<< <i>I find the pop report very easy to navigate, and I very rarely use the player search feature. Besides, if there is a card that has never been graded, it won't show up in the player search anyway. >>
Say you want to find a 1959 Topp Al Kaline. Do you type in Al Kaline and scroll down to find the '59, or do you click on 1959 Topps and scroll until you see his name, which could take forever if you don't know the number. My point is that if you could simply type in 1959 All Kaline and only Kaline cards from 1959 show up, it would make things so much easier. Especially when looking for, say, a 1986 Topps Nolan Ryan, it takes forever to find the card if you don't know the number or don't feel like skimming through 16 years of Nolan Ryan cards and PSA DNAs to find the '86. It could just be so much easier and I don't see why it's so awful to want it updated. >>
While I do agree with your basic discussion, in the cases you cited, it is easier just to look at the registry sets.
It would be nice if the pop has complete search functions and perhaps if they put contrasting color bars on the .5 grade column.
Clear Skies, Mark >>
That is a good idea. Sometimes it can be frustrating trying to line up the grades with the cards.
You shouldn't have to search the registry sets. It should simply be a better/easier system for Pop Reports.
<< <i>I find the pop report very easy to navigate, and I very rarely use the player search feature. Besides, if there is a card that has never been graded, it won't show up in the player search anyway. >>
Say you want to find a 1959 Topp Al Kaline. Do you type in Al Kaline and scroll down to find the '59, or do you click on 1959 Topps and scroll until you see his name, which could take forever if you don't know the number. My point is that if you could simply type in 1959 All Kaline and only Kaline cards from 1959 show up, it would make things so much easier. Especially when looking for, say, a 1986 Topps Nolan Ryan, it takes forever to find the card if you don't know the number or don't feel like skimming through 16 years of Nolan Ryan cards and PSA DNAs to find the '86. It could just be so much easier and I don't see why it's so awful to want it updated. >>
If I'm looking up a 1959 Topps Al Kaline, I go to the 1959 Topps set, press Ctrl+F (find), search for Kaline, and press enter. Takes me right to it.
<< <i>I find the pop report very easy to navigate, and I very rarely use the player search feature. Besides, if there is a card that has never been graded, it won't show up in the player search anyway. >>
Say you want to find a 1959 Topp Al Kaline. Do you type in Al Kaline and scroll down to find the '59, or do you click on 1959 Topps and scroll until you see his name, which could take forever if you don't know the number. My point is that if you could simply type in 1959 All Kaline and only Kaline cards from 1959 show up, it would make things so much easier. Especially when looking for, say, a 1986 Topps Nolan Ryan, it takes forever to find the card if you don't know the number or don't feel like skimming through 16 years of Nolan Ryan cards and PSA DNAs to find the '86. It could just be so much easier and I don't see why it's so awful to want it updated. >>
If I'm looking up a 1959 Topps Al Kaline, I go to the 1959 Topps set, press Ctrl+F (find), search for Kaline, and press enter. Takes me right to it. >>
Sounds like a neat trick, but shouldn't basic functionality on modern websites be geared towards beginners? Not everyone is computer savvy. I will try that from now on, but it still doesn't correct the outdated system they currently have.
<< <i>It would be nice if the pop has complete search functions and perhaps if they put contrasting color bars on the .5 grade column.
That is a good idea. Sometimes it can be frustrating trying to line up the grades with the cards. >>
But there already are contrasting color bars running along the names and the pop numbers, and there are also horizontal and vertical lines running between each grade and card. What more can there be? Do you need to adjust the contrast on your monitor or something??
<< <i>Sounds like a neat trick, but shouldn't basic functionality on modern websites be geared towards beginners? Not everyone is computer savvy. I will try that from now on, but it still doesn't correct the outdated system they currently have. >>
I can guarantee that more people would complain if PSA changed the setup every 6 months than if they just leave it plain and simple to use. At least they update the pop report every day, I can't ask for more than that.
<< <i>It would be nice if the pop has complete search functions and perhaps if they put contrasting color bars on the .5 grade column.
That is a good idea. Sometimes it can be frustrating trying to line up the grades with the cards. >>
But there already are contrasting color bars running along the names and the pop numbers, and there are also horizontal and vertical lines running between each grade and card. What more can there be? Do you need to adjust the contrast on your monitor or something?? >>
There is definitely a "middle-point" where you can not see the specific grades when looking at a page of a player or set. Those rows should be vertical shading, not horizontal. Horizontal shading is basically pointless when you can't see the grade it corresponds with.
<< <i>It would be nice if the pop has complete search functions and perhaps if they put contrasting color bars on the .5 grade column.
That is a good idea. Sometimes it can be frustrating trying to line up the grades with the cards. >>
But there already are contrasting color bars running along the names and the pop numbers, and there are also horizontal and vertical lines running between each grade and card. What more can there be? Do you need to adjust the contrast on your monitor or something?? >>
I would say there is slightly contracting color right now. Making say all the .5 purple would allow you to glance at it.
