higher figures. In the alternative, count them as 2 grades lower.

John

jmpkcp · October 5, 2004 9:30AM

I think I may have found a glitch, or maybe I just don't get the new system. I updated my set on the rigstry just recently, deleting all of the 7s and 8s and just leaving the 9s. In the registry list it shows my set where it should be now in the rankings with my proper percentage and my average grade, but yet when I click on the set, it still shows all of my old cards that I had deleted.

So the update of registry rankings is immediate but the contents of each set take time to update, like before? Is that correct?

Here's my set. It still shows all my cards, but has 19.88% completion.

jmpkcp

Wisker4570 · October 5, 2004 9:38AM

BJ,

Outstanding, I likes it, I likes it!!!! You and your team have out done yourselves again.

As for the pops, leave the qualifiers out.

mariotown · October 5, 2004 9:53AM

Can the items in the Collector's Showcase sets be alphabetized rather than displayed in the order entered?

See the link below for an example of what I'm talking about:
A sample Collector's Showcase

Kevin

Robby · October 5, 2004 10:17AM

BJ ..............FANTASTIC new format ! I really like the pop report besides each card you have in the registry to show where your card stands in the pop report ! I agree with Carlos and the rest that QUALIFIERS SHOULD NOT BE LISTED HIGHER - LIST THEM AS TWO GRADES LOWER ! Again , outstanding job !.............Robbie

SKINSFAN · October 5, 2004 10:54AM

NQ,S PLEASE other then that KADOOS GREAT JOB!!!!!!

DaveRead · October 5, 2004 11:06AM

BJ:

I like the format and love the pop's. No Q's unless 2 grades lower. I would like some more decimal places in the set rating though. In the 72 set, it seems like you have to add cards all day to move 1 point; at least with more decimals it seems like it is moving a little!

mariner · October 5, 2004 12:11PM

BJ...

No qualifier cards except where they belong.....like 8OC would be a 6 and only be part of higher if one had a 5 in the registry. Definitely 8OC, for example, should not be in the 8's!!

You have done a great job with the registry and I love the upgrades!!

jrdolan · October 5, 2004 1:22PM

Very nice! Easier to enter new cards and edit them, and the instant validation (instead of waiting a day or two) is priceless.

I too wish the new format didn't spread out so wide (the PSA ads on the left side are part of the reason). And I wish the comments didn't have to fit in a narrow column, thus forcing each card with comments to eat up more vertical space. On the other hand, the automatically updated pop figures remove some of the need for comments.

All in all, a job well done and I'm sure the glitches will be worked out in time.

schr1st · October 5, 2004 5:38PM

I like the new format and data entry screens, but have one small request: separation of PSA/DNA autographed cards from the "pop" section. For example, if you take a look at my HOF Registry set, it seems like there are 1412 autographed 1955 Topps Sandy Koufax Rookies out there that are higher than my PSA/DNA 5. Perhaps you could separate them out by the additional PSA/DNA cert #'s on the flip.

rbeaton · October 5, 2004 7:02PM

I think pops of qualified cards SHOULD be included, however, they should be given the 2 point registry deduction. So, if I have an 8Q, the pop higher should include 7's, 8's, 9Q's, 9's, and 10's.

Robert

bxb · October 5, 2004 7:53PM

It would be nice to have two extra columns for 9Q and 8Q cards, like the pop reports already have. However, there may not be enough space unless the ads on the left margin are moved somewhere else.

The rapid validation of newly added cards is excellent. However, I noticed that when I tried to delete a card from my set (not replace it, but delete it), that did not happen as of 12 hours later so far. So you can add cards right away, but you cannot delete them right away - is that right?

Also, when I added a card that is included on two different sets, the validation did not go through for the second set even though I clicked for it to be validated on the second set- I had to separately enter the second set and validate the card again.

Overall, once the bugs are out, a vast improvement!

Live long and prosper.

fsjeter · October 5, 2004 11:15PM

I think pops of qualified cards SHOULD be included, however, they should be given the 2 point registry deduction. So, if I have an 8Q, the pop higher should include 7's, 8's, 9Q's, 9's, and 10's.

