My 2025 musings on a future ComicBase

[Fred Slota]

(Note: this is mostly described from the point of view of ComicBooks; the concepts are parallel with, but not identical to, Books and Magazines)

 

ComicBase show both too much, and at the same time, not enough, information.

How many levels are there to the ComicBase data structure?  What is the range of data presentation depth?

ComicBase pretends to have 9 taxonomic levels of classification.  Functionally it has closer to 5.  And really, it only cares about and provide a full presentation of 2 in the interface, 3 or 4 in reports.

 

By my reckoning, the taxonomic levels CB has are:  Media, Publisher, Title, Type, Number, Variant, Print, Condition, Entry, and Copy.

Let's ignore Media.

Publisher.  Data Entry and Presentation treats this as an unfiltered, unlisted Title field.  There is a Publisher table, but Data Entry does not select from the list.  There are reports that aggregate by Publisher.

Title is the primary-focused top-level layer.

Type, Number, Variant, Print.  Data entry, these fields are treated separately.  Type and Variation are controlled lists, with user customization of the lists available.  However, basically every presentation, function and report treat these four fields as a single, combined Item #, as in Anl #1/A-2.

Condition.  You can make separate entries Item by Condition, differentiating between owning both Anl #1/A-2 NM and Anl #1/A-2 VG.

Entry.  You can make duplicate entries for multiple instances of a item of condition, so maybe two entries for Anl #1/A-2 VG.  I believe this is ultimately an individual user distinction, maybe for tracking different explanations for the same condition.  I picture someone using the Notes or Custom Fields to record "Torn cover", vs "crayon marks" vs. "Signed by Joe Smith" vs. "Signed by Mike Jones".

Copy.  After all that descriptive information differentiating one Entry from another, you can then have one last level of I have 2 copies of Anl #1/A-2 NM "Signed by Joe Smith".

[Fred Slota]

I envision a presentation that fully uses this hierarchy.

 

From the top end, you could narrow or filter down the higher levels.

And from the bottom end, you could roll up and consolidate the lower levels.

 

Start with a Master Grid - all ComicBook items (in batches, there's what, over a million entries), and showing columns for all the Levels.

For each level from the top down, you can select one, some or all.  Publisher, you're presented with a list of the Publishers.  Title, you're presented with a list of all Titles from the currently selected Publisher(s).  Type, you're presented with a list...

And for each level from the bottom up, you can select how many levels to consolidate.  Show down to Entries, and the Master Grid would look similar to now, with all of the current fields available, and quantity being "n copies of this form of P-T-Anl #1/A-2-VG".  Show down to Condition, and it aggregates with one line now showing "n copies of this P-T-Anl #1/A-2 VG across 3 entries"  Show down to Print and it aggregates with one line now showing "n copies of this P-T Anl #1/A-2, across 3 Grades and 7 entries".

 

Picture this, you've got the left side filtered to Marvel, X-Men (3rd Series), and the right side set to consolidate to Number.  Your grid would have 50 entries, with information in columns like:

#1 - 4 copies across 2 of 9 entries (22%), 2 of 8 variants (25%), 1 of 2 printing (50%)

#2 -  1 copy across 1 of 4 entries (25%), 1 of 3 variants (33%), 1 of 2 printing (50%)

...

#41 - 1 copy across 1 of 3 entries (33%), 1 of 3 variants (33%), 1 of 1 printing (100%)

Bk #1 - etc.

Bk #2 - etc.

...

Bk #8 - etc.

GS #1 - etc.

And, you would have overall statistics telling you something like:

 

In X-Men (3rd Series):

You own 38 of 41 (92.7%) regular issues, across 112 of 132 entries (xxx%), xxx of xxx variants (xx%), xx of xx printings (xx%).

You won 35 of 41 (85.4%) regular issue, first variation, any print, any grade copies.

You own 28 of 41 (68.3%) regular issue, first variation, first print, any grade copies.

