I'm adding a lot of coins from different countries to the catalog recently and over time, you know which take longer to process and which get worked on pretty fast. The ones without a referee get worked on pretty fast, which I didn't expect, but some countries with referees take a really long time.
To make this clear, I don't care how long it takes to accept/reject requests. Some referees are really great and just look a lot of stuff up to make the entry even better, which takes its time. Some just let the requests build up and work on them every 1-2 months. No problem with that.
But there are three countries/referees/requests where it takes really long and where I didn't ever see someone working on it. And that's where I'm asking myself when it takes too long. (It also diminishes my motivation to make requests in these countries at all when they don't get processed anyway).
One of my requests is from 27th February (so over 3 months) and is still open, even tho numista tells me the associated referee was online less than a week ago.
But my oldest requests are from 14th February. Two requests to related countries with different referees, where I also added other requests for the last 3! months where non got worked on. One referee was last online between a month and a year ago according to numista. The other one declined to show this information (I guess).
Even tho I'm patient, I have the feeling that these two are just not active on numista anymore and the master referees don't look into these requests because they have an assigned referee.
Is there something wrong or should I just wait longer? And when I should wait longer, how long is acceptable?
In my opinion it's unacceptable to wait more then 2 weeks, otherwise, as you mentioned, people loose their motivation to contribute (of course I'm talking about the case when referee is absent and not because your request raise some questions and referee need to think how to proceed). This catalog build by effort of community and referees are the key element in that scheme. In my opinion administration should have better monitor on referees and in case when referee of some country is missing for too long replace him or add additional referee for that country. Only in that case catalog will grow and improve.
Currently if referee of some country doesn't handle my requests more then 2 weeks, then I PM any of master referees and they handle it.
Cita: "iiruig"I also have a couple from the beginning of April. But yeah, some countries move much faster than others.
But I understand, all these referees are volunteers.
But I understand, all these referees are volunteers -
That is thethe key word.
I sometimes have to force myself to the boring admin bits at work.
I recently entered 1.000 to 1.500 KM# from the updated numismaster (a lot of coutries were NOT updated and all of them have been valuated
except :
MEX
GUA
VEN
PER
PAK
NIC
ISR
NDL
NOR
I'm nearly sure those countries have no referees since at least 1 month?
Cita: "Some_Nerd"The referee for Guatemala, Mexico, and most of Central America has not been active for more then 6 months (and I suspect longer).
I had requests in Mexico and Central America that were processed in the last months. But I don't remember if it was from the official referees or some master referee.
Cita: "Trooper8"
I had requests in Mexico and Central America that were processed in the last months. But I don't remember if it was from the official referees or some master referee.
Mexico has a co referee that handles most applications and my Guatemala changes were approved by a master coin referee.
Master Coin Referee
Coin referee for CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN, and SLV.
Revisor principal de monedas
Revisor de Numista para monedas de CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN y SLV.
I agree some are taking too long and for myself I am finding less time next to work and private life that when I used to take max 1-2 days in the past it is recently closer to 7 days for me.
In general a Referee might be on holidays or have some other issues in their private lives but I agree, after a certain time a moderator should first PM the referee for inactivity and then decide to annull the refereeing rights.
If I recall correctly after 2 or 4 weeks? Moderators can veryfy request also by issuers which already have an active referee. Some though might not be easy to process if you do not have the knowledge or the request was not complete (Could be difficult for example for older Chinese coins or coins from the antiquities).
Many are always asking to become referee but that is something that needs constant dedication over years, that seems is something not all realize.
My advice to the Numista Team. After 4 weeks or so of innactive request handling by a referee, send him a message that he will loose this referee position if these are not taken care of. Then if no answer is comming this referee right should be offered to other members with some experience.
If you like coins, medals and tokens with ship motives follow my new instagram account with regular updates @numisnautiker
From time to time I sell some coins on Ebay make sure to follow me @apuking on Ebay.
and a referee for a country has to know and have a lot of documentation concerning that country to be able to evaluate the change requests correctly and wisely.
In the past month, at least 3 of my very old requests got processed.
There are still 32 open requests in 11 different issuers with 9 different registered referees for longer than a month.
For longer than 2 months, its
27 open requests in 8 different issuers with 7 registered referees.
The oldest are still from February 14th. Maybe I can celebrate the half-year anniversary soon.
I will probably update this once a month in here to at least get some fun out of it.
Cita: "Jarcek"Just to let you know, there are currently more than 1700 requests among all referees. (And I accepted more than 150 in the past hours)
Record number is 3500...
Nice greetings and health.
The pressure is great and some members may experience stressful burnout during this voluntary godly activity, please do not increase the pressure to the referee.
( I personally withdrew the posts two months ago and I am not contributing yet and I am waiting for the situation to be released)
Because it's free and takes a lot of personal time studies and mental effort -so the only reward is the feeling of holding a significant position as an arbitrator.
Please strengthen it and add so that each judge can choose helpers 3 times -owns the position helper- of chief arbitrator (presidents over the administration of the territory x + y + z)
after all, it is us and we do it for ourselves as well --Give young and old enthusiasts a chance to get a better transnational position and present their art to a judge to help, I know they're here just scared.
These are important measures, especially for countries that are problematic.
Slow down the pressure and stress and add weight to the volunteers -deserves our thanks and respect.
Not being a referee myself, too much work for me and not appreciated by many users, I'll take my hat off for the existing referees and thank them for their best efforts.