Robert,

I agree with this but I think what everyone else is saying is if I have a PSA 7 in my set, the Pop higher column shouldn't include any PSA 8Q's. Everything else I like about the "new" registry. Great Job!!!

Scott

rbeaton · October 6, 2004 12:04AM

<< I agree with this but I think what everyone else is saying is if I have a PSA 7 in my set, the Pop higher column shouldn't include any PSA 8Q's. >>

Yes, but if I have a 3, then an 8Q should be counted in the pop higher.

Robert

fsjeter · October 6, 2004 1:47AM

Yes, but if I have a 3, then an 8Q should be counted in the pop higher.

It is. The "Pop Higher" total doesn't include qualified cards of the same grade (if you have a straight PSA 8, "Pop Higher" doesn't include PSA 8Q). If you look at my 1967 set (sig line), I have a PSA 8 for card #1. The "Pop Higher" total is 7 which includes PSA 9 (5) and PSA 9Q (2). If I were to register a PSA 9Q, it wouldn't have a registry value higher than my current PSA 8. I, like the others, would only like to see the PSA 9's and 10's (in this instance) included in that "Pop Higher" total.

Scott

thefootballcardstore · October 6, 2004 3:44AM

I vote, "No Q's unless 2 grades lower"
thanks, looks better

Jeremy

Basilone · October 6, 2004 5:47AM

<< I vote, "No Q's unless 2 grades lower" >>

That is my vote as well !

Remobolan · October 6, 2004 7:27AM

I agree. Down with qualifiers. I voted for qualifiers before I voted against them.

Tipem · October 6, 2004 7:27AM

BJ,

Looks Great !!!!

Thanks for all the work you and your staff do.

Vic

NickM · October 6, 2004 10:04AM

I also believe that qualified cards are only higher than unqualified cards at least 3 grades lower.

Nick

ctsoxfan · October 6, 2004 1:43PM

I also would agree that qualified cards should not count in "pop higher", but giving them the two point deduction seems fair. Other than that, I appreciate the great job you have done on the new Registry. The instant update and validation addition is a great feature - much thanks to BJ and the crew!

VMFA115 · October 6, 2004 8:16PM

Ditto with the majority; no Q's unless 2 grades lower.
Dave C.

jimtb · October 6, 2004 10:56PM

<< I agree. Down with qualifiers. I voted for qualifiers before I voted against them. >>

These are the wrong qualifiers, in the wrong place, at the wrong time!

I agree as well.

fsjeter · October 6, 2004 11:19PM

If the registry value is higher than the current card registered than it should appear in the "Pop Higher" column. Ex.-PSA 9Q should only be included if I have a PSA 6 or lower registered and PSA 8Q should only be included if I have a PSA 5 or lower registered. That's my vote!

Scott

JasP24 · October 7, 2004 12:27AM

Another vote for keepng the Qualified cards two grades lower just as the Registry views them when calculating Grade Weighting...

An 8 shouldn't show a 9OC as being graded higher when the Set Registry weighting system view the PSA 9 OC as a PSA 7. Only makes sense.

Jason

AISAVDBBALLINPHILLY · October 7, 2004 4:54AM

Ditto for Qualified cards counting as two grades lower in the POP Registry.

theplasticman · October 7, 2004 7:58AM

<< 

<< I agree. Down with qualifiers. I voted for qualifiers before I voted against them. >>

These are the wrong qualifiers, in the wrong place, at the wrong time!

I agree as well. >>

HAH!

Ive noticed that some cards that are indeed listed in Player collections already, when entering the PSA cert it says:

Cert number BLAH BLAH BLAH is not a valid card in this set.

Its correct on the Player list, and the Cert # on slab is correct.

gemint · October 9, 2004 3:47AM

Great job with the new registry format. I like it! I too request qualified cards be removed from the pop report. I almost choked when I saw a '1' in the 'pop higher' column for the 1969 Lou Brock. I thought for a moment that a PSA 9 had been graded. Obviously it turned out to be the PSA 9OC that was being counted.

wufdude · October 9, 2004 9:39PM

I attempted to add a Musial PSA/DNA card into my HOF Auto set and was told the cert. # was not valid for the set. Anyone else had a similar problem? I already sent a message to Customer Service but was wondering if this was related to the recent changes.