Postcards/Spelling publishers21 messages

The way publishers are written varies a lot. Isn't it wise to make agreements about this? E.g. start with the company name and not with initials or with fa. or out. . The diversity is now very great, while it is often the same publisher.

additionally,
but also without a place name.
Vivat, Amsterdam then becomes Vivat

The place name is often distinctive, because there are publishers with the same name. So I would like to keep the place name.

vb Weenenk and Snel occurs frequently in Baarn as well as in The Hague, Weenenk (or Weenink) separately, but also with vh Snel, etc. move took place.

The place name can therefore be relevant, because it can possibly be used to deduce from which period a map originates. A change of name before or after a merger is also an indication of this. For me it is more about agreeing that you keep the quotation the same when it is also the same. So for example no 8 different quotations for Spanjersberg (including incorrect quotations), but only three, which actually represent a certain period. The latest Spanjersberg cards come from Rotterdam-Antwerp. That distinction may continue to exist for me. My proposal is therefore always start with the name and not with Uitg., Fa., Gebr. or with initials.

I can agree with Hans's motivation. Although the year of issue is not always known, the period can be distinguished by using the place name. The disadvantage, of course, is that this is only limited to those publishers who have actually moved to another place of residence.
Also notations like ed. fa. gebr. can indicate a time period. Do think it is important that we think about this carefully and perhaps also broaden it than just postcards.
You could also choose to indicate a time period without directly knowing a year.
You can also think of mentioning specific characteristic information to a publisher (or in a broader context, pottery, brewery, etc.). Such as name development, characters, etc. so that the correct period can easily be linked.

Who oh who has been messing with the spelling of the publishers?
When I want to see if I have a map of a topic that I have a lot of, I selected the publisher. I have more than 225 cards from a castle in my village.
I am very busy trying to find out whether or not I have a particular card. Until Catawiki I had no selection method. With Catawiki I was able to make a perfect selection based on the spelling of the publishers. This will no longer work after today. I have always entered publishers exactly as they appear on the card. Also often very useful to determine, for example, the year of issue.
For example, I have a publisher who is described on cards in 12 different ways. Someone has believed that one of the 12 different spellings should be determined. My search method has been destroyed. As the manager of a particular place, I can perfectly determine on the basis of additions such as Bookstore, Photo Store, Office Supplies, etc. from which period a card is.
General Manager, please leave this to local specialists; You really lack the knowledge for this, with all the good intentions you undoubtedly have!

Because someone has reduced the 12 different spellings of one publisher to one spelling, and also chose the incorrect spelling that only occurs on one card, the possibility to select by publishers has been destroyed.
My profession is a data miner. Which means that I look for connections in databases. Maybe a bit of a complicated matter. But the most common phrase used in databases is: rubbish in, rubbish out.
So what we see now is a perfect example of this. However I select on this publisher, of which I have a few hundred cards, I always end up with the one card with the wrong spelling.
My suggestion is, therefore, let local subjects (street names, publishers, etc.) on postcards be managed by local administrators. And let the national administrator deal with general matters, such as themes.
If there is no administrator for a place, another solution will have to be found, but in this case there is a local administrator.
And he is now quite frustrated with months of pointless work.

An understandable response and actually a shame that it went like this. We have all been working with the best of intentions. In fact, this is where every collector has his own ideas about the use of the catalog. If I happened to work within the same collection area, I would like it differently as a collector, so we have a problem. Therefore, an agreement should be reached on the use of the catalog and collector-specific wishes should perhaps be resolved within the own digital collection. We may be able to find a temporary solution.

Hans, I am glad you can see that this procedure was not wise, it did not increase the fun in Catawiki for me. And then I say it gently.
I am curious what this temporary solution should entail.
For me there is only one solution: reverse what happened and then look for a definitive solution.
It is not that difficult, just link all the different spellings of a particular publisher to one standardized spelling of this publisher.
After that it is possible to search for a specific publisher, but also within this publisher using a specific spelling.
So first go back to the old situation and work from there.
For the future it seems useful to me that, if a national manager wants to intervene in matters that a manager of a sub-area manages, contact first takes place between the two managers concerned. This can prevent a lot of irritation.

