Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Thank you in advance,
Ross
Login to Like
this post
When the volunteer group redesigning our discussion board categories discussed how many categories we should create, we tried to achieve a happy medium of not having too many categories with almost no postings in each category, and too few categories that are unwieldy. So, essentially only for U.S. and Canada we created a meaningful second level of categories, separating out stamps, covers, BOB (revenue), etc. For all other collecting areas, there usually is only category. If Germany, to give an example would get too large, a volunteer could start creating sub-folders for German stamps, covers, revenues etc. For now, everything German is in one category.
So, my answer is, put revenues other than U.S. in the appropriate country category. That is where it will get most attention from those collectors that are most likely able to help. Generally, I believe specific identification questions have greater future value if posted in the appropriate collecting category, i.e., for instance a question on a possible Cuba forgery in Caribbean, Cape of Good Hope in Africa, etc. But this is somewhat personal preference. My thinking is that if some member who does not follow the board closely checks back after a months or two the person is likely to read up what has been posted in his/her collecting area, and will thus find any unanswered question more readily.
Arno
Login to Like
this post
Ross, maybe you're thinking the Revenue category is only for US revenues because no-one has yet listed other countries.
Arno: For ALL revenue stamps, doesn't it make sense to always put the country as Category 1 and "Revenue" as Category 2? Similarly with Topical, Covers and Postmarks, Postcards, etc.
Cheers,
Peter
Login to Like
this post
Thanks guys
Login to Like
this post
Peter, I give it to you that it would be logical to have the same structure of sub-categories (stamps, covers etc.) for each collecting area, but -- again -- the trade-off was between having too many fine-tuned categories and just enough so that folks can easily locate the discussions in their areas of interest.
For instance, currently there are no more than twenty discussions in Latin America and Carribean. So there is no point -- other than it being logical -- to create categories for each country and then within each country to have folders for stamps, covers, revenues etc. Anyone interested in Argentina will certainly open the Latin America folder and can easily see what has been discussed in the past. The system is adaptive and more categories can be created as needed, i.e., if there is an explosion of discussions on Argentinian philately one might separate these out. But the issue really is not more categories, but (a) an increase in meaningful contributions to populate the various areas, and (b) to get members to embrace the new discussion board structure and to look beyond the "general philatelic" discussions topic when starting threads.
A full list of all discussion areas is available by clicking "Show Topics" at top. Click on any of these topic areas to see what has been previously discussed on the topic and to perhaps already find the answer to your question. Or, open a new discussion in that specific area. I have no idea what the numbers behind each discussion topic means. It is not the count of threads. So even if there is no number, there is content. (Tim: eliminate the number? Or provide total count of topics instead?).
Sorry, BlueDude, to expand so much upon your quick question ...
Best,
Arno
Login to Like
this post
Hi Arno. I am not saying that we need more or new categories, or a revenue section within existing categories; I was only saying that if a seller had, for example, a German revenue stamp, that the seller is best off listing it under Germany in Category 1 and Revenues in Category 2; we are allowed two categories for each listing. What I thought you said was if someone had a US revenue stamp, they would list it as "Revenue" under Category 1; I am saying that even for US revenues, the seller should list it as USA in Category 1 and Revenues in Category 2. That would be consistent no matter what the country or area was.
I am fine with the existing categories; in my experience, no matter how many or how specific your categories are, they are never enough for everyone. At bidStart, a commercial selling site, I've seen discussion posts asking for more in depth categories (your example of Germany comes to mind), broader categories (a "Pacific Rim" super category was once suggested!), and greater differentiation among existing categories ("Why are Lichtenstein and Switzerland lumped together?"). Everyone has an opinion on categories, the majority wanting some change or another.
In this case, contrary to Vulcan logic, the needs of the many should NOT outweigh the needs of the few.
Live long and prosper with your collections, 
Peter
Login to Like
this post
Arno,
No Worries, From good discussion often comes great idea's!!!
Peter,
So you saw the Star Trek movie this weekend -right!!!
Login to Like
this post
Peter,
I misread Ross' original post as a question about the proper category for a discussion on non-U.S. revenues on our discussion board. We only have a specific BOB category as a sub-topic to United States, but not for other countries, so non-U.S. revenues do not have a specific home. Due to this similarity I misread, and accordingly, my answer does not make sense.
Arno
Login to Like
this post
Hi Arno. No problem; just wanted to make sure I wasn't confusing things (Michael and Kim, keep quiet!).
Ross, I saw the latest Star Trek on the opening night, of course! 
(although I'm not a die hard fan of this "alternate universe" version by J. J. Abrams; still a traditionalist Trekker!)
Login to Like
this post
To error is human -to really fowl things up takes a computer
01 Jun 2013
03:01:32pm
When looking in the "Revenue "Category I see only U.S. revenues. Is this Category for ONLY U.S. or can I list revenues from other countries.
Thank you in advance,
Ross
Login to Like
this post
re: A quick question about categories.
