Shmaxian rating system

Started by tusko, August 30, 2013, 07:46:42 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

tusko

Any thought of adding a two fold rating system:
1) a toy condition rating -> poor, good, excellent, mint (one star, two star ..etc)
2) how much I like the toy? -> Regret buying, dislike, like, Love (again a 4 star system)

Then stats would emerge on which toys were the best and which stay in what condition with time.  It could even become a toy recommendation system for that wishlist we never knew we wanted.

Alternatively, a system for tracking breakage.  Date, part that broke, extenuating circumstance?  Kinda like on car websites where milage, model and repair history are shared.
.

engledogg

I've always been a proponent of the condition rating system, but it's so subjective - one man's c9 is another man's c3.  :(  We had a topic on this in the not-too-distant past, but it sort of stalled out.  I would also be up for using it for package condition, not just limiting it to figures or parts.

The "how much I like this toy" star system is also a cool idea...I can only imagine how Armada Side Swipe is going to feel after that...

The breakage thing is something we could possibly track (don't hold me to that, shmax would know much better than I)...but, to me, it would probably be better just to make a note of any damage in the comments section or something.  Or, if we do ever institute a condition rating, knock the figure down a couple notches...but as far as date of damage, area damaged...that's something I'm not sure about.

MIKE
engledogg
Dumba$$ that used to buy everything...not so much anymore.

tusko

Well I'm trying to think of methods that move this site beyond a catalog. I'm curious if there could be more toy review (the excellent descriptive photo standards) and interactivity to rate and describe how the fandom reflects on individual molds or figures.  We all want to collect "the best" don't we?

I think of all the issues with the Masterpeice Rodimus with broken shoulders and knees.  Or even GPS issues.

If people are buying these they should know it may break.  If G2 Slingshot is rare in collections and the marketplace, the GPS is a factor.  Of course I'm using an obvious issue, but what about the longevity of movie toys or other lines?
.

shmax

#3
September 02, 2013, 11:41:32 AM Last Edit: September 02, 2013, 11:50:13 AM by shmax
Ratings and reviews sound like fun ideas. They've come up many times before, and we'll get to them one of these days.

As for a more sophisticated condition system, I'm not as sure. I have a few questions, myself. Do these conditions apply to the toy as a whole, or to each individual part? If you've lost the box, for example, what does that do to the rating of the toy? If you can rate a figure, does he lose points if, say, you've lost his gun? Or does the gun itself get a rating?

Tripredacus

You can relate your condition question to the values on the site as well. For example, if I get a gun for a guy, I don't enter that price into an item in my collection, especially since I have that guy already. So I think if you are going to branch out condition and reviews to accessories, then you probably could kill 2 birds with one stone and let people put in values for accessories. But then you end up back with the "lot" problem...

engledogg

#5
September 03, 2013, 09:36:11 AM Last Edit: September 03, 2013, 05:28:23 PM by engledogg
If I piece together a complete product over time, I make note of the price of each of the accessories as we're tracking the price paid for the product, and all of these items, and their associated costs, are part of the product.  Perhaps we could enter a price paid field that would be seen on the part pages that would give us an idea how much that specific individual part is worth.

If I pick up a G1 Mirage for $10 and, over time, I end up paying $15 for his accessories, I enter $25 for the price paid for the Mirage product.  If want to, I could enter the prices paid for his individual accessories...this isn't a bad idea.

Now, if I happen to pick up a stray gun for, say, Astrotrain, and I don't have Astrotrain, I don't bother entering it until I get the figure it belongs to, but perhaps we could still provide the price paid without the need to have it as parts of our collections.  Not sure if this is even possible...

Quote
Do these conditions apply to the toy as a whole, or to each individual part? If you've lost the box, for example, what does that do to the rating of the toy? If you can rate a figure, does he lose points if, say, you've lost his gun? Or does the gun itself get a rating?

As far as condition goes, we're talking actual physical condition...not "completeness".

You can still indicate that you have a complete figure, with all of its accessories, by choosing those parts in the "Parts Checklist" area on the blue bar where you enter the product into your collection.

I would tend to think we would assign conditions to each of the parts, in addition to the packages...the way I envision it would be something like the following. 

First off, we change our current term of "condition" to another term...perhaps "status", as condition usually describes the actual physical condition of an item, not so much "graded", "sealed", "opened", or "loose".

If you choose "Graded", a choice that was greyed out initially becomes active: "Package condition (and a text field)" - this is where you would enter the AFA Grade and/or subgrades.  Or, instead of a text field, a condition picker.