Not a big deal Jeff, but surely you can think of something to make it better. What are you friends with the web designer or something? I built a website for a large catalog company 7-8 years ago that is years ahead of what the PSA site is. On a scale of 1 to 10, I give it a 4. There is plenty of room for improvement.
Clear Skies, Mark
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
I'll bet you couldn't even coherently explain why you think that. lol >>
I'll make it very simple for you.
Check the avatar! >>
Yeah. I'm a douchebag for wanting parts of this website to be easier/more enjoyable. Explain that one. >>
No, you are however being a little headstrong....which I myself am guilty of from time to time.
When you start a thread you have to let other comments enter and not try to defend yourself everytime. It makes it hard for someone like me to say, he has a good point, when the topic has almost changed to two colorized stances....for lack of better wording.
Clear Skies, Mark
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
I'll bet you couldn't even coherently explain why you think that. lol >>
I'll make it very simple for you.
Check the avatar! >>
Yeah. I'm a douchebag for wanting parts of this website to be easier/more enjoyable. Explain that one. >>
No, you are however being a little headstrong....which I myself am guilty of from time to time.
When you start a thread you have to let other comments enter and not try to defend yourself everytime. It makes it hard for someone like me to say, he has a good point, when the topic has almost changed to two colorized stances....for lack of better wording.
Clear Skies, Mark >>
So it's better to admit immediate defeat other than to back-up your point on this board? Sounds about right. Everyone is wrong if at least one person says you are.
The OP complains about the so-called antiquity of the pop report and then seems to be stunned that everyone isn't falling all over themselves agreeing with him. Yeah, it could be more tech-savvy, but we all seem to be able to deal with it without publicly whining about it.
The OP seems to think it's too much work to search for the pop of a '59 Kaline because after all, clicking the '59 link and doing a Cntl+F is too much for some people to handle. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to believe that if someone can navigate all the way to the '59 page, they probably have Cntl+F down pat as well.
It's always puzzling to me when those that start whiny threads about postage, PWEs, mean sellers/buyers, & other nitpicky crap like this seem genuinely astonished that people really don't care about the issue one way or the other. When they get a dissenting opinion or get ridiculed, they petulantly lash out. Then the inevitable "it's people like you that have chased all the good members away" comments start flying. Pot, meet kettle.
<< <i>The OP complains about the so-called antiquity of the pop report and then seems to be stunned that everyone isn't falling all over themselves agreeing with him. Yeah, it could be more tech-savvy, but we all seem to be able to deal with it without publicly whining about it.
The OP seems to think it's too much work to search for the pop of a '59 Kaline because after all, clicking the '59 link and doing a Cntl+F is too much for some people to handle. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to believe that if someone can navigate all the way to the '59 page, they probably have Cntl+F down pat as well.
It's always puzzling to me when those that start whiny threads about postage, PWEs, mean sellers/buyers, & other nitpicky crap like this seem genuinely astonished that people really don't care about the issue one way or the other. When they get a dissenting opinion or get ridiculed, they petulantly lash out. Then the inevitable "it's people like you that have chased all the good members away" comments start flying. Pot, meet kettle. >>
Whatever, know-it-all. I simply pointed out something that I think could use an update. Big freaking deal. You are a condescending creep. Every post I make you have some snide attack on me. Let it go already and get some new material.
yup, that's me, condescendingly (actually, I'm mocking you, or being sarcastic if you prefer) stalking poor lil' you - poor, misunderstood, unappreciated you. Here you are, selflessly taking a stand about society-shattering stuff like dark-ages technology in the pop report, people with inflated post counts and St. Albert, all the while taking abuse from all the meanies that just don't understand your point of view. Thanks for taking one for the team, sport. You keep on fightin' the good fight.
Fact is, you're thin-skinned and have a problem when others don't agree with you. Take a look at any flame war you've been involved with here, and the root cause of every one of them is that you can't stand it when someone doesn't fall all over themselves in agreement with your thinking or questions your reasoning. When it becomes too much (and it don't take much time, either), you resort to name calling and the obligatory, "you're always attacking me". Fact is, while I probably have mocked you in the past, I'm betting you couldn't find 5-7 times (counting this one) that we've had any interaction at all. The only time I can specifically recall responding to you personally is when you posted about buying/selling your way to a Wagner. As I recall, I wished you good luck early in that thread (just looked it up, I was the first responder). I also recall that there were some dissenting opinions that you took exception to and you got all bent out of shape.
<< <i>yup, that's me, condescendingly (actually, I'm mocking you, or being sarcastic if you prefer) stalking poor lil' you - poor, misunderstood, unappreciated you. Here you are, selflessly taking a stand about society-shattering stuff like dark-ages technology in the pop report, people with inflated post counts and St. Albert, all the while taking abuse from all the meanies that just don't understand your point of view. Thanks for taking one for the team, sport. You keep on fightin' the good fight.
