is there a faster way to update collections?

[Chaotic Descent]

(Sorry to only come on here to ask for more features to be implemented. I haven't been on this site in months if not years.)

TL;DR: Could we have an edit mode without pictures or pull-down menus? Just text and check-boxes/radio-boxes so you can quickly go and update a few dozen entries, each with a single click rather than multiple clicks on a sluggishly scrolling page.

One click to open the drop-down menu for the figure, another to click the drop-down menu for the condition, a second to recognize what to click on (no matter how many times you do it. I actually get worse at it with time since it makes me so sleepy.), another click to select it. Repeat the click-scan-click process if you bought it new but opened it.
All the while scrolling down the page. For some reason it doesn't scroll so smoothly, especially when first loading. I'm guessing that's because of all the work it does when it interacts with the database. Maybe being able to quickly edit a person's collection would be too much work on the system.

One of these days I'm going to learn SQL and stuff and be able to code some neat collection visualization options like what I've imagined since over 10 years ago. :|

BTW, what is the difference between "opened" and "loose"? Is that basically whether the box is included? Why is that listed in a different section and in a different way from the instructions?

[engledogg]

BTW, what is the difference between "opened" and "loose"? Is that basically whether the box is included?

You are correct, "opened" refers to when the box is included while "loose" means the contents only.  

Why is that listed in a different section and in a different way from the instructions?

I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

MIKE
engledogg

[shmax]

BTW, what is the difference between "opened" and "loose"? Is that basically whether the box is included?

Yep, "opened" means you have the box and everything. "Loose" means you tossed the box, and just have the toy sitting on your dresser next to your glow-in-the-dark Frankenstein model.

Why is that listed in a different section and in a different way from the instructions?

I don't follow.

As for the rest, if I understand you correctly, you'd rather see radio boxes than drop-downs. I think that makes pretty decent sense, and I'll admit it never occurred to me. Any thoughts from any of you other power-users?

[Tripredacus]

The only thing I can think of is that using Radio buttons for condition will take up more space for that particular choice. I don't know whether or not there would be a significant increase in time for making a change tho.

[Chaotic Descent]

Why is that listed in a different section and in a different way from the instructions?

I don't follow.

I mean why is the box not considered one item as a content of a theoretical product and listed along side "instructions", rather than thought of as a basis for the product, even though it can potentially be excluded from the collection?
I mean, I guess perhaps it's to avoid the possibility of having all the items checked as not being included, which means you  have nothing, which means that entry should not exist? Maybe it's kind of complicated to code conditions for having it delete the entry or require you to have one of the items checked off.

It's strange to think of the packaging as being a part of the condition of the item. I mean, it is when it's unopened, and you can't have an unopened figure without the packaging... but on the other hand, when opened they're completely separate issues. (You can have QC issues that result in an unopened figure being worse than an excellent condition opened one. Either a production error with assembly or paint, or paint wear from the packaging. Sometimes chrome flaking, metal oxidizing, batteries leaking.

I noticed at one point the most valued item in my collection was Fortress Maximus, even though mine has his thighs broken and mended with spare plastic sheets from another toy and a rivet gun. I have to imagine that's pretty worthless, but I can't change a setting to fix that, other than to remove it from my list for not being good enough to count.
(Now I'm just rambling.)

The only thing I can think of is that using Radio buttons for condition will take up more space for that particular choice. I don't know whether or not there would be a significant increase in time for making a change tho.

Well, it would be counteracted, since my suggestion was to pair it with a more brief listing that lacked images (or perhaps a link to the images so you could have quick reference to them when you weren't sure, but without having to load them all).
Also, you wouldn't have to include the descriptive text for the radio button for each figure entry, since they'd be in rows/columns. You could just stick a header on it. Hopefully the whole thing would fit on a page that would eliminate the need for scrolling.

BTW, I don't know if it's just me that's getting lagging interface, but perhaps the sidebar ("Fun Facts for Chaotic Descent's Transformers collection") on the right side also requires time to interact with the database to pull up those stats and display.
If so, is there a way to make it a pull-down (or pull-"side"?) menu that will not take resources until you click to open it? Just an idea.

I don't know whether or not there would be a significant increase in time for making a change tho.