It does NOT help to complain about the time needed to accept a CR, things take the time needed. Ofcourse it can seem long some times, but accept it, the referees are not paid, quite often not even thanked for their work on the behalf of all us non-referee collectors.
As I wrote in the original text, I don't have a problem waiting, as long as I know it gets worked on eventually. But with some requests, I just don't have this feeling anymore. There are referees who weren't online for at least a month (you can see it on some of the profile pages). And since I looked at this data for quite some time, I know some weren't online for at least 3 months.
I don't think they are coming back. Maybe they are even dead, nobody knows. But as long as they are listed as referees for some countries, no other referee will process these requests, because it's not their job. The country already has a listed referee after all.
So I'm asking myself when they will finally be removed. After 1 year? After a decade? After they send a message they don't want to do it anymore, which could mean until eternity?
Also, there is a lack of attraction for this job/position, when there is no list with issuers who don't have a referee. I bet it would increase the number of candidates when they can see where help is needed (even tho some might not be qualified enough, but that has to be checked anyway).
I am a referee and was recently asked if I was happy continue. Hopefully this process has been applied to those absent referees and will lead to their removal.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Cita: "ceh2019"I am a referee and was recently asked if I was happy continue. Hopefully this process has been applied to those absent referees and will lead to their removal.
It's an idea in the air laughing
But who would be the debtor (s)? Will they have to score or have a quota to respect?
This would be contrary to the collaborative and participatory spirit of the site, where everyone makes their contribution, from the simple registration to the most important contribution, including the contribution of new elements.
They could also be anonymous.
Note that we don't hear them complaining on the forums!
And yet, if only the recommendations highlighted in the header and in Numisdoc were followed, the creations would cause fewer subsequent corrections.
Cita: "BluHawk"Would it be reasonable to consider a small payment for all the hardworking referees?
It would be a nice gesture.
My thought on this, as a user: No financial experince and know nothing about Numista behind the scenes
I have seen one referee, don't remeber who, who had a link to a patreaon page, so we could give a donation for the all the work he does on Numista.
If there is some referee who feel financial insentivised to be a referee, I think this is a better alternative. Mostly because I think there is a problem if it is getting more money driven (just my highly subjective opinion). Even if the referees should have monay for this, should it be on what condition? 1 cent for every modification request accepted/processed? Monthly, based on how many countries/issuere the referee is referee for? I can see some problems for both of those.
Unless Numista gets enough premium members to give a small bonus to the referees? But I think, not even for Xavier, this (referee on Numista thing) is going to be a liveable road in life. Maybe a part time B-income, but I'm almost sure, not for butter on the bread, or what you say in English.
I have a soft spot for origami paper cranes.
Read or watch about "Sadako Sasaki and the Thousand Paper Cranes".
Spread a little peace and happiness wherever you go :)
Cita: "ceh2019"I am a referee and was recently asked if I was happy continue. Hopefully this process has been applied to those absent referees and will lead to their removal.
That is exactly what is being done now.
Another month has passed and some things changed while others didn't.
First of all, it's nice that my very old requests got processed and my oldest open request is now only from May 2nd (still over 3 months, but better than before). Thank you Jarcek.
Also, I saw that Jarcek took over Austria (and related issuers) while kicking out the old referee there.
What I don't understand is, that you wrote 1 month ago that referees get a message if they want to continue their work, but except the Austrian referee, everyone else I took notice of is still a referee. And since you (Jarcek) processed these old requests of mine and not these referees, it doesn't seem like anything changed. They are still inactive and in their position, so these requests at these issuers won't get processed and will be forgotten until someone talks about it in the forum again.
That's also why I bring up this post every month. Every time I do it, I see something changing immediately in less than a week. But for the rest of the month, I can't see anything happen at all in this regard.
So when will these inactive referees finally be removed?
Cita: "ceh2019"I am a referee and was recently asked if I was happy continue. Hopefully this process has been applied to those absent referees and will lead to their removal.
That is exactly what is being done now.
Another month has passed and some things changed while others didn't.
First of all, it's nice that my very old requests got processed and my oldest open request is now only from May 2nd (still over 3 months, but better than before). Thank you Jarcek.
Also, I saw that Jarcek took over Austria (and related issuers) while kicking out the old referee there.
What I don't understand is, that you wrote 1 month ago that referees get a message if they want to continue their work, but except the Austrian referee, everyone else I took notice of is still a referee. And since you (Jarcek) processed these old requests of mine and not these referees, it doesn't seem like anything changed. They are still inactive and in their position, so these requests at these issuers won't get processed and will be forgotten until someone talks about it in the forum again.
That's also why I bring up this post every month. Every time I do it, I see something changing immediately in less than a week. But for the rest of the month, I can't see anything happen at all in this regard.
So when will these inactive referees finally be removed?
Cita: "ceh2019"I am a referee and was recently asked if I was happy continue. Hopefully this process has been applied to those absent referees and will lead to their removal.
That is exactly what is being done now.
Another month has passed and some things changed while others didn't.
First of all, it's nice that my very old requests got processed and my oldest open request is now only from May 2nd (still over 3 months, but better than before). Thank you Jarcek.
Also, I saw that Jarcek took over Austria (and related issuers) while kicking out the old referee there.