Fact is, you're thin-skinned and have a problem when others don't agree with you. Take a look at any flame war you've been involved with here, and the root cause of every one of them is that you can't stand it when someone doesn't fall all over themselves in agreement with your thinking or questions your reasoning. When it becomes too much (and it don't take much time, either), you resort to name calling and the obligatory, "you're always attacking me". Fact is, while I probably have mocked you in the past, I'm betting you couldn't find 5-7 times (counting this one) that we've had any interaction at all. The only time I can specifically recall responding to you personally is when you posted about buying/selling your way to a Wagner. As I recall, I wished you good luck early in that thread (just looked it up, I was the first responder). I also recall that there were some dissenting opinions that you took exception to and you got all bent out of shape. >>
I defend myself when attacked, which is early and often on here. It's not my fault you and many others lack the tact to have cordial discussions and immediately resort to insults and flaming. This is a message board, fella. There is really no need to be a complete tool just because you don't agree with me. Go ahead, read this thread again. You will see that I have gone out of my way to try and be civil, but it's hard when all anyone wants to do on this board is flame. This thread is a simple concept that would have been discussed cordially on any other board I am on. But here we are, you and a few others continuously attacking and insulting me because you disagree with some things I have said in the past. Grow the F up.
<< <i>have been discussed cordially on any other board I am on >>
Umm yeah, we all saw how you acted on net 54.
We all saw how that played out.
Steve >>
Blown way out of proportion. When you have a 20+ page thread with everyone having heated discussions throughout, then some moron decides to quote all of someone's posts completely out of context, it will look far worse than it was. Even Leon said he jumped the gun with the way he handled it.
What I don't understand 'Bradd Avery" is how you were adamant that your name not be known over there yet here you have it listed boldly in your profile.
<< <i>What I don't understand 'Bradd Avery" is how you were adamant that your name not be known over there yet here you have it listed boldly in your profile.
Steve >>
Maybe it's not my name. And what is it to you, really.
<< <i>I brought the fact that you are a liar to the thread.
Than again most everyone already knew that.
I simply proved it.
Steve >>
lol I'm not a liar. Keep trying, troll. I've never seen such a concentration of trolls on one board. It's crazy. I feel like a target in a shooting gallery. Oh well.
Back to on topic. I think it takes time and money, and PSA is slowly changing. If you haven't seen, the SMR Price Guide now looks different. You can now sort by column headings to find the most valuable cards in the set. I was at one card show recently, and I was talking to a rep from SGC where I suggested a small fix to him. Basically, he said that programmers were really expensive, and even though they themselves want to change a lot of things with their web experience, it would cost big bucks. I'm sure PSA is in the same boat, where changes would come incrementally.
If I were to vote on things I would want PSA to change with their site, it would be:
(1) Give me an online submission form. I want to be able to type (or cut/paste) my submissions into an online form, where I can print it out. (Like SGC sorta does.) (2) The SMR price guide to cover more sets, and have more accurate info like VCP. (3) It'd be nice if SMR or the Pop report also gave set checklists. I know Set Registry sort of does this, but there aren't set registries of every set. It'd also be cool if they posted a picture of a card from each set to see what they looked like.
<< <i>I really like the PSA website. I have all my cards in my inventory with scans. There may be improvements that can be made but as it is it is tremendous. It is also free. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. >>
I'm a paying member. I have a right to want an online experience in 2010 that's a progression from the 1999 online experience. I'm not even talking about any of the things you are. I'm talking about the Pop Report and how ridiculously out-of-date it is. It's not a "gift horse". I have paid PSA good money for their services and their services should include a modern online experience. >>
I am a paying member as well, do I wish the pop report would be more user friendly, yes. Can I deal with what this there, Yes.. Do I which card has more or less 9's graded.. NO
Note you can search by player in the current report. Yes
What does PSA care how many of each card is graded? They have not profit to be made based upon low pop's they only get the grading fees.
Cory ---------------------- Working on: Football 1973 Topps PSA 8+ (99.81%) 1976 Topps PSA 9+ (36.36%) 1977 Topps PSA 9+ (100%)
<< <i>Only on this site can someone suggest ways to make the site better and get flack and negative responses over it. >>
So why not "suggest" it to them via an email instead of just openly airing your dislike for the current system. >>
By posting it in the forum instead of an e-mail, the OP gives others the opportunity to chime in with support for the ideas, thus allowing PSA to see that these are changes people actually want. All that is lost by sending an e-mail. IMHO, posting these perfectly-reasonable suggestions in this forum was completely legitimate.
