• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Key Collector App - What's the verdict?
2 2

390 posts in this topic

37 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

So, I did a quick cursory glance of the site, and found a multitude of errors, such as "double covers" being listed as "variants", and newsstand versions being listed as "variants", and purported print runs for books that have no public print run info (which misleads a ton bunch of people, some of whom want to be misled), and other such errors, along with various spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors. And, of course, despite being presented as "free", the "best information" is hidden behind a pay wall. There's nothing wrong with hiding information behind a pay wall, but it does mean that the creator has a financial motive, and has an obligation to make sure the information he presents is 100% accurate.

The verdict, for me, as the OP requested, is a hard pass until and if the app's creator addresses these issues.

That's funny. There's a guy named Gary who does a lot of speculation rounds on comic sites who has the exact same rhetoric as seen here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

1. There is no debate, and those who do debate are wasting their time. ASM #252 was on sale about two weeks before both PPSSM #90 and MTU #141. While the copyright records aren't always *strictly* accurate, absent recorded data from Marvel or other contemporaneous sources (which does exist!), it's the best public information available, and demonstrates this time difference:

Issues Registered: v. 1, no. 252, May84. Created 1984; Pub. 1984-01-10; Reg. 1984-03-20; TX0001319971

https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=5&ti=1,5&Search_Arg=amazing spider man&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=vxrIafEOOCQBj21Aayc1aBWC5ccn&SEQ=20190525112014&SID=3

Issues Registered: v. 1, no. 141, May84. Created 1984; Pub. 1984-01-24; Reg. 1984-03-20; TX0001328284

https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti=1,1&Search_Arg=marvel team up&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=CigPEl_QvyVTx7jc9__Rv5GJAIkp&SEQ=20190525114109&SID=4

 

Issues Registered: v. 1, no. 90, May84. Created 1984; Pub. 1984-01-24; Reg. 1984-03-20; TX0001325179

https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=6&ti=1,6&Search_Arg=peter parker&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=8yDJ-HcJVkvltTwP8Jp2DZ9foCv&SEQ=20190525114300&SID=7

The three Spiderman titles did not all come out the same week, even in 1984. Note the publication dates for ASM #252, then for MTU #141 & PPSSM #90.

As well, using abductive reasoning, we understand that Marvel wanted the biggest impact for the new costume...which had an even bigger impact than they anticipated...and wouldn't have diluted that impact by publishing, simultaneously, three books with the new costume. #252 was the first one out of the gate.

2. CGC does not "disagree" with his statement; CGC only goes by cover date, which is confined to the month. All three books share the same publication month, but they do not share the same publication date. And, as has been pointed out numerous times before, CGC label information is neither always accurate nor always present, and ought not be considered determinative in questions of factual accuracy. CGC makes a good effort to be accurate, but they do not have a dedicated fact-checker on staff, and label data can be (and often is) inaccurate or incomplete.

3. Being dismissive of criticism...especially involving legitimate factual errors in your app...will tend to magnify that criticism. Inability to listen and adjust has resulted in very bad experiences for many business ventures throughout history.

I thanked you too soon for the links. I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to prove. I'm not sure how to use "abductive" reasoning to make a determination but I think Mike's World has information that will be useful.  Back to the Gary show

Edited by Key Collector Comics
correction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

This is a bit discordant....

Just because you don't like jazz...

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

hm

 

Comments like these have no place here. Attempting to persuade people to dismiss others because you don't personally like them is out of line.

You mean... kinda like you're doing right here?

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

Personal opinions about others neither validates, nor invalidates, what they may say.

I didn't name them... in fact, I purposely left those opinions up to others... in MY opinion, my statement actually applies to 4 or 5 posters here (not 2)... letting each person decide for themselves who they are is part of the fun.

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Criticism and correction is life. Is it annoying? Can it even hurt? Of course. But the ego ought to be soundly thrashed and beaten to within an inch of its life at all possible turns, and kept firmly in its place. A tall order, I know, but necessary to life. The ability to handle criticism is what separates success from failure, in virtually everything.

