Subject:
|
Re: Question on LUGNET Set Listing - Combo Packs of sets
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 14 May 2003 21:42:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
389 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave & All,
> In lugnet.general, Scott E. Sanburn writes:
> > Basically, 6569 lists itself as Piece Count 76, and Minifigs as 2. The
> > individual sets also list part counts and minifigs. So if I put 6569 down,
> > and the set numbers, then that doesn't accurately reflect my set count, etc.
> > What would be a good way to approach this? Is there something that might
> > need to be done because of this? I can fix this in Excel easily enough, but
> > I am not sure what to do with the 6569.
>
> I guess the problem is what you're looking to do with the data. For accurate
> piece counts, you'd obviously want to just enter either the combo set number
> *OR* the individual sub-sets. That'd mean your piece counts would be
> accurate, your "My Parts" on Peeron would be accurately reflected, etc.
Indeed. Part counts are probably the most important.
> If you're more concerned about set counts instead of piece counts, then you
> just have to figure out what constitutes a "set" for you, and denote
> accordingly. IE do you really consider 6569 a single set or 2? Or maybe even >3?
Well, I don't want to mis-represent my counts, I guess. I can either list
the 6569 and the numbers there, and not worry about the individual sets. I
would consider these combo sets as individual sets, with a special number
used to indicate a combo set.
> And of course if you're interested in "Do I have this set or not?" data,
> then just mark off everything, counting it as 3 sets. But that data's
> honestly less handy unless you're a hardcore set collector. In which case
> you've got plenty of other issues to resolve like "do I have both the 2001
> and 2000 releases of this set?" and "Do I have the Japanese, Australian, US,
> and European versions?", etc.
Ugh, I am not that there, I can't afford to be. : )
> In your own personal file this is stuff is easier to reflect. You might do
> something like:
>
> Set# Owned Theme Pieces Figs
> --------------------------------
> 6569 1 Polar 0 0
> 6578 1 Polar 21 1
> 6586 1 Polar 55 1
>
> Which denotes that you *own* a combo set, but won't go towards a piece/fig
> tally.
Right, that is how I do it in my Excel file.
> I guess ultimately the Lugnet database would be configurable to
> automatically recognize "sub-set"'s, and would do something similar to the
> above in the "My Collection" summary page. Tough call, tho...
That would be neat. Just to have a number holder on the 6569, and then have
the accurate set count and piece count.
Thanks for your input!
Sincerely,
Scott S.
--
Scott E. Sanburn http://www.scottesanburn.org
Member, MichLUG: http://www.michlug.org
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Question on LUGNET Set Listing - Combo Packs of sets
|
| (...) I guess the problem is what you're looking to do with the data. For accurate piece counts, you'd obviously want to just enter either the combo set number *OR* the individual sub-sets. That'd mean your piece counts would be accurate, your "My (...) (21 years ago, 14-May-03, to lugnet.general)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
