UnitedCardists.com - The forum for Cardistry, Magic, Custom Decks and All Things Playing Cards.

The PlayingCardDatabase was kindly offered to the community to use by Rhu and as a result we as a community have had multiple discussions on the best way to work within the system as it currently stands and come to agreement of how data should be entered. I have taken these resulting decisions and combined and continue to update into the following threads to help those understand at a glance what is expected. If you disagree with any of this, please engage in the forums that are provided for that purpose and discuss. Do NOT start undoing all the time and effort the rest of us put in to making the group decided formats of structure within the database.

http://unitedcardists.com/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=5627
http://unitedcardists.com/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=5666

If anybody really prefers a different naming structure, please remember there is a very simple way for people who need their collections re-organized in a specific way - rename the deck AFTER you add it to your collection by renaming the deck within in your collection and not the entire database. The database naming convention is done from an organizational perspective, people can do any personal preferences within their own. The same also applies to the description field if you want to document your personal opinion of the deck or the condition of those in your collection. You can tell if you are editing your own deck by the URL if it contains 'editmydeck?id=' and you are updating the entire database entry if the URL contains 'editdeck?id='. From an entry within your collection you are presented 2 edit options (depending on your access level), the one on the left is for the entire database, the one on the right is just for the deck in your collection.

Totally agree!

It was me that he's referring to. I had run the name changes past Rhu, and he said to move forward.
I have since stopped moving down the list.

I really didn't mean to step on any toes.



The reason I approached Rhu about this...

Having the "Bicycle" name after makes is very unorganized. When the Bicycle name is first, it makes the database way more organized when you list it alphabetically.





I understand that by putting the Bicycle name after it allows unbranded decks to be listed beside branded decks... but....


as I said...this format makes it incredibly unorganized. To make it this way just so certain designers have their 3-4 decks together really makes no sense, when you consider the near 1000 different Bicycle decks. And, this Bicycle-after format is being used for decks that aren't part of a designer's series.. i.e. Coffin Fodder, Tokidoki, and hundreds more.

It would be easier for a collector to type in "Federal" in the search bar and have those 6-10 decks pop up.. instead of a user typing in "Bicycle" and have a list of hundreds and hundreds of unalphabetical unorganized decks pop up.

Of course, this is just my opinion..


I can't emphasize enough how much I appreciate the work that's been put into this site. It's an amazing resource, and a tool that every collector can utilize.
I haven't yet (but I will be over the next few weeks), because it's going to take me a while to sift through the decks and select the 800+ different decks I have.
I found it hard in the format it's in, that is what triggered all of this.

I'm not sure I see your point here. What advantage does having it start with Bicycle provide? Is your concern with how it looks in your own collection, finding all bicycle branded decks, how they appear in categories, etc? Do you just feel that is more important? In what context does the current convention make it unorganized, in a search, in your own collection, in a listing by category, basic readability? I'm not sure I see the use case of just going to the database and sorting based on title and needing Bicycle together. A search can be used and future updates to PCDB may make locating those easily. Within your own collection you can adjust as needed as well.

Regarding your search comment , if somebody wants to find all Bicycle decks they do a search and it lists all bicycle decks. By making Bicycle the first part of the name the end result is still the exact same order it would have been before. Deck 1 [Bicycle], Deck 2 [Bicycle] vs Bicycle - Deck 1, Bicycle Deck 2. The end result will be the same for number of search results returned and the order, the appearance of them just changes.

In addition, take the case of the listing of Kings Wild category: https://playingcarddb.com/company?id=13 So far the agreement was it is more important to have the Fed 52 decks together than grouping all bicycle decks at the top. The primary reason was simply based on discussion that what is the primary importance, is it a Bicycle deck or happens to be a branded. It was intended to be structured as deck with various types further clarifying after, similar to how a pug or poodle is primarily a dog, but then further classified as a pug or poodle. As I said before, perhaps that doesn't apply to the Bicycle Series 1800 because they are made by USPCC/Bicycle and not just a paid brand use. Or perhaps the Bee decks and others that are not theme based and just have different backs or minor revisions wouldn't follow this rule, which generally they haven't so far.

