Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

[BL]

I use AuctionChief, which works well enough; I have some 20 different
automated searches on an hourly interval, and it works quite well.  You can
even export it to Excel; perhaps something like that could be considered.

- Original Message - 
From: "C.E. Forman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale


> The problem we'll run into here is, how do we differentiate between
someone
> selling a complete game and someone selling just a loose disk in a lot
with
> 50 others?   I've got a script I run that does my automated eBay searches,
> but it's really just opening a URL to eBay with the appropriate keyword
> search parameters.  I get tons of false positives, but it's quick to
glance
> through them.  That wouldn't work so well with this.
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 9:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale
>
>
> > If anyone can write an app to poll eBay for a given list of games and
> track the numbers, our job is done.  This whole scale can be automated.
> Game rankings can change in real-time based on actual eBay data.
> >
> > Hugh
> >
> > -----Original Message-
> > From: Marco Thorek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Jan 28, 2004 9:39 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> > >
> > > That's the spirit, C.E.!
> > >
> > > I think we could at least start a running list and watch it grow over
> > > time.  It has to start somewhere.  I'll host it on GOTCHA unless
> > > somebody has a better suggestion.  I can start with about 100 games
> > > I've searched for regularly on Ebay over the years.  I have a pretty
> > > good feel for them in terms of availability.
> > >
> > > You guys could then go through and make comments where you think
> > > they're wrong.  "I've seen 50 of those on eBay in the last
> > > year...that's not rare."  You can also grow the list with your own
> > > personal searches and experience.
> >
> > Do you think about using a CGI script?
> >
> > > I'd like to base the CURIOUS Scale solely on a game's availability on
> > > on-line auctions.  This represents the general availability to the
> > > buying public and is as good an indicator as I can think of.  It would
> > > work like this:
> > >
> > > In the last 2 years, a complete (VG/VG or better) version of this game
> > > has appeared on an on-line auction approximately:
> > >
> > > 20 times or less = Rare
> > > 21 - 80 times = Uncommon
> > > More than 80 = Common
> >
> > You could put condition into the formula as a modifier.
> >
> > > Imaginary, Unique and Oddity would have to be determined by the group.
> >
> > Hm,
> >
> > Imaginary - Not even a single appearance
> > Unique - 5 times or less
> > Oddity - Any game that was not a regular publication
> >
> > You could combine Oddity and the other gradings.
> >
> > > Obviously this is based on complete speculation, but who would be
> > > better to speculate on it than us?  Honestly, I think auction
> > > availability is a better indicator of availability than just about
> > > anything else (including production runs).  Since it is an indicator
> > > of how many are for sale on the open market.  Sure there may be a box
> > > of Drash's in a warehouse somewhere, but how many of us will ever have
> > > a chance to buy them?  We won't...unless they show up on eBay.
> >
> > Well, any grading will always be subjective. We as individuals choose
> > certain factors in our grading and collectively we can arrive at a
> > common denominator that represents us as a group. Others might choose
> > other factors.
> >
> > Marco
> >
> > --
> > This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
> > the swcollect mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send mail to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
> > Archives are available at:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was sent to you becau

Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

[C.E. Forman]

> Good luck parsing this auction correctly  
>  ViewItem&item=3074939557&category=3561>.  ;-)
> 
> Between the typos and the combined auction you're in trouble.

My favorite typo is the "Onk".  B-)


--
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
the swcollect mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/

Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

[C.E. Forman]

The problem we'll run into here is, how do we differentiate between someone
selling a complete game and someone selling just a loose disk in a lot with
50 others?   I've got a script I run that does my automated eBay searches,
but it's really just opening a URL to eBay with the appropriate keyword
search parameters.  I get tons of false positives, but it's quick to glance
through them.  That wouldn't work so well with this.

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale


> If anyone can write an app to poll eBay for a given list of games and
track the numbers, our job is done.  This whole scale can be automated.
Game rankings can change in real-time based on actual eBay data.
>
> Hugh
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Marco Thorek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Jan 28, 2004 9:39 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> >
> > That's the spirit, C.E.!
> >
> > I think we could at least start a running list and watch it grow over
> > time.  It has to start somewhere.  I'll host it on GOTCHA unless
> > somebody has a better suggestion.  I can start with about 100 games
> > I've searched for regularly on Ebay over the years.  I have a pretty
> > good feel for them in terms of availability.
> >
> > You guys could then go through and make comments where you think
> > they're wrong.  "I've seen 50 of those on eBay in the last
> > year...that's not rare."  You can also grow the list with your own
> > personal searches and experience.
>
> Do you think about using a CGI script?
>
> > I'd like to base the CURIOUS Scale solely on a game's availability on
> > on-line auctions.  This represents the general availability to the
> > buying public and is as good an indicator as I can think of.  It would
> > work like this:
> >
> > In the last 2 years, a complete (VG/VG or better) version of this game
> > has appeared on an on-line auction approximately:
> >
> > 20 times or less = Rare
> > 21 - 80 times = Uncommon
> > More than 80 = Common
>
> You could put condition into the formula as a modifier.
>
> > Imaginary, Unique and Oddity would have to be determined by the group.
>
> Hm,
>
> Imaginary - Not even a single appearance
> Unique - 5 times or less
> Oddity - Any game that was not a regular publication
>
> You could combine Oddity and the other gradings.
>
> > Obviously this is based on complete speculation, but who would be
> > better to speculate on it than us?  Honestly, I think auction
> > availability is a better indicator of availability than just about
> > anything else (including production runs).  Since it is an indicator
> > of how many are for sale on the open market.  Sure there may be a box
> > of Drash's in a warehouse somewhere, but how many of us will ever have
> > a chance to buy them?  We won't...unless they show up on eBay.
>
> Well, any grading will always be subjective. We as individuals choose
> certain factors in our grading and collectively we can arrive at a
> common denominator that represents us as a group. Others might choose
> other factors.
>
> Marco
>
> --
> This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
> the swcollect mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send mail to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
> Archives are available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
>
>
>
> --
> This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
> the swcollect mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send mail to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
> Archives are available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/


--
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
the swcollect mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/

Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

[hughfalk]

If we wanted the guide to be perfect, you're right; there would be a lot of hand 
scrubbing.  But I'm really just looking for it to be a solid point of reference with 
some implied margin of error. For example, we could just deal with games properly 
labeled in the title and make an assumption that this only accounts for about 50% of 
the games that show up on eBay (due to spelling errors, bulk listings and titles like 
"old game for sale.").

We would certainly do some hand scrubbing for special items (like Drash), but it 
wouldn't have to be overwhelming.  Also, input from knowledgeable experts would always 
override the automated system.  For example, if Tom has been searching for Ultima II 
every week for the last three years on eBay, I would trust his judgment on its rarity.

Hugh

-Original Message-
From: Edward Franks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Jan 30, 2004 9:25 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale


On Jan 29, 2004, at 10:12 PM, BL wrote:

> Well, I've thought of that, but there's a lot of factors involved, like
> condition etc that will effect prices.  If we pioneered an ebay title
> posting format, then well, it would be pretty easy.  Or alternatively,  
> we
> could only use those entries that have certain information in the  
> title, or
> yet another possibility - just use all "found" auction data, and make  
> that
> the "middle of the road" average.  I'd be interested in something like  
> this,
> and  could code the DB and app.

Good luck parsing this auction correctly  
<http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? 
ViewItem&item=3074939557&category=3561>.  ;-)

Between the typos and the combined auction you're in trouble.  Also,  
you are going to *have* to deal with the auction descriptions, if only  
to separate out all the permutations of game and parts.  A listing for  
Ultima IV that pegs an auction of just the disks with an auction with  
everything will royally mess up your rarity scale.  Even if there is an  
app scraping eBay for the basic info, I can still see people spending a  
lot of time making judgment calls about where each auction fits.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but I think you'll spend more time  
hand massaging the data than you might realize.