If you choose "Sealed" or "Opened" for current condition, a choice that was greyed out initially becomes active: "Packaging condition (and a text field)".  Or, instead of a text field, a condition picker.

That's where condition stops for packages, it's handled on the product page...this also prevents us from having to enter the box as an accessory (something I've never been too keen on).  The fact that you chose opened or sealed already indicates the presence of a box and this allows us to assign a condition to it.

If you choose "Opened" or "Loose", then the "Part condition" fields (or pickers) open up on the part pages for those records.  Keep in mind that this doesn't really account for figures with obvious flaws while still sealed inside the package, so the part condition fields could become active on any choice for "condition".  This would also handle the AFA subgrades...I think they assign a condition to the figure still sealed inside the box, as well.

So, if you get an a pretty decent, complete opened G1 Sandstorm, you would:

Look at the package...damn, a flap crease.  Choose "Opened" for "status", which activates the "Package condition" text field.  You enter (or pick) c6 (or whatever rating system we end up using).

Then you look at the parts...there's a slight bit of chrome wear on G1 Sandstorm, not too much, but it's noticeable.

You would enter/pick "c7" for Sandstorm on his part page.

The gun appears to be fine, so, on the part page for the gun, you would enter/pick "c9" for the gun.

The instruction booklet has a very slight crease, so on the part page for the booklet, you enter/pick "c7". 

The label sheet looks great..."c9".

Crud, you don't have the tech specs decoder.  Well, that would be taken care of of the "Parts Checklist" area of the blue bar when you entered it into your collection.  If you ever end up getting one, add it to the parts checklist and then rate the condition on the its part page.

If you purchased a sealed ROTF Mindwipe, in an excellent condition box - sharp corners, no scuffs, no damage to the plastic, you'd choose "Sealed" for the status activates the "Packaging condition" field, enter a c9, and you're done.  Again, if we see the need to assign a condition to the sealed figures/parts that can be seen inside, I suppose we could do that as well.

Whether or not a text field or a picker is used for condition...maybe a picker would be better...we could still keep the text field so we could perhaps enter the area of the damage, describe the damage, etc.

MIKE
engledogg
Dumba$$ that used to buy everything...not so much anymore.

shmax

Interesting. But what grading system are we talking about? When we say things like "C7", are we referring to the AFA's sytem? Or are we just borrowing their terminology and creating our own? I browsed around their site a bit this morning and couldn't really get a good feel for how they do things (it could be that they prefer to obfuscate the process a bit, as they sell grading services). Do any of you really understand how grading works? I have the notion that the toy is graded as a whole (can a g1 Optimus Prime still be considered "mint" when he is missing his accessories?)

If I understand your line of thought correctly, you want to visit a series of pages in order to set the conditions for your various parts? What about just putting a little drop-down next to each part name in the collection interface?

engledogg

#7
September 03, 2013, 07:09:35 PM Last Edit: September 03, 2013, 07:20:16 PM by engledogg
Quote
Interesting. But what grading system are we talking about? When we say things like "C7", are we referring to the AFA's sytem? Or are we just borrowing their terminology and creating our own? I browsed around their site a bit this morning and couldn't really get a good feel for how they do things (it could be that they prefer to obfuscate the process a bit, as they sell grading services). Do any of you really understand how grading works? I have the notion that the toy is graded as a whole (can a g1 Optimus Prime still be considered "mint" when he is missing his accessories?)


For AFA grading, we'd allow users to enter the grades provided by AFA.  AFA only grades sealed and opened toys now (I think), but at one point, I believe they did grade loose items.  From the Wiki:

Quote
AFA only grades toys that are either MOSC, MISB, or MIB with unopened internal bubble and unopened accessory/paperwork baggies.

They look at things like box condition, window condition, and figure condition.

These numbers are provided by that company (on a scale from from 0-100), so users could enter these subgrades as well, if they decided to track them.

Also from the Wiki:
Quote
Although AFA's grading scale ranges from 0 to 100 at increments of 5 units, typically AFA-graded Transformers score between 60 and 90 for their overall grade, with a large concentration around 80. The exact process by which the overall grade is determined is unknown, but it is always either the lowest of the 3 subgrades or 5 units higher than that. Thus, two figures with the exact same subgrades may receive different overall grades. (E.g., if two different figures receive subgrades of 85 box, 90 window, and 90 figure, then one may receive an overall grade of 85 -- the lowest subgrade, and the other may receive a 90 -- the lowest subgrade plus 5.) In addition to the grade on the label, there may also be a "Y" or "U" after the grade, meaning "yellowed" or "uncirculated" (i.e., from an unopened case), respectively.