Criticism and haranguing are not the same thing.  Many here don't understand that.

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

No one deserves to be "dismissed out of hand", ever, about anything. If what someone says has merit...regardless of your personal feelings about the person...the wise man listens. That doesn't mean that you have or ought to listen to someone you don't get along with...but trying to influence others not to definitely crosses the line, for everyone.

This is silly.  All opinions are to various degrees meant to influence others.  Why have a movie review?  What purpose can it possibly have if not to try and influence?  The reader will then make up their minds on whether they wish to be influenced or not by it.  Opinions can change too.  At the time of my posting, it was my opinion that 2 (unnamed) posters had little useful to offer, based on my experience with their history of posts.  But they might suddenly change and state something brilliant.  Then I would adjust my opinion accordingly.  It is also my opinion that I am not in need of pompous lectures on what subjects of which I am entitled to have said opinions.  We seem to be teetering on a hypocrisy precipice here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

You're now quoting specific individuals, which makes these personal attacks. What you see as "less-than-respectful tone", others...including me...may see as plainspoken truth.

I may not necessarily agree with everything contained in these quotes...and I don't...but you've lumped multiple quotes from multiple people together, which muddies the water a bit.

How does it muddy the waters?  All one had to do was flip back a couple of pages if they wanted to know who said what.  And it doesn't matter anyway.  My comment was on the tone... the quotes speak to that tone.  It doesn't matter who said it.

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Those who haughtily go around spreading misinformation, of the kind that you see on blogs all over the internet, and who oppose correction to the point of actively attempting to silence their critics, should be driven from the hobby as quickly as possible. I'm not suggesting this is the case with this app...we'll see...but it is certainly the case with others.

So?  It definitely was not the case here.  What do other blogs have to do with this thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bookery said:
4 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

As well, using abductive reasoning, we understand that Marvel wanted the biggest impact for the new costume...which had an even bigger impact than they anticipated...and wouldn't have diluted that impact by publishing, simultaneously, three books with the new costume. #252 was the first one out of the gate.

This doesn't make a lot of sense.  In 1984 publishers were not catering to the "investment" collector such as they are now.  Why would presenting your idea in 3 titles at once not increase impact rather than dilute it?

Have you read them? Or seen them? The costume made a tremendous impact...as stated, much bigger than even Marvel imagined...but 1. the publishing schedule for these books was established long before, and 2. Marvel wasn't going to dilute the impact of Amazing Spiderman #252...with its AF #15 homage and all...by releasing two other books....one of which doesn't even have the black costume on its cover...at the same time.

 

s-l1600.jpg

Look at the cover text: "THE RUMORS ARE TRUE." "INTRODUCING..."

No, Marvel meant ASM #252...and published it in that order...to be the introduction and first appearance of the black costume.

s-l1600.jpg

All that aside, the publishing schedule settles the issue.

1 hour ago, Bookery said:
Quote

3. Being dismissive of criticism...especially involving legitimate factual errors in your app...will tend to magnify that criticism. Inability to listen and adjust has resulted in very bad experiences for many business ventures throughout history.

I don't see how he was being dismissive of criticism.

This statement:

"Thats (sic) a topic that has been debated to the point of boredom."

Is dismissive. It says "yes, everyone's talked about this for years, no one agrees, so move along already." Except he was wrong and Lazyboy was correct.

1 hour ago, Bookery said:

He said he wanted hard evidence, not anecdotal. 

Except that's not what was dismissive.

1 hour ago, Bookery said:

The first time anything approaching hard evidence appeared was in your post with publication data.  It would have been handy had this been posted 10-pages earlier.

(shrug)

I get a ton of flack...not *completely* undeserved...for being obsessively nitpicky about details. But if you're going to present yourself as an informational authority...as this Key Collector fellow has...you have to have all your ducks in a row, or you are misleading people. You may not be doing it on purpose...but that's the end result. Good intentions and whatnot.

