Recent messages

I was also unable to open the excel sheet in OpenOffice. Strange… it's just an xml file… ..hmmm.
The solution is simple: rename excel-export.xls to excel-export.xml and tadaaa: OpenOffice will open it without any problems.

I recognize this problem. I enter very mediocre items in my collection as “fair”. This way I keep an overview of my collection. It will be different when you start offering it in your shop. Then the minimum state should also be reasonable, I think.

With the exception of the magazines, because they are fine!
(I skewed this message when Theo had not yet replied!)

The magazines are currently still causing problems for a good overview. At the administrators' meeting it was decided to “suppress” the magazines in the same way as clippings.
A question that only came to my mind after the meeting:
Is that what happens when you go to e.g. “Donald Duck (magazine)” goes?
Perhaps the following suggestion is fruitful:
Clicking on a comic book hero will take you to an initial screen (with possibly at random images). Hence you can make a choice between:
1. Comic books;
2. Curiosities;
3. Comic Information / Secondary;
4. Magazines;
5. Clippings.
Or does that require too much of the database?
Finally, a reaction to Wolter-Jan's contribution:
WJ, you think the Danish magazines are too much of a good thing. That is your right, but it is a collector's item for Toonder (and Kresse?) Enthusiasts.
With the import of foreign magazines I limit myself to those with translated Dutch productions. magazines and clippings are certainly not included. You cannot classify the associated productions under “what has been published and done around it”

Beste Willem
Dat bedoel ik dus helemaal niet (meer).
Ik had in de openingspost wel zoiets geopperd maar ben daar in mijn tweede post al helemaal op terug gekomen omdat ik na een nachtje slapen ook wel inzag dat dit niet te doen is.
Niet alleen vanwege de database die dan te groot zou worden, maar vooral omdat het automatisch updaten van je verzameling niet meer (of onvoorspelbaar) zou werken.
Het was bij nader inzien een slecht idee waar ik niet goed over had nagedacht, en daarom heb ik in mijn tweede post ook iets heel anders voorgesteld.
Vergeet maar wat ik in mijn openingspost gezegd heb, ik zou het liefst die post weghalen, maar dan kunnen anderen niet meer volgen waar het over gaat.
Wat ik nu (vanaf mijn tweede post) voorstel is veel simpeler en neemt vrijwel geen extra ruimte in bij de database.
Wat ik wil is de openingspagina van je verzameling, met series/helden en auteurs zoals hij er nu uitziet, én een soort van controle pagina met dezelfde info, maar dan met allemaal vakjes bij de series en auteurs die je kunt aanvinken.
Wanneer je een serie of auteur aanvinkt op deze controlepagina, wordt deze onzichtbaar op je openingspagina.
Als je op een later tijdstip besluit de serie toch te gaan sparen haal je het vinkje bij de betreffende serie weer weg, en alle info rond deze serie is dan weer toegankelijk vanaf je openingspagina.
Het enige wat deze controle pagina dus doet is bepalen wat er zichtbaar is op je openingspagina.
Er wordt dus niets aan de database van je verzameling veranderd en updates gaan (nu deels achter de schermen) gewoon door.
Ik heb het eens precies nageteld, en op dit moment staan er 202 series/auteurs op mijn openingspagina die ik daar helemaal niet wil.
Dat is ruim 4% van mijn verzameling.
Het gaat hier niet om verkeerd ingevoerde info, maar om bijvangst uit bijvoorbeeld verzamelboeken of tijdschriften.
Hoe nauwkeuriger iedereen dingen invoert, (wat ik overigens toejuich) hoe meer ik mijn verzameling zie ontsporen.
Als straks alle invoer van info bij de tijdschriften klaar is, verwacht ik dat mijn verzameling voor 40% uit ruis zal bestaan.
De catalogus wordt dus steeds geschikter om dingen na te zoeken, maar steeds ongeschikter om mijn verzameling in op te slaan.
Als wat ik voorstel mogelijk is, dan zou dit hele probleem verdwenen zijn.

Dear William
I don't mean that at all (anymore).
I had suggested something like this in the opening post, but I completely came back to it in my second post because after a night's sleep I also realized that this is not possible.
Not only because the database would then become too large, but mainly because automatically updating your collection would no longer work (or would work unpredictably).
In retrospect, it was a bad idea that I hadn't thought through properly, which is why I suggested something completely different in my second post.
Forget what I said in my opening post, I would prefer to remove that post, but then others can no longer follow what it is about.
What I'm proposing now (as of my second post) is much simpler and takes up virtually no extra space in the database.
What I want is the opening page of your collection, with series/heroes and authors as it stands now, and some kind of control page with the same info, but with all the boxes for the series and authors that you can check.
When you check a series or author on this control page, it will become invisible on your landing page.
If you decide at a later time to save the series, remove the check mark from the series in question, and all information about this series will then be accessible again from your opening page.
The only thing this control page does is determine what is visible on your opening page.
So nothing is changed in the database of your collection and updates continue (now partly behind the scenes).
I did a careful count, and at the moment there are 202 series/authors on my landing page that I don't want there at all.
That's over 4% of my collection.
This is not about incorrectly entered information, but about by-catch from, for example, collectors' books or magazines.
The more accurately everyone enters things (which I welcome, by the way) the more I see my collection derailed.
When all the information entered into the journals is finished, I expect that my collection will consist of 40% noise.
So the catalog is becoming increasingly suitable for looking things up, but increasingly unsuitable for storing my collection.
If what I propose is possible, then this whole problem would be gone.

removed

removed

When submitting my collection, I noticed that using the Series and Book Series attributes apparently causes problems.
Various items are often entered under book series. Seems wrong to me. After all, whether there is a series or not.
I also find the SF book series. This does not seem correct to me either. Several publishers have published separate series of science fiction books. e.g. Born, Bruna, Meulenhof and Ridderhof.
For the items in my collection I have passed some changes, but there are many more items in the catalog that have been entered incorrectly in my opinion.
As far as series is concerned, it is striking that little use is made of this characteristic. I often find that the series characteristics and the serial number from the series are incorporated in the title.
I also passed these things as changes for the items in my collection, but there are many more items that have these characteristics.
Incidentally, it is not yet clear to me where I can enter the serial number from the series.

