The Universal Counting Method

[roller]

ahhhhhhhhhh too many words

someone else can count my collection for me

[GoktimusPrime]

Will the polls be redone yearly? If not, what interval?

The survey will be redone yearly but not the polls for the articles because then the rules would change every year and we wouldn't be able to compare annual trends between years.

that isnt right is it? if you own a complete trypticon whose gimmiks dont work, would that mean that it is a junker under this definition?

As I said on the thread on that poll, definitions of conditions between C-2 to C-9 are very subjective and most of that definition is based on a general description for action figures in general and not necessarily just for Transformers (remember that there are some toys that are just worthless without their gimmick operating). For the purposes of this counting method, the definition of "below C-6" is what most of us would consider a junker. So long as the toy isn't a heap of crap that's only good as a junker for spare parts, then it counts. So by all means count your Trypticon with busted walking gimmick. My Omega Supreme's walking gimmick is broken and I count him.

I don't count my Aquablast because the chest/bonnet is detached and more importantly, it has no head. benben2142's recently acquired Transmetal Cheetor with no arms and missing tail doesn't count either (it's really the lack of arms that count against it, I would count a TM Cheetor w/ no tail if the body was in tact - it would certainly be incomplete, but not a junker).

So yeah, the basic rule with Article19 is that junkers don't count.

someone else can count my collection for me

Don't you have a headless Optimal Optimus? That wouldn't count. I recall you had Cybertron Optimus Prime which was in tact. So, erm... your collection is 1.

[jaydisc]

The survey will be redone yearly but not the polls for the articles because then the rules would change every year and we wouldn't be able to compare annual trends between years.

I think that's a bad move. As has been demonstrated here and in virtually every place this counting method has been mentioned, people have had second thoughts once seeing the implementation in place.

If the method is truly sound, the voting results shouldn't change.

[GoktimusPrime]

People will always object to parts of the method. We cannot create a method that everyone will completely agree with - as stated in the Pre-Amble - because we all have different opinions on what should and shouldn't count, and debates over opinions just rage on forever... :/

In 2006 when I started the polls, I told everyone that this would be the only time that I would be doing this - and thus to ensure that everyone made their votes count.

If the method is truly sound, the voting results shouldn't change.

But the data would be useless for annual comparisons if the voting results changed. For example, we would not be able to compare the results of the 2007 collection count survey with the 2008 survey if the 2007 and 2008 data was gathered under different counting definitions.

Say for example in 2007 we've allowed multiples to count. Say we have two collectors - Transfan X who and Transfan Y.
Transfan X owns...
+ Seaspray
+ Seaspray
+ Laserbeak
Transfan Y owns...
+ Seaspray
+ Laserbeak
In the 2007 survey where multiples count, Transfan X owns 3 Transformers and Transfan Y owns 2 Transformers.

Now let's say for the 2008 survey, voters decide that multiples should no longer count. And let's say that over the next year Transfans X and Y acquire no more Transformers, thus their collection count remains static. But due to the new counting definition, their collection count both becomes 2.

This is obviously an extremely simple example, but you can see how in more complex cases with much larger collections numbering in tens, hundreds and thousands where a slight alteration in counting rules can drastically alter the results.

And what would happen in this example is that we would observe an overall decline in the collection size between this sample of fans despite the fact that in reality their collection size didn't alter at all.

At the end of the day, if you don't like this method, don't use it. It's a Serving Suggestion for when you want to compare your collection count with other people's. If you and the other person(s) all don't like it, feel free to sit down and agree to a common system amongst yourselves that you all might feel is gooder.

The only time this system becomes mandatory is if you choose to participate in the annual collection size survey because we want to maintain integrity in results to compare annual trends.

[jaydisc]

Rubbish I say. I doth hereby refer to the so-called Universal Counting Method as "Gok's Counting Method". I will hereby participate in any counting surveys with my own system.

[Tiby]

Rubbish I say. I doth hereby refer to the so-called Universal Counting Method as "Gok's Counting Method". I will hereby participate in any counting surveys with my own system.

Many of us use a different method for counting our own collections when tracking them personally, such as merchandise etc, but statistically it makes sense to have a single method.

Having said that, it it not fair to rubbish Gok for this. He is simply keeper of the system that was voted in. That's like blaming me for the MP05 debacle because I have chosen to do something about it.

[jaydisc]

I'm simply blaming the fact that it's locked and has no ability for [democratic] review. I believe that at least ONE review AFTER having the system in place allows for greater finesse and polish.

[dirge]

Rubbish I say. I doth hereby refer to the so-called Universal Counting Method as "Gok's Counting Method". I will hereby participate in any counting surveys with my own system.

Jay, please respect the original posting asking others not to start a debate over this system.

Goktimus has gone to the trouble of creating this system so that we can make meaningful direct comparisons between collections. And he had valid reasons for surveying the fan communities to arrive at this method:

+ There are fans out there who count knockoffs
+ Some fans will count junkers than 95% wouldn't count, which distorts comparisons significantly in some cases
+ There are fans who count Devastator as seven toys (as silly as that may seem to many of us) and others who count him as one since they bought the set as a set

Personally, I think some of the criteria used in this counting method are bad (I don't believe doubles should count, for example), but with so many grey areas what with minor variations and stuff like Heroes of Cybertron, I can see the value in such a system.

I don't use this system myself when putting together a number for my own collection - which actually means I end up with a lower figures because I'm skipping variants and doubles - but if I want to do a meaningful comparison, I understand that a common system has to be used. For this reason I respect both the intention and the effort of Goktimus, and I'd ask you to do the same

In terms of it being locked, you need to remember that if the system is open, it will be endlessly challenged by people with different views, and no consensus will ever be reached. Goktimus is merely drawing a line in the sand, and while that line may be arbitrary, it's a necessary part of the system. Keep in mind that Goktimus _does_ revisit his polling of collection sizes, and for this to work, he needs to be able to have a fixed comparison between surveys. When new lines come out - or new grey ares (Revoltech is an example), he does go back to the community to get a democratic opinion.

[iceburn]

i think we can just treat this as a guideline and to many new fans, this might work out for them. For others, we might agree or disagree to some of the rulez but the final decision is always ours.

[GoktimusPrime]

Article 20 has been added to the Universal Counting Method - see Post #1 on page 1.