Deleting duplicate Catalog Entries - Policy / Protocol

People search for a note or coin and sometimes cannot find it. With the brevity of titles it is very easy to not find something.

So in some cases the member takes the time to upload a new entry. But then the referee (who values his/her own time) promptly rejects the member's (sometimes hour of) work on the new entry and only leaves a brief comment "it already exists." Sometimes, albeit seldom, the referee gives a link ...

It should be mandatory protocol for the referee to provide a link PRIOR to deleting member work. Fastest way to ensure a member will stop contributing is to cancel their efforts without adequate explanation or respect given.

If the duplicate page contains missing information, the referee should move that information into the existing entry BEFORE DELETING ANYTHING. This is how Numista gets better. I understand not wanting duplicates, but intentionally losing missing information keeps things stagnant and is NOT better. Respect is important. Show respect by accepting and adding all useful information into the catalog instead of hitting the easy REJECTION button because you are so busy.

Never assume people did not search. Never give a condescending comment.

Cita: "Tmsconst"​It should be mandatory protocol for the referee to provide a link PRIOR to deleting member work. Fastest way to ensure a member will stop contributing is to cancel their efforts without adequate explanation or respect given.

​It should be mandatory to check the catalogue before adding new entries!

Easiest why is to search for the KM number or the Pick. If one just search for 152 in the banknote catalogue, for example, you will get 29 banknotes with the Pick 152. I've gotten requests with very neatly made listings, and even with several catalogue references, which already exists, The I send a link and ask them to edit the already existing entry. If no crap was given, but just the basic info and, if lucky, a picture, I simply reject by letting them know the entry already exists. We, the referees, can't search the catalogue for everyone who can't bother. We're not getting paid, you know.

I feel that somd people are more eager to add their own coins/banknotes to the catalogue, than actually checking if it already exists. It's not difficult to use the search engine on this website, it's rather the opposite - extremely easy! If you don't know how to use it - ask. There are many threads in the forum where people are explaining how to use the search functions.

I guess from the profile picture that Tmsconst dabbles in antiques and there I can see how one can easily overlook or not find something with their dozens of references etc. but I concur with ngdawa if it is about relatively modern issues.
Also nothing is deleted when a ref declines your request at least for 30 days you still have access to you request data so you can still add the missing data without much additional effort.
But if a ref knows that the entry already exists the provision of a link shouldn't be that difficult and when I get such a request I will provide it unless it is such a bad quality request that I can only file it under trolling.

Cita: "Idolenz"​But if a ref knows that the entry already exists the provision of a link shouldn't be that difficult and when I get such a request I will provide it unless it is such a bad quality request that I can only file it under trolling.

​I always aim for that, but I can't sit and find the 50+ already existing coins people wants to add again. After the first 10 I just let them know it already exists. If they can't bother to even check the catalogue, why should I spend hours searching for them? At least make an effort.

When it comes to Ancient coins, though, there's almost too many references, do there the referees needs more understanding. A tip could be to add a note in the entry's comment field "Couldn't find it in the catalogue", because at least then the referee kniws you've made an effort, and is probably then also more willing to direct you to the fntry - if it already exists.

Cita: "Tmsconst"​People search for a note or coin and sometimes cannot find it. With the brevity of titles it is very easy to not find something.
​
​So in some cases the member takes the time to upload a new entry. But then the referee (who values his/her own time) promptly rejects the member's (sometimes hour of) work on the new entry and only leaves a brief comment "it already exists." Sometimes, albeit seldom, the referee gives a link ...
​
​It should be mandatory protocol for the referee to provide a link PRIOR to deleting member work. Fastest way to ensure a member will stop contributing is to cancel their efforts without adequate explanation or respect given.
​
​If the duplicate page contains missing information, the referee should move that information into the existing entry BEFORE DELETING ANYTHING. This is how Numista gets better. I understand not wanting duplicates, but intentionally losing missing information keeps things stagnant and is NOT better. Respect is important. Show respect by accepting and adding all useful information into the catalog instead of hitting the easy REJECTION button because you are so busy.
​
​Never assume people did not search. Never give a condescending comment.

​First of all who spends an hour for a new entry? Second, how would providing a link before deleting help? Your entry will be deleted anyway. If it's already listed what more explanations do you need? It happened to me and I was the only one to blame, I didn't search well enough, end of story.

Ehm a thoroughly researched (here is where the most time goes) and well formatted entry can take many hours can be necessary especially for exotic/old/rare issues.
If one just does the bare minimum and copy pastes even that from a catalog then yes a shabby entry needs only 1 minute.

That's the only thing I might agree with.

Cita: "ngdawa"​​​It should be mandatory to check the catalogue before adding new entries!
​


​Yes, no kidding. As i stated in my original post, it WAS NOT FOUND. Who do you know prefers to waste their time duplicating it when they won't invest a few moments of their time searching? That is a foolish assumption.

Nice attitude!

Cita: "Tmsconst"

Cita: "ngdawa"​​​It should be mandatory to check the catalogue before adding new entries!
​​
​
​
== Not my quote!! == ​​Yes, no kidding. As i stated in my original post, it WAS NOT FOUND. Who do you know prefers to waste their time duplicating it when they won't invest a few moments of their time searching? That is a foolish assumption.

​

​Firs of all, you can't add you reply in the quote box. I never said the "no kidding" part.

Second, my answer to your question is: Plenty. Plenty of prople love to waste other people's time. This I've learned from experience. Trh to be a referee and you will find how nasty, silly, and just unnecessary people can be.