Card Identification Forum

I reposted this to this forum to provide a photo.  These 2 cards are part of the 1996 Classic NFL Experience - Super Bowl XXX Die-Cut Interactive set.  There's a hole punch in both cards, top left and top right.  My question is...are these acceptable to be entered until a better scan comes along?

My opinion is that, for modern stuff like this, we should just wait for as-pulled, non-cancelled images.

Especially for cards like this that are readily available on the market.  Most of the set is listed on COMC right now, even if they are pricey, they're available.  If you had been actively searching for this card since 1996 and this was the first one you ever found available for sale, that would be a different story.

-Tom

I think there should be standards for how "bright" an image is, some you need sunglasses to see any detail, but if ALL your interestd in is MASS UPLOADING, then you really dont have a few secs to edit them all & dont really care about quality, just quantity

There are standards, and as someone who spends a bit of time helping out in the Inaccuracy Reports, there have been hundreds (if not 1,000s) of requests to remove shoddy scans. I've even submitted a few removal requests myself. :)

There are currently 5 reasons we are given to remove a subpar image:

1. Posted to the wrong location (and can't be moved)
2. Incomplete
3. Low Resolution
4. Photographed
5. Watermarked

If you run across any images that fall into one (or more) of those categories, report it on that card, include "front", "back", or "both sides" and the reason. Examples: "Remove both sides - Incomplete" or "Remove front - incomplete on right side". By doing it on each individual card, we have tools in the IR Manager to submit the image(s) for removal. Admin still has final say on all removals (as of now).

If any other scan doesn't look good but doesn't fall into one of those categories, but you have the card (and are Level 7 or higher), you have the permission to replace the scan without penalizing the original submitter. (Yes, when these really bad scans are removed, the submitter loses those points.)

As for mass uploading, I don't know how a few of these members do it. I just entered a minor league set a couple nights ago, and it took me about 2 hours to get the 36 remaining cards up. That was scanning, cropping, rotating, recropping, checking to be sure they weren't too dark, saving, and uploading. And doing 18 per hour is pretty good (for me). But, I try very hard to make sure the scans are really, really nice. (Then again, I don't care about points. I just want good scans here.)

I should point out one thing real quick about color/brightness etc. of a .jpg.  I used to work in a photo lab and I would see pictures come out that were way too bright, way too dark, way too blue.... Most of the time the person had edited the file on their computer and failed to realize that they were editing their monitor/screen.  If your monitor/screen is too bright, you could potentially make the file dark.  If your monitor/screen is too blue, you could make the file too yellow etc.  Yes monitors can be color balanced.

i for one get tired of correcting lazy mistakes , no matter what they are, scans, notes, cl, etc.. .. i think if someone gets identified by Admin or reported as a consistant person who makes inaccurate uploads and things their priveledges for that access level needs to get revoked and everything sent to the que for review first or something. 

by no means i'm saying im perfect on some of my uploads in the past, but "consistant improper" uploads of whatever is another story. There are some people that spend way too much time corrcting inaccurcy report issues- it doesn't need to be that way. That time could be used more wisely updating and uploading new items.