(ST) Catalogue code order

[DarioDeSantis]

This is not a new topic. This issue has been raised already a few times throughout the old posts and I believe it deserves more attention and support by all collectors.

Seen and agreed that the Michel catalogue is BY FAR the most used catalogue on colnect, it MUST be as well the commanding order in the list pages (while currently Yvert-Tellier rules over the display order of items). This simple change will enormously simplify the task to keep the list pages ordered, and will increase the number of Yvert-Tellier codes entered by editors.

The need for this change is not only because Michel is widely used to number colnect items (often as the one and only catalogue code), but also because it DOES have a better way to arrange its stamps. Air-mail and express stamps, for example, are not listed separately at the end of the catalogue (like Yvert-Tellier and some other catalogue do).

Regards

[Dana-Levitas]

Hello DarioDeSantis,

For this issue the important factors are the support of stamp collectors and coordinators. I think in that sense this post will be more useful in the Stamp Collectors forum, where the appropriate people can see and respond. Do you agree? I can move the discussion there, leaving a copy of the topic here as well so people can join in from this forum too.

[DarioDeSantis]

Thank you Dana-Levitas for your reply.

I do not understand much about the forum structure, I thought the Stamp Collectors forum was generic (and that is why I seldom read it). I usually stick either to the Suggestions or the Coordinators forum, because I thought that coordinators, contributors and editors (those with more technical knowledge) followed these first. But if you think it must go there, I will follow your suggestion.

[Daendels]

I completely agree with Dario. Two thirds of the stams have a Michel catalog code. It is a nuisance that the order of the stamps is disturbed every time an Yvert catalog code is added to a stamp.

Best regards, Geert

[selofan]

I sincerelly think that the stamp's shouldn't be ordered by any catalogue order in special.

Stamps SHOULD be ordered by issue date, inside it's own countries, and stamp types (Airmail, Tax, etc.)....

As i see it, that's the natural order....

[mats63]

I agree with selofan. The natural order of stamps is issue date.

[clodius]

https://colnect.com/forum/images/icons/ ... dface!.gif

Je ne comprends pas le problème?

Possibilité de choix par date édition existe.

Ne tient pas compte de l'éditeur,qu'il soit Yvert ou Michel.

Pourquoi favoriser un éditeur?

I do not understand the problem?

Possibility choices exist edition date.

Ignores the publisher, whether Yvert or Michel.

Why promote a publisher?

[mats63]

Because we use different catalogs it is even more important to have stamps order by issue date (or year). I don't have Michel or Scott or others that gives you information worldwide. So, for me it is great that people give information of stamps here. I use our own finnish catalog (LaPe) for finnish stamps and Facit for other Scandinavian stamps. There is no sense to start arguing about catalogs. Main thing is to have a good Colnect-site to help all the collectors. This is how I see things go.

[DarioDeSantis]

Thanks a lot for your support, Geert, I am happy to see somebody still cares about ordering items here. I am quite surprised to realize that you and I are on the minority side, though.

OK selofan, mats63 and clodius, now would you please take a minute and look at Spain 1962, precisely at the Paintings set issued on 24 March. I have followed your suggestion and set the order to Issued on (while I always keep it set to Catalog code). You should see something that has nothing to do with a natural order, the face value starting at 80c and then proceeding to 25c, 40c, 2.50p, 3p, 10p, 70c, 1.50p, 5p, 1p.

Is this the good colnect website you want to see?

[Daendels]

I am no supporter of any catalogue although I use Michel myself. However, using issue date is impossible, at least at this moment. As most of the stamps listed have only the year as issue date.

Collectors preferring the issue sequence can always use the "issue order" settings (as demonstrated by Dario)

Best regards, Geert

[clodius]

Thanks a lot for your support, Geert, I am happy to see somebody still cares about ordering items here. I am quite surprised to realize that you and I are on the minority side, though.