<< <i>Basically, he said that programmers were really expensive, and even though they themselves want to change a lot of things with their web experience, it would cost big bucks. I'm sure PSA is in the same boat, where changes would come incrementally. >>
The features being discussed here are neither earth-shattering nor particularly difficult or time-consuming for any web developer. And they would hardly cost "big bucks" - a few grand, tops.
So a couple people think the pop report sucks and that means they need to change it? I'm sure you'll see that the majority loves it, and changing it probably isn't a high priority. How do you know it's not already being changed right now? There have been several updates on the website in the past couple months, and the pop report setup may be on it's way already. All I know is I love the format right now because I can import it into Excel and play with the sort feature. I love it the way it is.
<< <i>Agreed, but his reputation here caused much of that, in case you were unaware.
Steve >>
Yeah, me being opinionated is so awful. How dare I be vocal about things I believe in. I can't even have a cordial discussion on this board without ten people as yourself trying to suck the fun out of everything. And seriously, reputation? Really? Is this high school. You really can't get over a heated discussion we had 7-8 months ago?
When does it end with you? When do you stop this and just act like a member of an online message board community? Do you really need to continuously attack and/or slight me? When do you just leave me alone and discuss the hobby? I see you on here all the time preaching how everyone needs to get along and be cordial and nice to each other, yet you can't be any more of troll. Stop posting in my threads if you don't have anything to add to the actual discussion and stop quoting me if you don't think I have anything to say that interests you. You are like a teenage bully. Get away from me already.
You can't demand respect, you have to earn it. Calling everyone that doesn't agree with you a troll isn't going to garner that respect. You seem to jump out at EVERYONE and have a guideline by which you expect others to abide by, but then act like a bull in a china shop when someone isn't on YOUR page.
Get over it and stop acting like you're the only one allowed to have an opinion.
<< <i>How dare I be vocal about things I believe in. >>
You do realize that you're being overly critical of those doing the exact same thing, right?
Pot. Kettle. Black.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
You can't demand respect, you have to earn it. Calling everyone that doesn't agree with you a troll isn't going to garner that respect. You seem to jump out at EVERYONE and have a guideline by which you expect others to abide by, but then act like a bull in a china shop when someone isn't on YOUR page.
Get over it and stop acting like you're the only one allowed to have an opinion. >>
See, the thing is, I'M NOT ACTING LIKE MY OPINION IS THE ONLY ONE THAT MATTERS. Do you really not understand the difference between believing in your own opinion and backing it up and shooting down others' opinions? And I'M NOT CALLING EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T AGREE WITH ME A TROLL, I'M CALLING PEOPLE WHO ARE TROLLING ME A TROLL. Why are you and so many here threatened by anyone with an opinion? I just don't get it. Not one person has countered my OP negatively with anything of any relevance, but I just don't care. I'm just here discussing it, and all you and a few others do is attack me. I KNOW THE OP IS MY OPINION. I KNOW IT. What the hell do you expect from me. If you don't like what I have to say, WHY ARE YOU IN THE THREAD. There is nothing to counter, it's my opinion. You can't COUNTER my opinion, because it's only my opinion. What do you not get about that. What do you not get about the fact that I'm only here trying to discuss the OP. You are out of your mind, friend.
<< <i>How dare I be vocal about things I believe in. >>
You do realize that you're being overly critical of those doing the exact same thing, right?
Pot. Kettle. Black. >>
I'm not being overcritical of anyone other than those whos' only reason to be in the thread is to troll me. Kind of like this post. What does this have to do with the OP? Oh that's right, nothing. You are just trolling. I've never seen such a concentration of trolls on one board.
<< <i>How dare I be vocal about things I believe in. >>
You do realize that you're being overly critical of those doing the exact same thing, right?
Pot. Kettle. Black. >>
I'm not being overcritical of anyone other than those whos' only reason to be in the thread is to troll me. Kind of like this post. What does this have to do with the OP? Oh that's right, nothing. You are just trolling. I've never seen such a concentration of trolls on one board. >>
But yet you keep going on and on and on and on and on.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I find the pop report very easy to navigate, and I very rarely use the player search feature. Besides, if there is a card that has never been graded, it won't show up in the player search anyway. >>
Say you want to find a 1959 Topp Al Kaline. Do you type in Al Kaline and scroll down to find the '59, or do you click on 1959 Topps and scroll until you see his name, which could take forever if you don't know the number. My point is that if you could simply type in 1959 All Kaline and only Kaline cards from 1959 show up, it would make things so much easier. Especially when looking for, say, a 1986 Topps Nolan Ryan, it takes forever to find the card if you don't know the number or don't feel like skimming through 16 years of Nolan Ryan cards and PSA DNAs to find the '86. It could just be so much easier and I don't see why it's so awful to want it updated. >>
While I do agree with your basic discussion, in the cases you cited, it is easier just to look at the registry sets.
It would be nice if the pop has complete search functions and perhaps if they put contrasting color bars on the .5 grade column.