Excuse me, I was quite busy for a while and so respond a little late in this discussion.
This issue does not only apply to more place names in Postcards, but even in several sections. So this issue requires an overarching policy, which I agree with Hans (in the DVD section there is the same discussion about the spelling of Label / publisher: exactly which variant is on the cover like Universal Pictures, Universal International etc. versus a uniform name: Universal).
The advantage of using the same name for a publisher, even if it appears differently on the card, is that all cards issued by that issuer can be seen together. Then you can view everything that Spanjersberg has published nicely chronologically and select from within. The number of choices when entering and selecting publishers is also becoming more limited, which improves clarity. We want to start soon with background information pages for companies, persons, series, etc. This is easier to introduce if a company / publisher / person etc. only exists once in Catawiki instead of dozens of variants. That is why we also work with separate fields for pseudonyms and name variations for books and comics, which are linked to the actual name. For example, an author is only once in the database, while you can also find them under his pseudonyms in the lists. And you can also find the name in the search function if you enter a name variation (eg “van der steen” gives “Willy Vandersteen”). We could of course display the name variants on which a publisher can be placed on a card on that background information page.
The downside is what Jottum brings up. You can no longer see what exactly was on the card as the publisher name. And you can therefore no longer derive information from that (period in which the card was published). In addition, you can no longer make a specific selection on that variant of the publisher's name.
I do think we should pursue a uniform policy. In any case per category, but preferably also across the categories. Although there may be additional arguments for doing it in one section and not in another. Like the extra argument in Postcards that the exact name, as it is written on the card, says something about the age. This is less relevant with a DVD .
We can now do 3 things:
1. Choosing the path that Hans, indeed with the very best of intentions, had already taken after consultation with me (I did not fully realize the scope of this point at the time).
2. Continue in the old way (the changes with regard to the publisher can possibly be automatically reverted by a script from Marco).
3. Introduce two fields. One for the exact publisher name as it appears literally on the card (the current publisher field then). For example “Spanjersberg Gebr., Capelle a.d. IJssel”. And a new field for the trade name under which the publisher is generally or best known. For example “Spanjersberg”. As Hans indicates, this field must then be filled in in a uniform manner: such as do not start with "gebr.", "Fa." and such and initials should be placed at the back if relevant).
What do you prefer. I'm leaning towards option 3.

Although I am not a postcards manager, I would like to comment on them.
The system that Jottum has devised for itself can only go wrong in the long run.
The practice is that you have to deal with other importers, and they regularly make typos.
Other people take the automatic Catawiki's replenishment system sometimes leaves the wrong name.
Once in a while, the wrong publishers have to be merged with the right publisher again.
Now I believe that Jottum has filled it all in very accurately, but for the administrator who has to merge things, at a certain point it is no longer possible to check what has been entered incorrectly, and what a variant is.
The result will be that nothing will be merged anymore, because it is simply too much work to sort everything out every time.
The cards section will then become more and more cluttered.
There is another point at play.
The publisher's spelling is only one of the possible variations between different editions.
The spelling of the card name, for example, can also be the only difference.
Therefore it seems more convenient to create a field called “This pressure is distinguished by:”
Then you can enter information such as “serrated edge” or “number at the bottom left is missing”

Reaction to René:
I can be brief: I prefer option 3:
A field where each unique publisher is written in one way, and a field “spelling publisher on this card”.
But first let Marco factory and execute a script. Saves me hours of work again. :-).
As far as I'm concerned, end of discussion.

Response towards Hans;
Hans,
As for me: No hard feelings.
"Only he who does nothing makes no mistakes".

Dear all,
To begin with, it is nice to see that we are all constructively thinking about a solution. I appreciate Jottum for his understanding, Rene for his extensive proposals and Arwin for his input. This is how Catawiki and its collectors show their strengths. We have an eye for each other's wishes and suggestions and work towards an optimal solution.
I have not responded before due to pressure. This has the advantage that I can respond to other reactions.
I also think Arwin's suggestion is a good one, although it may also be realized by using the details box. All in all, solution 3 seems to be the best for now, but I'm not convinced yet. I think that, in addition to Jottum, more collectors will have a need for a more exact quotation from the publisher if we try to group the publishers together. I see the danger that not everyone is as exact as Jottum and this section is the next one, which needs to be cleaned up again. Arwin has already indicated that. And then we have actually made no progress, but we have a problem. It is not easy for administrators to check whether the field has been filled in correctly. This is also only possible if the back of the postcard is shown.
Is there a possibility that at the level of the collection (ie not catalog) each collector will have some extra fields available that he / she can use as needed? That way you can realize collector-specific wishes, without burdening the catalog? It's just an idea, I don't know if it can be realized !?