What I don't understand is, that you wrote 1 month ago that referees get a message if they want to continue their work, but except the Austrian referee, everyone else I took notice of is still a referee. And since you (Jarcek) processed these old requests of mine and not these referees, it doesn't seem like anything changed. They are still inactive and in their position, so these requests at these issuers won't get processed and will be forgotten until someone talks about it in the forum again.
That's also why I bring up this post every month. Every time I do it, I see something changing immediately in less than a week. But for the rest of the month, I can't see anything happen at all in this regard.
So when will these inactive referees finally be removed?
Don't bite the hand you feed
Don't bite the hand that feeds you, you say. Well, with the speed at which validation is done these days, we would starve. My toe nails grow quicker than the speed at which some referees ect move these days.
Everybody wants the website to grow, but not at the pace it is now. Reading previous messages, I find it utterly disgraceful that after many months, coins are not validated.
I have waited 1 month for one of my coins to be validated, and a little less for two others, but they still sit there. I have two more to add, but not until the referee gets motivated, as they are from the same country as two still pending
REJECTED: request rejected or to be completed / modified
SOLVED
The presence of a request not SEEN for X days would automatically send it an alert message, before the intervention of an arbitrator.
While waiting, his profile indicates the period of his last access to the site and to the forums
Perhaps complaining about the lack of movement on this forum, is a good thing. 2 of the coins waiting for validation were validated yesterday. The third coin has only been on there for a few days,, so a little more acceptable.
If requests are done properly, I can validate them while I am on the bus for example. I also can validate only countries, where I know something about the coinage or missing piece is easy to check...
Jarcek,
I/we are not expecting you to do it all. That's why there is a team of referees. Some seem to be doing nothing, which very much frustrates members.
Surely, if there is something wrong with the application, shouldn't a referee make contact with the initiator and explain what is wrong. Some members are very new to this adding coins system, so they may need a little help. Making members wait, for over 4 months, is not the best way of getting members on you side, which is a must, if Numista is to continue to grow.
You validated the two coins I mentioned earlier on this forum but where was the referee for that country?
I would, and I am sure other members would, be very interested to know how many coins are still waiting validation.
Over the last few weeks, I have been trying to determine just how many countries are without referees. I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations and came up with this list. I didn't get into ancient coins or very niche issuers such as Rus Principalities or the Crusader states and I may have simply missed a country/issuer.
That being said, here's how the country list broke down:
Countries with an active referee: 219
Countries with an inactive referee: 23
Unknown if active: 19
No referee: 104
Seeing this list, I think that the larger issue is that many countries simply don't have a referee. While this may be fine for a issuer like Katanga, this is problematic for countries like Russia who are constantly making commemoratives. I think that we should focus less on inactive referees and more on non-existent referees.
Master Coin Referee
Coin referee for CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN, and SLV.
Revisor principal de monedas
Revisor de Numista para monedas de CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN y SLV.
Cita: "Some_Nerd"Seeing this list, I think that the larger issue is that many countries simply don't have a referee. While this may be fine for a issuer like Katanga, this is problematic for countries like Russia who are constantly making commemoratives. I think that we should focus less on inactive referees and more on non-existent referees.
For a good distribution of the work: yes
For fast approval times: no
As I wrote in this thread already, my requests for coins from issuers without a referee get processed fairly fast, because the master referees jump in to do it. The problem ARE the inactive referees because the master referees don't jump in to do it because there is a referee on the list who should do it instead. But they don't really do it, because well .... they're inactive.
For the faster approval times, it would help a lot if these referees would just get removed already. And I don't understand why that takes so long. There are referees who didn't do anything for half a year. You don't even have to try to contact these people to make sure they have to be removed.
Cita: "Some_Nerd"Seeing this list, I think that the larger issue is that many countries simply don't have a referee. While this may be fine for a issuer like Katanga, this is problematic for countries like Russia who are constantly making commemoratives. I think that we should focus less on inactive referees and more on non-existent referees.
For a good distribution of the work: yes
For fast approval times: no
As I wrote in this thread already, my requests for coins from issuers without a referee get processed fairly fast, because the master referees jump in to do it. The problem ARE the inactive referees because the master referees don't jump in to do it because there is a referee on the list who should do it instead. But they don't really do it, because well .... they're inactive.
For the faster approval times, it would help a lot if these referees would just get removed already. And I don't understand why that takes so long. There are referees who didn't do anything for half a year. You don't even have to try to contact these people to make sure they have to be removed.
To remove people is easy, to replace them is quite a different matter.
TROOPER8, you seem very concerned. Now which countries would you accept (with your superior knowledge and documentation about them) to be referee for? It's certainly not an easy decision, but tell me at least ONE, SINGLE country where you would feel you would be in the right place (24/24/7)?
Thanks for your feed-back, it's always so easy to critize others, but to join and build by your own effort and KNOWLEDGE is a lot more difficult, right?
Cita: "Sjoelund"To remove people is easy, to replace them is quite a different matter.
I never said anything about replacing them. As someone wrote before, there are over a hundred issuers without a referee. There are maybe 10 referees who are completely inactive. So to have 10 more issuers without a referee wouldn't change much .... besides the chance a master referee might look into the requests, which is all I want.
When it comes to issuers I could be a referee in since you asked:
Sadly I'm limited by my languages (German and English). There are referees for English-speaking countries who can't speak it even a little bit by themselves, which is a complete joke in my opinion.
Since there are multiple good referees for German coins, there stays English.
