Contribute to Playing Card DB!

ecNate · Unread post by **ecNate** » Wed Aug 20, 2014 10:36 am

Slavich wrote:
ecNate wrote:Assuming this is the problem deck? http://playingcarddb.com/dbdeck.php?id=247" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.
Yeah, it is

I also had the same problem and will go ahead and create a formal entry for the problem like I did for a bunch of feature requests. To get us by for now I just created a new version of it and marked the other for delete.

Also, you'll note I copied a bunch of requests and bugs into specific threads so this one can be more general again about contributions.

rhu · Unread post by **rhu** » Wed Aug 20, 2014 12:10 pm

Uncuts should be added as an image to the original deck - this will make my life a lot easier when I get round to working on this feature

In a similar way you can select a scan image, you will be able to select an uncut image.

rhu · Unread post by **rhu** » Wed Aug 20, 2014 1:03 pm

Correction, uncuts are to be added as different decks

I'll add a field that checks if they're an uncut sheet or not so I can display them differently.

rhu · Unread post by **rhu** » Wed Aug 20, 2014 2:24 pm

Oswin wrote:Comment contribuer à ajouter des decks qui ne sont pas référencés ou à moitié ? Merci.

--------

How to contribute to add decks that are not referenced or half ? Thank you.

I've added you as a contributor to the site, you'll now be able to add new decks from the company pages

Oswin · Unread post by **Oswin** » Wed Aug 20, 2014 3:36 pm

rhu wrote:
Oswin wrote:Comment contribuer à ajouter des decks qui ne sont pas référencés ou à moitié ? Merci.

--------

How to contribute to add decks that are not referenced or half ? Thank you.
I've added you as a contributor to the site, you'll now be able to add new decks from the company pages

Thanks.

YoYoSpin · Unread post by **YoYoSpin** » Fri Aug 22, 2014 7:40 pm

The Playing Card DB Feedback function on the "Contact" page is not working with my Chrome browser...so, I'll post here what I was trying to ask:

Suggestion: add a place to input serial numbers for "My Collection" decks. This would provide a registry to facilitate swapping among deck owners who want to build matching serial numbered sets.

For example, I'd like to have a complete set of Federal 52's that are all the same serial number. No easy way to do that without a registry, to see who has the S/N's I need.

rhu · Unread post by **rhu** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 2:52 am

YoYoSpin wrote:The Playing Card DB Feedback function on the "Contact" page is not working with my Chrome browser...so, I'll post here what I was trying to ask:

Suggestion: add a place to input serial numbers for "My Collection" decks. This would provide a registry to facilitate swapping among deck owners who want to build matching serial numbered sets.

For example, I'd like to have a complete set of Federal 52's that are all the same serial number. No easy way to do that without a registry, to see who has the S/N's I need.

Hi, thanks for the feedback! I like that idea and will add it to the approved list.

Apologies for the contact page, I'll fix that just now. I'm going to need to get this project funded soon to avoid embarrassing incomplete pages like that

Hopefully no one has been looking for the... erm... privacy policy

rhu · Unread post by **rhu** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 3:51 am

Fixed feedback page:

ecNate · Unread post by **ecNate** » Tue Sep 02, 2014 4:05 pm

We finally hit that 1,000 entry mark!

Although after the deletions are done we'll be back under it.

Oh well, it's progress and lots of scans added as well. Keep it going!

rhu · Unread post by **rhu** » Fri Sep 05, 2014 8:02 am

Unread post by **CBJ** » Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:59 am

Rhu

Let me know when you've gone through all my scans... I have another 25 or so

rhu · Unread post by **rhu** » Sat Sep 13, 2014 8:15 am

CBJ wrote:Rhu

Let me know when you've gone through all my scans... I have another 25 or so

Haha, you're buying decks quicker than I can add them to the site

But yes, the more scans the better

I havn't started work on the last batch yet though, I really need to make more time for this.

Unread post by **dazzleguts** » Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:43 pm

It's great to see the DB growing like it is

But...the vintage section has no subsections, and I can see this becoming a problem as it expands. There are tons of vintage decks and it may become one very long list if there are no divisions to keep the decks managable. I have many vintage decks but was wondering if I should add them before a structure is in place - making it more difficult to put in order later.

Some possible categories are:

*Souvenir
*Advertising
*facsimile/reproduction
*novelty
*regional (decks specific to a particular part of the world, with their own graphics and structure)
*special small editions (made for card collecting clubs, made by hand, etc...)
*magic/flourishing
*country of origin (separate from regional since the 52 card deck with French suits, otherwise known as the International Pattern, is made and used worldwide)

Thoughts?

See my collection @ Portfolio52 · Thu Sep 18, 2014 6:29 pm

The ability to categorise differently has been suggested before and may come in the future.