Clear Skies,
Mark >>
That is a good idea. Sometimes it can be frustrating trying to line up the grades with the cards.
You shouldn't have to search the registry sets. It should simply be a better/easier system for Pop Reports.
<< <i>
<< <i>I find the pop report very easy to navigate, and I very rarely use the player search feature. Besides, if there is a card that has never been graded, it won't show up in the player search anyway. >>
Say you want to find a 1959 Topp Al Kaline. Do you type in Al Kaline and scroll down to find the '59, or do you click on 1959 Topps and scroll until you see his name, which could take forever if you don't know the number. My point is that if you could simply type in 1959 All Kaline and only Kaline cards from 1959 show up, it would make things so much easier. Especially when looking for, say, a 1986 Topps Nolan Ryan, it takes forever to find the card if you don't know the number or don't feel like skimming through 16 years of Nolan Ryan cards and PSA DNAs to find the '86. It could just be so much easier and I don't see why it's so awful to want it updated. >>
If I'm looking up a 1959 Topps Al Kaline, I go to the 1959 Topps set, press Ctrl+F (find), search for Kaline, and press enter. Takes me right to it.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I find the pop report very easy to navigate, and I very rarely use the player search feature. Besides, if there is a card that has never been graded, it won't show up in the player search anyway. >>
Say you want to find a 1959 Topp Al Kaline. Do you type in Al Kaline and scroll down to find the '59, or do you click on 1959 Topps and scroll until you see his name, which could take forever if you don't know the number. My point is that if you could simply type in 1959 All Kaline and only Kaline cards from 1959 show up, it would make things so much easier. Especially when looking for, say, a 1986 Topps Nolan Ryan, it takes forever to find the card if you don't know the number or don't feel like skimming through 16 years of Nolan Ryan cards and PSA DNAs to find the '86. It could just be so much easier and I don't see why it's so awful to want it updated. >>
If I'm looking up a 1959 Topps Al Kaline, I go to the 1959 Topps set, press Ctrl+F (find), search for Kaline, and press enter. Takes me right to it. >>
Sounds like a neat trick, but shouldn't basic functionality on modern websites be geared towards beginners? Not everyone is computer savvy. I will try that from now on, but it still doesn't correct the outdated system they currently have.
<< <i>It would be nice if the pop has complete search functions and perhaps if they put contrasting color bars on the .5 grade column.
That is a good idea. Sometimes it can be frustrating trying to line up the grades with the cards. >>
But there already are contrasting color bars running along the names and the pop numbers, and there are also horizontal and vertical lines running between each grade and card. What more can there be? Do you need to adjust the contrast on your monitor or something??
<< <i>Sounds like a neat trick, but shouldn't basic functionality on modern websites be geared towards beginners? Not everyone is computer savvy. I will try that from now on, but it still doesn't correct the outdated system they currently have. >>
I can guarantee that more people would complain if PSA changed the setup every 6 months than if they just leave it plain and simple to use. At least they update the pop report every day, I can't ask for more than that.
<< <i>
<< <i>It would be nice if the pop has complete search functions and perhaps if they put contrasting color bars on the .5 grade column.
That is a good idea. Sometimes it can be frustrating trying to line up the grades with the cards. >>
But there already are contrasting color bars running along the names and the pop numbers, and there are also horizontal and vertical lines running between each grade and card. What more can there be? Do you need to adjust the contrast on your monitor or something?? >>
There is definitely a "middle-point" where you can not see the specific grades when looking at a page of a player or set. Those rows should be vertical shading, not horizontal. Horizontal shading is basically pointless when you can't see the grade it corresponds with.
<< <i>
<< <i>questfor..DBOTW >>
I'll bet you couldn't even coherently explain why you think that. lol >>
I'll make it very simple for you.
Check the avatar!
CDsNuts, 1/9/15
<< <i>
<< <i>It would be nice if the pop has complete search functions and perhaps if they put contrasting color bars on the .5 grade column.
That is a good idea. Sometimes it can be frustrating trying to line up the grades with the cards. >>
But there already are contrasting color bars running along the names and the pop numbers, and there are also horizontal and vertical lines running between each grade and card. What more can there be? Do you need to adjust the contrast on your monitor or something?? >>
I would say there is slightly contracting color right now. Making say all the .5 purple would allow you to glance at it.
Not a big deal Jeff, but surely you can think of something to make it better. What are you friends with the web designer or something? I built a website for a large catalog company 7-8 years ago that is years ahead of what the PSA site is. On a scale of 1 to 10, I give it a 4. There is plenty of room for improvement.
Clear Skies,
Mark
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>questfor..DBOTW >>
I'll bet you couldn't even coherently explain why you think that. lol >>
I'll make it very simple for you.
Check the avatar! >>
Yeah. I'm a douchebag for wanting parts of this website to be easier/more enjoyable. Explain that one.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>questfor..DBOTW >>
I'll bet you couldn't even coherently explain why you think that. lol >>
I'll make it very simple for you.