I saw that some issuers have multiple referees where it seems like they divide the requests into epochs between them. I'm pretty confident I could be a referee for the modern coins of these smaller English speaking nations for example. (Anguilla, Belize, Fiji, etc.)
Or completely for those which are fairly new nations/issuers.
Me too have some pending requests from the August. I just don't see the selective pattern here as many requests from September have already been processed/approved. I have added almost 3000 pages, most of them were accepted without extra work by referee, so I really do not see the reasons for this delay.
Cita: "mikimaus"Me too have some pending requests from the August. I just don't see the selective pattern here as many requests from September have already been processed/approved. I have added almost 3000 pages, most of them were accepted without extra work by referee, so I really do not see the reasons for this delay.
I don't think open requests from last month are a problem. Some referees just don't have that much time but will work on them consistently, just with longer pauses.
My oldest open request right now is from May 2nd. I believe that gets into an unpleasant range.
Since May 27, there is no longer a substitute to replace absent or inactive or failing referents
It is starting to be felt!
He was only absent for one weekend out of two.
My demands (+-20) for Israel from may have been accepted by now.
I'm not in a hurry, after all our coins might be older than a couple of months, even centuries, so treat the referees with respect, please? They have to verify your demands in the little documention found on internet, specialized books and then evaluate your suggested changes.
it was just an observational remark.
I'm not complaining, since that date I have had 1382 accepted, there are only 83 pending.
Besides, I have none of the edited pages except the 20 created.
Cita: "Sjoelund"Don't ask for the moon.
My demands (+-20) for Israel from may have been accepted by now.
I'm not in a hurry, after all our coins might be older than a couple of months, even centuries, so treat the referees with respect, please? They have to verify your demands in the little documention found on internet, specialized books and then evaluate your suggested changes.
Well, your Israel requests got verified by Jarcek on August 25th after he deleted the inactive Israel referee. I doubt he even has specialized books about Israel and doubt he even searched through the internet when your listed sources were at least acceptable.
I don't know how referees are identified/selected now, but if finding referees is a problem, maybe there could be some sort of application on the site where interested members could apply to become one. Obviously there would need to be some way of vetting the applicants in order to maintain Numista's integrity, but if users could more easily indicate they want to help, an application might get interested parties started with helping.
“Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger.”
This is an interesting thread. Several points:
A) Regrading the Israeli referee - I had submitted a request several months ago that sat unanswered. I know the referees are volunteers but I was somewhat irate when I discovered that this particular referee (based in Australia) was regularly (at least each week) updating his private facebook page on his Australian coin acquisitions. I did send him a somewhat catty message that if he was too busy updating his own facebook page (including photos) to undertake the role of referee for Israel then perhaps he should step down. He never responded (to my message or my modification request).
B) Perhaps there needs to be 2 referees - an admin referee and a specialist referee. On several occasions I have discovered obvious mistakes such as double-up listings. One of these still exists because users had entered values even though the referee admitted the variety was a mistake and he couldn't delete it. I did think at the time, why was this category passed in the first instance? You didn't need specialist knowledge to see the entry was a duplicate. A house keeping referee would help with that.
C) The last comment is a particular bug bear that will take a change of Numista policy. Can there be a push to abolish entries with no independently certified documentation? There is a coin from the Philippines that supposedly has 2 varieties (according to Krause) yet nobody seems to have seen these varieties. . Several blogs, including those who have studied hundreds of these coins, have concluded that it is a mistake in Krause, yet the variety is still listed because it is in Krause. I didn't know Krause was perfect! Is Numista a new catalogue, or a reproduction of Krause? If the variety exists, then someone who has that variety can photographically document it, upload the information, and validate it. Until then, the variety is not listed. Is the concept that hard! Same as listings of PROOF - DOES NOT EXIST. If it doesn't exist, why is it listed? If only the managers would take the bull by the horns and ensure all categories were backed up with evidence. Arghh... rant over.
Point C.
I agree with you, but... hardly any of the variants in SCWC have been documented, most of them have been OK'ed later. I have made a lot of documentations of those mentioned in SCWC and then added them to numista. Krause was not inclined to use them in its catalogs!!!!
It's always a problem when somebody says, that variant or that year doesn't exist. Specially since numista do not include ALL collectors, so we cannot allow to throw those lines out. If nobody in numista has that year or that variant, it would stay empty anyway, I think we could even make a comment like "existence not proven", but otherwise leave the line.
Thanks for the reply. If Numista was to enforce proof on submissions then this whole issue would clear itself up. Why would someone want to have a variety added if they do not have that variety? If there is a clear photograph showing the 2 varieties then people would not be able to claim the variety does not exist. I get the feeling many varieties were added because they were in a catalogue, not because the submitter actually has that variety. So a possible mistake in the catalogue gets reproduced. Enforcing documentation such as images would also make it a lot easier for other users to know which variety they had in hand. It is frustrating when one has to go trawling the net to find info on varieties that should have been uploaded on Numista when the varieties were first entered. I have lost count of the number of times I have had a single coin in hand and encountered descriptors such as small and large with not further details. When I do have the 2 varieties I do try and upload supporting images so other users don't go through the same angst. Numista is a great website but I feel a few changes could make it the best.