When the volunteer group redesigning our discussion board categories discussed how many categories we should create, we tried to achieve a happy medium of not having too many categories with almost no postings in each category, and too few categories that are unwieldy. So, essentially only for U.S. and Canada we created a meaningful second level of categories, separating out stamps, covers, BOB (revenue), etc. For all other collecting areas, there usually is only category. If Germany, to give an example would get too large, a volunteer could start creating sub-folders for German stamps, covers, revenues etc. For now, everything German is in one category.
So, my answer is, put revenues other than U.S. in the appropriate country category. That is where it will get most attention from those collectors that are most likely able to help. Generally, I believe specific identification questions have greater future value if posted in the appropriate collecting category, i.e., for instance a question on a possible Cuba forgery in Caribbean, Cape of Good Hope in Africa, etc. But this is somewhat personal preference. My thinking is that if some member who does not follow the board closely checks back after a months or two the person is likely to read up what has been posted in his/her collecting area, and will thus find any unanswered question more readily.
Arno
Login to Like
this post
03:56:58pm
re: A quick question about categories.
Ross, maybe you're thinking the Revenue category is only for US revenues because no-one has yet listed other countries.
Arno: For ALL revenue stamps, doesn't it make sense to always put the country as Category 1 and "Revenue" as Category 2? Similarly with Topical, Covers and Postmarks, Postcards, etc.
Cheers,
Peter
Login to Like
this post
To error is human -to really fowl things up takes a computer
01 Jun 2013
05:05:10pm
re: A quick question about categories.
Thanks guys
Login to Like
this post
re: A quick question about categories.
Peter, I give it to you that it would be logical to have the same structure of sub-categories (stamps, covers etc.) for each collecting area, but -- again -- the trade-off was between having too many fine-tuned categories and just enough so that folks can easily locate the discussions in their areas of interest.
For instance, currently there are no more than twenty discussions in Latin America and Carribean. So there is no point -- other than it being logical -- to create categories for each country and then within each country to have folders for stamps, covers, revenues etc. Anyone interested in Argentina will certainly open the Latin America folder and can easily see what has been discussed in the past. The system is adaptive and more categories can be created as needed, i.e., if there is an explosion of discussions on Argentinian philately one might separate these out. But the issue really is not more categories, but (a) an increase in meaningful contributions to populate the various areas, and (b) to get members to embrace the new discussion board structure and to look beyond the "general philatelic" discussions topic when starting threads.
A full list of all discussion areas is available by clicking "Show Topics" at top. Click on any of these topic areas to see what has been previously discussed on the topic and to perhaps already find the answer to your question. Or, open a new discussion in that specific area. I have no idea what the numbers behind each discussion topic means. It is not the count of threads. So even if there is no number, there is content. (Tim: eliminate the number? Or provide total count of topics instead?).
Sorry, BlueDude, to expand so much upon your quick question ...
Best,
Arno
Login to Like
this post
06:06:21pm
re: A quick question about categories.
Hi Arno. I am not saying that we need more or new categories, or a revenue section within existing categories; I was only saying that if a seller had, for example, a German revenue stamp, that the seller is best off listing it under Germany in Category 1 and Revenues in Category 2; we are allowed two categories for each listing. What I thought you said was if someone had a US revenue stamp, they would list it as "Revenue" under Category 1; I am saying that even for US revenues, the seller should list it as USA in Category 1 and Revenues in Category 2. That would be consistent no matter what the country or area was.
I am fine with the existing categories; in my experience, no matter how many or how specific your categories are, they are never enough for everyone. At bidStart, a commercial selling site, I've seen discussion posts asking for more in depth categories (your example of Germany comes to mind), broader categories (a "Pacific Rim" super category was once suggested!), and greater differentiation among existing categories ("Why are Lichtenstein and Switzerland lumped together?"). Everyone has an opinion on categories, the majority wanting some change or another.
In this case, contrary to Vulcan logic, the needs of the many should NOT outweigh the needs of the few.
Live long and prosper with your collections,
Peter
Login to Like
this post
To error is human -to really fowl things up takes a computer
01 Jun 2013
07:59:28pm
re: A quick question about categories.
Arno,
No Worries, From good discussion often comes great idea's!!!
Peter,
So you saw the Star Trek movie this weekend -right!!!
Login to Like
this post
re: A quick question about categories.
Peter,
I misread Ross' original post as a question about the proper category for a discussion on non-U.S. revenues on our discussion board. We only have a specific BOB category as a sub-topic to United States, but not for other countries, so non-U.S. revenues do not have a specific home. Due to this similarity I misread, and accordingly, my answer does not make sense.
Arno
Login to Like
this post
09:04:51pm
re: A quick question about categories.
Hi Arno. No problem; just wanted to make sure I wasn't confusing things (Michael and Kim, keep quiet!).
Ross, I saw the latest Star Trek on the opening night, of course! (although I'm not a die hard fan of this "alternate universe" version by J. J. Abrams; still a traditionalist Trekker!)
Login to Like
this post