I've never had any of MISB items AFA'd, so I can't speak to anything about the process.

Quote
I have the notion that the toy is graded as a whole (can a g1 Optimus Prime still be considered "mint" when he is missing his accessories?)


AFA grades toys are graded as a whole, as they're usually sealed, or at least boxed, but overall, not a ton of people use AFA - I mean, sure there are a bunch of AFA items on eBay, but overall, they make up a very small percentage of all the toys out there. 

For non-AFA grading, I suggest the using the "C Scale":
http://www.toycatacomb.com/info/cscale.htm

The C scale is much less demanding and can be applied to anything as condition ≠ completeness.  People tend to assign condition values to anything and everything - they don't need to be complete toys to receive a grade. 

For example, let's say someone is selling a G1 Runamuck toy that has a little cut in his gun, but the robot is in awesome shape.  They'd describe the robot as "c9" and the gun as "c5"...they really wouldn't lump the two together to get a average score of "c7" for the total package.

Personally, I'd much rather see individual ratings for the individual parts rather than see a average score, because if you think about it, if you have a beat-to-hell G2 Go-Bots Megatron robot that would score a c1, but his gun is in awesome condition (c9), technically, you'd be looking at a c5 toy if you considered the average score, which is just not accurate of the true condition of the item.

Again, the assignment of grades is very subjective and will likely vary from user to user, so this is going to be all based on whatever the user feels is minor playwear or what they consider moderate playwear.  A sticker scrape to someone might warrant a c7 to one user and to a more "picky" collector, it might be a c5.

Quote
If I understand your line of thought correctly, you want to visit a series of pages in order to set the conditions for your various parts? What about just putting a little drop-down next to each part name in the collection interface?


Sure, for parts, I guess it could appear at the user collection interface...might be the best place for it.

For package condition, same place as well (collection interface)- when you're choosing the "condition", that's where the packaging condition options show up.

MIKE
engledogg
Dumba$$ that used to buy everything...not so much anymore.

SoS

When I hear the word condition I equate that to the actual physical condition of the toy, not it's completeness. Completeness is a whole other ballgame. This sounds like a whole lot of complication waiting to happen. Rating systems are always a mess. It's just opening Pandora's Box.


--SoS

Tripredacus

If we do use the C Scale, it should be used as intended. It is not meant to be used to describe the condition of a package, boxed or sealed item. I see it used this way a lot and I just shake my head. It is merely to describe loose items. And if we do, we should have an page showing examples of what each scale means towards a figure and accessory. C scale is usually just a judgement call and has no strict guidelines like how AFA handles things.

For example, Beckett sports card magazine uses a typical and accepted condition scale for cards. They are terms like Mint, near mint, very good, etc. Before the price guide would be a page that showed pictures of what cards for each grade looked like. That way people can accurately determine what condition their products were in following this example. I can't find a picture of it online, maybe I still have one at home I can scan.

Of course I know that sports cards are pretty much uniform in size and may not translate properly over to action figures.

engledogg

#10
September 04, 2013, 08:13:33 AM Last Edit: September 04, 2013, 09:13:56 AM by engledogg

If we do use the C Scale, it should be used as intended. It is not meant to be used to describe the condition of a package, boxed or sealed item. I see it used this way a lot and I just shake my head. It is merely to describe loose items.


Then how does one assign a condition to packages or sealed products?  I mean, of course, there's AFA, but I can guarantee that I'm not going send off a stupid $5 ROTF Mudflap to get graded using the "proper" treatment.  :) So how will I know what condition my toy is in?

I don't know...I just did a search for C-scale and got a bunch of sites that do use the C-scale to grade sealed figures.
http://www.mcfarlanes-figures.com/how-to-grade-action-figures.html
http://www.brianstoys.com/custom.aspx?id=4
http://www.collector-actionfigures.com/dash/html/grading_and_valuation_guidelines/
http://www.vegatransports.com.au/csystem.html

Are they all wrong?  And if so, what should scale should we use?  I mean, yes we could use near-mint, mint, poor, etc. but those are just as subjective, if not more so, than assigning numerical values to condition.