I also think this is a good point from Arwin. The same applies, for example, to the collection of series such as Free Flight, author series and stories and legends. Often the title of the album or the main character of the story appears for heroes, but these are one-shots and sorting by hero is less relevant in my view. A possible solution could also be to create a free field per album that the user can fill in at his own discretion, which you can then sort in the main screen at "my collections". To make this workable, it would also be useful if you could adjust this field at once for multiple books. I myself prefer a combination of heroes, series and authors in 1 column.

In addition to the items that I have come across in my own collection, I have seen quite a few items that have been entered by Essef two or more times in my opinion.
I think it would be wise to go through the sf / fantasy type on this in particular.

Nog een viertal doublures die ik bij het inbrengen van mijn verzameling tegengekomen ben. Deze nummers kunnen er m.i. uit:
191655
202127
204807
214891
Willem ik heb de titels niet veranderd. Mij lijkt dat de beheerders e.e.a. controleren alvorens de items te verwijderen.
Nu denk ik niet dat ik een fout heb gemaakt, maar mocht dat voorkomen dan zou de beheerder de oorspronkelijke tekst weer in moeten voeren. Dat lijkt mij onnodig werk.

Another four duplicates that I encountered when I brought in my collection. These numbers are my guess:
191655
202127
204807
214891
Willem I have not changed the titles. It seems to me that the administrators check before deleting the items.
Now I don't think I made a mistake, but if that happened the administrator would have to re-enter the original text. That seems like unnecessary work to me.

Is it possible to achieve what Arwin means with a small technical intervention? For example, check something so that copies strange to your own collection do not appear?

Sorry Willem, but I do not get the impression that you fully understand what I am asking or what my problem is.
In any case, your answer has little in common with what I see as a problem at Catawiki and the solution that I propose for that.
For example, I get nowhere with the bizarre proposal that everyone should enter their own copy.
I also do not understand why you think that with my proposal of a checklist for your own collection I am looking for an alternative to a catawwiki without data.
I am looking for the opposite, namely that everyone can add so much info to the catalog if he wants, without the lists of collectors becoming unusable due to too much noise.

removed

removed

This topic was discussed during the “administrators meeting” and your proposal is our conclusion. It just needs to be done and it will take time.

I would omit the .0

What has struck me lately is that a lot of items are being added that in my opinion don't have much to do with “comic books” anymore. For example, someone has added a dozen Danish weekly papers from the 1960s, which I think are a bit too much of a good thing. Alkyoto has also added as separate items to Franka the silkscreens that are already mentioned under the different portfolios. Another example: at coll. Free flight I see that all the prints that are in the collection box from 1992 are also presented as a separate item. I think it all shoots through a bit.
Doesn't it make sense to move those “sub-items” to the “main item” of the collection box or the franka portfolio, where the option is then offered to add more images to the item add.
My suggestion is to limit the main selection of a comic book hero to comic books and move everything published and done around it to curiosities or something.
Will, I fear, provide some food for discussion. But I'll just throw it in the group
gr. Wolter Jan

I also run into this “problem”.
A while ago you could still select your list by “hero”, but that option is no longer in the drop-down selection box.

I don't know how to order the comics per series, I don't understand or is this a new suggestion

Which is preferred?
“21.0 × 27.0 cm” or “21 × 27 cm”
in case the strip actually measures exactly 21 by 27 cm?
So with or without [, 0]?
With [, 0] the dimensions seem more accurate to me. Or is it [, 0] considered redundant at the end?

I can imagine (now that I have thought a little more about it) that what I asked for is very complicated to enter.
Of course you have to deal with the fact that your collection is automatically updated as other info add to the catalog.
That becomes difficult if you want to determine things yourself for your own copy.
Perhaps easier to enter, is the option to make certain series and authors invisible in your collection.
For example, by ticking this unwanted information on a separate page. a hundred things in my own collection that I would like to make invisible.
There are also a lot of strange things that I never entered and that refer to an empty page.
I got rid of that immediately.
More control on own copies would not solve this because apparently there are no copies at all.
A checklist is probably also more user-friendly than changing specific info in your collection.
The things it doesn't solve (books popping up in strange collection areas, no name entry check, no price check) are in themselves pretty insignificant trifles.

121962 – 134815
121905 – 134821
Bij de laatste overlevenden zien de foto’s er anders uit, de een is groen de ander grijs. Het album is grijs. Ik vermoed dat de groene foto niet goed van kleur is. Als er wel een groene editie is verschenen, dan kan er toch maar een van deze twee albums de eerste druk zijn.

121962 – 134815
121905 – 134821
The photos of the last survivors look different, one is green the other grey. The album is grey. I suspect that the green photo is not correct in color. If a green edition has been published, then only one of these two albums can be the first edition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_of_the_Rovers
Has been running in England since 1954 .. under another name: Roy Race
Grtz, Wil

Hi Eelke,
No idea further, the only thing I know for sure is that they are one and the same person / hero even if they have a different name. Maybe it's an old story and Oberon wanted to start a new series? Or is there plagiarism :). If I find out, I will put it here.