Should uncut sheets be listed under the same category as decks ? I was thinking instead of it being merged with the deck and instead have it's own field under the same deck ie. I own ___ uncut sheets of this.
The uncuts look terrible in deck view anyways.
Uncuts
Moderator: Playing Card DB Mod
- volantangel
- Moderator
- Posts: 3607
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 2:06 am
- Collector: Yes
- Player: Yes
- Decks Owned: 350
- Location: Singapore
- Has thanked: 219 times
- Been thanked: 297 times
- ecNate
- Member
- Posts: 2099
- Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 1:46 am
- Collector: Yes
- Player: Yes
- Decks Owned: 400
- Location: Wisconsin
- Has thanked: 420 times
- Been thanked: 440 times
- Contact:
Re: Uncuts
We had discussions about this before. The advantage of having uncuts as their own entity is that eventually we might be able to designate them as such and more easily have a special uncut grouping. While that could also be done with dedicated fields under a deck entry (mostly for image), it's not ready yet so it was decided to enter them separate. I think the main factor was the different price and occasionally different release dates or (lack of) branding.
I agree it seems more intuitive to just have it as an option under a deck, the logistics of working it into the system is difficult. Plus, if you really think about it, an uncut is almost like another version of a deck (similar to tuck swap, limited edition, etc). In a way it's the just an uncut version, but since it's uncut and without a tuck isn't that really the same as a tuck swap?
More here - http://unitedcardists.com/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=5626
Also midway through here - http://unitedcardists.com/viewtopic.php ... 5&start=20
I agree it seems more intuitive to just have it as an option under a deck, the logistics of working it into the system is difficult. Plus, if you really think about it, an uncut is almost like another version of a deck (similar to tuck swap, limited edition, etc). In a way it's the just an uncut version, but since it's uncut and without a tuck isn't that really the same as a tuck swap?
More here - http://unitedcardists.com/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=5626
Also midway through here - http://unitedcardists.com/viewtopic.php ... 5&start=20
My card collection ('in hand' only) on Portfolio52 (the playing card database)
My wishlist, contact me if you have one to sell, let's chat! (My marketplace review thread)
My card collection thread here at UC
♠️ ♦️ My currently featured deck from my collection at Portfolio 52: Vanity Fair No 41 ♥️ ♣️
As a UC member you are encouraged to contribute/join Portfolio52, the greatest card collection site (FacebookPage)!
My wishlist, contact me if you have one to sell, let's chat! (My marketplace review thread)
My card collection thread here at UC
♠️ ♦️ My currently featured deck from my collection at Portfolio 52: Vanity Fair No 41 ♥️ ♣️
As a UC member you are encouraged to contribute/join Portfolio52, the greatest card collection site (FacebookPage)!
- volantangel
- Moderator
- Posts: 3607
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 2:06 am
- Collector: Yes
- Player: Yes
- Decks Owned: 350
- Location: Singapore
- Has thanked: 219 times
- Been thanked: 297 times
Re: Uncuts
Haha i totally agree. My other thought was for it to be listed under a completely different database separate from the decks just for uncuts.ecNate wrote:We had discussions about this before. The advantage of having uncuts as their own entity is that eventually we might be able to designate them as such and more easily have a special uncut grouping. While that could also be done with dedicated fields under a deck entry (mostly for image), it's not ready yet so it was decided to enter them separate. I think the main factor was the different price and occasionally different release dates or (lack of) branding.
I agree it seems more intuitive to just have it as an option under a deck, the logistics of working it into the system is difficult. Plus, if you really think about it, an uncut is almost like another version of a deck (similar to tuck swap, limited edition, etc). In a way it's the just an uncut version, but since it's uncut and without a tuck isn't that really the same as a tuck swap?
More here - http://unitedcardists.com/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=5626
Also midway through here - http://unitedcardists.com/viewtopic.php ... 5&start=20
(btw there are quite a number of duplicate entries in there, but i cant delete entries.)
My Collection = Playing Cards + Photography
- ecNate
- Member
- Posts: 2099
- Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 1:46 am
- Collector: Yes
- Player: Yes
- Decks Owned: 400
- Location: Wisconsin
- Has thanked: 420 times
- Been thanked: 440 times
- Contact:
Re: Uncuts
I've been following this method:volantangel wrote:(btw there are quite a number of duplicate entries in there, but i cant delete entries.)
* If a deck is selected to be listed for deletion, change the name to be prefixed with " - DELETE - " and append at the end any related reason and/or update description if needed for clarity. Please do this for the version that appears the LEAST used (least amount of people have added it to their collection). Eventually rhu will delete or more will be authorized to perform deletions after the delete/merge code is properly implemented.
My card collection ('in hand' only) on Portfolio52 (the playing card database)
My wishlist, contact me if you have one to sell, let's chat! (My marketplace review thread)
My card collection thread here at UC
♠️ ♦️ My currently featured deck from my collection at Portfolio 52: Vanity Fair No 41 ♥️ ♣️
As a UC member you are encouraged to contribute/join Portfolio52, the greatest card collection site (FacebookPage)!
My wishlist, contact me if you have one to sell, let's chat! (My marketplace review thread)
My card collection thread here at UC
♠️ ♦️ My currently featured deck from my collection at Portfolio 52: Vanity Fair No 41 ♥️ ♣️
As a UC member you are encouraged to contribute/join Portfolio52, the greatest card collection site (FacebookPage)!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: manu and 26 guests