Regardless, even if they are wrong in their using of the C-scale, it still seems to be the best scale to convey the condition of sealed items and packages.  In fact, the one that Dash uses may fit our needs very well.

With that said, I'm out.  This seems like it might be heading beyond the spirit of the fun little thing that tusko suggested...a personal goodie that would let collectors keep track of the condition of their own toys.

MIKE
engledogg
Dumba$$ that used to buy everything...not so much anymore.

shmax


With that said, I'm out.  This seems like it might be heading beyond the spirit of the fun little thing that tusko suggested...a personal goodie that would let collectors keep track of the condition of their own toys.


I for one am enjoying the discussion and I'm learning a lot; no need to take your ball and go home.

I've been going through the pages you linked to, and I'm still not getting a real definitive picture of how the scale works or how accessories factor in.

- The original cscale link you posted (http://www.toycatacomb.com/info/cscale.htm) seems to regard a graded "action figure" as the sum of its parts (because of language like "C2.5 - figure/game that has few usable parts and major damage").

- The McFarlane link lays out grades from C10 to C1, and they all make reference to a figure's "card" or "bubble".

- collector-actionfigures also seems solely concerned with carded figures (again referring to yellowing of cards and bubbles, etc)

- vegatransports.com talks about packaging all the way down to C-5, then dismisses anything lower with "these lower grades were invented for items without much packaging. The lower grades speak really for themselves. Originally this grade meant your Loose Complete toy was mint but no one really ever uses any grade lower then C-5 anymore"

- Brian's toys seems to have invented their own interpretation; they describe a range of C10 to C1 for sealed items, then go over the whole range again for opened items, then again for loose items. So by their scheme, if your sealed, carded toy deteriorates to a C1, all you have to do is open it up and bam, it's C9 or C10! They also don't make any special mention of accessories.

Is there indeed a standard for c scale, or is it just sort of a nebulous group-think concept that has been swirling around on its own with no real central management (similar to the way that ebay sellers have perverted and appropriated the terms "misb", "mib", etc)?






engledogg

#12
September 04, 2013, 05:08:17 PM Last Edit: September 05, 2013, 09:15:48 AM by engledogg
Quote
I for one am enjoying the discussion and I'm learning a lot; no need to take your ball and go home.

Yeah...I meant "I'm out" as in I was leaving the house (it is my sister's birthday)...and then an observation about where this thread might be heading while I was gone...sorry I didn't make that clear enough. My balls are definitely still here...:)

Quote
- The original cscale link you posted (http://www.toycatacomb.com/info/cscale.htm) seems to regard a graded "action figure" as the sum of its parts (because of language like "C2.5 - figure/game that has few usable parts and major damage").


I would interpret, and I might be dead wrong (but this just goes back to the subjectivity of assigning conditions to things, using something like the C-scale or not), "usable parts" to mean, for action figures, a perhaps crappy action figure, but with a salvageable "usually non-removable" or "not easily-removed" arm, leg, or wheel...the whole thing isn't toast.  Something could be saved from it...something along those lines.  Perhaps that language is more for games?  I don't know...

Where I'm going with this condition ≠ completeness...if we want to rate parts, we can.  If we want to rate a box or card, we can.  If we want to rate an incomplete figure, we can.  Why not?  This is America, darn it.  ;)

To me, the best way to do handle incomplete stuff, or even complete things, is to assign some sort of rating to each of the individual parts.  That way the user will know what physical condition each part is in.  If we only consider the entire "action figure" as candidate for condition, like I said before, an average score means nothing, using the G2 Gobots Megatron example from earlier.   The more info about something, the better.  Personally, I'd much rather see an individual rating given to each part of a toy, and if you want to do some composite/average score for the figure as a whole, then so be it.

Also, if someone had an incomplete, nearly-pristine G1 Overlord, only missing its instruction booklet, and he told me it was c9, I wouldn't say, "Dude, you don't know what you're talking about...only complete figures can be rated. And because its in c0, since it's incomplete, I'll give you $3."  Condition means actual physical condition.

If people could only assign conditions to complete things, I'm not sure we would be accepting too many ratings.  I'm sure a lot of folks don't have the tech specs decoder to each of their G1 figures, or have all the unused label sheets (because once you apply the stickers, that label sheet goes bye-bye in your parts checklist), and may only have the figure and its accessories.  I'm sure some do, but I'd wager that the majority don't. 

If we don't allow a user to assign a condition to their toy until it becomes complete, that just seems unfair, and would likely tick off a fair share of users...more so than any variant talk ever could.