-- 

Edward Franks


--
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
the swcollect mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/



--
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
the swcollect mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/

Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

[Edward Franks]

On Jan 29, 2004, at 10:12 PM, BL wrote:

Well, I've thought of that, but there's a lot of factors involved, like
condition etc that will effect prices.  If we pioneered an ebay title
posting format, then well, it would be pretty easy.  Or alternatively,  
we
could only use those entries that have certain information in the  
title, or
yet another possibility - just use all "found" auction data, and make  
that
the "middle of the road" average.  I'd be interested in something like  
this,
and  could code the DB and app.
	Good luck parsing this auction correctly  
.  ;-)

	Between the typos and the combined auction you're in trouble.  Also,  
you are going to *have* to deal with the auction descriptions, if only  
to separate out all the permutations of game and parts.  A listing for  
Ultima IV that pegs an auction of just the disks with an auction with  
everything will royally mess up your rarity scale.  Even if there is an  
app scraping eBay for the basic info, I can still see people spending a  
lot of time making judgment calls about where each auction fits.

	I'm not saying it can't be done, but I think you'll spend more time  
hand massaging the data than you might realize.

--

Edward Franks

--
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
the swcollect mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/

RE: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

[Hugh Falk]

The problem with tracking prices is that it should really take into
account condition as well (which we can't automate).  As long as the
price was clearly stated as a novelty and stated that it was simply an
average sales price irregardless of condition, I guess it couldn't hurt
to include.

Hugh

-Original Message-
From: BL [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 10:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

Hey Hugh,

Yea, a rarity/availibility guide would be cool - but the price info is
there
as well, so even if for novelty informational purposes only, it would
still
be interesting to have that as well.  Totally agree about titles only -
and
there would probably have to be a verification area, where we could
verify
found auctions before they are perminantly put into the DB.  I do admit
that
it would be a moderately ambitious project -- It wouldn't be the first
time
I've parsed Ebay, actually had a very well working one as part of
computergamecollector.com (http://www.computergamecollector.com/ebay/).
Any
user could set up detailed searches and save them, allowing very long
include/exclude strings, longer than ebay allowed at the time.  But
because
ebay changes thier website so much, projects such as these are very
dependent and highly re-active to any changes that ebay makes.  As you
can
see if you do a search, my once perfectly parsed page is now just a big
mess.  :)  But, it would be a good starting point to update to at least
figure out how they've changed thier pages; which looks to be quite
drastic.

Brad

- Original Message - 
From: "Hugh Falk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 12:03 AM
Subject: RE: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale


> I think we'd have to limit it to hits in the title only.  Otherwise,
we
> would get hits for people who put things like, "Come to my site and
see
> pictures of Ultima: Escape from Mt. Drash."  And it would look like
> there are 30 Drash's out there at any given time :-)))
>
> Also, let me reiterate, I'm not trying to do a price guide.  I don't
> care about value.  I'm simply doing a rarity/availability guide, which
> will be challenging enough.
>
> Brad, if you're serious about it, let's talk off-line about details.
> I'd be more than willing to work on it.
>
>
> Hugh
>
> -Original Message-
> From: BL [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 8:13 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale
>
> Well, I've thought of that, but there's a lot of factors involved,
like
> condition etc that will effect prices.  If we pioneered an ebay title
> posting format, then well, it would be pretty easy.  Or alternatively,
> we
> could only use those entries that have certain information in the
title,
> or
> yet another possibility - just use all "found" auction data, and make
> that
> the "middle of the road" average.  I'd be interested in something like
> this,
> and  could code the DB and app.
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 10:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale
>
>
> > If anyone can write an app to poll eBay for a given list of games
and
> track the numbers, our job is done.  This whole scale can be
automated.
> Game rankings can change in real-time based on actual eBay data.
> >
> > Hugh
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Marco Thorek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Jan 28, 2004 9:39 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> > >
> > > That's the spirit, C.E.!
> > >
> > > I think we could at least start a running list and watch it grow
> over
> > > time.  It has to start somewhere.  I'll host it on GOTCHA unless
> > > somebody has a better suggestion.  I can start with about 100
games
> > > I've searched for regularly on Ebay over the years.  I have a
pretty
> > > good feel for them in terms of availability.
> > >
> > > You guys could then go through and make comments where you think
> > > they're wrong.  "I've seen 50 of those on eBay in the last
> > > year...that's not rare."  You can also grow the list with your own
> > > personal searches and experience.
> >
> > Do you think about using a CGI script?
> >
> > > I'd like to base the CURIOUS Scale solely on a game's availability
> on
> > > on-line au

Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

[BL]

Hey Hugh,

Yea, a rarity/availibility guide would be cool - but the price info is there
as well, so even if for novelty informational purposes only, it would still
be interesting to have that as well.  Totally agree about titles only - and
there would probably have to be a verification area, where we could verify
found auctions before they are perminantly put into the DB.  I do admit that
it would be a moderately ambitious project -- It wouldn't be the first time
I've parsed Ebay, actually had a very well working one as part of
computergamecollector.com (http://www.computergamecollector.com/ebay/).  Any
user could set up detailed searches and save them, allowing very long
include/exclude strings, longer than ebay allowed at the time.  But because
ebay changes thier website so much, projects such as these are very
dependent and highly re-active to any changes that ebay makes.  As you can
see if you do a search, my once perfectly parsed page is now just a big
mess.  :)  But, it would be a good starting point to update to at least
figure out how they've changed thier pages; which looks to be quite drastic.

Brad

- Original Message - 
From: "Hugh Falk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 12:03 AM
Subject: RE: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale


> I think we'd have to limit it to hits in the title only.  Otherwise, we
> would get hits for people who put things like, "Come to my site and see
> pictures of Ultima: Escape from Mt. Drash."  And it would look like
> there are 30 Drash's out there at any given time :-)))
>
> Also, let me reiterate, I'm not trying to do a price guide.  I don't
> care about value.  I'm simply doing a rarity/availability guide, which
> will be challenging enough.
>
> Brad, if you're serious about it, let's talk off-line about details.
> I'd be more than willing to work on it.
>
>
> Hugh
>
> -Original Message-
> From: BL [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 8:13 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale
>
> Well, I've thought of that, but there's a lot of factors involved, like
> condition etc that will effect prices.  If we pioneered an ebay title
> posting format, then well, it would be pretty easy.  Or alternatively,
> we
> could only use those entries that have certain information in the title,
> or
> yet another possibility - just use all "found" auction data, and make
> that
> the "middle of the road" average.  I'd be interested in something like
> this,
> and  could code the DB and app.
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 10:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale
>
>
> > If anyone can write an app to poll eBay for a given list of games and
> track the numbers, our job is done.  This whole scale can be automated.
> Game rankings can change in real-time based on actual eBay data.
> >
> > Hugh
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Marco Thorek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Jan 28, 2004 9:39 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> > >
> > > That's the spirit, C.E.!
> > >
> > > I think we could at least start a running list and watch it grow
> over
> > > time.  It has to start somewhere.  I'll host it on GOTCHA unless
> > > somebody has a better suggestion.  I can start with about 100 games
> > > I've searched for regularly on Ebay over the years.  I have a pretty
> > > good feel for them in terms of availability.
> > >
> > > You guys could then go through and make comments where you think
> > > they're wrong.  "I've seen 50 of those on eBay in the last
> > > year...that's not rare."  You can also grow the list with your own
> > > personal searches and experience.
> >
> > Do you think about using a CGI script?
> >
> > > I'd like to base the CURIOUS Scale solely on a game's availability
> on
> > > on-line auctions.  This represents the general availability to the
> > > buying public and is as good an indicator as I can think of.  It
> would
> > > work like this:
> > >
> > > In the last 2 years, a complete (VG/VG or better) version of this
> game
> > > has appeared on an on-line auction approximately:
> > >
> > > 20 times or less = Rare
> > > 21 - 80 times = Uncommon
> > > More than 80 = Co

RE: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

[Hugh Falk]

I think we'd have to limit it to hits in the title only.  Otherwise, we
would get hits for people who put things like, "Come to my site and see
pictures of Ultima: Escape from Mt. Drash."  And it would look like
there are 30 Drash's out there at any given time :-)))

Also, let me reiterate, I'm not trying to do a price guide.  I don't
care about value.  I'm simply doing a rarity/availability guide, which
will be challenging enough.

Brad, if you're serious about it, let's talk off-line about details.
I'd be more than willing to work on it.


Hugh

-Original Message-
From: BL [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 8:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

Well, I've thought of that, but there's a lot of factors involved, like
condition etc that will effect prices.  If we pioneered an ebay title
posting format, then well, it would be pretty easy.  Or alternatively,
we
could only use those entries that have certain information in the title,
or
yet another possibility - just use all "found" auction data, and make
that
the "middle of the road" average.  I'd be interested in something like
this,
and  could code the DB and app.