I know Hans. That you can also add these kinds of things to particulars, Hans.
In fact, that's what the agreement is actually for the entire catalog.
It is therefore logical that you had merged the publishers, after all, you cannot look into Jottum's head.
The point is that Jottum would like to be able to sort on deviations between the different pressures.
At the moment that is not possible, because it probably has not been thought that there would be a need for this.
Jottum, and undoubtedly many more others want to, and he has therefore started writing down the names very accurately.
That's fine, but he could have saved himself a lot of frustration by talking to the other administrators for a while.
That you are the administrator of a area, does not mean that you are on an island.
You continue to have to deal with others.
If agreements are not clear, or if you devise your own system, then you will get these kinds of misunderstandings.
About a separate field for the publisher's spelling.
Then you create a field that is only useful for a limited number of items.
By definition, that is a bad idea.
Now I don't want to Interfering too much with the cards, but I would like to say that I will never accept such a field, for the sections where I am the manager myself.
That is why I proposed to extend it further, to other deviations between the print runs.
In principle, the publisher's deviating spelling should be mentioned in the details.
If you choose to create a field so that you can sort on it, be consistent, and make sure that you You can select on all deviations.
Then, for example, the collectors of de Bommel cards also benefit from it.
It seems strange to me to give priority to the deviating spelling of the publisher over other differences between the prints.

Hans,
The more I think about it, the more I become convinced that as an over-all manager of postcards, despite all the good intentions, it is impossible to manage local publishers.
Hans has experienced this in all his sincerity, by choosing the only one with a spelling error out of ten spellings of one publisher as the representative of all spellings. As manager of maps of Ruurlo, I will absolutely not interfere with postcards of, for example, Valkenburg, because I simply have no insight into local circumstances and can therefore only make mistakes.
Even less will I interfere with, for example, Trading Cards. I have no understanding of it and my motto is: "participation without insight leads to judgment without prospect". Sorry Arwin, I just had to say this. By the way, I saw on your forum that you provided a perfect explanation of the fields to be filled in. Loud and clear! I also saw: “Card name Copy the name of the card as accurately as possible. Pay close attention to the use of capital letters. Any language errors on the map are simply transferred to the catalog. ” Let's hope you don't find an administrator who hates language errors.
So let's do everything we can to engage as many local administrators as possible. As long as less than 25 cards have been entered from a place, the local mess will not become bigger than a rubble heap.
Above that, it makes sense to urgently ask whoever has entered the most cards to become a local administrator.
Because I also understand that you do not have to sit with your arms folded and therefore let it become a mess and because everything you can automate must automate, a proposal:
1. A Publisher field (spelling as on card).
2. A Publisher field (general notation). This field is automatically filled with the most common name in the above field. Marco probably has a wonderful solution for this.
Another thing about the publishers:
There are 2 types of publishers: local and national publishers. The local are the local outlets. The national are the printers / publishers of the maps. It would be useful if you could enter these publishers separately and then link any number on the card to them. If you could sort on this nationwide, so for all maps of this national publisher, you would get a great insight into the entire oeuvre of a publisher. Nauta, Velsen, has numbered all his cards.
Now these numbers don't say anything, because the underlying knowledge is lacking. If there is one, you must ultimately be able to determine in which year which number series was used. A later step may be to make a proposal for an issue year when the number is entered. This numbering applies to more publishers such as La Rivière & amp; Voorhoeve, Zwolle and JosPe, Arnhem. JosPe also has two songs on one card. The number that should be entered is the number in the box of the stamp. The number on the bottom right is the serial and year number. This number can be the same on different cards. So it makes no sense to use this number for a selection.
The fields in this case would become:
1. A Publisher / Local Point of Sale field (spelling as on card).
2. A Publisher / local point of sale field (generic notation).
3. A field Publisher nationwide, and linked to it
4. One field: Number on card.
While we're at it, when entering a publisher / local point of sale, why not just get the names associated with that place. Now this is a jungle of publishers. And I cannot imagine that a Losser map is being sold by a bookshop in De Lier. So it makes no sense to show that whole bucket of publishers.
To be continued? Probably …………
And, we shouldn't make this subject too exciting; there will certainly not be a cabinet.

