Beckett Message Boards

You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
I have a card marked as have=2, keep=2, yet in the trade dialog it shows as available for trade. I keep multiples of several players, so this is potentially a big hassle. Anyone else noticed this?

Thanks,
Arik
(08-02-2011 12:48 PM)aflorimonte Wrote: [ -> ]I have a card marked as have=2, keep=2, yet in the trade dialog it shows as available for trade. I keep multiples of several players, so this is potentially a big hassle. Anyone else noticed this?

Thanks,
Arik

'Have' and 'keep' have nothing to do with it... What is important is the 'trade for' and 'trade away' boxes these are the only two that are active
Oh, that's @!*&! brilliant. Now I get to revisit my entire collection AGAIN to make sure everything is correct.

Why is there a keep and want column then? When are you going to finalize the rules? And why have I been paying for for a broken site for 8 months? Ridiculous.
I have received offers too for cards that I had dups of. "haves" = 2; "keeps" = 1; "trade away" = 1; after trading away the card the "haves" = 1; "keeps" = 1; "trade away" = 1. So why does the "haves column automatically adjust the number but the trade away column can not? It worked on the old site.
(08-02-2011 01:22 PM)aflorimonte Wrote: [ -> ]Oh, that's @!*&! brilliant. Now I get to revisit my entire collection AGAIN to make sure everything is correct.

Why is there a keep and want column then? When are you going to finalize the rules? And why have I been paying for for a broken site for 8 months? Ridiculous.

not everyone is here to trade, the majority of folks use org for inventory. that's why there is keep and want, and why it is separate from trade for etc
(08-02-2011 02:32 PM)jacobystealshome Wrote: [ -> ]not everyone is here to trade, the majority of folks use org for inventory. that's why there is keep and want, and why it is separate from trade for etc

If that's the purpose, they should create ONE flag for each account, saying whether you're trading or not. That would control whether your cards show up for trade or not. To create one flag for each of a bazillion db entries seems pretty inefficient.

But the bottom line for me is that I've been through the exercise of marking all my cards correctly... twice! And now I have to go through a third time. All this time paying for a service that doesn't work right and keeps changing.

I have no problem with growing pains on the new site, but I do have a problem paying to be a alpha tester.

-Arik
so wait....because they have a system that is set up for multiple kinds of collector', and you couldnt figure it out...that's a bug?

sounds like PICNIC to me
(08-03-2011 11:12 AM)jacobystealshome Wrote: [ -> ]so wait....because they have a system that is set up for multiple kinds of collector', and you couldnt figure it out...that's a bug?

sounds like PICNIC to me

I figured it out just fine. I set up my entire collection on the old site, and it worked, if slowly. Then they upgraded the site and the have/keep/trade were all screwed up, so I went through my collection again, and set it up as I was told it needed to be set up, which worked until Beckett changed it again.

And regarding your first point, I didn't say it was a bug except in my initial post. If what you described is in fact the reason for it, then it's a poor design decision. You don't need those extra fields, and here's why:

First of all, each collection can be either public or private, which would already control whether those cards show up for trade or not. Secondly, if you had users who really wanted a public collection and needed to be able to set their "have" without setting their "keeps", that could be controlled by an opt in/out for trade.

-Arik
(08-03-2011 12:24 PM)aflorimonte Wrote: [ -> ]I figured it out just fine. I set up my entire collection on the old site, and it worked, if slowly. Then they upgraded the site and the have/keep/trade were all screwed up, so I went through my collection again, and set it up as I was told it needed to be set up, which worked until Beckett changed it again.

And regarding your first point, I didn't say it was a bug except in my initial post. If what you described is in fact the reason for it, then it's a poor design decision. You don't need those extra fields, and here's why:

First of all, each collection can be either public or private, which would already control whether those cards show up for trade or not. Secondly, if you had users who really wanted a public collection and needed to be able to set their "have" without setting their "keeps", that could be controlled by an opt in/out for trade.

-Arik

Unfortunately Beckett doesn't see it that way... It defies logic but private or public means nothing when searching for a card, only if you look at a persons Org. will you be able to see only collections marked public.

Ray
(08-03-2011 10:21 AM)aflorimonte Wrote: [ -> ]If that's the purpose, they should create ONE flag for each account, saying whether you're trading or not. That would control whether your cards show up for trade or not. To create one flag for each of a bazillion db entries seems pretty inefficient.

But the bottom line for me is that I've been through the exercise of marking all my cards correctly... twice! And now I have to go through a third time. All this time paying for a service that doesn't work right and keeps changing.

I have no problem with growing pains on the new site, but I do have a problem paying to be a alpha tester.

-Arik

Some collectors may have a few cards they want to trade online, others that they want to trade only locally, others they don't want to trade at all.

Ultimately, the design decisions were based on 'what will allow for the most flexibility' - since no two users use his/her organize exactly the same.

No matter how they tweak it, it's going to not work 'perfectly' for any one particular user. So ultimately we all just need to learn how it works and adjust our processes to make it do what we want.

If you kept your organize up to date, when the new columns were rolled out, most of the data should have copied over correctly (ie - the old "Want" column was initially copied into the "Trade For" column. If you had the "Trade Box" checked on the old site, "Trade Away" was filled in, etc). There were a couple minor tweaks each of us had to do manually (for example, the trade box being checked for Wants on the old site resulted in your wants showing up as cards you wanted to trade away on the new one), but with a combination of the advanced search and fill function, it was relatively (albeit not completely) painless.
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's