I'll check out the referee link and give it some thought. Being from Australia means the bulk of my collection is Aussie, and Brismike does an awesome job as referee. I'll have a look at what other countries I could referee for,
Cita: "EKrabappel"If Numista was to enforce proof on submissions then this whole issue would clear itself up. Why would someone want to have a variety added if they do not have that variety? If there is a clear photograph showing the 2 varieties then people would not be able to claim the variety does not exist.
Quote: "EKrabappel"Why would someone want to have a variety added if they do not have that variety?
Because we're creating a catalogue. Proof is required, I agree entirely, but it can't be necessary to own a piece to add it.
Quite a few of my documentations are of variants I don't have yet! A lot I made on the base of Guèrin's French documentations (with his agreement, of course). Others I've made because people ask me to help them. The rest are based on my own collection.
The main thing is to prove it visually, many of my documentations have NOT let to new year lines on my advice, since the variations are too difficult to see, but the documentation is still put into the "comments".
Variants in the same year are normally only interesting for year, mint mark collectors. Type variants, which can happen between the different years of the type, might interest type collectors, for me they are not important. It's all a matter of viewpoint
Sorry, but waiting that long for a coin to be validated, is totally unacceptable. I understand that it is a very ancient coin, so it might take a little longer to investigate, but this is nearly 7 months.
My five coins are from 2014, so should be a lot easier to confirm of their existence. They are also part of a set which some are already validated.
Cita: "Sjoelund"Seeing that you are from Ukraine and all your Change Requests concern coins from Ukraine, I would advice you to ask to become a referee for Ukraine.
What do you say to that, just contact Jarcek (https://en.numista.com/echanges/profil.php?id=50646=)
To get a response on this site became similar to get shipping from China : creation requests for Ukrainian 2021 coins pending from beginning of August, sent private message on September 19, still no response
Cita: "Sjoelund"Seeing that you are from Ukraine and all your Change Requests concern coins from Ukraine, I would advice you to ask to become a referee for Ukraine.
What do you say to that, just contact Jarcek (https://en.numista.com/echanges/profil.php?id=50646=)
To get a response on this site became similar to get shipping from China : creation requests for Ukrainian 2021 coins pending from beginning of August, sent private message on September 19, still no response
Hello, you are "lucky", you only have creation requests since August. I made a series of modifications to be made (I could not add them because the year line was closed) and they have been accepted since December 9, 2020 ... but nothing has been done yet.
I think that for some time, in Numista there have been a series of problems that can make the users who normally collaborate to make and improve the catalog end up without wanting to continue doing it ... and that would be a shame.
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
Cita: "oynbcn"Hello, you are "lucky", you only have creation requests since August. I made a series of modifications to be made (I could not add them because the year line was closed) and they have been accepted since December 9, 2020 ... but nothing has been done yet.
While it is impossible for regular members to add new year-lines after the year-list has been verified, it can sometimes be just as difficult for master referees to get around that (because we must message the individual referee about unverifying the year-list first, and depending on the referee, the process can be difficult).
So basically, when it comes to adding new year-lines, master referees have just as much power as any regular member (because we would have to go through the exact same process as any regular member would).
With that being said, I have a pending Numista suggestion to allow master referees to add new year-lines even after a year-list has been verified. That request has been pending since November 16, 2020, and it is basically what I am waiting for to start all these year-based coin requests (and there are a lot of them).
Cita: "oynbcn"Hello, you are "lucky", you only have creation requests since August. I made a series of modifications to be made (I could not add them because the year line was closed) and they have been accepted since December 9, 2020 ... but nothing has been done yet.
While it is impossible for regular members to add new year-lines after the year-list has been verified, it can sometimes be just as difficult for master referees to get around that (because we must message the individual referee about unverifying the year-list first, and depending on the referee, the process can be difficult).
So basically, when it comes to adding new year-lines, master referees have just as much power as any regular member (because we would have to go through the exact same process as any regular member would).
With that being said, I have a pending Numista suggestion to allow master referees to add new year-lines even after a year-list has been verified. That request has been pending since November 16, 2020, and it is basically what I am waiting for to start all these year-based coin requests (and there are a lot of them).
My Change Requests for Brazilian Bank Notes have pending for 26 Days & Counting
But the Page of the Referee (Wilsonrvnunes)shows that he visited the Site Less than a Week's Time
Very Outrageous
Link :https://en.numista.com/echanges/profil.php?id=80330
Numista Referee for Coins of Kingdom of Bahrain, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Republic of Tunisia & Kingdom of Morocco
🇧🇭🇸🇦🇹🇳🇲🇦
You will notice that there is a lot of movement among the referees lately: arrivals, departures, modifications.
Apart from a few units, there are 144 referents covering 400 of the 803 Countries and Territories (not counting the sections and subsections) listed in the Numista catalog.
There is therefore room for referral volunteers.
Cita: "Amraan Amjad"My Change Requests for Brazilian Bank Notes have pending for 26 Days & Counting
But the Page of the Referee (Wilsonrvnunes)shows that he visited the Site Less than a Week's Time Very Outrageous
Link :https://en.numista.com/echanges/profil.php?id=80330
wilsonrvnunes
Member since 7-Jan-2017 Catalog contributions 694 pages added, 2494 years added, 3431 pages edited, 2470 years edited
I seriously think insulting someone that has obviously contributed an enormous amount of his time to improving and expanding the Numista catalog is not fair and definitely not wise. Are you sure the Numista community would be better off by replacing referees like this? Do you know how many CR's he's worked on the past 26 days before he got to yours? Have to tried communicating with him privately before calling him out publicly? What's the point?