OK selofan, mats63 and clodius, now would you please take a minute and look at Spain 1962, precisely at the Paintings set issued on 24 March. I have followed your suggestion and set the order to Issued on (while I always keep it set to Catalog code). You should see something that has nothing to do with a natural order, the face value starting at 80c and then proceeding to 25c, 40c, 2.50p, 3p, 10p, 70c, 1.50p, 5p, 1p.

Is this the good colnect website you want to see?

Désolé cher ami,

les valeurs faciales des timbres ne se suivent pas nécessairement par date d'émission.

[mats63]

I see all the points are relative. But the sorting order with cataloguenumers give us even worse output. The stamps are not in the order of years; one stamp has Michel number, another has Yvert-Tellier and third has Scott... You cannot find the stamps in sensible order anyway. Which way is the best? Ofcourse we could go thru catalog and give stamps their issue dates (this gives us a lot of work to do). I can live with the situation we have - I can always turn on sorting with issue dates. The main thing is: what sorting order is default?

[DarioDeSantis]

As a matter of fact, the only date of issue is not enough to keep items in order. In other words, the database system itself is not smart enough to sort items having the same date (1962-03-24 in this case), and needs something else to accomplish the task. Even using face values as a complimentary order (that is, date of issue + face value) would not bring us to a real solution (think about 10 stamps with the same face value issued in a sheet).

That is why the database needs an ID as well to sort items efficiently, and that ID is either an existing catalogue code, or alternatively an internal code that we should add manually for every single item, which is most likely something none of us would ever start doing. No matter if you are a fan of one or another catalogue, we are definitely stuck to catalogue codes. We cannot just ignore them.

Back to the point, now. In order to have a well-sorted list, we need to enter all catalogue codes for a given catalogue. I do not really care whichever catalogue we use, but we need to have all codes defined for that catalogue. Natural choice would be to fill in the smallest number of missing codes, which is... indexing stamps with their Michel # and keep the "Catalog code" tag selected.

[clodius]

il faut rester comme c'est

on s'y retrouve facilement

merci

[selofan]

As a matter of fact, the only date of issue is not enough to keep items in order. In other words, the database system itself is not smart enough to sort items having the same date (1962-03-24 in this case), and needs something else to accomplish the task. Even using face values as a complimentary order (that is, date of issue + face value) would not bring us to a real solution (think about 10 stamps with the same face value issued in a sheet).

That is why the database needs an ID as well to sort items efficiently, and that ID is either an existing catalogue code, or alternatively an internal code that we should add manually for every single item, which is most likely something none of us would ever start doing. No matter if you are a fan of one or another catalogue, we are definitely stuck to catalogue codes. We cannot just ignore them.

Back to the point, now. In order to have a well-sorted list, we need to enter all catalogue codes for a given catalogue. I do not really care whichever catalogue we use, but we need to have all codes defined for that catalogue. Natural choice would be to fill in the smallest number of missing codes, which is... indexing stamps with their Michel # and keep the "Catalog code" tag selected.

And what about another suggestion??

Instead of only putting an issue date (full date: 01-02-2012), why not use also a time (01:00 01-02-2012).

It would only require a minor change in the database, and of course, add the times to properly list the stamps:

25c. 01:00 01-02-2012

50c. 02:00 01-02-2012

75c. 03:00 01-02-2012

1€ 04:00 01-02-2012

2€ 05:00 01-02-2012

and so on....

With this schema, you can even put a missing stamp afterwards....

5c. 00:30 01-02-2012

25c. 01:00 01-02-2012

50c. 02:00 01-02-2012

75c. 03:00 01-02-2012

1€ 04:00 01-02-2012

1.5€ 04:30 01-02-2012

2€ 05:00 01-02-2012

Just another ideia....

I'm also no fan of catalogue A or B, and since in Portugal we "live" "hostages" of the Afinsa catalogue, i'm looking for every way possible to get rid of all the pesky catalogues hopping around....