Again, PCDB v2 will make much of this go away, hopefully soon. Trying to rename hundreds of decks and argue over changes may be a bit premature, but since we may be dealing with this system for a while yet it's worth talking about. It's still I think a minor point either way, but the main goal is the database needs consistency. To change it now though after all decks were already updated would need a change of direction that would require a lot of correction and re-training, but so far I don't think we've seen a strong reason to do so.

This is a format started by Joe and agreed on by just a handful of people, but it was 100% of those who responded. We can certainly continue that conversation now however.

First, thank you Nate - I put a 'crib' sheet on my wall to remind me about private and public entries into the DB, and how to tell the difference.

For me the biggest stumbling block of the "Bicycle first" question is that we already have a system,
{NAME} {SUBTITLE(S)} {[BRAND]} {(CLARIFICATIONS)} {UNCUT}
which is included in the "Add/Edit" DB guidelines, where the brand/maker name is included in square brackets later in the title. If that one brand is changed it means there really is no system and how are people to understand putting in new entries? Do we really want to change some 2000 decks already entered, to have the brand/maker at the front, to accommodate having Bikes listed that way? Especially since everything will change again when the new DB goes up.


On a separate but related subject: I myself undertook to make a change and would like to apologize if it was unwelcome. I started placing all USPCC decks, including the vintage ones, into the USPCC classification. I have also been doing this with other brand/makers that have their own sections, like Piatnik. I had thought the age of the deck was (in the DB specifically) secondary to the maker.
Any thoughts on that?

I discussed this with idoctor and he brought up some good points (paraphrased for context and brevity):

- USPCC has been a made-to-order printer of many vintage and casino DB decks.

- Collectors of vintage and casino decks will think the priority is to have decks separated by use or age.

- 'Famous' casino cards like JN or Golden Nuggets are currently in the vintage secton but the rest of them are in the Casino Misc section.

- If we decide that producer or printer grouping has priority then why not rename the vintage and casino sections as 'unknown vintage misc.' and 'unknown casino misc'.


It all really seems to come down to prioritizing. The priorities we settle on for now don't have to be absolutely right for everybody since this is only to get us through until the new DB is ready - they only have to be something we agree to use until then.

So let me ask:

1. Casino decks with a known maker go?

A) in the casino section with the maker noted in the title
B) under the maker of the deck

2. If a deck is vintage and the maker is known it goes?

A) in the vintage section with the maker noted in the title
B) under the maker of the deck

3. If you have a vintage casino deck with a known maker it goes?

A) in the vintage section with the maker noted in the title
B) in the casino section with the maker noted in the title
C) under the maker of the deck

I volunteer to help change existing entries to comply with whatever is agreed upon by us all.

First, I'm only helping moderate here and summarizing what has been said in the past. Also, knowing some details of the current and future implementations, along with my development background also comes into play here. However, I am not the deciding factor and my opinions are just that, but I may have more insight or historical reference so just trying to balance that.

In general, everybody should follow the existing guidelines for consistency and to help make any future migrations easier. If there is a disagreement we should talk about it and Rhu can offer insight if needed/able. There's lots of room for variation however and the most important thing is to get decks added wtih good scans and descriptions. The titles are important because with a consistent format we can easily extract content via code or by hand in the future. Categories, description structure, what additional photos are added, etc are less of a concern.

dazzleguts:

Rhu has stated he is still working on v2 and it's getting close, but I suppose since he doesn't want to be locked into a feature or timeline he's keeping details a bit under wraps and what I've seen/heard I probably shouldn't say for that reason. Still, one of the goals discussed early on, but not yet available or even confirmed on the v2 feature list, is multiple categories. This would ideally mean something could be vintage AND USPCC manufacturer AND have a separate artist AND separate producer. So even if a portion of that comes true then much of this should go away when that happens. Until then, we do need to work with some guidelines for consistency.