Check the avatar! >>
Yeah. I'm a douchebag for wanting parts of this website to be easier/more enjoyable. Explain that one. >>
No, you are however being a little headstrong....which I myself am guilty of from time to time.
When you start a thread you have to let other comments enter and not try to defend yourself everytime. It makes it hard for someone like me to say, he has a good point, when the topic has almost changed to two colorized stances....for lack of better wording.
Clear Skies,
Mark
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>questfor..DBOTW >>
I'll bet you couldn't even coherently explain why you think that. lol >>
I'll make it very simple for you.
Check the avatar! >>
Yeah. I'm a douchebag for wanting parts of this website to be easier/more enjoyable. Explain that one. >>
No, you are however being a little headstrong....which I myself am guilty of from time to time.
When you start a thread you have to let other comments enter and not try to defend yourself everytime. It makes it hard for someone like me to say, he has a good point, when the topic has almost changed to two colorized stances....for lack of better wording.
Clear Skies,
Mark >>
So it's better to admit immediate defeat other than to back-up your point on this board? Sounds about right. Everyone is wrong if at least one person says you are.
The OP seems to think it's too much work to search for the pop of a '59 Kaline because after all, clicking the '59 link and doing a Cntl+F is too much for some people to handle. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to believe that if someone can navigate all the way to the '59 page, they probably have Cntl+F down pat as well.
It's always puzzling to me when those that start whiny threads about postage, PWEs, mean sellers/buyers, & other nitpicky crap like this seem genuinely astonished that people really don't care about the issue one way or the other. When they get a dissenting opinion or get ridiculed, they petulantly lash out. Then the inevitable "it's people like you that have chased all the good members away" comments start flying. Pot, meet kettle.
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
<< <i>The OP complains about the so-called antiquity of the pop report and then seems to be stunned that everyone isn't falling all over themselves agreeing with him. Yeah, it could be more tech-savvy, but we all seem to be able to deal with it without publicly whining about it.
The OP seems to think it's too much work to search for the pop of a '59 Kaline because after all, clicking the '59 link and doing a Cntl+F is too much for some people to handle. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to believe that if someone can navigate all the way to the '59 page, they probably have Cntl+F down pat as well.
It's always puzzling to me when those that start whiny threads about postage, PWEs, mean sellers/buyers, & other nitpicky crap like this seem genuinely astonished that people really don't care about the issue one way or the other. When they get a dissenting opinion or get ridiculed, they petulantly lash out. Then the inevitable "it's people like you that have chased all the good members away" comments start flying. Pot, meet kettle. >>
Whatever, know-it-all. I simply pointed out something that I think could use an update. Big freaking deal. You are a condescending creep. Every post I make you have some snide attack on me. Let it go already and get some new material.
Fact is, you're thin-skinned and have a problem when others don't agree with you. Take a look at any flame war you've been involved with here, and the root cause of every one of them is that you can't stand it when someone doesn't fall all over themselves in agreement with your thinking or questions your reasoning. When it becomes too much (and it don't take much time, either), you resort to name calling and the obligatory, "you're always attacking me". Fact is, while I probably have mocked you in the past, I'm betting you couldn't find 5-7 times (counting this one) that we've had any interaction at all. The only time I can specifically recall responding to you personally is when you posted about buying/selling your way to a Wagner. As I recall, I wished you good luck early in that thread (just looked it up, I was the first responder). I also recall that there were some dissenting opinions that you took exception to and you got all bent out of shape.
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
<< <i>yup, that's me, condescendingly (actually, I'm mocking you, or being sarcastic if you prefer) stalking poor lil' you - poor, misunderstood, unappreciated you. Here you are, selflessly taking a stand about society-shattering stuff like dark-ages technology in the pop report, people with inflated post counts and St. Albert, all the while taking abuse from all the meanies that just don't understand your point of view. Thanks for taking one for the team, sport. You keep on fightin' the good fight.
Fact is, you're thin-skinned and have a problem when others don't agree with you. Take a look at any flame war you've been involved with here, and the root cause of every one of them is that you can't stand it when someone doesn't fall all over themselves in agreement with your thinking or questions your reasoning. When it becomes too much (and it don't take much time, either), you resort to name calling and the obligatory, "you're always attacking me". Fact is, while I probably have mocked you in the past, I'm betting you couldn't find 5-7 times (counting this one) that we've had any interaction at all. The only time I can specifically recall responding to you personally is when you posted about buying/selling your way to a Wagner. As I recall, I wished you good luck early in that thread (just looked it up, I was the first responder). I also recall that there were some dissenting opinions that you took exception to and you got all bent out of shape. >>
I defend myself when attacked, which is early and often on here. It's not my fault you and many others lack the tact to have cordial discussions and immediately resort to insults and flaming. This is a message board, fella. There is really no need to be a complete tool just because you don't agree with me. Go ahead, read this thread again. You will see that I have gone out of my way to try and be civil, but it's hard when all anyone wants to do on this board is flame. This thread is a simple concept that would have been discussed cordially on any other board I am on. But here we are, you and a few others continuously attacking and insulting me because you disagree with some things I have said in the past. Grow the F up.
