226 replies to this topic

[Soupie]

Reccoom, thanks man, but it looks like there's been a miscommunication. I do have images of both those figures ( see here ). However, it looks like I failed to add those two images to the "MUSCLE Numbers" section of the archive. (The archives are made up of several different HTML pages, so even though they use the same image, I have to update multiple HTML pages to update both archive and the Needs Archive.)

Speaking of which, the best way to tell which predicated figures are still needed is to check the Needs Archive.

Thanks! (And I'll add those images to the MUSCLE Archive asap.)



(For a second there, I thought Oranges might be the infamous MDB Oranges yet to be found. )

[Universal Ruler Supreme]

Yeah I know! I was so sad when I saw them!

[Soupie]

No updates in awhile. Has the well finally gone dry?

[arforbes]

No updates in awhile. Has the well finally gone dry?

I hope not, hopefully we see some more soon!

[meatcutta78]

Its all good,Keeps us on our toes and this way it saves us from starting that my little ponies archive we all promised each other.
Hopefully I get some soon.I got that lot coming from that douche seller.

[gilgar]

Its all good,Keeps us on our toes and this way it saves us from starting that my little ponies archive we all promised each other.
Hopefully I get some soon.I got that lot coming from that douche seller.

You still haven't got that lot??!? what was that like a month ago, wtf? you sure it's coming

[Soupie]

Another update to the MUSCLE archive! This update comes courtesy of member Black Hole Sunshine!



Purple #077 belongs to Part 14, Tree One and Purple is "rare" in that Tree. With the addition of this figure, we now only need two more Purple figures!

Thanks BHS!

[Soupie]

Ya know what's weird is that #40 Dark Blue is classified as Uncommon, not even rare, yet I have never even seen one. How can you explain that one?

I can explain why he is labeled "uncommon" but not why he is harder to find than his tree-mates. The reason he and the other sculpts on his tree (Part 13, Tree 2) are labeled uncommon in blue is based on the MUSCLEDB numbers. Apparently, the other sculpts on his tree have been reported in numbers placing them in the "uncommon" category -- off the top of my head, I don't recall what range of numbers URS and I decided, but I think uncommon was 5-15 figures recorded. (I can find out for sure as I have the documents saved at home. That's information that should definitely be made public -- something that I am working on.*)

Anyhow, as I was saying, this means at least one other figure on his tree has been reported in this 5-15 range, and since the entire tree was produced in blue at the same time, all the figures should share the same availability. If you want to know exactly how many copies of a figure are out there... you can't. However, your best bet is look the figure up on the MUSCLEDB. However, keep in mind that the MUSCLEDB only represents a relatively small pool of collectors, and those collectors are primarily American collectors.

Both the MCIA availability labels and the MUSCLEDB data should only be used as "guides" and not taken to be 100% accurate descriptions of the figures true availability.

*I'm thinking of re-doing the availability labels on the MCIA. 1) It's been awhile and the MDB data has changed slightly, 2) I'm only going to report significant splits. I'm thinking of three labels that reflect reported MDB numbers for each color per tree: low (no sculpt on the tree has been reported more than 5 times for a specific color), high (at least one sculpt on the tree has 30+ reports specific color), and zero (no reports for a specific tree + color).

I'd love to hear feedback on this idea.

Edited by Soupie, 29 February 2008 - 05:57 AM.

[arforbes]

I think that's an awesome idea Soupie! I'm for it, it will improve the site and add valuable information if that is added.

[DaHumorist]

What's up with Mdb's half colored boxes, btw? Why arent they just a solid color? Wouldn't that make it significantly easier to look at?

[Soupie]

What's up with Mdb's half colored boxes, btw? Why arent they just a solid color? Wouldn't that make it significantly easier to look at?

I believe Sandy, the creator, intended to use a half-box for reported figures and a full-box for reported figures with photographic evidence.

Sandy contacted me awhile ago about taking over MDB, and I asked him about combining the MDB and the MCIA -- but haven't heard back from him.

[Soupie]

I don’t know. I agree a different labeling would be good, but I don’t know that it’s really any clearer.

Well, the idea for using "low" and "high" was to indicate more clearly that the labels were tied directly to MDB. The problem with using Uncommon, Common, and Abundant is that we really don't know if they are. However, we can know for sure if figures have low, high, or zero reports on MDB.

Plus those labels would cause more maintenance for you, and seems too driven by the MDB – which we’ve seen act strangely at times.

Yeah, that's true. The minute I label a section of tree "low" someone will report a 6th figure and I'll have to update the MCIA...