You mean timing as far as the webpage and database access? From the user point of view it definitely would help. I'm sure it more than doubles if not triples or more the time it takes me to update a single entry.
Perhaps if a rapid succession of edits would slow down the system, it could be changed to save up a batch of these edits at a time when in this quick-edit mode? Perhaps don't do anything until the user clicks on another page and then contribute everything on the page? Or would that significantly slow down when the user could load another page?

[shmax]

I mean why is the box not considered one item as a content of a theoretical product and listed along side "instructions", rather than thought of as a basis for the product, even though it can potentially be excluded from the collection?
I mean, I guess perhaps it's to avoid the possibility of having all the items checked as not being included, which means you have nothing, which means that entry should not exist? Maybe it's kind of complicated to code conditions for having it delete the entry or require you to have one of the items checked off.

It's strange to think of the packaging as being a part of the condition of the item. I mean, it is when it's unopened, and you can't have an unopened figure without the packaging... but on the other hand, when opened they're completely separate issues. (You can have QC issues that result in an unopened figure being worse than an excellent condition opened one. Either a production error with assembly or paint, or paint wear from the packaging. Sometimes chrome flaking, metal oxidizing, batteries leaking.

It wasn't really deliberate--I think it's just a result of the way we gradually gained features piece by piece. You're an old-timer, so you may remember back when the "Add to my collection" was just a checkbox. People complained about not being able to track "multiples", so I converted it an early version of what we have now. For fun, I added a "condition" field. I kept it as simple as AFA/MISB/MIB/Loose because that was the most I could parse out of eBay auctions, which tied into the appraisal system (which is still only half-done).

Soon after we began working on a "parts" database (Engledogg was the hero on that one), and once that had taken shape I decided to do the part checkboxes in the collection interface.

So there you go, we wound up with something that is well-meaning but maybe a bit klunky. I'm totally willing to redesign it, but there are other major projects already in the works. I mentioned that the appraisal system is only half-done--by that I mean that we're only using auction data to generate our "values", and we want to expand it to use the user-entered "price paid" data. While it's true that eBay isn't much use when it comes to finer-grain condition evaluation, I could definitely see leveraging user data. We could add a more specific grading option to the collection records. In the case of your Fortress Maximus, you would set the condition of yours to "Loose/4.0" (or whatever the grading scale for "sorry shape" is), and then when trying to evaluate its worth, we would search for other "price paid" data from other users that purchased the same item in the same or worse condition, and do the best we can with the information.

Also, you wouldn't have to include the descriptive text for the radio button for each figure entry, since they'd be in rows/columns.

I'm having a little trouble getting a visual. Care to whip us up a mock-up in Photoshop (or Paint, or crayons)? We don't mind if it's crude.

Hopefully the whole thing would fit on a page that would eliminate the need for scrolling.

I don't quite get this one. If scrolling bothers you, why not just set the "Items Per Page" to something you can live with? It goes down to 10 items, and your choice will be remembered from page to page.

BTW, I don't know if it's just me that's getting lagging interface, but perhaps the sidebar ("Fun Facts for Chaotic Descent's Transformers collection") on the right side also requires time to interact with the database to pull up those stats and display.

It very well could be! It used to be quite a performance hog, and we've spent a lot of time trying to speed it up (the "rank" was the main culprit). I had thought it was all settled, but it could be that something regressed. Spaceharfang, if you're reading this, can you please check the performance on the Fun Facts?

Perhaps if a rapid succession of edits would slow down the system, it could be changed to save up a batch of these edits at a time when in this quick-edit mode?

Well, we already are doing this. When editing a collection record via the UI, you may have noticed that the "Auto-save" doesn't fire until you've stopped fussing with it for a few seconds. I wasn't aware of any lag when doing saves, and even if it does lag a bit, there's nothing stopping you from moving on to the next record while you wait.

[Chaotic Descent]

It wasn't really deliberate--I think it's just a result of the way we gradually gained features piece by piece. You're an old-timer, so you may remember back when the "Add to my collection" was just a checkbox.

So there you go, we wound up with something that is well-meaning but maybe a bit klunky. I'm totally willing to redesign it, but there are other major projects already in the works.

Yup. I understand.

Also, you wouldn't have to include the descriptive text for the radio button for each figure entry, since they'd be in rows/columns.

