Site Forum

re: "The fact that only one card number was asked to be changed is another point to itself"

I've noticed that a lot too--we get a good number of IRs submitted under a specific card saying that the whole set needs to be changed (or not realizing that more than one card needs to be fixed).

To the folks doing that, the reason you want to go back to the page for the set and not a single card when submitting your IR is that there are tools for fixing entire sets at once in terms of numbers, notes, and more. Making the person who takes care of the IR have to put in a new one to make those tools available takes more time.

Is this something that should be suggested to Admin in terms of adding some alert text when the link to submit an IR is clicked that says "Does this inaccuracy apply to more than one card? Please click here instead"?

The tools in the IR resolvers toolbox have expanded greatly. There's quite a few things we can do from any submission level, whether it's the card level, set level, or wherever. That wasn't always the case, and it isn't always still the case, but now we can edit the total card count, or card numbers with an IR that was sent from card #37. Obviously, we can't remove an image with an IR that is sent from the checklist page. There are still some limitations.

My point (and this is a separate tangent) is more that the submitter knows the card numbers are different, yet they only asked for the one to be changed. Even an IR that said "my card is RS-RS, so this checklist is numbered incorrectly" sounds better than "card is number RS-RS"

One acknowledges that there is work to be done to the checklist. The other sounds selfish, like the submitter only cares about the card in their hand, in their collection. Are they being selfish? Maybe not. Heck, probably not. But it does sound that way when asking for just 1 out of 20 cards to be updated.

Excellent info and I do hope future uploaders see this but chances may be slim. I do have a related question I've been unable to answer: if I'm creating an insert checklist for say an autograph insert set and one or two cards are redemptions, so card numbers can not be verified, what is the best way to handle that? 
edit: upon reflection should redemptions be left off of checklists until they are actually produced/released?  

Anything new where the full checklist isn't known, the Release Notes should have something indicating the checklist is a work in progress and IRs should be submitted for any missing cards, then once the correct number is known, a simple card addition IR will get it into the checklist.

This explains why I don't even attempt to add Panini checklists. Like many things, they were so much easier in the old days.

This explains why I don't even attempt to add Panini checklists.

Much respect from the resolvers for people like this that recognize that adding checklists like this would lead to bigger problems than not having a checklist for a couple days/weeks.

I will only add the base Panini checklists, and even some of those are a pain in the butt, because those are the only cards that I know are correctly numbered.

Timely bump for Chronicles baseball releasing. Never a fun list to build I'm assuming 

I did a bunch of the 2019 baseball last year and they are a pain to get in proper order, verify the alpha (numbering) but once the main is done the other variations go quite quickly once you have determined which players do not carry over from the main set. I will mention Again that I think only selected members be allowed to upload these types of CL's to the database and others would need them to be approved by someone who undersatnds/cares about the accuracy before they get accepted. This would save a ton of time later.

Ed