Site Forum

A bit of background information on why I'm making this post. Recently, there were some IRs in regarding the checklists for a new 2020 Topps Star Wars release. These IRs specifically asked for the base set parallels to be created and checklists loaded. Easy enough, and something I was able to accomplish in about five minutes. One of the reasons that I was able to load seven new sets and checklists in five minutes is because of the site tools, specifically the tool that allows you to copy checklists between two sets. 

But thanks to another IR today, I've spent the last half hour fixing mistakes in those parallel checklists. Included among those mistakes were two instances of inconsistent numbering, one instance of completely wrong numbers being used, and four individual cards with names cut off and thus not correctly listed. Again, these checklists were created by copying directly from the base set (and for the record, no, I didn't load the base set - I don't even know who did, I didn't check the Change Log).

So, lo and behold, I went to check other sources for this checklist, and what do you know - Beckett's checklist had the same errors that our checklist did. My educated guess is that someone went with the copy-and-paste method from Beckett's checklist and loaded it here. This is a problem! There are several things that are concerning about all of this:

1) Checklist copied straight from Beckett. Not only are they mistake-filled (and rarely corrected), but there are rumors (I personally believe them) that Beckett produces checklists with intentional errors - like these! - and will utilize that to identify sites who lift checklists directly from them. My personal belief is that if Beckett is aware of TCDB, they view this site as competition and wouldn't be afraid to do whatever they could to shut us down.

2) Lack of checklist review. Obviously the base set checklist wasn't checked correctly. Review your submissions before you send them in! The base set has since been corrected, which was helpful when I updated the parallels just now, but really folks, it's not hard. You can check it multiple times; once when you create it, two before you hit the final "submit" button, and a third time if you use the "Check Names" and "Check Teams" buttons at the top. I admit that I am guilty here of not doing so with the parallel checklists, due to my unfamiliarity with the subject matter (i.e., what gets a PID and what doesn't for Star Wars. I can handle baseball, not so much non-sport).

3) Changes to the base set not made to parallels. If you make a change to a base set, please check the parallels. Even if you don't make the change to the parallels, send in an IR. As noted above, many parallel checklists are created by simply copying the base set. If it's wrong in the base set, there's a decent chance it's wrong in the parallels too. Please think about the site as a whole, not just when we try and add cards, but when we make edits too. Just because you don't have the Blue parallel and thus you don't care if it's listed correctly, be courteous enough to other users to help keep TCDB as accurate as possible.

Mistakes happen, and no one will be upset if you own it, and help correct it, or even admit that you don't know how to correct it and just inform someone who does. But understand that incorrect checklists not only affect collections on here, but could also seriously affect the site in a very negative way. And on a selfish note, these are also frustrating for those working on the IRs; I just spent a half hour cleaning up avoidable mistakes. It doesn't sound like a lot, but when you've only got so long on this site in a day and many members are getting increasingly impatient with the speed of IRs getting resolved, a half hour is a lot longer than anyone wants to spend doing work that shouldn't be necessary.

Please, don't submit sloppy, error-riddled work. Do the extra work necessary to research, gather information, and upload the most accurate information possible, for the sake of yourself, and the sake of the site. Thanks.

In response to point 1), I wish all would stop this myth.  Beckett lost both lawsuits against COMC and Zistle for checklist copyright infringement.  Basically, you can't copyright facts.  Card numbers, names, and teams found on the cards are facts. Placing the facts in numerical order is not copyrightable.  Beckett's checklists have no proprietary information.  The only proprietary information Beckett has is their pricing.

Jason, I found this a few times with checklists copied from other sites.  I think most recently with Leaf Game used Materials.  Beckett (and other sites) had the cards listed with a number, but cards were actually numbered otherwise (ITG-initials)....

I think the biggest take away from this is MAKE SURE THE CHECKLIST IS CORRECT before submitting it!  Make sure it is from a relaible source (namely the manufactuer).

I wouldn't even consider Beckett a "reliable" source for checklists.  I blieve CardboardConnection had pretty much the same thing also.  copy and paste.