I'm having a little trouble getting a visual. Care to whip us up a mock-up in Photoshop (or Paint, or crayons)? We don't mind if it's crude.

Sure.
Bleh. I think I spent more time on that than I needed to.

Here's a couple versions. The one with 2 rows makes better use of space, allowing room for parts checkboxes, but I guess it's more difficult to read, especially the headers.
Maybe it's just because I rushed the design. Maybe it wouldn't work. Maybe it would. You could have a [mouse-over / pull-down] on the header to show [the full text / a diagram (text + example box outlines)] for a specific column.

Hopefully you can dynamically adjust how many checkboxes it shows for each figure entry. If not, I suppose try to include the average maximum, and just cancel any checks for invalid accessories.

I know that kind of complicates things but... that's what the drop-down "(more) parts" button is for, if you want to see the detailed text. Ideally you have some checkboxes so that you don't HAVE to click that every time you want to specify accessories/parts that differ from the default. You might think "well, if it's not the default, it's not that common." but that's not necessarily true. Most of my figures are loose or opened. Some people mostly have sealed figures. Some people might have each half of a large collection as either.


(Also I forgot to add the image link in the first example.)

and for some reason it's resizing the images, although that seems to be your forum, as right-click->"view image" they're full size.

Hopefully the whole thing would fit on a page that would eliminate the need for scrolling.

I don't quite get this one. If scrolling bothers you, why not just set the "Items Per Page" to something you can live with? It goes down to 10 items, and your choice will be remembered from page to page.

Because with the pulldown for a figure covers an entire page, so I have to scroll (or click again to close it) each time anyway. It doesn't really save me any time.

Perhaps if a rapid succession of edits would slow down the system, it could be changed to save up a batch of these edits at a time when in this quick-edit mode?

Well, we already are doing this. When editing a collection record via the UI, you may have noticed that the "Auto-save" doesn't fire until you've stopped fussing with it for a few seconds. I wasn't aware of any lag when doing saves, and even if it does lag a bit, there's nothing stopping you from moving on to the next record while you wait.

Ah ok, so the current setup would work with this. I was worried I was suggesting a method that contributes more of a burden on the system. No problem.

[shmax]

Thanks, CD, that helps clarify things quite a bit. The second mock-up is right out--there are toys in the database with a hundred parts or more, and it just doesn't work. Concealing the part list in a hidden pop-up that flies out when you click a "parts" button is better, but then we're right back to a big expanding area, which you don't like. If I follow you, you're troubled by the fact that when you click a collection row in our current model, a big area appears and expands the page, which means you have to scroll down to get to the next row. Two questions: first, can you not minimize the scrolling headache by just clicking the header again to close the UI? Second, would it be an improvement if the entire collection UI we have now still expanded, but appeared as an overlay on top of the page, so that no "scrolling" happens?

Overall, I think you have some good points, and I'll see what I can do when I get around to reworking the "Your Collection" page. One possibility would be to have a "Compact mode" link somewhere near the top, which would switch the view to something like what you describe. But that'll be a long time coming. In the short term, we can try replacing the condition drop-downs with radio buttons. But first I need to take a few days off... my brain hurts.

[spaceharfang]

It very well could be! It used to be quite a performance hog, and we've spent a lot of time trying to speed it up (the "rank" was the main culprit). I had thought it was all settled, but it could be that something regressed. Spaceharfang, if you're reading this, can you please check the performance on the Fun Facts?

I've checked with my collection, at the top level the fun facts stayed below the 0.7sec mark.  About this I'd be an advocate that every fun facts should be visible at first glance.  If you need to scroll to see the end, there is too much displayed.

The top performance hog feature right now would the item count displayed between () in the tree navigation.  It counts for about 40% of the load time.  On the next iteration of the navigation process, we'll to carefully evaluate the benefits / costs for it.

[Chaotic Descent]

Thanks, CD, that helps clarify things quite a bit. The second mock-up is right out--there are toys in the database with a hundred parts or more, and it just doesn't work.

Well why not just have the website decide a threshold for when is too much? If it fits on the page, display checkboxes.

Even ones with hundreds of parts could include the base figure and box/instructions, since those would be most common.
Or for figures with more parts than can fit on the page, have a single checkbox for them all. If you have them all, this speeds things up. If you're missing most of them,  it still speeds it up to uncheck them all and then load the drop-down to pick the ones you do have.

