General Forum

Dan, Yes patience with the Master Set feature, I get it. However this new feature drew attention to many, many sets and I sense members are not only finding Master Set number mismatches but Base Set number mismatches. Don't you feel that IRs should at least be reported for the base sets? Hopefully that wouldn't clog things up. 

>Also, I'm not L8 or even L7 but I do see sets where this a/b/c thing has thrown the base numbers off. Members are just seeing and realizing the changes made w/ the a/b/c designations weren't made on all sets.

>Also as I dig deeper into our operation, the checklist submitting could easily be flawed. After Learning that copy/paste is an acceptacle method of submitting checklists, I decided to try, the problem you can run into is hi-err/var/cor sets have markedly differing checklists out there...so TCDB is at the mercy of the checklist submitter.

In summation, I believe all these inconsistencies could lead to many set numbering issues. Unfortunately this could lead to a lot of L7 and L8 work ahead. TY, ~BOB~

Copy/paste of checklists typically requires 'massaging' the data for TCDB compliance, especially if ERR/COR/VAR data is included.  Feel free to reach out to me (or post here) with the set and source for the checklist and we will be more than happy to help make sure it gets entered correctly.  One of the keys is bracketing the a/b/c differentiation after the card number, e.g. 1[a], and ensuring it's submitted with Note/Note2 values that trigger the secondary number field.

I like the fact that now with this master set listing, it kinda forces the fact that now all the checklist will have be formatted correctly with a/b/c completely finished  instead of haphazardly sometimes done and sometimes not... I’ve been trying to clean up any checklists I come across with this issue...

Bob,

There's no point in re-inventing the wheel. OCHawkeye has his User Lists of sets that need this treatment. My point about the IRs is this: Please understand what you're requesting when submitting an IR. I worked on one yesterday - ONE - that forced me to open more than 400 IRs to satistfy the ONE IR. Obviously, the submitter did not understand what they were requesting (or how to request it per set - it dealt with 4 sets as well). The list griffey423 has provided is nice, but even at 1 IR per set listed there, may not truly represent what needs to be fixed. There could be multiple items that need attention in order to get the numbers right.

We now know that any card that has the letter in the actual number field will throw this off. Each card that has this issue should have it's own IR (if you cannot fix it yourself). If the set total amount does not reflect what truly makes a set, it will throw things off, and that needs it's own IR.

Enter the IRs - but make sure you know what you're asking for in each one, and don't go making the half-dozen or so of us that do them have to go and do all the research. Make each IR request a specific thing (e.g., "delete this card", "change this number", or "remove the front image because it's photographed"). Don't enter an IR saying "Set totals don't match - fix." Those commenting in this thread are the more experienced here, and I expect a little more leadership out of you. Yes, I'm raising my expectations. Please meet them.

I wasn't referring to identifying a set and say fix it. I believe most sets that "need fixing" probably just have  a few cards that make the set right. What I was saying was that it will require all members to jump in and IR, if they see set numbers skewed. Hopefully the owners who are reading this post, realize to IR the card not the set.

See if I were you and realized the "400 card" set required fixing 400 cards, deny it and send it back to the member to submit it correctly. Economizing time to me, Fix 400 sets instead of 1 set with 400 IRs.Right? lol.