The copyright office info has been posted on these boards no less than 2-3 dozen times, in various conversations. No one can be everywhere...granted...but this is very basic information

And...on this particular subject, it's not the only source of data out there. There is contemporaneous data out there that also shows that ASM #252 was published about two weeks before the other two. I don't have it at my particular fingertips right now, but it does exist.

1 hour ago, Bookery said:

Neither Ovestreet nor CGC should be the final word on anything (I've found a number of errors in OPG) -- but compared to the massive amount of data both entities deal in, factual errors are fairly few, and should not be assumed to be wrong until shown otherwise. 

I completely agree with your first contention, and completely disagree with your second. Absent evidence, it should be assumed that everything is incorrect until proven otherwise. At the very least, having a healthy dose of skepticism about it is a good way to view it. After all...Overstreet got it into their heads that Secret Wars #8...about the 20th or 25th appearance of the black costume...was "the first appearance" for a while.

1 hour ago, Bookery said:

But to belittle someone for being unaware of specific debates on these boards is silly. 

No one has belittled anyone, aside from generic comments about speculators in general. "Criticism" is not the same thing as "belittlement."

1 hour ago, Bookery said:

Frankly, I find most threads after a few posts devolve into exactly what this one has... a few supercilious individuals brandishing their holier-than-thou cards.  It's why good information is indeed lost in a morass of snide poseurs.

Um. You openly dismissed other people's comments...and told others to do the same...in this very thread because you characterized those people as "nasty and disruptive."

I don't disagree with your principle here, but it rings a little hollow when you're doing that very thing, and more, starting it, n'est-ce pas...?

meh

 

Edited by RockMyAmadeus
punctuation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Key Collector Comics said:
1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

So, I did a quick cursory glance of the site, and found a multitude of errors, such as "double covers" being listed as "variants", and newsstand versions being listed as "variants", and purported print runs for books that have no public print run info (which misleads a ton bunch of people, some of whom want to be misled), and other such errors, along with various spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors. And, of course, despite being presented as "free", the "best information" is hidden behind a pay wall. There's nothing wrong with hiding information behind a pay wall, but it does mean that the creator has a financial motive, and has an obligation to make sure the information he presents is 100% accurate.

The verdict, for me, as the OP requested, is a hard pass until and if the app's creator addresses these issues.

That's funny. There's a guy named Gary who does a lot of speculation rounds on comic sites who has the exact same rhetoric as seen here.

I don't know who "Gary" is, but he sounds like an intelligent individual. I can assure you....and several others here can attest...that I am not the "Gary" fellow you imagine me to be.

22 minutes ago, Key Collector Comics said:

I thanked you too soon for the links. I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to prove. I'm not sure how to use "abductive" reasoning to make a determination but I think Mike's World has information that will be useful.  Back to the Gary show

You're retracting a thank you...? Ohhh boy. 

Here's a link that explains abductive reasoning and how it works:

https://www.livescience.com/21569-deduction-vs-induction.html

As for what I am trying to prove, I've already stated it: your app contains too many errors for me to find it useful, and has, in my opinion, as much chance to mislead people as it does to inform them. Misinformation harms people. It causes them to make decisions that hurt them, financially and otherwise, that they otherwise would not make with accurate information.

Does that mean your app is totally useless? Of course not. Does that mean you purposely set out to mislead, as others do? Of course not.

It is what you do with the information you've been given in this thread that determines who you are. You can dismiss it or you can consider it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Have you read them? Or seen them? The costume made a tremendous impact...as stated, much bigger than even Marvel imagined...but 1. the publishing schedule for these books was established long before, and 2. Marvel wasn't going to dilute the impact of Amazing Spiderman #252...with its AF #15 homage and all...by releasing two other books....one of which doesn't even have the black costume on its cover...at the same time.