You own 27 of 41 (65.9%) regular issue, first variation, first print, NM or better copies.

 

You own 4 of 8 (50.0%) Books, across 5 of 13 entries (xx%), xxx of xxx variants (xx%), xx of xx printings (xx%)

etc.

 

[Fred Slota]

You could change the filters and the scopes, to look at any slice and at any level of detail.

You could select a line and move the filter to deeper levels, expanding lower levels as you go.

 

For example, in the above, you could select the line

#2 -  1 copy across 1 of 4 entries (25%), 1 of 3 variants (33%), 1 of 2 printing (50%)

 

And now you're in a grid focused on Marvel, X-Men (3rd Series), #12 and you are looking at lines like:

#2 - 1 copy across 1 of 2 entries (50%), 1 of 1 variant (100%), 1 of 2 printings (50%)

#2/NS - 0 copies across 0 of 1 entries (0%), 0 if 1 variants (0%), 0 of 1 printing (0%)

#2/A - 0 copies across 0 of 1 entries (0%), 0 if 1 variants (0%), 0 of 1 printing (0%)

[Fred Slota]

As I said at the beginning, ComicBase show both too much, and at the same time, not enough, information.

 

When looking at a grid of entries in a Title, I can see all of the information about all oft the entries.  I can scroll through, and scrutinize every entry, and find that there are 41 regular issues, and find that I own a form of 38 out of 41 issues, and then find the 3 that I'm missing, and select "Wanted" on a particular variant-printing-condition for each one. 

 

ComicBase shows too much.  I don't always need to see all 132 entries, every variant, every printing, every condition.  Sometimes I'm only interested in knowing information broken down to the level of the individual number.

ComicBase show not enough information.  Wouldn't it be nice to know that in Marvel X-Men (3rd Series), you own a form of 38 out of 41 issues, that with 3 more you would have the complete run?

[James H. Dunlop]

Based on our posts in the Tech Support folder, I believe we think alike!  (I am very afraid for you if that's the case and your mind works like mine! 🙂 )

When I designed simple Access databases, I wanted to isolate/separate fields as much as possible.  Makes it easier to search and filter.  Combining "Type, Number, Variant, Print" into what appears to be one field limits those searches and filtering.  With my use of the standard search fields and reports, I can't separate "Print" to remove the second, third, etc. printings. 

I use Action Comics as my test title, as it has almost everything in there.  Looking at issue #1, there's multiple printings over the years, which I believe should be classified as replicas/facsimiles, and now different variants of the facsimiles.  And I can't "not see" the numerous printings.  And if I want a missing issue report using the Collection Overview report (the "Wanted List still isn't working for me) I can either turn on everything (and that includes Newsstand) and get a lot of "noise" in the report.  If I turn off to just regular and owned, I miss things like Annuals and Specials.  (Those are not "variations", those are regular issues.)  Then give me an option to select which Types and or Variations I want to show (similar to the "filter" feature in Excel.)

One thing I would add is a "Volume" field (or "Series" if you prefer), instead of putting (2nd Series) etc. in the Title.  I'd also get rid of the "Mini-Series" and use volume instead.  Put "mini-series" in the comment field.  I'd add "Facsimiles" as a Type, to help distinguish them from true second/third printings. 

And, I understand that I'm suggesting things that at this point would be very difficult to change without a complete overhaul of the database, plus I may be in a small group that wants this.  But I think the relatively recent move to multiple variations and frequent facsimiles is pushing the envelope on how CB can handle these new items.

 

[Steven L. Dasinger]

I will only mention this in case you don't know or if it might help in some cases.

As you state, Item # is a composite of the 4 fields Type, Number, Variant, Print.

Each of those fields are also in their individual fields which give you 5 fields: Item # (a composite), Type, Number, Variant, Print.

This probably won't help much for regular Finds but they can using Advanced Find (if available).