Cita: "Amraan Amjad"My Change Requests for Brazilian Bank Notes have pending for 26 Days & Counting
But the Page of the Referee (Wilsonrvnunes)shows that he visited the Site Less than a Week's Time
Very Outrageous
Link :https://en.numista.com/echanges/profil.php?id=80330
wilsonrvnunes
Member since 7-Jan-2017
Catalog contributions 694 pages added, 2494 years added, 3431 pages edited, 2470 years edited
I seriously think insulting someone that has obviously contributed an enormous amount of his time to improving and expanding the Numista catalog is not fair and definitely not wise. Are you sure the Numista community would be better off by replacing referees like this? Do you know how many CR's he's worked on the past 26 days before he got to yours? Have to tried communicating with him privately before calling him out publicly? What's the point?
I have contacted him three times in P.M
He only has Seen it
But Not Replyed to it
I never said He is a Bad Referee
He is just a Slow Referee
Please don't Judge Me Wrong
Numista Referee for Coins of Kingdom of Bahrain, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Republic of Tunisia & Kingdom of Morocco
🇧🇭🇸🇦🇹🇳🇲🇦
After I complained a lot of times about this topic, I think it's only fair I give credit where credit is due.
I have no outstanding requests which are older than 1 month, which is amazing! I can't remember the last time that was the case. Even tho the requests got processed by the admins and not the actual referees.
The Brazilian listings are incredible because of the initial and extremely hard work of the referee. I think he is entitled to a break. I witnessed first hand the unbelievable edits he made for consistency and clarity of the Brazilian banknote listings. I support him completely.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
Can there be public announcements on people who receive their new refereeships and any new updates on the coins/banknotes/exonumia features periodically?
I find people invited/removed into refereeships often without notice, and too many changes on cataloging esp in the exonumia section in the past couple of years.
With great appreciation to all the volunteers building up this site, I have no issue with the delays on processing times, in my case they are handled rather fast and when it takes longer, I don't mind the waiting. Thank you for the fantastic work you are doing.
Nevertheless, as some requests do take longer than others to be checked, my question is whether there is a system in place to prevent several people from working/submitting updates to the same coin or note. For instance, I found recently a “Contribute to the catalogue” page, which lists items that I have and suggests that I can help by adding bigger pictures, weights or measurements. Thank you for this list, it is a great idea.
However, as I suppose other members get similar suggestions and I also notice a slight increase in delay for some countries, thus, I wonder whether someone else could also be waiting or getting started to work on the same, while my submission is waiting to be reviewed. Likewise, since I don't know how this contribution list has been available, it could be that others are waiting for approval even before I start working on them.
And, to be clear, so far I have not been denied any change request on the basis of someone else making the same improvement to the same coin/bank-note already.
But, would there be any warning or a way to prevent duplication of efforts?
With great appreciation to all the volunteers building up this site, I have no issue with the delays on processing times, in my case they are handled rather fast and when it takes longer, I don't mind the waiting. Thank you for the fantastic work you are doing.
Nevertheless, as some requests do take longer than others to be checked, my question is whether there is a system in place to prevent several people from working/submitting updates to the same coin or note. For instance, I found recently a “Contribute to the catalogue” page, which lists items that I have and suggests that I can help by adding bigger pictures, weights or measurements. Thank you for this list, it is a great idea.
However, as I suppose other members get similar suggestions and I also notice a slight increase in delay for some countries, thus, I wonder whether someone else could also be waiting or getting started to work on the same, while my submission is waiting to be reviewed. Likewise, since I don't know how this contribution list has been available, it could be that others are waiting for approval even before I start working on them.
And, to be clear, so far I have not been denied any change request on the basis of someone else making the same improvement to the same coin/bank-note already.
But, would there be any warning or a way to prevent duplication of efforts?
A very good question, which I think can not be answered completely.
Example (today): I start to make documentation of a given coin (description, image, variant), I do my research, I build my documentation, so let's say that I have spent around 5 hours on that. Now I make my Change Request and submit it. Then I wait for a validation and that's it… except I might have lost my 5 hours, since another CR from another member already touched exactly the same area….
Example (tomorrow): I know which coin I would like to document (description, image, variant) so I check the corresponding numista page to find which other CR have been or not submitted, since I don't want to lose 5 hours on something already done in another CR by another member. Since this other member's CR has not been validated yet (otherwise I would have noticed it in the content on the numista page) it's nearly sure that the referee has not come around to have a look. So no human intervention on the CR yet. The application will only be able to tell me, that a CR is already submitted, but it's not likely that the system will give the details (copy right problems), If no CR exists, I can go ahead and spend my 5 hours, if a CR exists, I'll have to go into “sleep” mode and wait until the existing CR has been processed. How will I know, when I can look that coin in numista to judge, if my eventual documentation is still needed? Here I haven't lost any time yet, except in the waiting.
Thank you for the quick reply, I believe that you have answered my original question, when you say that “The application will only be able to tell me, that a CR is already submitted” . . . As even without details, that would give me an indication that someone is working on this same item.
My new question then is, where can I see the info that a CR is submitted for any particular coin or bank note?
My new question then is, where can I see the info that a CR is submitted for any particular coin or bank note?
What he meant is that now it is “Example (today):” and what he would like to see it changed to is “Example (tomorrow):” Today only the referee and some Admins can see that information.