At the moment "Custom brand" is a mixture of manufacturers, brands, designers and producers. IDeally those would be seperate too.

Your list is fine, but some are categories and some are specific options within those categories:

Type: Souvenir, Advertising, Repro, Novelty,
Specialtiy: Flourinshing, Magic, Art, Fanning
Country of manufacture: ...
Cultural / Regional origin: ...

Some may have to be multi select (you can have a novelty regional deck for instance)

Unread post by **dazzleguts** » Thu Sep 18, 2014 7:51 pm

I agree they do cross pollinate. I have a hard time getting away from the details to see the larger picture.

The list has both deck content and deck type or form. What would be the best basis for division?

I have this problem within my own collection too. Where do I put that Japanese novelty deck that's advertising for Kawasaki Heavy Industries?

ecNate · Unread post by **ecNate** » Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:14 am

I can't point to the exact conversation, but I think the goal is to make the current 'brand' to instead be 'creator', 'producer' or 'developer' (don't think the ideal term as confirmed yet which is why it's still 'custom brand'). By this I mean the person or company who put the project together. Sometimes this will be the artist, manufacturer, seller, etc, other times a mix and maybe some of it isn't known. A new 'creator' is only added as an option if it is substantial (3 or more decks?) and until then remain in the NULL (aka empty or 'unknown') category. Since the primary focus of the database is on modern decks, vintage is a catch all (I suppose for decks older than 20 years taking the common rule). Which by the way, I also consider all TRUE replicas vintage (Cotta replicas yes, Origins no).

In the current structure I would take the flow chart to be
If you know the 'creator' which is clear and it's an available category then it goes there
If it is older than 20 years it goes in vintage
All others go under NULL

Another possible future addition would be the creation of new fields to record additional attributes:
Manufacturer
Brand (already handled via naming convention)
Artist
etc.

If rhu is able to implement the User defined values a lot of the categorizing/sorting could be solved on an individual basis. This would be good for features that only a small subset of users would need or care about. Since this could include checkboxes you could specify multiple values....Hmm, perhaps having a user defined set of text fields would help as well so somebody could implement type, specialty, etc on their own more easily. I'll update it.

I also wonder if perhaps a comma separated 'tag' field would be useful at the database or collection level. That would seem to be a simple addition, but the handling, searching, reuse, etc of it would be a major undertaking. Perhaps a future discussion.

As for the dazzle's original concern with vintage, yeah it will get to be a huge grouping as more are added, possibly MASSIVE. My thought is rhu needs to decide how to handle the issues above since if we end up with additional attributes added to the decks then adding things like region, souvenir/advertising (I would combine these since they often overlap), facsimile/reproduction, etc would be a natural addition. If not and the current categories is all that we have to work with for months/years to come, then splitting Vintage into 'Vintage (facsimile/reproduction)', 'Vintage (souvenir/advertising)' and 'Vintage (all other)' would be better.

Unread post by **dazzleguts** » Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:11 pm

Under those designations I would have 2 parts facsimile/reproduction, 1 part souvenir/advertising, 6 parts other. I know every collection will be different but one more category would help break that "other" designation up a little more.

I'm going to look around a little and see how vintage playing card groups, web sites, and clubs are handling the dividing lines.

**later...
I looked around and the categories in vintage are really too numerous to deal with. Many sites use country of origin since the content is very international, something which wont necessarily work here.

Looking at what you and I have ecnate, I see "Vintage (novelty decks)" as one more possible subcategory. All of your own cartoon and joke decks would fall into that, while I have many along that line as well. Novelty has a broad appeal and will likely be present in most vintage card collections.

Personally I would also have an art decks section, but that may be one for the User Defined Values.

ecNate · Unread post by **ecNate** » Fri Sep 19, 2014 5:17 pm

The trick, as always, is how to handle overlap since it's a single category vs tag or multiple option attributes. A number of them can fall into the cartoon, vintage, advertising and also possible souvenir. If there is just vintage general and vintage novelty that's pretty easy, but if more are added later things get tricky and would need to have hierarchy or priority guidelines. For example, I would first ask the question if it is an advertising first, then souvenir (if for a specific location), then novelty.

I wonder if rhu can confirm if this category breakdown will be implemented for the foreseeable future or if a new structure might be implemented. My personal opinion is adding more fields for creator/producer, manufacturer, artist, etc and multiple flags that can be all or nothing (vintage, novelty, artistic, TRANSFORMATION, etc) then have multiple ways to locate/view would be ideal. This would eliminate the 'what category does this fit into' since it can be multiple and you just view by whatever method you want.