We don't really have to hold fast to any scale...heck, you could come up with one on your own if you felt like and everyone would then rate their stuff using your "shmax" scale.  It could be a star system, numerical - out of 10, out of 100, anything...it could be as specific or basic as you want it to be.  I just thought something like the c-scale would be a decent start.  Now, to come up with such a thing is another story entirely.  Again, for carded items, I'd lean towards using something like Dash uses.  Or, for both carded and loose items, use something like the one used by Brian's Toys.

Quote
- The McFarlane link lays out grades from C10 to C1, and they all make reference to a figure's "card" or "bubble".

- collector-actionfigures also seems solely concerned with carded figures (again referring to yellowing of cards and bubbles, etc)

- vegatransports.com talks about packaging all the way down to C-5, then dismisses anything lower with "these lower grades were invented for items without much packaging. The lower grades speak really for themselves. Originally this grade meant your Loose Complete toy was mint but no one really ever uses any grade lower then C-5 anymore"


Yes, these were mentioned to show that people do use, perhaps in error, the C-scale, or some variation of the C-scale, to rate sealed figures. 

Quote
- Brian's toys seems to have invented their own interpretation; they describe a range of C10 to C1 for sealed items, then go over the whole range again for opened items, then again for loose items. So by their scheme, if your sealed, carded toy deteriorates to a C1, all you have to do is open it up and bam, it's C9 or C10! They also don't make any special mention of accessories.

And they'd be right...the scale for carded items is separate from loose items.  You can have a crappy carded item that would still as valuable (if not a little more so) as the loose contents of that item.  Throw away the c1 half-torn card, and as long as the contents are fine, those contents are still c9.

Quote
Is there indeed a standard for c scale, or is it just sort of a nebulous group-think concept that has been swirling around on its own with no real central management (similar to the way that ebay sellers have perverted and appropriated the terms "misb", "mib", etc)?

There sure doesn't seem to be, does there?  So that's why I was suggesting we use the C-scale, or perhaps some derivative of it, for our purposes, extending that scale to loose, incomplete items as I'm sure a lot of users on here have a decent number of incomplete items that they'd like to assign some type of condition to for their own collecting purposes.

Again, because this is all so subjective, as those links definitely show (and were intended to do so), anything short of AFA-grading is all up to the person doing the assigning.

MIKE
engledogg
Dumba$$ that used to buy everything...not so much anymore.

Tripredacus

The C-Scale is also known as the Cosgrove Scale and sometimes incorrectly referred to as the Cogsworth Scale. There must be some reference to the actual mechanics or origin of the Cosgrove Scale, but I cannot find anything really about it.

However, there seems to be a different C-Scale called the Condition Scale which was created primarily for Star Wars toys and DOES include package grading.
http://www.vegatransports.com.au/csystem.html

The C-Scale was originally created to grade cards...
http://greattoysonline.proboards.com/thread/4999

And the 1-10 directly responds to the more common text labels of card condition:
http://www.ebay.com/gds/Grading-Non-Sports-Cards-/10000000001800944/g.html

Regarding using the system, anyone on ebay knows it isn't used properly and that trend could also end up here with people not really following the rules in that way. Without actual photos and some grading authority present, people could just say everything was C10 or C9.5 or whatever. And implementing it would be completely useless in the grand scheme of things. It may be something that only less than 1% of users would use properly and truthfully. Here is some discussion on the subject:
http://forum.rebelscum.com/t1031916/

engledogg

#14
September 05, 2013, 09:08:25 AM Last Edit: September 05, 2013, 09:13:10 AM by engledogg
Yeah, no one uses it properly...so why would they here?

Even if we came up with our own condition scale, who's to say people would use that?  And we can't certainly double-check everyone's stuff and send them a PM saying "I was looking at your 'c9' Metroplex and there's a missing tire.  Change it immediately or suffer the consequences." :)

We could put up some kind of scale, say "Please try to adhere to this, if you can.", and call it a day.  If they do, great, if not, not much we can do.

Yes, that seems like a pessimistic attitude to have, but it might be the unfortunate truth.

Perhaps we should move away from a uniform scale and let people judge the condition of their own things, using whatever number/condition they want to give.  If they're not accurate, who cares?  It's just a text field that only they will see...just like shipping cost.  If they want to input a number for it, fine.  If not, that's fine too.

MIKE
engledogg

Dumba$$ that used to buy everything...not so much anymore.

Go Up