Fred Slota
-
Posts
1,129 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Downloads
Posts posted by Fred Slota
-
-
I did a round of clean-up submissions a few weeks ago (which I believe were all accepted) attempting to provide consistent spelling. Looks like there are under 20 that might need a second look.
wraparound (not wrap around or wrap-around)
gatefold (not gate fold or gate-fold)
cardstock (not card stock or card-stock)
splatterstock (not splatter stock or splatter-stock)
die-cut (not die cut or diecut)
glow-in-the-dark (not glow in the dark or glow)
pin-up (not pin up or pinup, although I left a few)
tri-fold (not tri fold or trifold)
Also, looked to rephrase around foldout, fold-out or fold out for gatefold or tri-fold.
-
If the variant comic was limited to 100 relative to a regular variant of 10,000 (or is it 9,900?), then I suppose it could be listed as either "Limited to 100" or "1:100".
Incidentally, is it preferred "1:100" or "1 in 100"?
-
The question was not intended as in "what happened during the last 5 months of updates", but rather, "if I had a backup from 5 months ago, could I re-update with each week's update since then, one at a time, and reproduce the weekly price changes over those 5 months".
-
I read there as being a dissenter for listing these as paired entries and was responding to that person.
I was not, and am not, advocating for a #1, #1/A and #1/B for this case. I am advocating for two entries, one for the numbered, and one for the unnumbered (AP), whether that be 1 & 1/A or 1/A & 1/B, and in whichever order. The precedent example I cited for having separate entries just naturally fell into #1 and #1/A.
-
That was not my argument.
If it was a regular issue with a print run of 1,000,000 with 100 taken and sequentially numbered and signed, we'd think nothing of #1 and #1/A.
-
Does ComicBase have an archive of weekly updates that, under extraordinary circumstances, could be provided instead of the current consolidated update?
-
1) Happy with the consistency with the Item Description field "Cover by Joe Smith". A little unhappy with the "Cover A by Joe Smith", as search for "cover by Joe Smith" won't find them, but I understand.
2) Cover Artist names should also (well, really only, but...) be entered in the "Cover Artist" field. "Cover A by Joe Smith" crisis averted.
3) Limited Run is usually a quality of a variant, not of the generic issue across all variants. As such, this quality should rightly go in the Item Description field, yes? I thought Notes was for overall issue data, while Item Description was for variant-to-variant differences.
4) Happy with the consistency of "Limited to 1,000".
5) Limited run counts should also (well, almost really, but...) be entered in the Circulation field. (BTW, the Super Bowl pregame and game was sufficiently non-eye-catching for me that I was able to manually correct or copy all (I think) limited run mentions in Notes and Item Description into the Circulation field, judging from the uptick in my submission counts over the last couple of days, which I'll verify with the next data update or two, as you can't see that number on AtomicAvenue)
6) is "CoA" acceptable in place of "Certificate of Authenticity"? Is it preferable?
Thank you for the feedback.
Might I suggest that a curated version of this information be, at a minimum, collected and pinned to this forum section? By curated, I recommend that it be a post that is edited as necessary but locked for replies, or that is curated to only include official additions and not become a running conversation. I suggest the same thing be done with the earlier thread about "Advanced Find tricks", that it only include various searches and omit the conversations that dilute the nuggets of information.
-
11 hours ago, Douglas W. McCratic said:
There is no discernible difference aside from the numbering.
Sounds like a difference to me.
-
That is exactly what I was wondering. My read was that there were 275 total issues, 250 of one kind (limited edition) and 25 of another (Artist's Proof), and should be listed as two separate variants with circulations of 250 and 25, and not a single variant with circulation of 275.
-
3)What is the difference between a "numbered copy" and an "Artist Proof"? At a minimum, I read this as the Artist Proofs aren't numbered with the previous 250.
6) My notes had both.