With great appreciation to all the volunteers building up this site, I have no issue with the delays on processing times, in my case they are handled rather fast and when it takes longer, I don't mind the waiting. Thank you for the fantastic work you are doing.
Nevertheless, as some requests do take longer than others to be checked, my question is whether there is a system in place to prevent several people from working/submitting updates to the same coin or note. For instance, I found recently a “Contribute to the catalogue” page, which lists items that I have and suggests that I can help by adding bigger pictures, weights or measurements. Thank you for this list, it is a great idea.
However, as I suppose other members get similar suggestions and I also notice a slight increase in delay for some countries, thus, I wonder whether someone else could also be waiting or getting started to work on the same, while my submission is waiting to be reviewed. Likewise, since I don't know how this contribution list has been available, it could be that others are waiting for approval even before I start working on them.
And, to be clear, so far I have not been denied any change request on the basis of someone else making the same improvement to the same coin/bank-note already.
But, would there be any warning or a way to prevent duplication of efforts?
I had also some thoughts on this one. I guess this could be achieved with some exclamation marks or similar (on the left side of the name of the page), where something has already been submitted, but has not yet been checked by referee.
I still believe that there should be a maximum limit to the number of days it should take to validate coins, ect, especially the more modern ones. I think ancient coinage may take a little longer.
I created two new listings from the same country on June 8th, and after a week, I actually contacted the referee, who actually failed to reply. The referee in question, answered a forum question yesterday, so he is alive.
What made it worse, was the fact that another referee contacted me direct for updated photographs of a silver coin I have, and so I added photographs and it was validated in less than one hour.
I still believe that there should be a maximum limit to the number of days it should take to validate coins, ect, especially the more modern ones. I think ancient coinage may take a little longer.
That just makes no sense in general.
But there should be a maximum limit for issuers with a designated referee!
I had an open request for 7 months, wrote to the designated (ACTIVE!) referee, admins, and master referees for months, and got ignored entirely or lured with toothless promises until an admin finally processed it.
And nothing changed. The referee is still there and is again ignoring all my requests for this one specific issuer for over a month again already.
And all this because the people responsible for this site are so terrified to lose referees that they let them do whatever they want.
Just looking at open requests for 7 months and laughing at how long nobody notices? Nobody cares
A referee wasn't even online for over half a year and everyone can even see it on their profile page? Oops, I didn't notice. Let me take another month to confirm with that referee he/she really wants to quit the position.
Accepting as many entries of the same exact coin? No problem.
Accepting pictures that theoretically let others sue the website for copyright infringement? No problem, just don't do it again.
Lying on the Forum to save face when someone calls you out on your incompetence? I don't even want to hear it. That referee deFinItELy makes a good job otherwise.
I accept that I have to wait 7 months for a complicated coin by an issuer where nobody was found to look into it. But I can't accept it for issuers that have a designated referee.
I get the excuses about “they are all volunteers, just be patient…” but as others have said, it hurts numismatics in general and devalues your database when frequent contributors are discouraged due to laziness or apathy of those holding the reigns.
There must be a limit to how much responsibility ANY ONE REFEREE is given. If they can't keep up, split their duties amongst more than one.
Stop letting them think they have their own petty fiefdom to rule at the exclusion of all others. Yes and for example giving Ancient Greeks to one person is absurd; it's much too big of a topic of study. I have new pages consistently waiting 5 weeks.
Recently there was a list of very obscure countries for which referees were needed. Sadly the ONLY OPPORTUNITY to become a referee was for those rare individuals who had a very slim niche expertise while all the “established and manned” countries/sectors were locked out. More exclusion leading to bad feelings. ☹️
I really like this database and contributed hundreds of new coins, i just don't understand why the work schedule of one referee takes precedence over the benefits to thousands of users.
We are splitting the duties of referees when it is needed. Also, anyone is invited to volunteer, even for positions that are currently occupied as co-referees.
Stop letting them think they have their own petty fiefdom to rule at the exclusion of all others.
Recently there was a list of very obscure countries for which referees were needed. Sadly the ONLY OPPORTUNITY to become a referee was for those rare individuals who had a very slim niche expertise while all the “established and manned” countries/sectors were locked out. More exclusion leading to bad feelings. ☹️
I try to assume positive intent. My guess is that they are doing what they think is the best thing for the database, not that they are trying to “rule” anything.
Here is the list of countries without referees. There are a wide variety of countries that could appeal to the skill sets of many individuals.
Just accept it as is, nobody can ever guaranty you a better situation, referees and master referees are all just normal human beings, who were nice enough to volunteer for a “job” taking a lot of time and effort, some of them even with a profession, a family and a work, which is far more important than any member's change request. Grow up!
Just accept it as is, nobody can ever guaranty you a better situation, referees and master referees are all just normal human beings, who were nice enough to volunteer for a “job” taking a lot of time and effort, some of them even with a profession, a family and a work, which is far more important than any member's change request. Grow up!
Accepting things “as is” is a policy for stagnation and failure. We are pointing out the frustration of how things ARE but also suggesting positive ways to improve. “Grow up” you say, well sir, your attitude is the one of immaturity here.
Nobody asked you to improve MY situation. I and others are trying to improve EVERYONE'S situation but you are content with “the way things are….” Your excuses of profession, family, work are just that … excuses. I have all those obligations and still found the time to contribute hundreds of well-researched pages. I also volunteered to be a referee, but so far it has fallen on deaf ears.