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale


> If anyone can write an app to poll eBay for a given list of games and
track the numbers, our job is done.  This whole scale can be automated.
Game rankings can change in real-time based on actual eBay data.
>
> Hugh
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Marco Thorek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Jan 28, 2004 9:39 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> >
> > That's the spirit, C.E.!
> >
> > I think we could at least start a running list and watch it grow
over
> > time.  It has to start somewhere.  I'll host it on GOTCHA unless
> > somebody has a better suggestion.  I can start with about 100 games
> > I've searched for regularly on Ebay over the years.  I have a pretty
> > good feel for them in terms of availability.
> >
> > You guys could then go through and make comments where you think
> > they're wrong.  "I've seen 50 of those on eBay in the last
> > year...that's not rare."  You can also grow the list with your own
> > personal searches and experience.
>
> Do you think about using a CGI script?
>
> > I'd like to base the CURIOUS Scale solely on a game's availability
on
> > on-line auctions.  This represents the general availability to the
> > buying public and is as good an indicator as I can think of.  It
would
> > work like this:
> >
> > In the last 2 years, a complete (VG/VG or better) version of this
game
> > has appeared on an on-line auction approximately:
> >
> > 20 times or less = Rare
> > 21 - 80 times = Uncommon
> > More than 80 = Common
>
> You could put condition into the formula as a modifier.
>
> > Imaginary, Unique and Oddity would have to be determined by the
group.
>
> Hm,
>
> Imaginary - Not even a single appearance
> Unique - 5 times or less
> Oddity - Any game that was not a regular publication
>
> You could combine Oddity and the other gradings.
>
> > Obviously this is based on complete speculation, but who would be
> > better to speculate on it than us?  Honestly, I think auction
> > availability is a better indicator of availability than just about
> > anything else (including production runs).  Since it is an indicator
> > of how many are for sale on the open market.  Sure there may be a
box
> > of Drash's in a warehouse somewhere, but how many of us will ever
have
> > a chance to buy them?  We won't...unless they show up on eBay.
>
> Well, any grading will always be subjective. We as individuals choose
> certain factors in our grading and collectively we can arrive at a
> common denominator that represents us as a group. Others might choose
> other factors.
>
> Marco
>
> --
> This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
> the swcollect mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send mail to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
> Archives are available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
>
>
>
> --
> This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
> the swcollect mailin

Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

[BL]

Well, I've thought of that, but there's a lot of factors involved, like
condition etc that will effect prices.  If we pioneered an ebay title
posting format, then well, it would be pretty easy.  Or alternatively, we
could only use those entries that have certain information in the title, or
yet another possibility - just use all "found" auction data, and make that
the "middle of the road" average.  I'd be interested in something like this,
and  could code the DB and app.

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale


> If anyone can write an app to poll eBay for a given list of games and
track the numbers, our job is done.  This whole scale can be automated.
Game rankings can change in real-time based on actual eBay data.
>
> Hugh
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Marco Thorek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Jan 28, 2004 9:39 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> >
> > That's the spirit, C.E.!
> >
> > I think we could at least start a running list and watch it grow over
> > time.  It has to start somewhere.  I'll host it on GOTCHA unless
> > somebody has a better suggestion.  I can start with about 100 games
> > I've searched for regularly on Ebay over the years.  I have a pretty
> > good feel for them in terms of availability.
> >
> > You guys could then go through and make comments where you think
> > they're wrong.  "I've seen 50 of those on eBay in the last
> > year...that's not rare."  You can also grow the list with your own
> > personal searches and experience.
>
> Do you think about using a CGI script?
>
> > I'd like to base the CURIOUS Scale solely on a game's availability on
> > on-line auctions.  This represents the general availability to the
> > buying public and is as good an indicator as I can think of.  It would
> > work like this:
> >
> > In the last 2 years, a complete (VG/VG or better) version of this game
> > has appeared on an on-line auction approximately:
> >
> > 20 times or less = Rare
> > 21 - 80 times = Uncommon
> > More than 80 = Common
>
> You could put condition into the formula as a modifier.
>
> > Imaginary, Unique and Oddity would have to be determined by the group.
>
> Hm,
>
> Imaginary - Not even a single appearance
> Unique - 5 times or less
> Oddity - Any game that was not a regular publication
>
> You could combine Oddity and the other gradings.
>
> > Obviously this is based on complete speculation, but who would be
> > better to speculate on it than us?  Honestly, I think auction
> > availability is a better indicator of availability than just about
> > anything else (including production runs).  Since it is an indicator
> > of how many are for sale on the open market.  Sure there may be a box
> > of Drash's in a warehouse somewhere, but how many of us will ever have
> > a chance to buy them?  We won't...unless they show up on eBay.
>
> Well, any grading will always be subjective. We as individuals choose
> certain factors in our grading and collectively we can arrive at a
> common denominator that represents us as a group. Others might choose
> other factors.
>
> Marco
>
> --
> This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
> the swcollect mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send mail to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
> Archives are available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
>
>
>
> --
> This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
> the swcollect mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send mail to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
> Archives are available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
>


--
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
the swcollect mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/

Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

[Stephen Emond]

>> Stephen Emond stated:
> >All these factors can make creating such a rarity / price guide
> >difficult - but not impossible. I'd say the best way to create such a
> >guide is to start with a database. Since everyone here has their own
> >particular interests (Ultima, Sierra, Infocom, etc.) we could all
> >contribute based on those interests. Useful fields could include:
> >
> >- Game Title
> >- Platform / Format (5.25" / 3.5" / CD / etc)
> >- Version / Printing
> >- Completeness
>
> This could be hard to arbitrarily and succinctly note.

Yes and no. For my personal inventory I have the following columns (with
separate lists per system):

Title / Origin / Version / G / B / M / *

"Origin" is important since a lot of games have localized releases around
the world. "Version" is only used when I know different versions exist
(packaging, format, etc). The last four deal with completeness: (G)ame,
(B)ox, (M)anual, (*)Special (ie: maps, coins, etc). Obviously different
games have different contents but all contents could be simplified into
these four main categories. When making entries in the database the
appropriate fields could be either checked or "X"ed. When comparing prices
the "completeness" could be determined from this. Like I said this will be
one of the harder factors to overcome when determining price. Some games may
have a low value (*) like a Fruit Roll-Up (ToeJam & Earl 2 on Genesis
actually came with one...), while others like early Ultimas have very high
value items like maps & trinkets that affect the overall price greatly.


> >- Overall Condition (to be useful this shouldn't be too obsessive - I
> >  suggest a simplistic "Good / Fair / Poor" system with perhaps a
> >  separate option for shrinkwrap)
>
> I suggest using the abbreviated MobyScale form (e.g. Good/Fine).

The reason I suggest only using 3 grades is to help compensate for the many
other factors. I forget how many grades the MobyScale uses, but there is no
reason it couldn't be used. However until sufficient data is available I'd
still break the scale into three levels when estimating values. Besides,
have you seen a beat up copy sell for triple the price of a sparkly new one?
I know I have.


> >- Auction # (reference only - to avoid information duplication)
> >- Auction Date (to see how many copies turn up monthly / yearly)
> >- Final Bid (obviously for determining value)
> >- # of *Unique* Bidders (not counting multiple bids by same bidder - to
> >  help measure desirability)
>
> This is a good idea.  For a time, I created my own spreadsheets of
> prices for Pac-Man Fever items and Rom action figures.  You can find
> the summary of my findings at
> http://home.hiwaay.net/~lkseitz/cvg/PacmanFever/ and
> http://home.hiwaay.net/~lkseitz/comics/Rom/actionfig/where.shtml,
> respectively.
>
> The most difficult thing to determine from an eBay auction is
> condition, particularly if there's no photo.  And given that not all
> sellers are collectors, determining version, completeness, or sometimes
> even platform might be difficult, especially if they don't answer
> e-mail.  Keeping these lists up took a fair chunk of time, though,
> which is why I eventually gave it up.

I completely agree with you there... Some of the information has to be taken
on faith but on the up side that's what the bidders are doing anyway.
Without pictures seller condition evaluations can be followed since that's
what bidders go for. The main problem is knowing exactly what version of the
game to class it as for comparative purposes. That's the main reason I
recommend teamwork - since everyone here has their own expertise they'd know
best what to look for.