The vintage vs USPCC I don't think we've arrived at any conclusion there. From a future version migration standpoint if we have a date and list as USPCC Rhu or anybody could easily later document as vintage easily. It could also be argued that they are USPCC first and just happen to be vintage, but we also have no current field or naming convention for vintage. However, yet again we do have the date field to work from if that is needed. Given all that I think your move of moving to USPCC for the time being is probably slightly a better option. The casino and vintage groups were really just added to allow us to work with the current system and break things out a bit, so they are also meant to be a catch all for misc entries that don't fall elsewhere (Kickstarter Misc as well).

Regarding USPCC, from what I recall past discussions is USPCC category should be selected if USPCC initiated the creation of the deck. So the 1800 series would count, but any Kickstarter deck printed by them would not. Again, if we end up with a separate manufacturer field then that would go there, but really our current brand is closest in meaning to producer/creator.

Much of the rest I would rather just table for a few weeks and HOPE that Rhu can offer details and an updated estimate of when v2 might be available. Any titles would be imported as is and should be consistent for users and also for any programmatic migration Rhu may or may not do. Categories would most likely be moved to a possible future producer field which would then need further corrections later to fill in any other new fields made available.

1. Casino decks with a known maker go? - best under existing casino or vintage since the casino themselves is who are responsible for having the deck made, they just happened to use USPCC in some cases.

2. If a deck is vintage and the maker is known it goes? - the current system was really setup more for modern decks so unless it is USPCC then likely vintage is the only current option, unless we have a ton of decks for Waddingtons or something then I suppose we can create a new group for those, etc.

3. If you have a vintage casino deck with a known maker it goes? - probably the same as above, so either casino misc or vintage.

ecNate wrote: 1. Casino decks with a known maker go? - best under existing casino or vintage since the casino themselves is who are responsible for having the deck made, they just happened to use USPCC in some cases.

2. If a deck is vintage and the maker is known it goes? - the current system was really setup more for modern decks so unless it is USPCC then likely vintage is the only current option, unless we have a ton of decks for Waddingtons or something then I suppose we can create a new group for those, etc.

3. If you have a vintage casino deck with a known maker it goes? - probably the same as above, so either casino misc or vintage.

Thank you Nate.
Please, everyone respond to this so we may know that there is some concensus.

From what you said Nate I understand that Casino decks go into their own section rather than under the printer, which makes "Casino" the producer, and, that you don't have an opinion on whether they should go into Vintage or Casino if they are over 20 years old. Trying to think as a collector of Casino decks I would think they would prefer to have all the Casino decks together and lean towards putting the older decks in there as well, but I would like to hear from idoctor on that.

About the vintage section: if I understand you right, this was a section created for the decks, 20 or more years old, that are made by a maker/producer that does not already have an area set aside in the DB, or where the maker/producer is unknown. So it's really "Miscellaneous Vintage" or "Vintage Miscellaneous" (to keep it in the same spot in the list). So when I put a 20 year old deck in Piatnik, or USPCC, that is correct, unless it is a Casino deck in which case it goes into the Casino area.(idoctor?)

*Kem may be a producer to add since there are 17 decks by them currently in the DB, with more likely to be added.

Just my two cents, the naming convention needs to stay as the creator of the Database intended. With the option of editing your personal collection available, you can manage any "personal" definitions on how to categorize your collection without disrupting the DB, visitors will see your collection as you categorize it.

As Nate said, the search function won't really be effected either way. I know the DB is a group thing and a bunch of people are contributing and making it an awesome resource, but I think it's important for contributors to stick to the rules set forward by the creator..........the DB is in danger of the "Too many cooks" analogy, and that would be unfortunate.

I agree, and stated that myself in an earlier post. Wanted some clarification on grey areas around the vintage and casino decks, but I should have kept it brief.

Have to +1 here.