Concealing the part list in a hidden pop-up that flies out when you click a "parts" button is better, but then we're right back to a big expanding area, which you don't like.

Well, it would also hopefully be smaller with just the parts list.
It also wouldn't be necessary unless you needed clarification on the name/appearance of the 3rd weapon,

or if like I said above, you still had the checkboxes for figures with fewer parts, or for the first few parts if they don't all fit.

If I follow you, you're troubled by the fact that when you click a collection row in our current model, a big area appears and expands the page, which means you have to scroll down to get to the next row. Two questions: first, can you not minimize the scrolling headache by just clicking the header again to close the UI?

Yes, but whether you scroll or minimize, it's action that delays updating. Each click, scroll, or new window requires work with your hands and eyes and brain to rescan what you're doing, even if it's the same thing. I actually find the pull-down menus hard to memorize (so I don't have to rethink what I'm clicking each time) because they're not in the same spot each time, and don't scroll parallel to drop-down. The condition when bought and currently also overlap. It's just a big mess.

Second, would it be an improvement if the entire collection UI we have now still expanded, but appeared as an overlay on top of the page, so that no "scrolling" happens?

Hrm. I wonder how that would help... Like if I clicked to expand the one below (which would require the overlay not to block/cover the button to open the one below) while the one above was still open, it would switch? I think that would only be a minor improvement.

Overall, I think you have some good points, and I'll see what I can do when I get around to reworking the "Your Collection" page. One possibility would be to have a "Compact mode" link somewhere near the top, which would switch the view to something like what you describe. But that'll be a long time coming. In the short term, we can try replacing the condition drop-downs with radio buttons. But first I need to take a few days off... my brain hurts.

Yeah. Options are good.

I've checked with my collection, at the top level the fun facts stayed below the 0.7sec mark.  About this I'd be an advocate that every fun facts should be visible at first glance.  If you need to scroll to see the end, there is too much displayed.

The top performance hog feature right now would the item count displayed between () in the tree navigation.  It counts for about 40% of the load time.  On the next iteration of the navigation process, we'll to carefully evaluate the benefits / costs for it.

I just want the option of disabling the whole sidebar, not that it's removed for everyone forever.

I don't need to be updated on that every single page I load while I'm editing my collection. I'm spending my time and mental energy updating my collection. If I WANT to constantly compare my collection to others, or be updated on my stats, I want that to be up to me. I did find it useful to bring down my most valuable item to one that was accurate, although my opened BotCon Darkside Megatron is worth more than my busted up G1 Fort Max. It's worth about as much opened as loose anyway. Crazy.


Also, you could fit more on the page width-wise if you could also toggle the visibility of the browse category window on the left as well. It's useful to have, but if you're going through pages of entries... hrm. Who knows. Perhaps with this more brief listing format, you could fit most series on a single page anyway.

[engledogg]

I'm just curious, CD...what kind of computer/internet connection are you using?

MIKE
engledogg

[Chaotic Descent]

I'm just curious, CD...what kind of computer/internet connection are you using?

MIKE
engledogg

My PC is old, but since when do you need to buy a new computer every 2-3 years just to browse a database on the internet? It's not like cutting-edge tech for gaming. It's a P4 3GHz with 1GB of RAM.
I'm on cable internet,  but it seems like all ISPs are meddling with the connections, preparing for tiered internet. so... there's no real guarantee that highspeed internet is high speed.

[engledogg]

Thanks for the info.  I was just asking since I had some load time difficulties some years back with my older computer, but that was well before the site became streamlined/optimized like it is today.  

After getting my most recent computer (about three years ago), I have not encountered any of the problems you describe, even though it's fairly similar to yours in terms of processor speed and RAM (2 GHz and 2.00 GB RAM).  I'm on DSL, top speed 3Mbps.

MIKE
engledogg

[shmax]

I hear ya loud and clear, CD. I promise to keep all this in mind when I finally get around to re-designing the View Collection page, and will do my best to see about creating a compact format for the scrollaphobes out there. I just wouldn't count on it any time soon, as there are 800 tons of other projects to finish, and only two of us to do them. Hang in there...