> >If there are any suggestions please add them. If there are volunteers to
> >actually manage such a database, good luck :)  I'd actually consider
> >starting a project like this but I'm already in the middle of two
> >massive collector's guides. A third would likely kill me.
>
> Mind if I ask what kind of guides?
>
> -- 
> Lee K. Seitz
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Ultima and Sega - my two biggest passions. Because they obviously vary in
scope the Sega guide will be on somewhat of a macro scale with detailed
checklists of all the games per system, etc. The Ultima guide is more of a
micro scale and each item has VERY detailed descriptions, stats, pictures,
etc. I think my most recent totals were 1,662 Ultima items and 9,495 Sega
items...

If anyone here would like to contribute to either guide in any way, or have
any advice I'd love to hear it. You can find out more here:

http://www.falcondesigns.ca/

Steve




--
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
the swcollect mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/

Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

[hughfalk]

If anyone can write an app to poll eBay for a given list of games and track the 
numbers, our job is done.  This whole scale can be automated.  Game rankings can 
change in real-time based on actual eBay data.

Hugh

-Original Message-
From: Marco Thorek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Jan 28, 2004 9:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> 
> That's the spirit, C.E.!
> 
> I think we could at least start a running list and watch it grow over
> time.  It has to start somewhere.  I'll host it on GOTCHA unless
> somebody has a better suggestion.  I can start with about 100 games
> I've searched for regularly on Ebay over the years.  I have a pretty
> good feel for them in terms of availability.
> 
> You guys could then go through and make comments where you think
> they're wrong.  "I've seen 50 of those on eBay in the last
> year...that's not rare."  You can also grow the list with your own
> personal searches and experience.

Do you think about using a CGI script?

> I'd like to base the CURIOUS Scale solely on a game's availability on
> on-line auctions.  This represents the general availability to the
> buying public and is as good an indicator as I can think of.  It would
> work like this:
> 
> In the last 2 years, a complete (VG/VG or better) version of this game
> has appeared on an on-line auction approximately:
> 
> 20 times or less = Rare
> 21 - 80 times = Uncommon
> More than 80 = Common

You could put condition into the formula as a modifier. 

> Imaginary, Unique and Oddity would have to be determined by the group.

Hm, 

Imaginary - Not even a single appearance
Unique - 5 times or less
Oddity - Any game that was not a regular publication

You could combine Oddity and the other gradings.

> Obviously this is based on complete speculation, but who would be
> better to speculate on it than us?  Honestly, I think auction
> availability is a better indicator of availability than just about
> anything else (including production runs).  Since it is an indicator
> of how many are for sale on the open market.  Sure there may be a box
> of Drash's in a warehouse somewhere, but how many of us will ever have
> a chance to buy them?  We won't...unless they show up on eBay.

Well, any grading will always be subjective. We as individuals choose
certain factors in our grading and collectively we can arrive at a
common denominator that represents us as a group. Others might choose
other factors.

Marco

--
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
the swcollect mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/



--
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
the swcollect mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/

Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

[Marco Thorek]

> Stephen Emond schrieb:
> 
> For rarity knowing production numbers WOULD be great, but finding the
> original numbers would not be easy. It also wouldn't take into account
> how many copies exist today. It's hard to even imagine, but there are
> people out there who just toss old games in the dumpster - who would
> want a 25 year old game??? (Ok, you can put your hands down now...)

As others mentioned, I don't think production numbers are that much
important. What matters is what turns up on ebay, the one place
accessible to all of us. They are probably thousands of Ataris "E.T."
catridges still buried in some desert in New Mexico, but they will never
turn up on ebay - still you got a pretty high production number for that
cartridge.

If we include production numbers into a formula, we'd have to include
many factors we can't determine: production number total, percentage of
said production destroyed due to being not sold, sold but destroyed by
owner, etc.

Marco

--
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
the swcollect mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/

Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

[Marco Thorek]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> 
> That's the spirit, C.E.!
> 
> I think we could at least start a running list and watch it grow over
> time.  It has to start somewhere.  I'll host it on GOTCHA unless
> somebody has a better suggestion.  I can start with about 100 games
> I've searched for regularly on Ebay over the years.  I have a pretty
> good feel for them in terms of availability.
> 
> You guys could then go through and make comments where you think
> they're wrong.  "I've seen 50 of those on eBay in the last
> year...that's not rare."  You can also grow the list with your own
> personal searches and experience.

Do you think about using a CGI script?

> I'd like to base the CURIOUS Scale solely on a game's availability on
> on-line auctions.  This represents the general availability to the
> buying public and is as good an indicator as I can think of.  It would
> work like this:
> 
> In the last 2 years, a complete (VG/VG or better) version of this game
> has appeared on an on-line auction approximately:
> 
> 20 times or less = Rare
> 21 - 80 times = Uncommon
> More than 80 = Common

You could put condition into the formula as a modifier. 

> Imaginary, Unique and Oddity would have to be determined by the group.

Hm, 

Imaginary - Not even a single appearance
Unique - 5 times or less
Oddity - Any game that was not a regular publication

You could combine Oddity and the other gradings.

> Obviously this is based on complete speculation, but who would be
> better to speculate on it than us?  Honestly, I think auction
> availability is a better indicator of availability than just about
> anything else (including production runs).  Since it is an indicator
> of how many are for sale on the open market.  Sure there may be a box
> of Drash's in a warehouse somewhere, but how many of us will ever have
> a chance to buy them?  We won't...unless they show up on eBay.

Well, any grading will always be subjective. We as individuals choose
certain factors in our grading and collectively we can arrive at a
common denominator that represents us as a group. Others might choose
other factors.

Marco

--
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
the swcollect mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/

Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

[Marco Thorek]

Pedro Quaresma schrieb:
> 
> I like the idea! S could also stand for Super-Unique, Special or even
> Super-Duper! ;)

Oh silly me! I just now understood what Hugh meant with "completing the
acronym" 

Marco

--
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
the swcollect mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/

Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

[hughfalk]

That's the spirit, C.E.!
 
I think we could at least start a running list and watch it grow over time.  It has to start somewhere.  I'll host it on GOTCHA unless somebody has a better suggestion.  I can start with about 100 games I've searched for regularly on Ebay over the years.  I have a pretty good feel for them in terms of availability.
 
You guys could then go through and make comments where you think they're wrong.  "I've seen 50 of those on eBay in the last year...that's not rare."  You can also grow the list with your own personal searches and experience.
 
I'd like to base the CURIOUS Scale solely on a game's availability on on-line auctions.  This represents the general availability to the buying public and is as good an indicator as I can think of.  It would work like this:
 
In the last 2 years, a complete (VG/VG or better) version of this game has appeared on an on-line auction approximately:
 
20 times or less = Rare
21 - 80 times = Uncommon
More than 80 = Common
 
Imaginary, Unique and Oddity would have to be determined by the group.
 
Obviously this is based on complete speculation, but who would be better to speculate on it than us?  Honestly, I think auction availability is a better indicator of availability than just about anything else (including production runs).  Since it is an indicator of how many are for sale on the open market.  Sure there may be a box of Drash's in a warehouse somewhere, but how many of us will ever have a chance to buy them?  We won't...unless they show up on eBay.   
 
So, to summarize, the CURIOUS Scale is an availability scale and not a rarity scale.  This is a subtle difference, but availability is what is really important to a collector. 
 
One other note, I would limit the scope of this list to the same scope as my site.  Computer games  published before 1994.  After that, I'd think 95% of games are common anyway.  There are exceptions of course.
 
Hugh
 
-Original Message- From: "C.E. Forman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Jan 28, 2004 7:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale 


> I love the idea. While a clever acronym I'm not sure what is more> rare than 'unique', let alone what word starts with 's' that embodies> that. I'd suggest just letting 's' stand for 'scale'. Of course then> you run into usage like "ATM Machine" (where if you expand the acronym> the sentence sounds silly).
 
Someone (another collector I think) once told me the term for this is a "neoplasm".  Which to me always sounded like something that oozes out of Keanu Reaves in The Matrix.  B-)  Personally it doesn't bother me, but we could always use the word "standard" instead of "scale".  Or "scarcity", etc.
 
> As for rarity assessment wouldn't production numbers be needed? I mean> there are loads of worthless games out there that you never see on ebay> because no one would buy them, not that they are uncommon. Also the> effect of one game selling well tends to 'scare' other copies up for> auction. Someone commented that its hard to find "Black Magic", but I> found it in the first 30 days of looking. But its possible that if one> or two of these sold that others may follow.
 