I'm just saying that Marvel could have just as easily seen it the other way... this is a neat idea, so let's present it in a 3-pronged attack and really drive it home!  They didn't, as it turns out... but the dilution argument still doesn't make sense, no matter how many times you repeat it.  The publication records make your case.  The above speculation on Marvel's intent is just that, and add no gravitas to the argument.

 

5 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

The copyright office info has been posted on these boards no less than 2-3 dozen times, in various conversations. No one can be everywhere...granted...but this is very basic information

Maybe it's basic information if a good bit of your research time is on just this one issue.  When you're compiling thousands and thousands of issues, and you have up until this moment been given no good reason to disbelieve something, it simply isn't going to be on your radar to change it.  OPG was shown their error, and changed it.  I made errors in my first guide, and when pointed out, fixed them in my second, when those corrections panned out as accurate.  As I've stated, I buy a lot of reference material.  If it's on a subject that I have serious knowledge about, I have never found one... not even the best of the best... in which I did not find errors.  It happens.

5 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I completely agree with your first contention, and completely disagree with your second. Absent evidence, it should be assumed that everything is incorrect until proven otherwise.

Based on this, then the publication data is useless.  Why are you assuming the date isn't a typo?  Just a simple slip on the keyboard.  There are thousands of lines of publication data out there.  Are you willing to argue that typos never occur?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Bookery said:
Quote

hm

 

Comments like these have no place here. Attempting to persuade people to dismiss others because you don't personally like them is out of line.

You mean... kinda like you're doing right here?

Not even remotely. Have you seen me say that anyone's opinions ought to be dismissed because of who they are, or, more to the point, who I think they are? No. I challenge opinions on their merits, not the people making them. Lies are told by the "most respected" people. Truth is found even in the most shameless among us. That's the one single huge all-encompassing distinction that 1. makes all the difference between a rational discussion and mudslinging, and 2. can't seem to be made by most people.

Your comments aren't more or less worthy based on my personal opinion of you.

31 minutes ago, Bookery said:
Quote

 

Personal opinions about others neither validates, nor invalidates, what they may say.

I didn't name them... in fact, I purposely left those opinions up to others... in MY opinion, my statement actually applies to 4 or 5 posters here (not 2)... letting each person decide for themselves who they are is part of the fun.

You're insulting the intelligence of the people reading this. You DIRECTLY QUOTED those people a few posts later when Speedcake challenged you. Do you think people can't figure out who said what...?

Come on.

32 minutes ago, Bookery said:
Quote

Criticism and correction is life. Is it annoying? Can it even hurt? Of course. But the ego ought to be soundly thrashed and beaten to within an inch of its life at all possible turns, and kept firmly in its place. A tall order, I know, but necessary to life. The ability to handle criticism is what separates success from failure, in virtually everything.

Criticism and haranguing are not the same thing.  Many here don't understand that.

Indeed, they are not. But what some see as criticism, you may see as haranguing, and vice versa. Keeping the personal comments out of the discussion entirely is the only solution. If you think someone is haranguing someone else, you should report it, and let moderation decide, rather than telling people to dismiss other people "out of hand." That's not my call, or your call, or anyone but moderation's call. 

And...by the way...engaging in back and forth...regardless of how it's characterized...isn't haranguing. If this Key Collector fellow keeps engaging with others, he isn't being "harangued."

37 minutes ago, Bookery said:
Quote

No one deserves to be "dismissed out of hand", ever, about anything. If what someone says has merit...regardless of your personal feelings about the person...the wise man listens. That doesn't mean that you have or ought to listen to someone you don't get along with...but trying to influence others not to definitely crosses the line, for everyone.

This is silly.  All opinions are to various degrees meant to influence others.  Why have a movie review?

Because, when Roger Ebert gave a movie review, he didn't tell his readers to dismiss Gene Shallit out of hand because Roger thought he was "nasty and disruptive." Y'know?

