How can we improve the Stamps catalogue?(Update: 7-Feb)

[MarkSt1]

I see that over 20 duplicate stamp REPORTS have been processed (i.e stamps merged) since the beginning of this month so someone is actually doing it...

LOL.. i only wish that were my frustration. Mine is seeing seeing series broken up over multiple "series", simply because someone forgot to check their spelling on their NIF form.

see Czechoslovakia - There are three series, called

"Anioversary" , "Aniversary", Anniversary

Or my favorite: "Castles, landscapes and cities" - "Castles, landscapes and citie".

I've put in so many 'correction requests' for these kind of edits, I think the Editors are sick of me

[tcawe]

Mark, Duplicate series can be merged easily as duplicate items so please simply fill a Duplicates.

Also, perhaps it's time for you to request editor permissions ?

[DarioDeSantis]

Actually there is no need to request a deletion for duplicate series names, as the system is smart enough to delete orphans within a day or so. All you have to do, as an editor, is assign the single stamps to the same correct entry (obviously not "Anioversary").

[tcawe]

That's true Colnect has quite a few daily sanity check scripts that fix the catalogs. As Mark isn't an editor yet, he cannot edit. Also, if there are dozens of items, sometimes it might be easier to use the aforementioned duplicate report.

[DarioDeSantis]

Yes, but caching has its own drawback too. If I add a new series to a stamp, it will only be visible while I add it for the first stamp, then I will not find in the list until the day after (it was immediately visible and selectable time ago, though). In case of renaming, it will still be visible with the old name for a day, but that is alright (unless there is more than one with the same name, which sometimes happens).

[tcawe]

Please start a new topic reporting this as a bug and I'll attend to it.

[ToninoA]

For a better indication about the perforation of the stamps, we could insert not one but two data: horizontal and vertical, as we do for data related to the dimensions. It 's not essential to point the different types of perforation (linear, comb, block).

[DarioDeSantis]

I do not see the reason why anyone should specify "13 1/2 x 13 1/2" as a perforation gauge. It is sufficiently clear that, if only "13 1/2" is shown, it refers to all sides of the stamp. Do not forget there are stamps with 3, 5, 6 and maybe more sides, and we certainly do not want to have entries like "13 1/2 x 13 1/2 x 13 1/2 x 13 1/2 x 13 1/2 x 13 1/2", do we?

I came across some stamps of Malaysia that have been perforated with more than 2 gauges (for the same stamp), for example "14 1/2 x 13 3/4 x 14 1/2 x 14 1/4". This is a special, and fortunately rare, case.

I fully agree with Tonino's opinion. We should try to concentrate on the essentials first, and separate additional information such as types of perforation (rarely needed) that can still be entered - if necessary- in the Description field.

[tcawe]

Please review the stamp perforation list which is still somewhat chaotic. I've changed fractions to look nicer and removed the ability to translate the perforations (as it wasn't very helpful anyway). I think two things should be done:

* Decide on a single naming standard (colon vs. x, spacing, abbreviations, fractional display). Here's the SQL I need to update a perforation's name:

コード: 全て選択

UPDATE `colnect`.`zst_perforation` SET `name` = '10x10½' WHERE `zst_perforation`.`id` =2462;

* Merge duplicates by submitting me a duplicates form. I do NOT think it'll be a good idea to remove indications of comb/line/etc. as this is additional information which might be useful to collectors. The proof is that it's been assigned and used very frequently. I can consider splitting the information to two different fields but I'd prefer not to do it for the time being.

Thanks

[ToninoA]

Dear Amir,

some time ago I proposed to divide in two different fields the data related to the perforation of the postage stamps.

If you think that can be you useful a done SQL this way

-----Horiz.------Vert.---------------zst_perforation

-------9-------------9---------------------------9

------10-------------0--------------------------79

----10,75---------10,5------------------------23

------10----------11,25------------------------3

(0 = imperforated)

I can prepare it and send it.

Tonino

[tcawe]

Tonino, I don't think there's a need to split it to 2 fields. There are currently 476 Perforation options on Colnect but I think this number will go down once a standard is decided on and duplicates are merged.

[Serphil61]

The number of perforations option is too high due to presence of comb/line/etc. . If it's possible to divide perforation (example 10x11) from perforation type (example comb) we can obtain two lists, the first with maximum (I think) 100 entry and the second with no more of 10 entry.

[DarioDeSantis]

I am afraid we cannot keep all the information within a single field. The comb/line distinction creates at least twice as many entries that are actually needed.

As a personal example, I currently have in my own database 231 entries for perforations. I do keep separate entries for, say 11¼ and Serpentine Die Cut 11¼, but other information (such as Vertical, Horizontal., Top Imperforated, and so on) are on a separate table. I do not bother with types of perforation (comb, line, ...), but if I had to then I would have to use an additional table.

[tcawe]

OK, I can create an additional "Perforation type" field to indicate "comb/frame/line/sdc/etc."

1/ could you provide me with all options relevant to it?

2/ If a collector would like to search by perforation, would they care about "Perforation type" or only the size?

3/ Could you please provide me with duplicate report and update statements to make what we currently have more standard?

4/ What about entries such as "Various" and "Simulated"?

[DarioDeSantis]

I forgot to say that, because our catalogue is visual (there should be a real scan/image for each stamp listed), we do not really need to specify, in the perforation field, redundant terms such as Vertical, Horizontal, Top and Bottom Imperforated, and so on. One should be able to understand by him/herself from the image. It would only create duplicate entries (or, in the best case, an unnecessary separate field).

1) I am not familiar with perforation methods (comb, frame, line, ...), so I will pass this to somebody more knowledgeable. Please mind that SDC stands for Serpentine Die Cut, which is absolutely needed as information (and should not be abbreviated). Same for Die Cut.

2) I do not think anybody would look for stamps by perforation type or even gauge. The reason is that each catalogue often reports a different gauge for the very same stamp, so when you read 11 it could well be 10¾, 10¾x11¼, 11x11½, ... Any search would be highly unsuccessful and misleading.

3) Have we defined a standard yet? If so, we can soon start to change or merge the wrong entries.

4) Various... hmm... Only some old definitive sets are too messy even for renowned catalogues, that they did not bother to list all different perforations. That is why you will sometimes find 13-13½ or 14-15. Unless we do not show these specific exceptions, people will keep choosing Various. About Simulated, perhaps they mean that perforation is only drawn, so it could just be an imperforated stamp. I never considered this option! It makes sense, though...

So, what standard should we use? Have a look at these:

a) 12¼x12¾ or b) 12¼:12¾ ?

c) 12¼x12¾ or d) 12¼ x 12¾ ?

e) 12¼ x 12¾ or f) 12.25 x 12.75 or g) 12 1/4 x 12 3/4 ?

h) comb12¼ x 12¾ or i) comb 12¼ x 12¾ ?

The one which looks best to me is... (comb) 12¼ x 12¾