You always think someone is attacking you.
People have opinions that differ from yours.
I've been through the wringer with you more than once.
I see now that the common denominator is YOU.
Steve
<< <i>Dude
You always think someone is attacking you.
People have opinions that differ from yours.
I've been through the wringer with you more than once.
I see now that the common denominator is YOU.
Steve >>
Sure.
<< <i>have been discussed cordially on any other board I am on >>
Umm yeah, we all saw how you acted on net 54.
We all saw how that played out.
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>have been discussed cordially on any other board I am on >>
Umm yeah, we all saw how you acted on net 54.
We all saw how that played out.
Steve >>
Blown way out of proportion. When you have a 20+ page thread with everyone having heated discussions throughout, then some moron decides to quote all of someone's posts completely out of context, it will look far worse than it was. Even Leon said he jumped the gun with the way he handled it.
yet here you have it listed boldly in your profile.
Steve
<< <i>What I don't understand 'Bradd Avery" is how you were adamant that your name not be known over there
yet here you have it listed boldly in your profile.
Steve >>
Maybe it's not my name. And what is it to you, really.
So basically you are a liar.
Thanks for proving that.
Ok I'm done with this clown.
Steve
<< <i>Typical.
So basically you are a liar.
Thanks for proving that.
Ok I'm done with this clown.
Steve >>
I'm glad, since you brought absolutely nothing to the thread. Why do people post in threads when they have no plan to stay on topic.
Than again most everyone already knew that.
I simply proved it.
Steve
<< <i>I brought the fact that you are a liar to the thread.
Than again most everyone already knew that.
I simply proved it.
Steve >>
lol I'm not a liar. Keep trying, troll. I've never seen such a concentration of trolls on one board. It's crazy. I feel like a target in a shooting gallery. Oh well.
I'm so hood, I can't help it
Love me for being me
Cause I can't change it can't rearrange it I am what I am.
So love me for being me.
If I were to vote on things I would want PSA to change with their site, it would be:
(1) Give me an online submission form. I want to be able to type (or cut/paste) my submissions into an online form, where I can print it out. (Like SGC sorta does.)
(2) The SMR price guide to cover more sets, and have more accurate info like VCP.
(3) It'd be nice if SMR or the Pop report also gave set checklists. I know Set Registry sort of does this, but there aren't set registries of every set. It'd also be cool if they posted a picture of a card from each set to see what they looked like.
Lou Gehrig Master Set
Non-Registry Collection
Game Used Cards Collection
You swore your name was Bradd Avery about 3 months ago and now you are claiming it 'might not' be your name.
So which is it?
You think people forget.
lol and you insist on calling regular posters here trolls when the fact of the matter is YOU are the troll.
You constantly troll for arguments.
If it isn't PSA should reslab everyone's cards for free, it's arguing over some silly fact that you do not understand, to now
the web site is too hard for you to navigate.
I'll answer your OP question:
It is not so hard to navigate for those that have at least 1/2 of a brain.
Steve
will allow you to submit upwards of 100 cards.
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>I really like the PSA website. I have all my cards in my inventory with scans. There may be improvements that can be made but as it is it is tremendous. It is also free. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. >>
I'm a paying member. I have a right to want an online experience in 2010 that's a progression from the 1999 online experience. I'm not even talking about any of the things you are. I'm talking about the Pop Report and how ridiculously out-of-date it is. It's not a "gift horse". I have paid PSA good money for their services and their services should include a modern online experience. >>
I am a paying member as well, do I wish the pop report would be more user friendly, yes.
Can I deal with what this there, Yes..
Do I which card has more or less 9's graded.. NO
Note you can search by player in the current report. Yes
What does PSA care how many of each card is graded? They have not profit to be made based upon low pop's they only get the grading fees.
----------------------
Working on:
Football
1973 Topps PSA 8+ (99.81%)
1976 Topps PSA 9+ (36.36%)
1977 Topps PSA 9+ (100%)
Baseball
1938 Goudey (56.25%)
1951 Topps Redbacks PSA 8 (100%)
1952 Bowman PSA 7+ (63.10%)
1953 Topps PSA 5+ (91.24%)
1973 Topps PSA 8+ (70.76%)
1985 Fleer PSA 10 (54.85%)
I use it all the time.