There's a difference between stating your disagreement dispassionately, and saying other people should be ignored because they are...in your opinion..."nasty and disruptive."

41 minutes ago, Bookery said:

What purpose can it possibly have if not to try and influence?  The reader will then make up their minds on whether they wish to be influenced or not by it.  Opinions can change too.  At the time of my posting, it was my opinion that 2 (unnamed) posters had little useful to offer, based on my experience with their history of posts.  But they might suddenly change and state something brilliant.  Then I would adjust my opinion accordingly.  It is also my opinion that I am not in need of pompous lectures on what subjects of which I am entitled to have said opinions.  We seem to be teetering on a hypocrisy precipice here.

When you directly quote someone, it matters not whether they are "unnamed." People can figure out who you're referring to. And whether they are indentifiable or not is irrelevant; no one should be characterized as "nasty and disruptive" by other members. That's for moderation to (privately) decide.

My question for you is this: I'm going to have this conversation with you as long as you are willing, and I will not make any personal comments about you, your personality, or my opinion of the value of your contribution. Can you do the same...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Bookery said:
54 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Have you read them? Or seen them? The costume made a tremendous impact...as stated, much bigger than even Marvel imagined...but 1. the publishing schedule for these books was established long before, and 2. Marvel wasn't going to dilute the impact of Amazing Spiderman #252...with its AF #15 homage and all...by releasing two other books....one of which doesn't even have the black costume on its cover...at the same time.

I'm just saying that Marvel could have just as easily seen it the other way... this is a neat idea, so let's present it in a 3-pronged attack and really drive it home!  They didn't, as it turns out... but the dilution argument still doesn't make sense, no matter how many times you repeat it.  The publication records make your case.  The above speculation on Marvel's intent is just that, and add no gravitas to the argument.

That's why it's called "abductive" and not "deductive" reasoning. The evidence is quite clear as to what Marvel was thinking...again, no black costume on the cover of one of the other two supposed "3-pronged attack"...but if you wish to disagree, you're more than welcome to, and I promise not to characterize you or your disagreement as "nasty and disruptive."

:)

37 minutes ago, Bookery said:
Quote

I completely agree with your first contention, and completely disagree with your second. Absent evidence, it should be assumed that everything is incorrect until proven otherwise.

Based on this, then the publication data is useless.  Why are you assuming the date isn't a typo?  Just a simple slip on the keyboard.  There are thousands of lines of publication data out there.  Are you willing to argue that typos never occur?

Because the copyright office records are the evidence. That would be an example of deductive reasoning: we have not only the publication dates of the three issues in question, but also the publication dates of surrounding issues to support the dates.

I have never argued that typos never occur, and never would (as evidenced by my earlier comments re:editors.) In fact, there is what appears to be a typo (or misreporting) of the information for Superman #75 (1992.) The copyright office states that it was published Dec 8, 1992, but the book actually shipped the week of November 18....three weeks earlier. So why the discrepancy, especially when the surrounding issues (#74 & #76) show the correct publication dates? Unknown. But it is an example of misinformation, on someone's part.

https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=56&ti=51,56&Search_Arg=superman&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=lnaK31xsKFCWX9_MHv5i4_0LoCv&SEQ=20190525160326&SID=3

 

Edited by RockMyAmadeus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

one of which doesn't even have the black costume on its cover

 

59 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

s-l1600.jpg

My apologies; I disregarded the logo box, in which the black costume half appears. 

;)

I think my point stands; the black costume was not meant to be the centerpiece of PPSSM #90's cover. :D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

You're insulting the intelligence of the people reading this. You DIRECTLY QUOTED those people a few posts later when Speedcake challenged you. Do you think people can't figure out who said what...?

Come on.

