unrealistic owners

Hello,

A recent post https://en.numista.com/forum/topic72983.html#p764147 highlighted the problem of people marking coins they don't have. I think it is a general problem though maybe not that frequent. I don't know.

I have the problem in Austria Habsburg and already mentioned that to admins. My best guess is that people use this to create excel based "catalogue" because you can save an excel copy of your collection.

It is possible for referees to detect that because of unrealistic lists of "1" and because of extremely rare coins being owned by several Numista members as mentioned by erniemix for example. Admins can see that with owners lists.

The idea here is to evaluate the problem and discuss the need to do something.

I can think of some inconveniences:
- the new frequency function is biased, particularly for rare coins. Even may become useless.
- It makes it more complicated for referees to handle the coin lists since they can't move/remove lines with owners.
- any statistics that we drawn from owners are biased (not much though, and again more trouble for rare coins/years, types)

A suggestion could be to detect that and kindly ask members to remove their annoying lists of "1" ? Maybe some automatic detection ?

If I remember right I think we had an instant were most of the catalog was in one collection most likely for database generation but to be honest there are way easier methods to get those infos.
I think most of the time it's people who under all circumstances want a damn double tick instead of putting a tick on 'I don't want this coin' when they have all the coins on a coin page they want.
In the case of rare coins it is likely also possible that reproductions are in a collection.

But I don't see an easy solution for this. I certainly don't want to have to police all the members and constantly ask if those coins belong to a single member and when who it.

My interest in this feature is for research purposes.The Krause catalog is littered with many coins do not exist. Krause were fast and loose when entering new dates. I was successful in donating many of these, but it is difficult to prove something does not exist.
I believe that enforcing compliance with unintended uses of database is beyond the scope of Numista.

Hi

Simply put another "grade", with different name from anything that would resemble the coin quality as is stated at the moment or could be in the future (G/VG/F/VF/XF/AU/UNC), eg. like "DUD".
If coin is added in DUD column, it is not calculated in the percentage, neither in Numista Index, nor in swap page when DUD is added, it simply has no value to broad audience except to the owner himself, to whom it fulfills designated role.
I would also go so far to lock all other boxes if DUD is entered.
DUDs should be visible in Excel export file.
Maybe even add a checkbox in personal settings page, by which user can show or hide duds. To me, these would be a redundancy in screen wiev.

I would also propose that if this "high value upgrade" would be implemented, it would be communicated via Xavier to every user as a system message (which is also a feature badly needed in some cases).

LP

I like that idea as it would clean up the database and would make scarcity by date much more accurate.

Ernie

One more thing. If user adds a dud for certain year, he/she does not see this coin in swap list of others. I guess this would be a true benefit for those that would use this feature.
lp

Quote: "mikimaus"​One more thing. If user adds a dud for certain year, he/she does not see this coin in swap list of others. I guess this would be a true benefit for those that would use this feature.
​lp

Good idea,
​May be is even better to make for each coin (independently whether this coin in the collection or for swap) a new Boolean parameter (True/False) like "Hidden item".

Tick against "Hidden" means that the item for instance:
- would NOT be counted is statistics for RI and Frequency, etc...
- would NOT be displayed in swap lists available across community
- would NOT be counted in Collections, Swap of the user
-...

Quote: "mikimaus"​One more thing. If user adds a dud for certain year, he/she does not see this coin in swap list of others. I guess this would be a true benefit for those that would use this feature.
​lp

​This would be actively counterproductive if someone has a fake of a particular date or type but also wants the real version, which is surely a common situation.

In fact, offhand I can't think of any benefit for the scenario you describe - only negatives. What would the benefit even be?

(Unless you mean that dud coins would be counted as "you own this year" for the purposes of swap lists, as opposed to being actively hidden from them as you seem to say?
If yes, I guess that does have some benefits, though it's still not an obvious positive.)

I guess it will be easier to understand my writing if you try to put yourself in the shoes of people actively doing this (if there truly are). And this "thing" is probably not that sort of stuff people would come out to the open and give proposals or experiences...
Yes, the idea was about not seeing certain coins or years in others swap lists.
It would also be prudent to answer the problem of fake inputs first, which impact us all.
lp

Hi everyone,
would it be a good idea to have the 'double tick' at the top of every page selectable by the user?
That way anybody that wants a double tick on their page, they can juist check it themselves without the need for adding each individual coin to their collection.
I myself collect coins that come mostly from circulation. There are types where I have every available year. However when browsing my collection I often find a page that's not double ticked because of a proof coin or a very rare pattern coin (that I don't want). Being able to double tick that page myself would be helpfull (for me at least).
Tony.

Or you could tick this when you're done with a coin type and with the right settings it won't bother you in your future swap searches.

Thank you for the tip Idolenz. Ik had never used this before.
Coin types that I use this on now show an extra cross, indicating exactly what I wanted ;-)