<< <i>
<< <i>Only on this site can someone suggest ways to make the site better and get flack and negative responses over it. >>
So why not "suggest" it to them via an email instead of just openly airing your dislike for the current system. >>
By posting it in the forum instead of an e-mail, the OP gives others the opportunity to chime in with support for the ideas, thus allowing PSA to see that these are changes people actually want. All that is lost by sending an e-mail. IMHO, posting these perfectly-reasonable suggestions in this forum was completely legitimate.
<< <i>Basically, he said that programmers were really expensive, and even though they themselves want to change a lot of things with their web experience, it would cost big bucks. I'm sure PSA is in the same boat, where changes would come incrementally. >>
The features being discussed here are neither earth-shattering nor particularly difficult or time-consuming for any web developer. And they would hardly cost "big bucks" - a few grand, tops.
Tabe
Steve
<< <i>They were legit, but so were the dissenting opinions. >>
Sure. But the nastiness and name-calling? Not so much.
Tabe
Steve
<< <i>Agreed, but his reputation here caused much of that, in case you were unaware.
Steve >>
Yeah, me being opinionated is so awful. How dare I be vocal about things I believe in. I can't even have a cordial discussion on this board without ten people as yourself trying to suck the fun out of everything. And seriously, reputation? Really? Is this high school. You really can't get over a heated discussion we had 7-8 months ago?
<< <i>And seriously, reputation? Really? >>
Really.
Steve
<< <i> I can't even have a cordial discussion on this board without ten people as yourself trying to suck the fun out of everything. >>
Not quite everything
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
<< <i>No, you acting like a jerk is what's awful.
<< <i>And seriously, reputation? Really? >>
Really.
Steve >>
I guess you are just overly sensitive.
<< <i>
<< <i>No, you acting like a jerk is what's awful.
<< <i>And seriously, reputation? Really? >>
Really.
Steve >>
I guess you are just overly sensitive. >>
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>No, you acting like a jerk is what's awful.
<< <i>And seriously, reputation? Really? >>
Really.
Steve >>
I guess you are just overly sensitive. >>
When does it end with you? When do you stop this and just act like a member of an online message board community? Do you really need to continuously attack and/or slight me? When do you just leave me alone and discuss the hobby? I see you on here all the time preaching how everyone needs to get along and be cordial and nice to each other, yet you can't be any more of troll. Stop posting in my threads if you don't have anything to add to the actual discussion and stop quoting me if you don't think I have anything to say that interests you. You are like a teenage bully. Get away from me already.
You can't demand respect, you have to earn it. Calling everyone that doesn't agree with you a troll isn't going to garner that respect. You seem to jump out at EVERYONE and have a guideline by which you expect others to abide by, but then act like a bull in a china shop when someone isn't on YOUR page.
Get over it and stop acting like you're the only one allowed to have an opinion.
<< <i>How dare I be vocal about things I believe in. >>
You do realize that you're being overly critical of those doing the exact same thing, right?
Pot. Kettle. Black.
<< <i>SCT:
You can't demand respect, you have to earn it. Calling everyone that doesn't agree with you a troll isn't going to garner that respect. You seem to jump out at EVERYONE and have a guideline by which you expect others to abide by, but then act like a bull in a china shop when someone isn't on YOUR page.
Get over it and stop acting like you're the only one allowed to have an opinion. >>
See, the thing is, I'M NOT ACTING LIKE MY OPINION IS THE ONLY ONE THAT MATTERS. Do you really not understand the difference between believing in your own opinion and backing it up and shooting down others' opinions? And I'M NOT CALLING EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T AGREE WITH ME A TROLL, I'M CALLING PEOPLE WHO ARE TROLLING ME A TROLL. Why are you and so many here threatened by anyone with an opinion? I just don't get it. Not one person has countered my OP negatively with anything of any relevance, but I just don't care. I'm just here discussing it, and all you and a few others do is attack me. I KNOW THE OP IS MY OPINION. I KNOW IT. What the hell do you expect from me. If you don't like what I have to say, WHY ARE YOU IN THE THREAD. There is nothing to counter, it's my opinion. You can't COUNTER my opinion, because it's only my opinion. What do you not get about that. What do you not get about the fact that I'm only here trying to discuss the OP. You are out of your mind, friend.
<< <i>
<< <i>How dare I be vocal about things I believe in. >>
You do realize that you're being overly critical of those doing the exact same thing, right?
Pot. Kettle. Black. >>
I'm not being overcritical of anyone other than those whos' only reason to be in the thread is to troll me. Kind of like this post. What does this have to do with the OP? Oh that's right, nothing. You are just trolling. I've never seen such a concentration of trolls on one board.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>How dare I be vocal about things I believe in. >>
You do realize that you're being overly critical of those doing the exact same thing, right?
Pot. Kettle. Black. >>
I'm not being overcritical of anyone other than those whos' only reason to be in the thread is to troll me. Kind of like this post. What does this have to do with the OP? Oh that's right, nothing. You are just trolling. I've never seen such a concentration of trolls on one board. >>
But yet you keep going on and on and on and on and on.