I'm sure we could talk to some of our authors and get estimates on production numbers.  Though in some cases, a lot of unsold copies were probably destroyed, especially around 1983-84.  We'd also have to take into account the ease of keeping the box all this time: The inner materials from the Starcross saucer turn up more than the outer packaging because a lot of players tossed it.
 
> Still, I don't think that stops us from taking a swing at it. Start> with a list, and amend it over time. Its bound to be a little off until> it gets some feedback into it.
 
Yeah, it'd definitely be a continuous project.  If somebody found a whole pallet of something once considered uncommon, it'd crash-dive the scarcity and probably the value too.  I like the idea of a bunch of us contributing our own personal observations and averaging them out.
 
> I'd humbly suggest the original Akalabeth and Mt. Drash would be> "Oddity". Stuff like Starcross and Suspended would probably be> "Imaginary".
 
Hmm, I was thinking Imaginary could be reserved for rumor-mill items, things that were either unreleased or exist only in prototype form (Activision's "Leather Goddesses 3", the unreleased Electronic Novels "House of Changes" and "Deadly Summer" from Br0derbund, etc.)  Or things that were believed to possibly exist but hadn't been discovered yet, i.e. Drash for 10+ years.
 
So, from most common to least, would the ratings go: Common, Uncommon, Oddity, Rare, Uniqu

Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

[Dan Chisarick]

Ultima II is also in the Ultima Trilogy :)  Distinct from the others 
because the splash screen says "Origin" and not "Sierra".



On Jan 28, 2004, at 1:18 PM, Howard Feldman wrote:

Sounds cool.  I'd agree that TWO ratings might be better - one for 
'rarity' and one for 'value'.  The Giant list of Classic Game 
Programmers is a good source of game names and authors for starts. 
Digital Press publishes a rarity guide for video game cartidges (and 
some computer games), avaiable for $25.  Thus I imagine it would be 
something along these lines?

I agree the best way to start is we all make our own rarity lists and 
then we average the results or something.  It would also be important 
to distinguish between different versions of the same game, which may 
very greatly in value.  For example, Ultima II comes in a large box, a 
small sierra box, and a small Black on-line box.  Wizardry II comes in 
a flat folder package, and a shiny box like wizardry I.  Each of these 
has different rarities.  Even the rarity for different computers can 
vary although this is generally less important since most of us (?) do 
not collect the saem game for multiple computers unless there are 
other differences besides the floppy disk.

Common
Uncommon
Rare
Imaginary
Oddity
Unique
Shameless placeholder to complete acronym
--

Howard Feldman
Author of the Search for Freedom Computer Role-Playing Game
Visit its homepage at:  http://deep.mshri.on.ca/people/feldman
--
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
the swcollect mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
Archives are available at: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/



--
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
the swcollect mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/

Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

[Edward Franks]

On Jan 28, 2004, at 2:47 PM, Jim Leonard wrote:
[Snip]
When I tackled the grading scale along with Chris, Hugh, Tom, et al, 
it was because we were all using *different* terms for the *same* 
things. It was an effort to define logical/sane grades, what made 
something fall into each grade, and assign them terms that were 
consistent.  All of those elements were never under debate; only their 
terms (and how to arrange them) were.  But a rarity scale would be 
constantly debated: Are production run numbers the only factor to 
consider?  Or is it the demand for that item compared to its 
availability?  If the latter, how can you determine demand and 
availability accurately enough for an official rarity list?  (hint: 
you can't)
	Even worse is that production numbers are really being used as a rough 
indicator of surviving copies.  _That's_ the number you need and the 
one you'll never really know.

--

Edward Franks

--
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
the swcollect mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/

Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

[C.E. Forman]

> I love the idea. While a clever acronym 
I'm not sure what is more> rare than 'unique', let alone what word starts 
with 's' that embodies> that. I'd suggest just letting 's' stand for 
'scale'. Of course then> you run into usage like "ATM Machine" (where if 
you expand the acronym> the sentence sounds silly).
 
Someone (another collector I think) once told 
me the term for this is a "neoplasm".  Which to me always sounded like 
something that oozes out of Keanu Reaves in The Matrix.  B-)  
Personally it doesn't bother me, but we could always use the word "standard" 
instead of "scale".  Or "scarcity", etc.
 
> As for rarity assessment wouldn't 
production numbers be needed? I mean> there are loads of worthless games 
out there that you never see on ebay> because no one would buy them, not 
that they are uncommon. Also the> effect of one game selling well tends 
to 'scare' other copies up for> auction. Someone commented that its hard 
to find "Black Magic", but I> found it in the first 30 days of looking. 
But its possible that if one> or two of these sold that others may 
follow.
 
I'm sure we could talk to some of our authors 
and get estimates on production numbers.  Though in some cases, a lot of 
unsold copies were probably destroyed, especially around 1983-84.  We'd 
also have to take into account the ease of keeping the box all this time: The 
inner materials from the Starcross saucer turn up more than the outer packaging 
because a lot of players tossed it.
 
> Still, I don't think that stops us from 
taking a swing at it. Start> with a list, and amend it over time. Its 
bound to be a little off until> it gets some feedback into 
it.
 
Yeah, it'd definitely be a continuous 
project.  If somebody found a whole pallet of something once considered 
uncommon, it'd crash-dive the scarcity and probably the value too.  I like 
the idea of a bunch of us contributing our own personal observations and 
averaging them out.
 
> I'd humbly suggest the original Akalabeth 
and Mt. Drash would be> "Oddity". Stuff like Starcross and Suspended 
would probably be> "Imaginary".
 
Hmm, I was thinking Imaginary could be 
reserved for rumor-mill items, things that were either unreleased or exist only 
in prototype form (Activision's "Leather Goddesses 3", the unreleased Electronic 
Novels "House of Changes" and "Deadly Summer" from Br0derbund, etc.)  Or 
things that were believed to possibly exist but hadn't been discovered yet, i.e. 
Drash for 10+ years.
 
So, from most common to least, would the 
ratings go: Common, Uncommon, Oddity, Rare, Unique, Imaginary?  Or would 
they be in the order of the letters in the word?
 
> What'd be *incredibly* cool would be to 
get the grading scale and the> rarity scale integrated into ebay :) They 
have drop-downs for lots of> other things, why not this?
 
eBay would never go for it, it makes too much 
sense.  B-)  What might be good is an online repository that could be 
easily queried from a scripting language; that'd let a bunch of people's 
websites easily integrate it, while only having to update at one 
point.
 

Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

[Jim Leonard]

Lee K. Seitz wrote:
   "Rare" isn't an indication of condition; it's an indication of value. 
You are right!  I have corrected that in the MobyScale right now.  The 
new entry reads:

Q: Why isn't "Rare" on the grading scale?
A: "Rare" isn't an indication of condition; it's an indication of 
availability.

Thanks for catching that.
--
Jim Leonard ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
World's largest electronic gaming project:http://www.MobyGames.com/
A delicious slice of the demoscene:http://www.MindCandyDVD.com/
Various oldskool PC rants and ramblings:   http://www.oldskool.org/
--
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
the swcollect mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/

Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

[Lee K. Seitz]

Jim Leonard stated:
>
>thing that it would be impossible to tackle it with any degree of 
>accuracy.  For example, knowing production numbers isn't enough -- there 
>are games that had extremely high production numbers that fetch high 
>numbers on ebay; by the same token, there are games that had very low 
>production runs (1 or less) that are not in demand and sell for 
>prices in the single digits.  So it is my personal opinion that any sort 
>of rarity scale would have no common frame of reference or definition.

Jim, I think you're mentally associating terms that don't necessarily
go together.  I see a similar problem in the MobyScale FAQ, now that I
look at it:

   "Rare" isn't an indication of condition; it's an indication of value. 

This is incorrect.  "Rare" is an indication of how easy or hard it is
to find an item.  Rarity and demand combine to create the game's
value.  As I believe you yourself have said previously on this list, a
game can be extremely rare, but if no one's interested in it, the
price (value) remans low.

If one could attain omniscience, one could instantly assign a rarity
to any computer game given an agreed upon scale.  (Agreeing on the
scale is a whole other matter.)  It would only change when sufficient
copies of the game were destroyed to knock it up to the next level.

