Site Forum

To also quote spazmatastic, without reposting a whole long string:

That's the same grade %-age that I go by and I also know how to determine an approximate grade for any card. If this does get implemented into the site pricing, I'd be happy to participate. The main problem with that scale is that TCDB does not have all the grades listed as an option. They go from MT to NM (or NRMT) with no NRMT-MT. The scale below represents a 9 to a 1 on a scale of 10 with no half scales. GMT (Gem Mint) is a 10 and only applies to a graded card. MT (mint) is a 9 and P (poor) is a 1. Adding a + sign to the end of each level would add the half scales (ie. NRMT+ would be a 7.5 and EX-MT+ would be a 6.5). However, EX-MT should actually be EX-NM.

To further expand on the lack of complete "condition" listings:

Some card categories, use competely different terminology. Ex. Gaming cards I've been looking at online, utilize the terminology: unplayed, lightly played, moderately played, etc. Not sure we'd want to publish a cypher for converting "played" to a "mint" scale, but maybe having those particular cards use a different "condition" scale for their evaluation would be best. Still agree with the condition percentages, calculations, and everything else, but these cards need their own hobby-accepted condition terms.

Keep going,,,,,!,,,,,,

where are the “action guys”, let’s get started.  Before this post dies out. All the action jacksons should contact dan and get the ideas in writing. In time he will pass the plan to admin.

k-cards, rj, randylaw a few more seem to have drive, me but only keeping up on progress. Can this really get done.

I've submitted several features relating to our ongoing conversation to change pricing, but I do not see any of my submissions under the "New Feature Tracker" under "Things to Do". Does anyone have any idea what, if anything, I'm doing wrong, or does ADMIN normally require some time to review posted submissions, before adding them to the queue of standing suggestions?

First, every item submitted to the New Feature Tracker is reviewed by Admin to see if it's feasible before putting out for "voting".

Second, that was not the advice I gave. This is not something that one person should go about trying to change. This takes a team to ensure it's done correctly. I said that several times in this thread and offered my assistance in "grooming" the suggestion so it is met with open ears. This will probably make it more difficult to get it done now.

EDIT: Statement removed, so as to be inoffensive. Not worth fighting over something I have absolute zero interest in.

By that logic the same amount of people are for it.  How many people actively participate in the forums. Very few of that total.  We already have pricing here so it apparently was considered to be worth the time. If you don’t want to use it you know by now how to turn it off.

EDIT: Forget it.

I just hope this grand idea doesn't catch the eye of an established price guide that has a history of disposing of it's competition.

David, I hear you - Loud and clear. And that's specifically why we can't blindly use their percentages. I totally get that. Bleieve me. I am fully aware of what can be done, and what can't be done. I have been involved with grappling with them on two occassions in my "hobby life". (Once a long time ago when I was with Star and once recently as a member of COMC.)

They don't do pricing real-time, based on user input. No one does. We do, but we only do it based on one thing - price. Condition isn't factored in. That's where we're losing our chance to really help the hobby. By adding that in, we would still be unique in the way we approach that, and there is no threat from anyone there.

David, I appreciate your concern in this matter. Please don't be afraid to voice your opinion, especially with me.

Yes, I wholeheartly agree WE DO NOT WANT TO JEOPARDIZE TCDB ! David, I feel very comfortable in placing this HUGE change in Dan's hands. 

I'm not getting "big headed" here but  "my 6 point plan" post bundles up everything suggested that would make the TCDB unique from anybody elses.

And this bears repeating, I have worked with Dan on other "project changes", Why? because we want to package everything together before submitting new features and getting ADMIN involved. Dan is the man to help us do this......communicate thru him. If each one of us go it alone, the PRICING issue will not be resolved, more posts, more issues etc. and failure. PLEASE, use Dan as our "go to" right now.

~BOB~

That’s my bad. I see now we should go through vroomed with the feature proposals related to pricing.

Full disclosure, I only submitted three and they were tied to “fixing” individual things that are broken/missing (from a Project Management standpoint) and not the broader “vision” for what pricing should be on the site:

1. Add card quantity to the “add a price” screen (to enable lot pricing)

2. Calculate separate prices for the individual “conditions” of non-graded cards.

3. (I forget the third. It was a while ago, but I’m certain it was a simple fix related to how data is collected)

I think many of the “problems” with pricing can be solved with smaller/lesser adjustments. The larger scope of the discussions here (pricing rules, card grading, points, tests, authorities, etc.) can still get worked out on this forum since they require much more consideration and collaboration.

I think going forward if we discern the changes that are “fixing” something that is broken, from the changes that are “changing” something that could be done better, we can probably “fix” some things which alleviate the need to “change” some of the others (if that makes any sense).

Either way, we should probably start breaking down “Pricing” to its component parts (in terms of “feature” changes that can be done piece-by-piece as we go along), however if vroomed, or other knowledgeable authorities, feel we should laydown the whole plan from soup to nuts, I’m available to assist in that effort as well.