Subject:
|
Re: Database Piece Count
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.database
|
Date:
|
Thu, 26 Jul 2001 16:14:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
225 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.database, Dan Boger <dan@peeron.com> writes:
> > Can someone update the piece count for some of these older sets from the
> > late 70s and 80s? Can you ballpark it? Should it be left to a public vote
> > for what people think is the piece count?
>
> Personally, I'd rather see a '?' than an entry that says "around 800".
> No data is better than inaccurate data. [...]
That's always been my philosophy as well.
--
Todd S. Lehman | LUGNET Admin <todd@lugnet.com>
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Database Piece Count
|
| (...) This could be a zen-ish question, but do you mean inaccurate, or insufficiently precise? I think that there are situations where knowing that something is 800 +/- 100 is very useful in the general case (as long as it's ACCURATE, that is, as (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Database Piece Count
|
| (...) True. However, we do not have the piece count for those sets. We need someone who owns the set, or a catalog that mentions it, to tell us what the piece count is... we'd love to update the database, just give us the data :) (...) Personally, (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jul-01, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
26 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Database
|
|
|
|
|
|