Given our limitations, though, we can only make educated guesses for
rarity.  There would be regional differences, but those would
theoretically even out (I think).  Also, if a large stash of a
particular game were found, the rarity might go down.

A rarity list is certainly possible, however it would take a lot of
work by a dedicated group of collectors over a long period of time.

-- 
Lee K. Seitz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
the swcollect mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/

Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

[Jim Leonard]

Lee K. Seitz wrote:
Atari Age (www.atariage.com) followed suit,
although they and Digital Press often disagree about precisely what
numbers best describe some games.  
..and further complicating matters is that the guides are limited to 
their fields of expertise or opinions.  For example, I own 250+ 
Dreamcast games, and I can assure you that DP's Dreamcast section is all 
out of whack (same goes for the suggested dollar value).  I can only 
assume this because no single one of them is a DC fanatic or was very 
much into the DC scene.
--
Jim Leonard ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
World's largest electronic gaming project:http://www.MobyGames.com/
A delicious slice of the demoscene:http://www.MindCandyDVD.com/
Various oldskool PC rants and ramblings:   http://www.oldskool.org/

--
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
the swcollect mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/

Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

[Jim Leonard]

Howard Feldman wrote:

Sounds cool.  I'd agree that TWO ratings might be better - one for 
'rarity' and one for 'value'.  The Giant list of Classic Game 
Programmers is a good source of game names and authors for starts. 
Digital Press publishes a rarity guide for video game cartidges (and 
some computer games), avaiable for $25.  Thus I imagine it would be 
something along these lines?
The problem I have with all of these so-called rarity scales is that 
they are all subjective, and each uses different methods to determine 
said rating.  They're created by single (or a few) individuals, and open 
to great debate.  Such guides are worthless to me, personally.

I agree the best way to start is we all make our own rarity lists and 
then we average the results or something.  It would also be important to 
distinguish between different versions of the same game, which may very 
greatly in value.  
This is something that Hugh clarified, that I wanted to re-mention: 
Rarity != value.  The only way a rarity listing would work is if a solid 
definitive formula was clearly outlined to determine the rating.  If I 
were writing it, I would base rarity solely on measureable facts, like 
availability.  Something like the following:

(Production Run * Multiplier) / (Times Spotted For Sale/Trade/Auction)

Assuming that a very common production run is 100,000 or more units, and 
that the smaller a run is the more it is worth, "Multiplier" could be 
represented as 10 - Production Run (as long as it is never zero). 
That way, runs over 10 would be more than common and produce 
negative ratings; very small runs under 500 would produce very large 
ratings.  Some examples:

Diablo 2:
(200 * (10-200)) / 1000 times on ebay = Rating of -1700
(VERY common)
Akalabeth:
(12 * (10-12)) / 3 times on ebay = Rating of 399952
(extremely rare)
The above is just a suggestion, because the exact math I proposed in 
reality does not work at all :-)  (try it with production runs very 
close to the "common" number of 10 and you'll see what I mean, and I 
also didn't factor in completeness of the item).  Regardless of the 
formula used, it would have to produce numbers that couldn't be debated. 
 Only then would something like a rarity rating work.

Personally, I think that organizing a Software Collector's Convention is 
easier than trying to come up with a formula for determine rarity :-) 
Seriously, though, it's a gargantuan undertaking that has to be updated 
every year as availability changes.  I hate to shoot down the original 
idea, because it's noble, but I honestly don't think it's practical to 
persue.
--
Jim Leonard ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
World's largest electronic gaming project:http://www.MobyGames.com/
A delicious slice of the demoscene:http://www.MindCandyDVD.com/
Various oldskool PC rants and ramblings:   http://www.oldskool.org/

--
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
the swcollect mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/

Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

[Lee K. Seitz]

Stephen Emond stated:
>
>Rarity, value and desirability are all difficult things to measure with
>any accuracy - especially when relying on eBay for information.

I'd consider desirability to be a very subjective thing.  Most of you
would love to have a MS Mt. Drash, but it wouldn't really do anything
for me.  (Please don't burn the heretic.)  Theoretically, value should
be equivalent to some equation combining rarity and demand.  The
problem, as you pointed out below, is demand/desirability fluctuates
as people come and go, lack or have extra funds, etc.

>For rarity knowing production numbers WOULD be great, but finding the
>original numbers would not be easy. It also wouldn't take into account
>how many copies exist today.

Agreed.

>Value is something that could be more accurately measured but it would
>take a LOT of research. Values also have a way of hitting extreme highs
>and lows based on how the auctions are advertised, who sees them, who
>has the money at the time, etc, etc, etc.


>With VGs (for the most
>part) you only need to worry about the overall condition a minimal
>amount of contents: Cart/CD, Manual, and Box.

True, but let me give you a bit of background.  I believe the first
video game rarity list was created by Craig "VGR" Pell for Atari
2600 games.  IIRC, the early drafts only had four or five ratings:

C = common
U = uncommon
R = rare
ER = extremely rare
NR = never released

ER is the one I forget if it was there at first.  Later, he added:

UR = unbelievably rare

which I believe he used primarily for games that only existed as
prototypes.  (It was between ER and NR.)

Obviously, there's a few problems with this; mainly too many Us and
Rs.  Other people started their own rarity lists for other systems
with slightly different variations (for example, futher breaking
things down to C- (really common), C, and C+ (common, but not as
common as just C), etc.), but most did something along these lines.

I don't have the earliest Digital Press Guides, but as some point they
decided to implement a numeric system from 1 (common as dirt*) to 10
(mind-bogglingly rare*).  Atari Age (www.atariage.com) followed suit,
although they and Digital Press often disagree about precisely what
numbers best describe some games.  Then DP realized that just because
a game is rare doesn't mean it's value is necessarily high, so they
added prices to their guide.  However, if a game is so rare that an
actual dollar figure is impossible to suggest, they simply use "$$$."

* That's not what they actually call them, but that's the intent.

>All these factors can make creating such a rarity / price guide
>difficult - but not impossible. I'd say the best way to create such a
>guide is to start with a database. Since everyone here has their own
>particular interests (Ultima, Sierra, Infocom, etc.) we could all
>contribute based on those interests. Useful fields could include:
>
>- Game Title
>- Platform / Format (5.25" / 3.5" / CD / etc)
>- Version / Printing
>- Completeness

This could be hard to arbitrarily and succinctly note.

>- Overall Condition (to be useful this shouldn't be too obsessive - I
>  suggest a simplistic "Good / Fair / Poor" system with perhaps a
>  separate option for shrinkwrap)

I suggest using the abbreviated MobyScale form (e.g. Good/Fine).

>- Auction # (reference only - to avoid information duplication)
>- Auction Date (to see how many copies turn up monthly / yearly)
>- Final Bid (obviously for determining value)
>- # of *Unique* Bidders (not counting multiple bids by same bidder - to
>  help measure desirability)

This is a good idea.  For a time, I created my own spreadsheets of
prices for Pac-Man Fever items and Rom action figures.  You can find
the summary of my findings at
http://home.hiwaay.net/~lkseitz/cvg/PacmanFever/ and
http://home.hiwaay.net/~lkseitz/comics/Rom/actionfig/where.shtml,
respectively.

The most difficult thing to determine from an eBay auction is
condition, particularly if there's no photo.  And given that not all
sellers are collectors, determining version, completeness, or sometimes
even platform might be difficult, especially if they don't answer
e-mail.  Keeping these lists up took a fair chunk of time, though,
which is why I eventually gave it up.

>If there are any suggestions please add them. If there are volunteers to
>actually manage such a database, good luck :)  I'd actually consider
>starting a project like this but I'm already in the middle of two
>massive collector's guides. A third would likely kill me.

Mind if I ask what kind of guides?

-- 
Lee K. Seitz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
the swcollect mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/

Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

[Lee K. Seitz]

Dan Chisarick stated:
>
>What'd be *incredibly* cool would be to get the grading scale and the
>rarity scale integrated into ebay :)  They have drop-downs for lots of
>other things, why not this?