My reasoning for reducing the labels to 3 -- zero, low, and high was to get away from the grey area. May I'll just do zero and abundant, with abundant being 30+? They seem to be the two clearest categories. I think it is too difficult, based on the MDB alone, to determine whether a figure is rare or whether it is uncommon.

[Soupie]

But is there a better word, or term, than Zero? Zero strikes me as more synonymous with non-existent.

We’re sure they exist, we just haven’t recorded one.

Ah, but that's just it, Veers. Remember that some trees were not made in certain colors. For example, the tree that the Claw is in was not made in Magenta. None of the sculpts on the Claw's tree have been found in Magenta. Therefore, the Claws tree would be labeled "Zero" for the color Magenta -- zero meaning, zero reports of these figures on the MUSCLE DB.

Does that make sense?

[Soupie]

For the ones that we strongly believe weren’t made, I’d put Does Not Exist.

If you recall, I used to use the label "Not Made" until arforbes went out and found a "Not Made" figure. As accurate as the MCIA has been at determining which sculpts were and were not made in certain colors, I still think it's too risky to label a tree/color "Does Not Exist." I appreciate the ideas, but right now I'm still feeling like the most helpful and accurate info I can share on the MCIA are which sculpts/tree/color combinations have been reported abundantly and which have been reported zero times.

[Black Hole Sunshine]

By that statement I made, I wasn't criticizing your work Soups or saying it needed to be improved whatsoever. God knows I have spent hours studying the archive, and I think it works fine as it is. For me there's an extremely fine line between "rare" and "uncommon". That line is probably one figure. For me, anything rare (figs I have no hope of ever owning... ) is a figure count of 4 or under. For some reason, 5 is the magic number where things appear to be more accessible. My scale for my own personal use is this:

0-4=rare
5-9=uncommon
10-19=common
20+=abundant

Not saying this is the best way to judge rarity...

I was just noticing on alex's color coded needs sheet that I'd never seen a DB #40, but yet there are 5 DB #75's known to exist, and DB 75 is a rare color. Could it be possible that one was never made??

[Universal Ruler Supreme]

It's interesting that you bring up #40. In my original tree data I actually have this figure set apart from the rest of the figures in Part 13 because he had 0 documented Darkblue sculpts. Yet the rest of the figure from Part 13 were documented as being made in darkblue, where as the rest are recorded to have from 5 to 15 of each figure in DB. I'm not sure if this is a mistake on my part or not. Soupie's Color Archive is going on the fritz for me again for some stupid reason.

[Soupie]

I just checked and you did have it set apart. (See attached Word document.) You'll see that you added a little note saying that it may be part of tree two. You can also see that at least one other figure on the tree was only reported 5 times for DB, so I must have made an executive decision to keep it with tree two.

When I was doing this, I tried to err on the side of caution. Of the two, being part of tree 2 or being on its own 3rd tree despite all the other color matches, I thought it was safer to put it with tree two. However, since so much time has gone by and we STILL don't have any reports or pictures of #040 DB, it is looking more and more like it may have been on its own. (I checked to see if #040 color pattern matched any trees from Parts 12 and 14 and unfortunately it doesn't.)

 Part13.doc   37.5K   5 downloads

Edited by Soupie, 01 March 2008 - 05:29 AM.

[DaHumorist]

Soupie,

Why is it that in the archive you speculate that Part 5 Tree 2, Part 8 Tree 4, and Part 13 Tree 2 come in orange if none have been found of ANY of those sculpts?

[arforbes]

Soupie,

Why is it that in the archive you speculate that Part 5 Tree 2, Part 8 Tree 4, and Part 13 Tree 2 come in orange if none have been found of ANY of those sculpts?

Mostly likely because of entry errors on MuscleDB. These are the Light Orange figures we were talking about right Soupie? Never seen any of them, I think its about time we said that they don't exist.

Edited by arforbes, 01 March 2008 - 02:22 PM.

[TheOrgg]

For the 'Zero' figures, why not use "Unrecorded?"

[Soupie]

Don't forget, arforbes, we already decided on a cut-off date.

So we've all subscribed to the one-year plan. Great! We'll have to remind each other when the subscription runs out -- 09/21/08.

[meatcutta78]

Mostly likely because of entry errors on MuscleDB. These are the Light Orange figures we were talking about right Soupie? Never seen any of them, I think its about time we said that they don't exist.

Who knows,maybe this summer one of us will get one in a Canada lot.