LastDodo site & app/Background pages166 messages

(You can now see that Jilles was not at his computer at 4:21 AM, but at 6:21 AM :-)

But it doesn't show why he my page removed ...

( He himself didn't know either.)

@Boekenmagazijn: But it doesn't show why he deleted my page ...

Ah, I mentioned that on the forum yesterday in the ' snow in the sun" topic :

We found what's going on, and the problem has been fixed. We have put back the pages that were incorrectly rejected.

Next problem with Links and Images:

If you have added Links and / or Images, it is no longer possible to place additional Links / Images between the existing ones. Probably has something to do with the numbering of the hyperlinks.

Only possibility I see is remove the links and start over.

Newest item and Oldest item. These are automatically generated from Catawiki by grabbing the oldest and newest item to which the name is linked, but ... you can overrule them at the bottom.

Question: What reasons are there for the automatically generated numbers? modify? In other words: what do we ultimately want to see as 'Oldest item' and 'Newest item'? At Yves Chaland I saw, for example, that the automatism was 'overruled' with a reference to a book from 1990, while there is also a book from 2011.
This seemed not to me , so I changed that.

I think they are currently working on that field and we better not touch it. See history.

'Other' in this case is 'Guinea pig'.

@Marco: The point is that according to Jilles himself, Jilles had not (rightly or wrongly) rejected that page, so the History just isn't right. If you can now explain what was going on, then I might get it.

@Arco: There are sections that contain items for which no exact date is known, and therefore no year. That does not mean that you cannot determine which is the oldest object, only the system cannot automatically.
See eg Happy Hans . The book without a year is clearly the oldest. Also the most valuable, although "Most expensive item" here is purely coincidentally correct, because the other books have no catalog value.

@BigBadWolf: I only now see in History that yesterday I "Person" in "Other" would have changed. I'm sure I didn't and it wasn't on that page yesterday either!
And after me Kozy would have changed that "Other" back to "Other". How do you do that?
I think there have been some very strange glitches .

@Boekenmagazijn: Het punt is dat Jilles volgens hemzelf die pagina niet (terecht of onterecht)  had afgekeurd, en de Historie dus gewoon niet klopt. Als je nu kunt uitleggen wát er aan de hand was, dan snap ik het misschien.

Ah, dan ben ik nie duidelijk. Het kwam door een fout aan onze kant. In een aantal situaties werd een goedkeuring als een afkeuring verwerkt. Jilles had op dat moment de betreffende pagina goedgekeurd, echter het kwam bij ons als een afkeuring door. Wij hebben de pagina's die onterecht zijn afgekeurd weer terug gezet.

@Boekenmagazijn: Volgens mij zijn er een paar heel vreemde glitches opgetreden.

Er is inderdaad nog een issue met het type veld. We zijn daar mee bezig.

@Boekenmagazijn: The point is that according to him, Jilles had not (rightly or wrongly) rejected that page, so the History is simply incorrect. If you can now explain what was going on, then maybe I understand.

Ah, then I'm not clear. It was due to an error on our part. In a number of situations, an approval was processed as a rejection. Jilles had approved the page in question at that time, but it came through as a disapproval to us. We have put back the pages that were wrongly rejected.

@Boekenmagazijn: I think some very strange glitches have occurred.

There is indeed another issue with the type of field. We're working on that.

@Zwendel: If you have added Links and / or Images, it is no longer possible to place additional Links / Images between the existing ones. Probably has something to do with the numbering of the hyperlinks. Only possibility I see is remove the links and start over.

That's strange. Let's take a look.

There are sections containing items for which no exact date is known, and therefore no year. That's not to say you can't determine the oldest object, just the system can't automatically.

Okay, that's one reason. Above all, let's continue to sort them out.

Auction catalogs, program books, secondary literature, magazine publications, which are about the person. Immediately add four? In short: do we want to see as the oldest / newest item what a person has made? Or when it has been written about a person? Etc ...