Actually, that's not entirely true.  I quoted 3 different people, not just 2.   And one of them I don't recall encountering beyond this thread, so couldn't possibly be saying they do this in every thread.  I could have used other quotes... there were at least as many more by others than the people I quoted.   But I'll grant I should have not have made the comment if for no other reason than that one person might be incorrectly assumed to be one of the ones I was referencing, even though when I was scanning the quotes, I actually wasn't paying attention to which poster stated what.  And the statement was obviously hyperbolic... clearly I can't have read ALL the posts these folks might have made in other threads.  I was making a point about the attitudes expressed... If I faulted in that one sentence or made the point unclearly, then it's a valid argument.  HOWEVER... mot sure why you are obsessing over this one sentence in my various posts (at length, actually).  And your defense that no one (other then me) was being dismissive nor saying the app shouldn't exist is incorrect.  There are only two ways to interpret the comment "If you're going to be just another contributor to the spread of misinformation, go away" other than (1) your app should go away, ie, not exist... or (2) you should go away and not post here... your opinions are not valid.   Hmmmmm.  Selective outrage.  Not to mention it doesn't seem to bother you that 2 others board members were disparaged who haven't even posted in this thread at all?  Seems that would have gotten a finger wag from you, no?

30 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Because, when Roger Ebert gave a movie review, he didn't tell his readers to dismiss Gene Shallit out of hand because Roger thought he was "nasty and disruptive." Y'know?

Huh?  I didn't mention Ebert (wow-- you're apparently as ancient as I am)... I mentioned movie reviewers, period.  They recommend or dismiss MOVIES (not each other).  They give their opinion that you should not waste time, or money, with a given film, ie a given filmmaker's work, ie, his method of expression.  People will either accept that opinion, or they themselves will dismiss the opinion of the reviewer.  That doesn't mean the reviewer had no right to his opinion.  I was of the opinion a couple (or more) posters like to be nasty and disruptive for the joy of that alone, and not to disseminate useful information or debate.  It's my opinion.  Some will agree with it, some don't.  I may even change my mind and hold a new opinion later.  It happens.

30 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

There's a difference between stating your disagreement dispassionately, and saying other people should be ignored because they are...in your opinion..."nasty and disruptive."

When you directly quote someone, it matters not whether they are "unnamed." People can figure out who you're referring to. And whether they are indentifiable or not is irrelevant; no one should be characterized as "nasty and disruptive" by other members. That's for moderation to (privately) decide.

My question for you is this: I'm going to have this conversation with you as long as you are willing, and I will not make any personal comments about you, your personality, or my opinion of the value of your contribution. Can you do the same...?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bookery said:

Actually, that's not entirely true.  I quoted 3 different people, not just 2.   And one of them I don't recall encountering beyond this thread, so couldn't possibly be saying they do this in every thread.  I could have used other quotes... there were at least as many more by others than the people I quoted.   But I'll grant I should have not have made the comment if for no other reason than that one person might be incorrectly assumed to be one of the ones I was referencing, even though when I was scanning the quotes, I actually wasn't paying attention to which poster stated what.  And the statement was obviously hyperbolic... clearly I can't have read ALL the posts these folks might have made in other threads.  I was making a point about the attitudes expressed... If I faulted in that one sentence or made the point unclearly, then it's a valid argument.  HOWEVER... mot sure why you are obsessing over this one sentence in my various posts (at length, actually).  And your defense that no one (other then me) was being dismissive nor saying the app shouldn't exist is incorrect.  There are only two ways to interpret the comment "If you're going to be just another contributor to the spread of misinformation, go away" other than (1) your app should go away, ie, not exist... or (2) you should go away and not post here... your opinions are not valid.   Hmmmmm.  Selective outrage.  Not to mention it doesn't seem to bother you that 2 others board members were disparaged who haven't even posted in this thread at all?  Seems that would have gotten a finger wag from you, no?

