Site Forum

Please, let's use this thread for ONLY offering actual suggestions on how the site can be altered to handle the logging of variation cards.

Given:

• The site's current method can be tedious, especially for collectors who have no desire to collect all the variations.
• The site's current method has been disparaged by several members.

Solution:

• To be determined.

If your post does not give a way to fix the perceived issue, it will not remain. I am actively seeking ideas, and will review them all. As long as it's an idea on how to fix this (I think I've made myself very clear on this).

Please remember a couple things:

1. Variations come in many different varieties. There are the ones where as little as 1 card in the set is affected, there are intentional ones, and there are sets where there are up to 5 or 6 variations of the same card. The method needs to be able to address all of those.
2. Some people may not actively seek them, but they wind up with them. There would always need to be a way to log these (either in collection, want list, or for trade).

I look forward to seeing all the wonderful potential solutions!

An idea from something I saw in the other thread, but let's see if I can flesh it out. Maybe 2 ideas. Assumption, any approved solution is going to take heavy lifting to implement by L8s and Admin.

Option 1 - Create 2 independent set listings. One set listing would just have the basic information for a set to include any common VARs/ERR/COR that might be found in the set. Dare I say, what you may find in Beckett or the Standard Catalog. No dot/not dot, */**, E*/F*, etc listings. The second listing would be like how they are getting done now which lists every VAR that might exist. I would even venture to say that these master-type sets get their own listing category. Instead of Major Release they get Variation Sets (hey, never said I was original nor I did I put thought into it yet!). By creating separate set listing those that are intested in the VARs have their playground and those that don't have something straightforward. It may make trading tricky, but with subtle set naming it should be able to be seprated out to limit confusion.

Option 2 - One listing, but the option is on the drop-down menu in that set's page. There are drop-down menus for these sets now that list Master with all VARs and then separate section for each VAR type. Add to the drop down something like "Basic Set" or something of that ilk. Like above, basic card info of the sets withough the extrenuous minor VARs.

First, quick type thought.... 

I am a coding idiot...I know less than nothing about it. But I have had several lengthy discussions with my software engineer son about this exact issue. I'm not any smarter for any of those conversations....BTW.

But for what it's worh:

Short Answer: A drop down list.

Proving my ignorance: When "VAR" is entered into the NOTE 1 Field a "SELECT ELEMENT" is created for the CID. The "STRING OPTIONS" are the text of each different VAR. 

When any of the items from the drop down are selected that satisfies the conditions for a "BASIC SET" and of course all items would have to be selected for a "MASTER SET"

It would be even more awesomer, if when a set had a VAR somewhere in the checklist a "toggle" selection would be available on the set overview page where you could select BASE or MASTER SET. If you select BASE you could then be trade-matched to any of the VARs.

I could probably write a two-pager on my thoughts....but that's the basics.

Great topic, I like solutions.

I like the drop-down type of idea.  When this was rolled out on the couple of recent sets (i think it was on one of donruss variantions) I found it easy to use.  The three different versions were in one spot that I can compare against each other to find which card I do have.  I also liked it because I knew a variation existed.  If they are listed in their own set, I may overlook one and log my card incorrectly, or may not understand that a variation actually exists.  Having them consolidated is the way to go.

I also like Chad's suggestion about Master Set and Base set selections.  I think that would help out these types of collectors and having time saved not chasing a specific variation to find out that it was not accurately logged.

The way it used to be- when a different version of the set entirely was listed separately, and you knew what card it was based on the set name listed, was perfect. It was changed and made things needlessly complicated. 

Example: 1991-92  and 1992-93 Upper Deck NBA and NHL sets and 1990-91 NHL set. There are two different hologram versions. They were never in the same packs, one of them is a reissue of the original cards. It's not a variation, it's a different set that uses the same everything. If you were able to go in to the checklist for the Upper Deck logo hologram, or the checklist for the Upper Deck wordmark hologram, you would be able to see the actual percentages of what sets you have, and what's more, you'd be able to see which cards are on wantlists and tradelists just by the set name. As it is currently set up I believe you have to actually open up the window into a person's collection to try and figure out which version they have listed. It just shows the number, and nothing else, in the transactions. I no longer bother to list these cards in my collection- the current setup is wrong, unusuable and I don't have an accurate handle on which cards I have, so it's been years literally since I did any transactions involving these sets. Furthermore a descriptive name of the set is a whole lot more accurate than assigning letters that may or may not show up on a page that don't actually exist on the card, something we had been doing a good job of getting away from.

When it's a full set that can be collected separately, and was distributed seperately, it should be listed seperately. 

Now, that doesn't address the people who simply don't care if they have a High Series or Low Series card. Solving that problem would require a bit of coding that I'm assuming would be easy but may be difficult, I'm not fully sure. My proposal is an option for the user to click (or drop down) that specifically signifies they don't care which card they have, and it would then show up in a different color, such as blue for in collection, green for on tradelist, pink for wanted, etc. It would then allow those of us who actually care to be aware that we may be trading for a card we already have, while not really affecting the people who don't care at all. 

Another example: the Triple Exposure cards from the Upper Deck hockey set, I can't remember if 2018-19 or 2019-20, possibly both. These are a partial parallel. They are called out in the odds on the packaging with their own name, yet they are jammed into the base set here. That is not correct. That has never been correct. If these were listed properly as a parallel, that would be better. It doesn't really affect anything, but accuracy is important, and by shoving these into the base set, our accuracy is lower. 

For cards where there's only one or a couple cards in the set, than no change. For example 2018 Panini Prizm or Donruss NASCAR- those are planned variations, they are part of the base set, they came from the same sources and even though they are annoying as heck, they are listed correctly. 

I like the drop down Idea as well, it makes it allot easier to figure out which set each variant belongs to. I am someone who cares about each set separately and I am teaching my son the differences. I do like Billy's idea of those who don't care about which card they have. To put their collection in another color so it makes it easier to tell if they are able to trade without having to check and make sure the person has the right version. 

Here is what I came up with, written on the back of an envelope.  I hope this shows up.

Very basic.  Probably not possible.  But I tried.  For non-baseball people, the variations in this set start at card 28, which is why I chose this spot in this checklist.  In my mind, clicking the actual number 28 would link you to a screen showing all four versions of the Alomar card in one place.  The box for 27A is probably unnecessary.  But I was on my second envelope and didn't see a third one within reach.  Just a thought.  Trying to be helpful.  This is how I used to do my spreadsheets for sets with parallels, before I found this site.  And I doubt my picture will even show up when I click POST.  But I tried.

EDIT: I'll try to fix the picture. I didn't know it failed until I switched from computer to phone.

EDIT2: Dan hosted the picture on his website, so now the picture is there for sure.  Thanks Dan!

I think when variations come up, cards should first be added as "unsorted" instead of dropped into a category. That way people can move if they want into the subcategories or let traders know that they get what they get which is what most of us(?) want. Perhaps a grandfather category so that new cards being added have to be added properly but cards in already can stay as they were.

I'm thinking about te Topps sets of the past 10 years, with photo variations on cards within the set.

on some levels it would make sense if the SP photo variations were listed as an insert set

or, I can see a cse for Parallel set

as an example, 2019 Topps, card #10 is Kershaw, designated as 10a

there are 2 photo variations, one of a different photo of Kershaw 10b, and one of Koufax 10c

the 2 photo variations, could be listed instead as card #10 in either insert or parallel,, with only the common Kershaw in the main set checklist