Because everything would become Mint Shrinked and Unique. 8)

-- 
Lee K. Seitz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
the swcollect mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/

Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

[Jim Leonard]

Hugh Falk wrote:

This group has tackled the issue of a condition grading scale.  
This group, in fact, was created specifically for that purpose :)

anybody think it’s worth trying to put together a rarity scale?  You 
know…to judge how common a game is.
In very simple and plain terms, I think that rarity is such a subjective 
thing that it would be impossible to tackle it with any degree of 
accuracy.  For example, knowing production numbers isn't enough -- there 
are games that had extremely high production numbers that fetch high 
numbers on ebay; by the same token, there are games that had very low 
production runs (1 or less) that are not in demand and sell for 
prices in the single digits.  So it is my personal opinion that any sort 
of rarity scale would have no common frame of reference or definition.

When I tackled the grading scale along with Chris, Hugh, Tom, et al, it 
was because we were all using *different* terms for the *same* things. 
It was an effort to define logical/sane grades, what made something fall 
into each grade, and assign them terms that were consistent.  All of 
those elements were never under debate; only their terms (and how to 
arrange them) were.  But a rarity scale would be constantly debated: 
Are production run numbers the only factor to consider?  Or is it the 
demand for that item compared to its availability?  If the latter, how 
can you determine demand and availability accurately enough for an 
official rarity list?  (hint: you can't)

So my official opinion is that it would be a fruitless, unenforceable 
exercise.  But I give credit for Hugh for coming up with a cute acronym :)
--
Jim Leonard ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
World's largest electronic gaming project:http://www.MobyGames.com/
A delicious slice of the demoscene:http://www.MindCandyDVD.com/
Various oldskool PC rants and ramblings:   http://www.oldskool.org/

--
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
the swcollect mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/

Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

[Howard Feldman]

Sounds cool.  I'd agree that TWO ratings might be better - one for 
'rarity' and one for 'value'.  The Giant list of Classic Game 
Programmers is a good source of game names and authors for starts. 
Digital Press publishes a rarity guide for video game cartidges (and 
some computer games), avaiable for $25.  Thus I imagine it would be 
something along these lines?

I agree the best way to start is we all make our own rarity lists and 
then we average the results or something.  It would also be important to 
distinguish between different versions of the same game, which may very 
greatly in value.  For example, Ultima II comes in a large box, a small 
sierra box, and a small Black on-line box.  Wizardry II comes in a flat 
folder package, and a shiny box like wizardry I.  Each of these has 
different rarities.  Even the rarity for different computers can vary 
although this is generally less important since most of us (?) do not 
collect the saem game for multiple computers unless there are other 
differences besides the floppy disk.

Common 

Uncommon 

Rare 

Imaginary 

Oddity 

Unique 

Shameless placeholder to complete acronym 
--

Howard Feldman
Author of the Search for Freedom Computer Role-Playing Game
Visit its homepage at:  http://deep.mshri.on.ca/people/feldman
--
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
the swcollect mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/

Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

[hughfalk]

First of all, the acronym was basically a joke, but if it sticks, that’s cool with me. 
 Another reasonable option is to name it after whatever site is going to host the list 
(like the Mobyscale.)  But if we do go the acronym route:

- Imaginary is meant for games that are only rumored to exist.  For example, Mt. Drash 
before any of us had one.  Or the fabled green-box Ultima VII (I just made that one 
up).  Suspended is not Imaginary.

- Oddity is a bit of a stretch.  I don’t even know if it’s useful, but it could be 
used for bad production runs, etc.  Maybe it is a modifier.

- Unique means one of a kind.  This would apply to a master disk/cart or if there was 
only one known copy of a game in the world.  Lets avoid saying a game is “more unique” 
or some similar designation.

I, O & Unique would be very rarely used.  These would just be used to account for 
weird stuff out there.  99% of all games would be C, U or R.

I like “S” standing for “scale.”  Makes sense although CURIOUS Scale would be 
redundant as Dan points out.


One more note – this is a rarity scale.  It is not meant to imply value.  It is just 
meant to designate rarity.  Value and rarity do not necessarily go hand in hand.  Of 
course, one of the benefits of having a scale is that “worthless” games designated 
Rare might go up in value if the market grows and pays attention to the scale.  

Production numbers aren't needed, but could certainly be helpful if known.

Having this integrated into eBay would be awesome.  Of course, if it were going to 
happen it would likely be a feature for other (more popular) collectibles first – 
comics, baseball cards, etc.  If we have our act together, we could certainly apply 
the feature to games as well.  In the meantime, it would be great to see people on 
eBay regularly referencing the Mobyscale for condition and the CURIOUS Scale for 
rarity just in the text of the ad.

Hugh


-Original Message-
From: Dan Chisarick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Jan 28, 2004 5:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

I love the idea.  While a clever acronym I'm not sure what is more rare 
than 'unique', let alone what word starts with 's' that embodies that.  
I'd suggest just letting 's' stand for 'scale'.  Of course then you run 
into usage like "ATM Machine" (where if you expand the acronym the 
sentence sounds silly).

As for rarity assessment wouldn't production numbers be needed?  I mean 
there are loads of worthless games out there that you never see on ebay 
because no one would buy them, not that they are uncommon.  Also the 
effect of one game selling well tends to 'scare' other copies up for 
auction.  Someone commented that its hard to find "Black Magic", but I 
found it in the first 30 days of looking.  But its possible that if one 
or two of these sold that others may follow.

Still, I don't think that stops us from taking a swing at it.  Start 
with a list, and amend it over time.  Its bound to be a little off 
until it  gets some feedback into it.

I'd humbly suggest the original Akalabeth and Mt. Drash would be 
"Oddity".  Stuff like Starcross and Suspended would probably be 
"Imaginary".

What'd be *incredibly* cool would be to get the grading scale and the 
rarity scale integrated into ebay :)  They have drop-downs for lots of 
other things, why not this?


On Jan 27, 2004, at 11:44 PM, Hugh Falk wrote:

> Hey guys,
>
>  
>
> This group has tackled the issue of a condition grading scale.  Does 
> anybody think it?s worth trying to put together a rarity scale?  You 
> know?to judge how common a game is.  I?d recommend we call is the 
> CURIOUS scale:
>
>  
>
> Common
>
> Uncommon
>
> Rare
>
> Imaginary
>
> Oddity
>
> Unique
>
> Shameless placeholder to complete acronym
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Seriously, there are a few sites that do this specifically for 
> cartridge-based media, but wouldn?t it be nice to have one for our 
> hobby?  How would we judge rarity?  We could poll the list of 
> collectors for starters.  A place like Brad?s computer game collector 
> site (http://www.computergamecollector.com) would be ideal for 
> tracking this info if it was supported by most of us.  We could then 
> add more subjective info like the number of times a game was spotted 
> on eBay.  It would be great if we could actually track this as part of 
> the DB.
>
>  
>
> Anyway, I know this is ambitious?a lot more ambitious than the 
> condition grading scale, but what do you think?
>
>  
>
> Speaking of ambitious, I?ll be looking into hotel conference rooms 
> this week.
>
>  
>
> Hugh



--
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
the swcollect mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/

Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

[Stephen Emond]

Rarity, value and desirability are 
all difficult things to measure with any accuracy - especially when relying on 
eBay for information. 
 
For rarity knowing production 
numbers WOULD be great, but finding the original numbers would not be easy. It 
also wouldn't take into account how many copies exist today. It's hard to even 
imagine, but there are people out there who just toss old games in the dumpster 
- who would want a 25 year old game??? (Ok, you can put your hands down 
now...)
 
Value is something that could be 
more accurately measured but it would take a LOT of research. Values also have a 
way of hitting extreme highs and lows based on how the auctions are advertised, 
who sees them, who has the money at the time, etc, etc, etc. Again over time 
things would even themselves out but for some of the rarer "once or twice 
annually" games it would take a while to get an accurate picture. Video Games 
are also far easier to price than Computer Games. With VGs (for the most 
part) you only need to worry about the overall condition a minimal amount of 
contents: Cart/CD, Manual, and Box. Older CGs often had a LOT more - just open 
up any old Ultima. That leads to a lot more "incomplete" pricing. "Complete 
minus Ankh", "Complete minus Cloth Map", "Complete minus Ref Card"... Plus there 
are far more platforms and prints to consider. Most VGs see one or two 
(noticeably different) printings. How many different Ultima IIIs are there? They 
would have to be valued separately since some are worth more than 
others.
 
Desirability can skew things 
further. Some rare items might have very low desirability leading to lower 
prices than you’d expect. Supposedly the special Sega Mega Drive conversion of 
the original SMS Phantasy Star only had 1000 copies - and only in Japan. That’s 
a lot less than Mt. Drash. So in theory it should sell for a lot more right? 
Strangely they usually end around $100. Other games are more common than dirt, 
but so many people want them prices end up being a lot higher than they should 
be.
 