I think I agree that, for the moment anyhow, novelty decks might be a good break out category to start with. Although based on my initial thoughts on priority perhaps advertisement might be a better starting point. Perhaps it can wait until we have a few hundred in that category to break it out to see if that assumption still remains true?

EDIT - I really want a way to mark which decks are transformation ones (I would lump semi-transformation in there as well). Would be cool at the database level, but getting those user defined fields would do just as well. Where's that donate button to motivate you rhu?

Unread post by **dazzleguts** » Fri Sep 19, 2014 5:55 pm

ecNate wrote:The trick, as always, is how to handle overlap since it's a single category vs tag or multiple option attributes. A number of them can fall into the cartoon, vintage, advertising and also possible souvenir....

Yes, I noticed the Bicycle Rainbow deck is in 2 places in the DB for that reason.

ecNate wrote:I wonder if rhu can confirm if this category breakdown will be implemented for the foreseeable future or if a new structure might be implemented. My personal opinion is adding more fields for creator/producer, manufacturer, artist, etc and multiple flags that can be all or nothing (vintage, novelty, artistic, TRANSFORMATION, etc) then have multiple ways to locate/view would be ideal. This would eliminate the 'what category does this fit into' since it can be multiple and you just view by whatever method you want.

Though I don't entirely understand what you said there (I don't have any DB experience) it would be useful to have a flexible enough system to allow decks to appear in all the category searches they touch on.

ecNate wrote:I think I agree that, for the moment anyhow, novelty decks might be a good break out category to start with. Although based on my initial thoughts on priority perhaps advertisement might be a better starting point. Perhaps it can wait until we have a few hundred in that category to break it out to see if that assumption still remains true?

Do you mean a few hundred in the vintage area before we look at dividing them? Makes sense I guess since the content will then dictate how it should be divided. That's a lot of decks to look through though - how about at around 100 we could revisit this? Otherwise I think the divisions into 'Vintage (facsimile/reproduction)', 'Vintage (souvenir/advertising)', 'Vintage (novelty decks)' and 'Vintage (all other)' would work well.

See my collection @ Portfolio52 · Fri Sep 19, 2014 7:24 pm

+1 to donate - you work hard at this and the hosting must cost...

I think that if a thing is to be implemented then make teh decision early - it'll save you recording somthing once as a bit of text and then agin later on when the relevant check box turns up....

rhu · Unread post by **rhu** » Sun Oct 05, 2014 7:43 am

Couple small new features and fixes today.

https://playingcarddb.com/dbdeck?mydeckid=5154" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I noticed iDoctor has been doing a fantastic job of uploading scans of the back of the cards aswell so I thought we should do something with that

if you select a scan for the back then you'll get a nice little rollover effect on the deck pages and the main collection view.

We're also going https, I want to improve the SEO on the site over the next year and I would rather everything was under https now rather than have to switch later down the line.

Unread post by **dazzleguts** » Sun Oct 05, 2014 11:57 am

That's cool rhu

I'll follow idoctor's example and make a point of scanning in the backs of decks I've added. I did that with a few of them as I first put them in so I'll try that now.

Just chose the Historical Iceland deck back. It also shows the back when you rollover the image in the vintage group page.

Nice feature.

It's also great having the description more visible / higher up in the page.
Wonder if we need to see the deck name twice though?

See my collection @ Portfolio52 · Mon Oct 06, 2014 7:26 am

Damn - thought I was nering the end of my scanning! Back we go... (ooh pun)

ecNate · Unread post by **ecNate** » Mon Oct 06, 2014 9:57 pm

rhu wrote:Couple small new features and fixes today.

https://playingcarddb.com/dbdeck?mydeckid=5154" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I noticed iDoctor has been doing a fantastic job of uploading scans of the back of the cards aswell so I thought we should do something with that if you select a scan for the back then you'll get a nice little rollover effect on the deck pages and the main collection view.

Great job rhu! I added most of the missing deck backs from my collection today. Glad to have that feature and I love how you implemented it. I still think a 3rd option for dedicated backs would be great, but that would require another view option (vs rollover). Not critical though.

iDoctor · Unread post by **iDoctor** » Tue Oct 07, 2014 8:18 am

Hi, guys! Thank you so much for your very warm words. I enjoy being among you

Rhu, last scans improvement is fantastic and looks great, thanks a lot!
As for the details, I've sent you PM about Bee, hope it will be helpful a little.

iDoctor · Unread post by **iDoctor** » Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:43 am