Popping Brand at the front is useful if your personal collecting focus is, for example, Bicycle branded decks - but this really is arbitrary; I might want to see all the Red coloured decks together, so buttong colour or variant first would work best for me.

For the time being searching by "Bicycle" or "Red" should work fine - but hopefully v2 will bring more comprehensive categorisation and (necessarily) complicated naming rules will be a thing of the past!

I tend to agree because I really love PCDB. Can I request that people who add decks make more of an effort to include information like "Number Printed" and "Company"? I have added this info to a lot of decks, and I find out how many by simply asking the creator. For instance, Lee McKenzie told me just last night that he printed 3,000 of the original Empire (a deck I was finally able to get, thanks to an awesome guy, you know who you are).

But bottom line for PCDB, let's keep it simple and universal. It' the only database we've got, as far as I know. What is the point of the "trade lists" if it's impossible to contact other members in order to facilitate a trade? I know this was a tangent off the topic, but like I said I love the site and want to see it get better and more complete. We need more contributors!

I went on a bit of a spree and added a lot of decks without backs or much info. I really prefer to include everything I can and will be updating the info on them all gradually.
Vintage decks can be a lot of work to track down.

I believe the trade lists will be implemented with DB v2. Rhu was kind enough to include as many options as the community could come up with, but not all are easily implemented. I would understand if Rhu doesn't want to do that work twice - once for this format and yet again in DB v2.

amadhatter53 wrote:What is the point of the "trade lists" if it's impossible to contact other members in order to facilitate a trade? I know this was a tangent off the topic, but like I said I love the site and want to see it get better and more complete. We need more contributors!

As dazzleguts said at least a portion of this is already worked into v2: http://unitedcardists.com/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=5867. The other part would be to make it so when you are looking at a deck and it says it is part of a trade list to actually provide who has it.


As for more contributors, I hope we can work with Rhu to establish better guidelines of who gets advanced edit access and be certain they understand the approved guidelines, as well as having the same or better audit trail, along with a revert option in v2.

Haha, this was all my fault. Sorry! I gave CBJ the go ahead for it. In my mind these are all OLD issues, because I can see PCDB v2 and know these problems have been solved.

This poorly thought out meme is now my default answer to all queries.

Also, regarding trades and contacting members, PCDB v1 development has been officially stopped for a while. Please don't expect to see any further features implemented on the old site.

All of my time is dedicated to making PCDB v2 a success. Contacting members is already possible in PCDB v2 I know it's important, so it was one of the first things I implemented.

Hey guys.. yes hard to believe but just starting to catalog my entire collection and I probably will; be using this DB. So if decks are missing from the database, how do I go about adding some?

badpete69 wrote:Hey guys.. yes hard to believe but just starting to catalog my entire collection and I probably will; be using this DB. So if decks are missing from the database, how do I go about adding some?

Awesome! You'll have to request an upgrade to your account to Contributor level from the form on the site, details here - http://unitedcardists.com/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=5666

Thanks for the info. I also see some minor updates to be made to existing decks and listings. Can we update decks already in the database?

badpete69 wrote:Thanks for the info. I also see some minor updates to be made to existing decks and listings. Can we update decks already in the database?

Hey, I've bumped you straight up to Editor This means you're trusted not to break the site You can add new decks from the company pages and add new images from the deck pages. As an editor you're also now able to edit existing decks.

Complete PCDB v2 feature: Letting ecNate control access permissions so I don't keep holding people up from contributing

Thnak you Rhu.. No I am not going to start changing everything. My goal right now is to try and inventory my out of control amount of decks which will take a while. At the same time, if i see any minor errors in the already listed decks, then no harm in making corrections. Maybe I'll start a thread to point out changes if I make any

badpete69 wrote:Thnak you Rhu.. No I am not going to start changing everything. My goal right now is to try and inventory my out of control amount of decks which will take a while. At the same time, if i see any minor errors in the already listed decks, then no harm in making corrections. Maybe I'll start a thread to point out changes if I make any

Great idea about a thread to keep track of changes

Glad to see you helping clean and improve the entries! Please be sure you fully understand the FAQs and Guidelines though, and if you do then there shouldn't be a need for a detailed audit trail, but you could also use the tail end of the description field if you had occasional concerns with significant changes you made.

