Comments and Observations on New Feature

modlib at modlib at
Wed May 11 22:18:33 EDT 2005

I don't agree with the stated goal of the new feature.  We already have something like a rarity rating for ML, which is very nicely done.  In fact, it was done in such a way that it would not be outdated (the scaling system).  It does tie rarity to price, though, which is not always true.  But one does track the other.

However, as Scot alludes to, over time the placement of titles in that rating scheme changes.  There are at least three reasons for this:

- Supply and demand changes.  The number of collectors varies, likely to the upside.  However, the supply also varies.  Books degrade or are destroyed... but with the internet more books are now available.

- Emotions of collectors.  This can drive certain rare titles up (or down on lack of emotion).

- Desire for the title that is not related to it being an ML publication.

I have considered proposing that this list attempt to keep Henry's ratings up to date, but that is a daunting task.  For example, Scot feels that Shaw/4 Plays is the most common.  The guide has a non-first HC as "F".  I believe that he is proposing a change to "E", or maybe "D".  Likewise, there was a copy of Possesed that recently went for over $120 on eBay.  The guide has it at "M", but it sold for "R" to "S" (not applying the condition algorithm which would likely raise it from "M"; that looked like a REAL nice copy).  Now that may be a high data point, but a very valid one.

I think Henry's ratings are good to start with, and perhaps we can attempt to collect data to either raise or lower the ratings of titles in all the valid columns.  That will be difficult when you add in things like condition of the book and DJ.


More information about the ModLib mailing list