De rede dat ik me met deze discussie bemoei, is dat René aangeeft dat wat hier besproken wordt, eventueel gevolgen kan hebben voor de rest van de catalogus.
Aangezien ik bij meerdere rubrieken beheerder ben, gaat wat hier besproken wordt mij wel degelijk aan.
Het gaat er dus niet om of ik verstand van ansichtkaarten heb (ik heb overigens een aanzienlijke verzameling (strip) ansichtkaarten)
Het gaat er om welke afspraken en velden het beste werken voor iedereen.
Mijn opmerking dat het niet wenselijk is om velden aan te maken, die slechts door een beperkt aantal items gebruikt gaat worden, komt voort uit ervaringen die ik heb opgedaan met het helpen opzetten van andere rubrieken binnen Catawiki.
Die duidelijke regels bij de trading cards staan daar niet per ongeluk.
Als er een beheerder voorbijkomt die niet van spelfouten houd, mag hij met argumenten die regel proberen te wijzigen.
Alles is bespreekbaar.
Maar waneer hij opzettelijk dingen gaat aanpassen, op een manier die in tegenspraak is met de afgesproken regels, en daarin volhard, is hij wat mij betreft weer snel beheerder af.
Dat een plaatselijke beheerder waarschijnlijk meer kennis over zijn gebied heeft, is zonder meer waar.
Natuurlijk was het beter geweest als Hans even contact met je had opgenomen.
Het punt is alleen dat je niet vreemd moet opkijken, dat als je dingen op een andere manier invoert dan afgesproken, er vervelende dingen kunnen gebeuren, als een ander dat weer gaat aanpassen conform de afspraken.
Zo werkt het nu eenmaal als je met meerdere mensen aan iets werkt.
Ik kan natuurlijk niet voor Hans spreken, maar het lijkt me dat hij het niet heeft samengevoegd, omdat hij dacht dat hij het beter wist dan jou.
Het lijkt mij dat hij het heeft samengevoegd, omdat hij niet begrepen had dat jij het expres zo gedaan had.
Waarschijnlijk heeft hij niet eens gezien, dat jij degene was die de namen zo had ingevoerd.
We vinden het allemaal heel vervelend dat het gelopen is zoals het gelopen is.
Ik vind het alleen niet terecht dat je de schuld volledig bij Hans legt.
Wat mij betreft hebben jullie beide een inschattingsfout gemaakt.
Je voorstel om de algemene uitgevernaam, er automatisch bij te laten zetten, wanneer deze afwijkt van de naam op de kaart, is overigens een prima oplossing.
Ook voor de rest van de catalogus.

The reason I am involved in this discussion is that René indicates that what is discussed here may have consequences for the rest of the catalogue.
Since I am an administrator for several sections, what is discussed here does concern me.
So it's not about whether I know about postcards (by the way, I have a considerable collection of (comic) postcards)
What matters is which agreements and fields work best for everyone.
My comment that it is not desirable to create fields, which will only be used by a limited number of items, stems from experiences I have gained in helping to set up other categories within Catawiki.
Those clear rules with the trading cards are not there by accident.
If an administrator comes along who doesn't like spelling mistakes, he can try to change that line with arguments.
Everything is negotiable.
But if he deliberately changes things in a way that contradicts the agreed rules, and persists in doing so, I think he will quickly lose control.
That a local administrator is likely to have more knowledge about his territory is certainly true.
Of course it would have been better if Hans had contacted you.
The point is that you shouldn't be surprised, that if you enter things in a different way than agreed, unpleasant things can happen if someone else starts adjusting it again in accordance with the agreements.
That's how it works when you work on something with several people.
I can't speak for Hans, of course, but it seems to me he didn't piece it together, thinking he knew better than you.
It seems to me that he put it together because he didn't understand that you did it that way on purpose.
He probably didn't even notice that you were the one who entered the names like that.
We are all very sorry that things turned out the way they turned out.
I just don't think it's right that you put the blame entirely on Hans.
As far as I'm concerned, you've both made an error of judgment.
Your proposal to have the general publisher name added automatically when it differs from the name on the card is an excellent solution.
Also for the rest of the catalog.

Today at the fair made an appointment with Rene to add a field. A field is intended for the way in which the publisher is mentioned on the card and a field gives the name of the publisher, without the different variants in designation or spelling. I will try to reverse things for Jottum. My request to him if he would like to send me a list of the different quotations of Hoytink by e-mail, then I will try to return those quotations to the right place. My email address is jvddoes@planet.nl

It took a while but then you also have something :-)

As of today there are two fields for the publisher:

- “publisher as on card” where the exact name must be entered as on the card, for example: “Spanjersberg, Gebr. - N.V. in Rotterdam ”. The publisher names that were already entered can be found in this field.

- “publisher common name” where the name under which the publisher is generally known can be entered. No abbreviations like “B.V.” here. or include place names of the publisher. Example: “Spanjersberg”. Via this name, for example, all cards issued by Spanjersberg can be found together.

If one or more users want to determine the common name of a number of specific publisher names that are already in the database, we can fill in the corresponding cards at once, i.e. the common name. That is faster than one by one.

There are 2 types of publishers: local and national publishers. The local are the local outlets. The national are the printers / publishers of the maps. It would be useful if you could enter these publishers separately and that you could also link any number on the card to them

I had already read this forum article with great interest, because I have a lot of postcards myself and still have to enter a lot. I took note of this article and continued to introduce other collection areas. However, this discussion was again brought to the attention in another forum and now I feel compelled to respond.

The solution that there is now about the publisher as it is on the card can cause many problems. Because what do you have to enter if a card has been issued at several local sales outlets? This is usually a very long name (in the case of the town of Eernewoude that I collect among others) and it can sometimes be shortened. But the naming is, as said before, important for the time image of the postcard.

So what do you have to enter? The local name by name on card and the (general) name of the national publisher by general name?