Point on this one, namely the line "from a relaible source (namely the manufactuer)"

Panini is notorious for posting checklists on their site that are completely innaccurate and not reflecting how the product was actually issued.

"Point on this one, namely the line "from a relaible source (namely the manufactuer)"

Panini is notorious for posting checklists on their site that are completely innaccurate and not reflecting how the product was actually issued."

Ok :)  chalk up another to "unrelaible" then ;)  I haven't pulled too much from them for checklist, but have used a few sites to verify.....I try to verify card numbers from either actual cards, ebay/comc/image searches, or from some personal blogs of cards I have found good checklists on.

Chuck, I agree with the statement that checklists are facts, and cannot be copyrighted. Hence the reason that one who would want to prove someone was lifting directly from one site to another would use something to make it unique, just like a watermark.

One number being changed doesn't constitute a strong enough "unique quality" either (I can't think of the proper or legal term). And quite frankly, I don't think that Beckett is going to turn around and sue TCDB. In fact, allow me to quote my original post:

"...there are rumors (I personally believe them) that Beckett produces checklists with intentional errors - like these! - and will utilize that to identify sites who lift checklists directly from them. My personal belief is that if Beckett is aware of TCDB, they view this site as competition and wouldn't be afraid to do whatever they could to shut us down."

My point had much less to do with Beckett filing a lawsuit against the site (Admin, I guess?) and more to do with the information being false and them identifying and viewing TCDB as a competitor. If I remember reading correctly, there wasn't much of a lawsuit against Zistle - Zistle didn't really have the resources to fight a company like Beckett and they knew it -  which led to Beckett buying them and then ultimately destroying the site. 

That's the risk I see here. 

This was me whom submitted them.  What i found to be a struggle is that you cannot submit a checklist via excel until a set is created.  

I asked for the sets to be created.

There were mistakes in the body (due to copy paste issues, for instance in one a claim there was not x amount of cards in what i had submitted, but there was a space missing) of my submissions and in the card number on a couple of them.  That is my fault.  

What would be great is if the set was created and then a link sent out to add a checklist of someone has it.  Copy and paste of a checklist at the set creation point is a bad UX.  

I have the information, i have done the leg work to get it into excel and formatted correctly, but i cant upload the excel sheets until there is a set created.... 

I did get the checklist from cardboard connection, as i have several of the cards in my possession that match the numbering schema, but no place to add them to the site.  

Thanks for taking ownership - as mentioned by other members above, this is far from an isolated incident, which is the reason for the post. As noted earlier, mistakes happen, and it's understandable. My intent was to never "call someone out", but rather to educate as many members as possible about the complications this can cause.

Re: creating sets vs uploading checklists. Uploading checklists is a L5 permission. Creating sets is a L6 permission. That does seem a little backwards to me, but regardless, these are both permission levels that can be obtained through taking quizzes and that do not carry a point requirement. If you have the ability to upload checklists, you should be able to gain the ability to create sets as well (if you don't already have it). I would recommend doing that.

Most missing set IRs follow one of three patterns, and carry one of three different outcomes:

1) Missing Set, no checklist given: This will result in a potential resolver asking for a checklist before creating the set.

2) Missing Set, checklist given or indicated: This will result in the resolver creating the set and usually adding the checklist as well. Examples are like this instance, where the IRs said that they were the same as the base set

3) Missing set, "I have the checklist to upload": This is the only situation where I may create a set and not upload a checklist. They submitter has indicated that they have the checklist and they have the ability to upload it, so once the set is created, I will close the IR with a note that links to the set and ask them to upload the checklist.

Any IR resolver who creates a set and uploads a checklist does so to be helpful to the site. In the future, if you indicate that you plan to upload the checklist, I don't think you'll find resistance from anyone who creates the set for you.

Keep in mind that sometimes the final product has numbering errors too, so a checklist that looks inaccurate may actually be right on point.

Could it be possible Beckett is copying and pasting from this site?  I've seen listings that had the same typo.