What I am ultimately looking for is a definition of what we do want to see as oldest / newest.

Speaking of glitches ...
Who wants to laugh about Arco van Os ?

Marco, you should definitely have a look ...!

(Someone who is not on this forum, it just called me through.)

Oldest item, Newest item, Most expensive item ... it's all well and good if you can generate it automatically (like the lists on the right side of the homepage).

But if that outcome is too is unreliable, it takes so much work to fix all errors manually, that in my opinion it is better to leave it out altogether.

If in a super-documented section like Comics it doesn't go well by itself, what should that be in other sections?

(Maybe an option for administrators to manually "uncheck" that entire section so that it becomes invisible in the background page?)

Exactly, Peter, you understand roughly what I want to get through between the lines. It is out of control if the overruling can be done by all users. Everyone will give their own definition and those fields will be constantly changed back and forth, with the end result that the administrators will approve everything. Because who will always check all those completed items? And also Catawiki-wide, through all the sections? Personally, I love lists, so I don't have to uncheck them.

If we first determine what we mean by those old / new fields, then we can manage it. Users can report if something really needs to be different in their opinion, we assess it and adjust it in those overrule fields if desired. Much like with that alert button on frozen pages. Something like that. Because this is really not going to work.

I just realized that persons or companies who see factual inaccuracies on their background page, should also be able to report them to administrators, since they themselves may change. There must be a counter for that. And administrators who can handle it. (;-)

Speaking of glitches ...
Who wants to laugh about Arco van Os ?

This puts that photo of Prince Harry in a special light. (:-)

Maybe I am the bastard son of Prince Bernhard and QEII. Until now there were only bastard daughters. Tsss ... What Catawiki is able to uncover really knows no bounds ...

You read the signs in the museum too well, Disney! (;-)

"Elizabeth II of England" as a suggestion for Arco's background page, it could have been a nice Easter-egg :-)

What we do is the following: when a new background page is created, we first check if there is already a background page with a similar name. In this case, a match was found on the word of . What we are going to do is remove common articles like de, het, een and variants in other language versions. That produces better results openly. Less nice results :-)

The "Numbered List" is not displayed in the background page. Well in the preview, so something goes wrong in between.

See eg http://www.catawiki.nl/catalogus/strips/series-helden/12798-oscar-en-isidoor

The "Numbered List" is not displayed in the background page. Well in the preview, so something goes wrong in between.

I think I have indeed already had problems with that.

@Zwendel: If you Links and / or Images have been added, it is no longer possible to place additional Links / Images between the existing ones. Probably has something to do with the numbering of the hyperlinks. Only possibility I see is remove the links and start over.

@Marco That's strange. Let's have a look at it.

In the meantime I have already found out how to juggle with the codes, but it is not really handy.

By the way. we are already getting started or should we wait a little longer?

Some of the pages I entered have now disappeared.

I don't know if they were rejected, but at least I haven't been notified.

As long as it stays that way, I will not put any more work into it.

@Book warehouse: The "Numbered list" is not displayed in the background page. Well in the preview, so something goes wrong in between.

The layout does not work well indeed. Indeed, no numbering is put in front of it. We'll solve it.

@Bookmagazijn: Some of the pages I entered have now disappeared again, I don't know if they were rejected, but at least I didn't get a notification .

Do you have an example of that? It is not yet possible to send a message at the time of rejection. That will be added next week.

Examples:

http://www.catawiki.nl/catalogus/boeken/series-held-in/1454223-

http://www.catawiki.nl / catalog / books / series-hero-in / 610373-

(Not that it would have helped in this case, but it might be useful to have an overview on your own page comes from background pages, just like from the items you entered.)

It is not yet possible to send a message at the time of rejection. That will come in next week

@Marco: Can that option also be used when reviewing items? Then an importer will know soon that his item has been rejected or changed.

@DisneyMeentwijc

If an item is completely disapproved, we administrators are even obliged to comment.