No problem... one of the things i wanted to do is add the company for some of those kickstarter projects instead of KS miscellaneous but after reading your answer in PM, it's all good as is until more decks come

EDIT: I corrected the Melies red entry as that deck is known as Voyagers and added the blue Voyagers deck which is a remake of the first version of the previous year. The first Melies deck was not a Voyagers deck. Now all 3 decks are properly in database

EDIT #2: Yes i finally get that printed is the number printed and not the manufacturer. Already updated the 3 entries I had just done

Pierre,

You added duplicates of the Four Beasts decks. I'm assuming you did a search before adding, but wonder if your search was for "SiShou" and not "Four Beasts". Sparkz added them in as "Four Beasts" and did not include "Sishou" in the title. When I first saw them, I thought they should have "SiShou" in the title, but then after thinking about it and the upcoming Hellsgate deck, I realized the name is "Four Beasts" and SiShou is going to be the production company. Either way, just letting you know you have some dupes.

flyers3003 wrote:Pierre,

You added duplicates of the Four Beasts decks. I'm assuming you did a search before adding, but wonder if your search was for "SiShou" and not "Four Beasts". Sparkz added them in as "Four Beasts" and did not include "Sishou" in the title. When I first saw them, I thought they should have "SiShou" in the title, but then after thinking about it and the upcoming Hellsgate deck, I realized the name is "Four Beasts" and SiShou is going to be the production company. Either way, just letting you know you have some dupes.

Great catch! I updated the new ones to be marked for future deletion (after Pierre adds the prior decks to his collection) and copied his content over to an updated description of the original ones. I also modified the older deck names to include SiShou in parenthesis for clarity which is an option listed in the guidelines.

Yeah I was going to check that last night but forgot. There was another deck, I forget which now that I thought wasn't in but I eventually found it with a different word search. I was going to go back and check on the sishou decks but didnt get around to it. Will make sure going forward to use a bunch of different word search when I cannot find a deck. Knowing some of you guys, I bet everything is in there already

Need to add in more brands like 4PM Designs, Tomlinson, MPC, Legends, maybe Expert, perhaps Deckstarter/Art of Play, Cardicians/Shape Shifters, LUX, Edgy Bros, maybe Aliens Ink, Stockholm 17, Pure Imagination Projects, Erik Mana, Merz67 perhaps, Brain Vessel, Murphy's Magic, should I continue? lol

It's just to keep lists short and simple and make it easier to find stuff.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And then you end up with 100 brands which makes it impossible to even navigate the drop down. As a result, we are trying to only create new brands when there are at least 5 decks under that brand and perhaps it should be even more. Of course if v2 ever comes out that won't be an issue which is also why there hasn't been a huge push to try and figure it out.

You're probably right though, there's a few that could maybe use their own groups by now, especially since v2 doesn't look like it happened yet and might be a while off yet. Search still works though.

Maybe it would be best to replace the drop down menu with a grid type list instead, would be super easy to find if every company was just listed on a page.

ecNate wrote:Yeah, yeah, yeah. And then you end up with 100 brands which makes it impossible to even navigate the drop down. As a result, we are trying to only create new brands when there are at least 5 decks under that brand and perhaps it should be even more. Of course if v2 ever comes out that won't be an issue which is also why there hasn't been a huge push to try and figure it out.

You're probably right though, there's a few that could maybe use their own groups by now, especially since v2 doesn't look like it happened yet and might be a while off yet. Search still works though.

Haha, v2 is coming. Working my arse off tonight on it, getting scripts ready to do a mass export/import of data so I can see how it handles big data

Here's a screenshot of your shiny new admin interface ecNate



EDIT: Please note dev-site.com isn't a real domain, so don't get looking for spoilers there