"C.E. Forman" wrote:
>
> Again if you're using this to grade the overall package I'd personally
> prefer
> to avoid grouping missing ref cards in here, as they're minor and shouldn't
> significantly devalue an otherwise VG+/NM package. Maybe clarify this?
I fixed this in the version 0.2 that I sent out.
> I also noticed on Moby that you include "Item Missing" on the list. I know
> your system proposes rating individual components and that this is useful
> for indicating just what's missing in Moby's database. However I was
> wondering if you'd object if, for the Shoppe, I were to use "IM" as an
> extension to the normal ratings you've given above. See, let me explain:
> I was hoping to incorporate these ratings at the end of my item
> descriptions,
> but to keep the text detailing the specific defects. That way, somebody
> just browsing for a NM title could simply scan the ratings, check out the
> ones with "NM" and quickly screen out everything else.
Not a problem. I also added that to the 0.2 version recently sent out.
> My concern is, while I want to use Moby's rating system, I don't want to
> have to essentially adopt Moby's *database* format in my descriptions,
I completely agree -- you'll notice that the MobyScale doc has textual
free-form examples that specifically don't follow Moby's database format.
> So I guess my question is, on the Shoppe page, could I have ratings such
> as: "VG, IM" to describe the whole package, and then detail why said
> item is "VG" and which items are missing, while still conforming to the
> Moby standard?
Yes. The grading scale is just that -- a grading scale. So, if I see "VG" for
the entire package, I get a feel for what VG is because I 1. have the scale to
map to, and 2. have seen other VG examples. In the 0.2 version of the doc I
sent out recently, I suggest that a bare minimum be box and inside contents,
but that's not a requirement for using the grading scale. And besides, you
will be grading individual components on an as-needed basis.
> > Q: Why isn't "Rare" on the grading scale?
> > A: "Rare" isn't an indication of condition; it's an indication of value.
>
> This is nit-picking, but I would like to point out that rare does not
> necessarily
> equal valuable, it merely equals hard-to-find. Example: Awhile back I
> bought
> a small stack of "Beatle Quest" games from the author for a low-low price.
> The game was only released in the UK, only for Commodore 64, only on
> cassette, the author's personal stock is now depleted, and I have less than
> 10 copies left. That's rare. But it's not valuable, because I still *have*
> those copies left -- nobody seems to want the damn thing, and the most
> I've ever gotten for one was $15. Quite a contrast from the Starcross
> saucer, of which far more were produced, but which consistently fetch
> $500+ at auction. It seems more to be the combination of scarcity and
> the number of collectors who want it that add up to a valuable game.
That's a very good point, and I'll change the wording of that for version 0.3.
Can I have your permission to quote sections of the above?
--
http://www.MobyGames.com/
The world's most comprehensive historical PC gaming database project.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
the swcollect mailing list. To unsubscribe, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/swcollect@oldskool.org/