-
Black Cat (Marvel) #1/V41 limited 1,5000 [odd comma]
Lady Death: Treacherous Infamy #1/HC Limited 666, but 115 backers [competing quantities]
Moebius Ashcan Comics #1 & #2 Limited to 250 numbered copies and 25 Artist Proofs [probably should each be two variants]
Pantheon Project, The #1/LE (#2 of 25) [is this a limited release of 25, or is this the 2nd of 25 in a series]
Vampi #15/A [is this really a limited release of 13,742]
Van Helsing vs. Dracula's Daughter #1/J Limited to 100; Limited to 150 [competing quantities]
The goal is to clean the Notes and/or ItemDescription field(s) and to place the correct the number on the Circulation field.
-
Same with #45/F
-
The notes has two competing limited series numbers.
Can someone correct, and copy the right number to the Circulation field?
Thank you.
-
Suggesting a custom suffix, like 25-local.jpg, which supersedes 25.jpg for presentation (and submission) if it exists, and would prevent ComicBase overwriting it with their own downloads.
-
Also, updating Circulation values where they don't match what's in the Notes field.
-
I'm going to submit a number of updates to copy limited edition quantities into the Circulation field, if you can give the update processors a heads up.
Thank you.
-
Maybe support a custom suffix, like 25-local.jpg, which supersedes 25.jpg for presentation (and submission) if it exists.
-
1
-
-
The Flash (and for that matter, other speedsters) frequently receives a time-delaying leg injury. Has he ever super-speeded on his hands?
-
Screen captures of the process showing the highlighted comparisons of some submissions would do, it wouldn't have to be a live processing.
-
Apologies, but I still think at least one of us is not completely understanding the other (and possibly in both directions). From what I think I am understanding from what you are explaining, it seems like you are describing a process that makes it impossible for HC to successfully modify many types of things to the Master Database, a scenario that is obviously not true.
How did my submitted addition of "DC Black Label" to various issues of various titles (Like Batman/Catwoman #1) get accepted by HC, get added to the Master database, and not get subsequently automatically purged from the Master database? It's in there. How can any legitimate, accepted by HC modification stick if the process is going to remove accepted additions FROM THE MASTER DATABASE?
-
I think you're not understanding where I am having a problem with your description. I see a logical hole in step 4 after step 3. If a detail is officially added to the the Master Database in step 3, how is it removed from the Master Database by Rebuild Lists in step 4? What is Rebuild Lists using as the reference standard to decide what stays, what goes, what gets added? Isn't the reference standard the Master Database? Wouldn't Rebuild Lists on the Master Database be a useless application of a tautology?
-
The first graph showed 25 weekly dots from January through July 2021. The second graph showed three dots March through May 2021. (I'm American, I really had to concentrate on those dates)
-
I'm not sure if this was covered in an earlier video, I haven't watched the whole back catalog, but I think a good topic I would like to see a couple of examples of what a reviewer of submissions sees when reviewing submissions and how they process them. A couple of examples would be helpful - a wholly new issue, an edited Title description, an edited Notes, a newly-supplied Cover Artist, etc. What kinds of things are easily recognized, what kinds of things are best warned about ahead of time (and how to bring them up, and to whom).
-
2
-
-
If something was submitted and approved and now in the Master Database...
- Shouldn't my copy match the Master database and therefore not get removed from my database when the Rebuild Lists runs on my database?
- Even if the Rebuild Lists run on my machine pre-update removed my local change, since this was submitted and approved, shouldn't this change be part of the update, and thus be restored to my database in the update?
I suppose there could be an issue (no pun intended) if there is a lag between my submission and it getting processed and accepted. The change would not yet be in the Master database, the Rebuild Lists deletes my local, the update does not restore, and my local database had the change removed. But, if it gets processed in the next week, or two, or three, eventually it is in the Master Database, and eventually the Rebuild List or update will restore the submitted change as a now official update.
Or, the change is rejected, my local is reverted with the first update, and will never see the change brought back.
I can't tell the difference between rejected or pending.
Redundant database info in Item Description
in Content and Corrections
Posted
FYI
290 with "%1 in%" (not all are limited series)
1707 with "%1:%"