Comments on: Help us write the Zistle Style Guide http://blog.zistle.com/2009/05/18/help-us-write-the-zistle-style-guide/ Official Blog of Zistle.com Mon, 26 Jul 2010 03:54:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: madding http://blog.zistle.com/2009/05/18/help-us-write-the-zistle-style-guide/#comment-82 madding Wed, 20 May 2009 11:25:20 +0000 http://blog.zistle.com/?p=296#comment-82 Obviously, I think consistency is the most important thing. I think the best thing to do with subsets would be to add another field where you could enter the "AS" or "TC" designation. There does need to be a distinction between subset cards and inserts, though. I think that was one of the most difficult concepts for me to grasp when I first signed up, since the term "subset" should mean a set within a set instead of something that is external. Obviously, I think consistency is the most important thing. I think the best thing to do with subsets would be to add another field where you could enter the “AS” or “TC” designation. There does need to be a distinction between subset cards and inserts, though. I think that was one of the most difficult concepts for me to grasp when I first signed up, since the term “subset” should mean a set within a set instead of something that is external.

]]> By: Captain Canuck http://blog.zistle.com/2009/05/18/help-us-write-the-zistle-style-guide/#comment-81 Captain Canuck Tue, 19 May 2009 17:31:26 +0000 http://blog.zistle.com/?p=296#comment-81 the tough part of "what is a rookie card"??? I have cards of players from 2003 when their 2008 cards have that ridiculous "Rookie Card" logo on the front. So which is their rookie? The 2008? or the cards from 5 years earlier? If you plan on putting RC in the name, you need to identify what an RC is. Good luck with that. I'm fine with SP in the name. It's verifiable, and good info for set/player collectors. Same with MGR and TC. Although not as necessary as SP. the tough part of “what is a rookie card”??? I have cards of players from 2003 when their 2008 cards have that ridiculous “Rookie Card” logo on the front. So which is their rookie? The 2008? or the cards from 5 years earlier?
If you plan on putting RC in the name, you need to identify what an RC is.
Good luck with that.

I’m fine with SP in the name. It’s verifiable, and good info for set/player collectors. Same with MGR and TC. Although not as necessary as SP.

]]> By: Chris http://blog.zistle.com/2009/05/18/help-us-write-the-zistle-style-guide/#comment-80 Chris Tue, 19 May 2009 16:17:40 +0000 http://blog.zistle.com/?p=296#comment-80 Card numbering - In my opinion, the number entered on the site should be an exact match of what is found on the back of the card. I think it's gotten a little ugly from the manufacturer's standpoint to have "numbers" like LG-BR. But that is the easiest way to be sure that you have a match. Unnumbered cards - Can they be recorded as unnumbered and then perhaps have a description field to help identify the card? The example that comes to mind for me is from 2003 Fleer Tradition where they did the checklists with 2 9-card picture puzzles of Barry Bonds and Derek Jeter, except they didn't number the cards, so unless you had all of the checklists, it was hard to tell which ones you were missing. Multiplayer Cards - I guess I would like to see the name of the card get entered in the field that exists today ( AL Leaders - Home Runs, Classic Combo, etc. ) and have a secondary field to enter the names of players who appear on the card. I think it's important to still provide a way for player collector's to find cards that a player appears on outside of base cards. I think this would apply to team checklists as well, especially the case mentioned by Dan in the last post. Short Prints, Rookie Cards - I've always viewed these as attributes, not really part of the name. I like the approach you have now where you check a box for the rookies. I also think this should be kept to a limited number of items so it is fairly standard and doesn't evolve into a hundred checkboxes. If you do it this way, I think it would be easier to filter/search by attribute rather than picking it out of the name. Card numbering – In my opinion, the number entered on the site should be an exact match of what is found on the back of the card. I think it’s gotten a little ugly from the manufacturer’s standpoint to have “numbers” like LG-BR. But that is the easiest way to be sure that you have a match.

Unnumbered cards – Can they be recorded as unnumbered and then perhaps have a description field to help identify the card? The example that comes to mind for me is from 2003 Fleer Tradition where they did the checklists with 2 9-card picture puzzles of Barry Bonds and Derek Jeter, except they didn’t number the cards, so unless you had all of the checklists, it was hard to tell which ones you were missing.

Multiplayer Cards – I guess I would like to see the name of the card get entered in the field that exists today ( AL Leaders – Home Runs, Classic Combo, etc. ) and have a secondary field to enter the names of players who appear on the card. I think it’s important to still provide a way for player collector’s to find cards that a player appears on outside of base cards. I think this would apply to team checklists as well, especially the case mentioned by Dan in the last post.

Short Prints, Rookie Cards – I’ve always viewed these as attributes, not really part of the name. I like the approach you have now where you check a box for the rookies. I also think this should be kept to a limited number of items so it is fairly standard and doesn’t evolve into a hundred checkboxes. If you do it this way, I think it would be easier to filter/search by attribute rather than picking it out of the name.

]]> By: dan http://blog.zistle.com/2009/05/18/help-us-write-the-zistle-style-guide/#comment-79 dan Tue, 19 May 2009 11:47:50 +0000 http://blog.zistle.com/?p=296#comment-79 As much as most of us don't like Beckett (uggh, I just got a pain in my side!), they do have the right idea about labeling rookie cards in the name, short prints, etc. "RC" after the name indicates "rookie card," "SP" indicates short print, SR indicates Sport Royalty, MGR for manager, TC for team card, etc. I'm sure this could be a long list, but it works to further identify a card that is not part of a subset. For example, as we all know there are Upper Deck team cards from the past few years that have a single player on the front and the team checklist on the back. Is this still a player card? Should a player collector collect that card? If it is labeled as "Joe Outfielder TC" then it fulfills it's obligation as both a player card and team checklist card. As much as most of us don’t like Beckett (uggh, I just got a pain in my side!), they do have the right idea about labeling rookie cards in the name, short prints, etc. “RC” after the name indicates “rookie card,” “SP” indicates short print, SR indicates Sport Royalty, MGR for manager, TC for team card, etc. I’m sure this could be a long list, but it works to further identify a card that is not part of a subset.

For example, as we all know there are Upper Deck team cards from the past few years that have a single player on the front and the team checklist on the back. Is this still a player card? Should a player collector collect that card? If it is labeled as “Joe Outfielder TC” then it fulfills it’s obligation as both a player card and team checklist card.

]]>