 
All these factors can make creating 
such a rarity / price guide difficult - but not impossible. I’d say the best way 
to create such a guide is to start with a database. Since everyone here has 
their own particular interests (Ultima, Sierra, Infocom, etc.) we could all 
contribute based on those interests. Useful fields could 
include:
 
- Game Title
- Platform / Format (5.25” / 3.5” / 
CD / etc)
- Version / 
Printing
- Completeness
- Overall Condition (to be useful 
this shouldn’t be too obsessive - I suggest a simplistic “Good / Fair / Poor” 
system with perhaps a separate option for shrinkwrap)
- Auction # (reference only - to 
avoid information duplication)
- Auction Date (to see how many 
copies turn up monthly / yearly)
- Final Bid (obviously for 
determining value)
- # of *Unique* Bidders (not 
counting multiple bids by same bidder - to help measure 
desirability)
 
As the database grows the fields 
could be sorted and price ranges could be determined (as well as means & 
medians based on various condition levels, etc). Factors such as shipping “to US 
only” (damned Americans), high S&H fees, high/low feedback, etc all affect 
final bids but all the games are subject to these same factors, so they’ll 
balance over time.
 
If there are any suggestions please 
add them. If there are volunteers to actually manage such a database, good luck 
:)  I’d actually consider starting a 
project like this but I’m already in the middle of two massive collector’s 
guides. A third would likely kill me.
 Steve
 
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dan Chisarick 
  
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 6:54 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [SWCollect] Rarity 
  Scale
  I love the idea. While a clever acronym I'm not sure what is 
  more rare than 'unique', let alone what word starts with 's' that embodies 
  that. I'd suggest just letting 's' stand for 'scale'. Of course then you run 
  into usage like "ATM Machine" (where if you expand the acronym the sentence 
  sounds silly).As for rarity assessment wouldn't production numbers be 
  needed? I mean there are loads of worthless games out there that you never see 
  on ebay because no one would buy them, not that they are uncommon. Also the 
  effect of one game selling well tends to 'scare' other copies up for auction. 
  Someone commented that its hard to find "Black Magic", but I found it in the 
  first 30 days of looking. But its possible that if one or two of these sold 
  that others may follow.Still, I don't think that stops us from taking 
  a swing at it. Start with a list, and amend it over time. Its bound to be a 
  little off until it gets some feedback into it.I'd humbly suggest the 
  original Akalabeth and Mt. Drash would be "Oddity&quo

Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

[Dan Chisarick]

I love the idea.  While a clever acronym I'm not sure what is more rare than 'unique', let alone what word starts with 's' that embodies that.  I'd suggest just letting 's' stand for 'scale'.  Of course then you run into usage like "ATM Machine" (where if you expand the acronym the sentence sounds silly).

As for rarity assessment wouldn't production numbers be needed?  I mean there are loads of worthless games out there that you never see on ebay because no one would buy them, not that they are uncommon.  Also the effect of one game selling well tends to 'scare' other copies up for auction.  Someone commented that its hard to find "Black Magic", but I found it in the first 30 days of looking.  But its possible that if one or two of these sold that others may follow.

Still, I don't think that stops us from taking a swing at it.  Start with a list, and amend it over time.  Its bound to be a little off until it  gets some feedback into it.

I'd humbly suggest the original Akalabeth and Mt. Drash would be "Oddity".  Stuff like Starcross and Suspended would probably be "Imaginary".

What'd be *incredibly* cool would be to get the grading scale and the rarity scale integrated into ebay :)  They have drop-downs for lots of other things, why not this?


On Jan 27, 2004, at 11:44 PM, Hugh Falk wrote:

Hey guys,

 

This group has tackled the issue of a condition grading scale.  Does anybody think it’s worth trying to put together a rarity scale?  You know…to judge how common a game is.  I’d recommend we call is the CURIOUS scale:

 

Common

Uncommon

Rare

Imaginary

Oddity

Unique

Shameless placeholder to complete acronym

 

 

Seriously, there are a few sites that do this specifically for cartridge-based media, but wouldn’t it be nice to have one for our hobby?  How would we judge rarity?  We could poll the list of collectors for starters.  A place like Brad’s computer game collector site (http://www.computergamecollector.com) would be ideal for tracking this info if it was supported by most of us.  We could then add more subjective info like the number of times a game was spotted on eBay.  It would be great if we could actually track this as part of the DB.

 

Anyway, I know this is ambitious…a lot more ambitious than the condition grading scale, but what do you think?

 

Speaking of ambitious, I’ll be looking into hotel conference rooms this week.

 

Hugh

Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

[Pedro Quaresma]

I like the idea! S could also stand for Super-Unique, Special or even Super-Duper! ;)

Perhaps we could also make a scale for general "covetedness" (does this word even exist?!) of a game? I for example have several extremely rare (probably an U on the CURIOUS scale ;) ) RPGs that aren't coveted by anyone, hence they are usually sold cheap.

--
Pedro R. Quaresma
Salvador Caetano IMVT
Div. Sistemas de Informação / Systems and Information Division
Administração e Desenvolvimento Lotus Notes / 
Lotus Notes Administration and Development
[EMAIL PROTECTED] // +351 22 7867000 (ext. 3492)

Toyota Prius '01, Aqua Ice Opalescent, 37K km., "Esperanza"
 
'People don't quit playing because they grow old. They grow old because they quit playing.' - Oliver Wendell Holmes









                     

        
Para: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A/C: 
Ref: 
cc: (bcc: Pedro Quaresma/SCAETANO)
Assunto: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale


"Hugh Falk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28-01-2004 04:44


Solicita-se resposta a swcollect


Hey guys,
 
This group has tackled the issue of a condition grading scale.  Does anybody think it's worth trying to put together a rarity scale?  You know…to judge how common a game is.  I'd recommend we call is the CURIOUS scale:
 
Common
Uncommon
Rare
Imaginary
Oddity
Unique
Shameless placeholder to complete acronym
 
 
Seriously, there are a few sites that do this specifically for cartridge-based media, but wouldn't it be nice to have one for our hobby?  How would we judge rarity?  We could poll the list of collectors for starters.  A place like Brad's computer game collector site (http://www.computergamecollectorcom) would be ideal for tracking this info if it was supported by most of us.  We could then add more subjective info like the number of times a game was spotted on eBay.  It would be great if we could actually track this as part of the DB.
 
Anyway, I know this is ambitious…a lot more ambitious than the condition grading scale, but what do you think?
 
Speaking of ambitious, I'll be looking into hotel conference rooms this week.
 
Hugh
 




ToyotaShopping - A sua Loja Toyota Online
http://www.toyota.pt

Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale

[Marco Thorek]

> Hugh Falk schrieb:
> 
> Common
> 
> Uncommon
> 
> Rare
> 
> Imaginary
> 
> Oddity
> 
> Unique
> 
> Shameless placeholder to complete acronym

Better to have than having sex? ;-)

> Anyway, I know this is ambitious…a lot more ambitious than the
> condition grading scale, but what do you think?

Seriously, I think it's a pretty neat idea. Every member of this list
could jude it on personal experience and you could calculate the mean
and the median. 

Marco

--
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
the swcollect mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/

[SWCollect] Rarity Scale

[Hugh Falk]

Hey guys,

 

This group has tackled the issue of a condition grading
scale.  Does anybody think it’s worth trying to put together a
rarity scale?  You know…to judge how common a game is.  I’d
recommend we call is the CURIOUS scale:

 

Common

Uncommon

Rare

Imaginary

Oddity

Unique

Shameless placeholder to complete acronym

 

 

Seriously, there are a few sites that do this specifically
for cartridge-based media, but wouldn’t it be nice to have one for our
hobby?  How would we judge rarity?  We could poll the list of
collectors for starters.  A place like Brad’s computer game
collector site (http://www.computergamecollector.com)
would be ideal for tracking this info if it was supported by most of us. 
We could then add more subjective info like the number of times a game was
spotted on eBay.  It would be great if we could actually track this as
part of the DB.

 

Anyway, I know this is ambitious…a lot more ambitious
than the condition grading scale, but what do you think?

 

Speaking of ambitious, I’ll be looking into hotel
conference rooms this week.

 

Hugh