Gentlemen, may I ask you to put a little bit more of your attention on the DB's structurizing. As for me, I'm afraid of two potential problems: with USPCC brands/cards and with Vintage cards. But I'm newcomer here and I'm sure you know much more than I know. I do believe that your professional opinion and decision is necessary.
From my point of view, the principal decision about 'Vintage' age criteria and Vintage section structure should be formally fixed as soon as possible (f/ex 20-25 y.o., or - might be - before 1976). I haven't completed my vintage cards transferring into the database, first of all due to the structure of this section questions (it may takes too much time to relist them later).
I also would like to ask Rhu to create (at first) separated Vintage Casino cards subsection. These cards are very specific, their collectors are few and their market mostly live it's own way (f/ex you may see right now on eBay one vintage Orange GN deck at $1'500.. Nobody outside GN collectors circle will understand this crazy price.). If you don't mind, I can take care about this subsection as I love and collect these cards for years.
As for USPCC, there are some problems with their own cards and customs cards under their logos, especially Bee. I've fixed some particular problems as I could, but I'm afraid the general decision should be found. There are too much private and local Bee cards on the market. I've just messaged Rhu about one typical mistake with well known 'Brown Wynn' Bee (also duplicated on the DB at the moment).
I've seen ones (as far as I remember ecNate's) suggestion to structurize all cards by producer-brand- etc. criteria (to be completed into fixed data DB fields) and do believe that this is the best way to avoid any duplications and mistakes in the future.

ecNate · Unread post by **ecNate** » Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:06 am

We're populating the new structure rhu mentioned that specifies brand, manufacturer, artist and production company (closest to current brand) at the moment. I believe rhu will then also implement a checkbox for vintage, perhaps also casino and possibly other criteria. This would then allow you to locate all those that are vintage, casino, vintage & casino, etc. It would also make it possible to locate vintage Bee, vintage Maverick, etc with a single new custom search. As you said, currently you have to choose between vintage, casino or USPCC. I think this would also take care of your Bee issue since it could be vintage and casino with the brand being Bee and the production company (aka creator that initiated the creation of the deck) could be the casino.

It seems that rhu is close to making the change, but agree it should be done soon especially now that you are entering so many now.

See my collection @ Portfolio52 · Thu Oct 09, 2014 6:44 am

I've not managed (yet) to have a really good look at the new Manufacturer / Producer / Artist categories behind the scenes, but even if we went with what was there we can always add new ones on request...

Rhu is coding up a storm though - this is going to be one hell of a resource!

Unread post by **dazzleguts** » Thu Oct 09, 2014 12:53 pm

I've scanned in a bunch of facsimile decks, and am starting on modern decks for the "unknown" section, but I thought I should wait until the new structure is in place before I upload. I don't want to make it more difficult for Rhu. Is that right or should I just go ahead and put them in?

dnwheeler · Unread post by **dnwheeler** » Sun Oct 12, 2014 12:47 pm

I have some comments/question about some of the decks that are already in the database. I'm going to create separate posts about each issue.

In the PCDB, there is a deck named BICYCLE BUNGALOV. I'm not sure what this is really called, but it is distinct from BICYCLE BUNGALOW (also in the PCDB separately), although it is very much like a distressed Bungalow deck. One of the advertising cards in the deck has the words "BICYCLE VINTAGE" printed on the back (in the middle of the Rider Back).

Also interesting is the fact that the decks I have are slightly different than the scan in the PCDB—on my tucks, the large Ace of Spades symbol is much lighter than the other brown on the image (the scan in the PCDB shows them the same shade). Also, the "pattern" of the distressing is completely different. On my decks, the distressing is almost all "lightening" with none of the extra darkening in the light blue area shown in the PCDB scan. If anyone has more information, it would be nice to get this figured out.

Contribute to Playing Card DB!

Re: Contribute to Playing Card DB!

Re: Contribute to Playing Card DB!

Re: Contribute to Playing Card DB!

Re: Contribute to Playing Card DB!

Re: Contribute to Playing Card DB!

Re: Contribute to Playing Card DB!

Re: Contribute to Playing Card DB!

Re: Contribute to Playing Card DB!

Re: Contribute to Playing Card DB!

Re: Contribute to Playing Card DB!

Re: Contribute to Playing Card DB!

Re: Contribute to Playing Card DB!

Re: Contribute to Playing Card DB!

Re: Contribute to Playing Card DB!

Re: Contribute to Playing Card DB!

Re: Contribute to Playing Card DB!

Re: Contribute to Playing Card DB!

Re: Contribute to Playing Card DB!

Re: Contribute to Playing Card DB!

Re: Contribute to Playing Card DB!

Re: Contribute to Playing Card DB!

Re: Contribute to Playing Card DB!

Re: Contribute to Playing Card DB!

Re: Contribute to Playing Card DB!

Re: Contribute to Playing Card DB!

Re: Contribute to Playing Card DB!

Re: Contribute to Playing Card DB!

Re: Contribute to Playing Card DB!

Re: Contribute to Playing Card DB!

BICYCLE BUNGALOV

Who is online