Huh?  I didn't mention Ebert (wow-- you're apparently as ancient as I am)... I mentioned movie reviewers, period.  They recommend or dismiss MOVIES (not each other).  They give their opinion that you should not waste time, or money, with a given film, ie a given filmmaker's work, ie, his method of expression.  People will either accept that opinion, or they themselves will dismiss the opinion of the reviewer.  That doesn't mean the reviewer had no right to his opinion.  I was of the opinion a couple (or more) posters like to be nasty and disruptive for the joy of that alone, and not to disseminate useful information or debate.  It's my opinion.  Some will agree with it, some don't.  I may even change my mind and hold a new opinion later.  It happens.

 

You're confusing a lot of things, including attributing to me comments made by others, misstating comments, and refuting arguments I didn't actually make. I don't see the value in correcting the record, and it will just upset the "wall of text!!" and "derailing!!!" crowds, so I'll let my previous comments speak for themselves, reserving the right to respond pending further commentary.

Take care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

You're confusing a lot of things, including attributing to me comments made by others, misstating comments, and refuting arguments I didn't actually make. I don't see the value in correcting the record, and it will just upset the "wall of text!!" and "derailing!!!" crowds, so I'll let my previous comments speak for themselves, reserving the right to respond pending further commentary.

Take care.

Truly bizarre, since I've posted your quotes right next to my responses.  And nobody has been responding to my posts other than you... not sure who I'd be conflating things with?  But you are right that I've been a participant in a thread derailing... time to move on.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is telling in itself that @Key Collector Comics is on here and willing to discuss anything.

@RockMyAmadeus thank you for your constructive comments and for the links to the evidence that gives the proof needed to hopefully end the 252 debate (glad I own that one already and have for awhile).

Apps are not easy to develop and produce, if he is doing this all on his own and for $20 a year, honestly it doesn't surprise me he would not have anyone other than himself as staff.  Unless it suddenly takes off he will likely be unable to afford to hire a data editor and will likely rely on the good graces of people like us to give him recommendations on not only errors we find but on what we would like to see his app do.  He would then have to weigh the time it would take to develop those changes on what he already has slated in his road map.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bookery said:

At the time of my posting, it was my opinion that 2 (unnamed) posters had little useful to offer, based on my experience with their history of posts.

Aww, shucks... I didn't know you were a fan!

For what it's worth, the OP asked for opinions on the app.  I provided mine.  I'm sorry you didnt like it, but likening the app users to Wizard users is pretty spot on, I think.  If you didnt like the way I presented it, that's far different than claiming i have nothing to offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Crops068 said:

Apps are not easy to develop and produce, if he is doing this all on his own and for $20 a year, honestly it doesn't surprise me he would not have anyone other than himself as staff.  Unless it suddenly takes off he will likely be unable to afford to hire a data editor and will likely rely on the good graces of people like us to give him recommendations on not only errors we find but on what we would like to see his app do.  He would then have to weigh the time it would take to develop those changes on what he already has slated in his road map.

"Cost" does not justify errors. People make decisions based on this information; if that information is inaccurate, people will make bad decisions that will hurt them.

Pride of workmanship should be the only reason needed to correct every error discovered. Anything else is sloppy laziness, justified by excuses. If one cannot afford an editor, one ought not put the product out in the first place. 

And I would expect nothing less were I to produce sloppy, error-ridden work, and I would consider (and have considered) it a sign of great respect from those who cared enough to offer corrections. Your work is a reflection of you, always. *I* go back and correct stupid, nit-picky errors in my posts, which cost no one anything, and which virtually no one would hold against me...because your work is a reflection of you, always.

Edited by RockMyAmadeus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

"Cost" does not justify errors. People make decisions based on this information; if that information is inaccurate, people will make bad decisions that will hurt them.

Pride of workmanship should be the only reason needed to correct every error discovered. Anything else is sloppy laziness, justified by excuses. If one cannot afford an editor, one ought not put the product out in the first place. 

And I would expect nothing less were I to produce sloppy, error-ridden work, and I would consider (and have considered) it a sign of great respect from those who cared enough to offer corrections. Your work is a reflection of you, always.

Are you providing him the errors you found?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
2 2