Many referees are dedicated and very helpful, but those few referees hiding behind excuses don't like any outspoken comments? These things are the truth. So as you say, grow up.
Just accept it as is, nobody can ever guaranty you a better situation, referees and master referees are all just normal human beings, who were nice enough to volunteer for a “job” taking a lot of time and effort, some of them even with a profession, a family and a work, which is far more important than any member's change request. Grow up!
Accepting things “as is” is a policy for stagnation and failure. We are pointing out how things are frustrating but also suggesting positive ways to improve. “Grow up” you say, well sir, your attitude is the one of immaturity here.
Nobody asked you to improve MY situation. I and others are trying to improve EVERYONE'S situation but you are content with “the way things are….” Your excuses of profession, family, work are just that … excuses. I have all those obligations and still found the time to contribute hundreds of well-researched pages. I also volunteered to be a referee, but so far it has fallen on deaf ears.
Many referees are dedicated and very helpful, but those few referees hiding behind excuses don't like any outspoken comments. These things are the truth. So as you say, grow up.
I think Sjoelund not only fully understands the situation; but is also one of this site's most experienced and serious contributors.
So, certainly, he deserves more respect.
… and also he sees the situation super-clearly: you cannot discipline current referees better, but we need more hands who can do the job in their FREE TIME - without compensation, based on enthusiasm.
- the more you bitch about the more they will give it up, as we have seen in many-many cases.
I am resilient, you cannot piss me off, but there are more sensitive souls, so beware.
… disciplining referees I am sure is counterproductive!
In my experience, becoming a referee is pretty straightforward, you apply - they get you.
Just accept it as is, nobody can ever guaranty you a better situation, referees and master referees are all just normal human beings, who were nice enough to volunteer for a “job” taking a lot of time and effort, some of them even with a profession, a family and a work, which is far more important than any member's change request. Grow up!
Accepting things “as is” is a policy for stagnation and failure. We are pointing out how things are frustrating but also suggesting positive ways to improve. “Grow up” you say, well sir, your attitude is the one of immaturity here.
Nobody asked you to improve MY situation. I and others are trying to improve EVERYONE'S situation but you are content with “the way things are….” Your excuses of profession, family, work are just that … excuses. I have all those obligations and still found the time to contribute hundreds of well-researched pages. I also volunteered to be a referee, but so far it has fallen on deaf ears.
Many referees are dedicated and very helpful, but those few referees hiding behind excuses don't like any outspoken comments. These things are the truth. So as you say, grow up.
I think Sjoelund not only fully understands the situation; but is also one of this site's most experienced and serious contributors.
So, certainly, he deserves more respect.
… and also he sees the situation super-clearly: you cannot discipline current referees better, but we need more hands who can do the job in their FREE TIME - without compensation, based on enthusiasm.
- the more you bitch about the more they will give it up, as we have seen in many-many cases.
I am resilient, you cannot piss me off, but there are more sensitive souls, so beware.
… disciplining referees I am sure is counterproductive!
In my experience, becoming a referee is pretty straightforward, you apply - they get you.
So, there shall be an issue with your deaf ears …
Respect is earned. No one telling others to “grow up” deserves respect no matter how many coins he owns, no matter how many years he has enjoyed the privilege of being a “Numista Referee” or no matter how many people blindly defend him.
I never suggested disciplining any established referees. Do you consider splitting their duties amongst “new blood” who have much more enthusiasm as a punishment? Being the referee over one sector of collectible coins is not a right but a privilege. The suggestion that no one should ever have to stop being sole referee and share with another is proof of my “petty fiefdom” comment above. It is human nature to jealously guard what we perceive to be OURS. This sadly is not inclusive or showing toleration for a new generation of numismatists.
My intention isn't to “piss off sensitive souls,” but to rise to the challenge that you and others have posted when you say things like “if you don't like how slow it is, then volunteer to help…” so i volunteered. Just like i have served my community since 1996 as a volunteer firefighter and as i serve my state as a professional engineer. You saying “Bitching” is highly insulting. Pointing out faults and suggesting ways to help make it better is constructive. Bitching is mere complaining which i am not seeing here. What are you scared of? Having to work with others? New ideas? New enthusiasm?
Tmsconst, you're certainly born to become a referee, so go ahead and become the best referee numista ever had. You're only a PM away, please ask to become an insider.
Tmsconst, you're certainly born to become a referee, so go ahead and become the best referee numista ever had. You're only a PM away, please ask to become an insider.
Tmsconst, you're certainly born to become a referee, so go ahead and become the best referee numista ever had. You're only a PM away, please ask to become an insider.
I'll ignore the snark and proceed as if you are being serious…
Tmsconst, you're certainly born to become a referee, so go ahead and become the best referee numista ever had. You're only a PM away, please ask to become an insider.
I'll ignore the snark and proceed as if you are being serious…
Tmsconst, you're certainly born to become a referee, so go ahead and become the best referee numista ever had. You're only a PM away, please ask to become an insider.
I'll ignore the snark and proceed as if you are being serious…
Whom do you suggest i send a PM to?
I really meant it and the has been given already. Good luck!
s'il vous plait, une précision : il “travaille toutes les nuits” mais son profil n'indique pas sa localisation, savoir si on ne dort pas pendant ce temps là et constater au réveil
please, a precision: he “works every night” but his profile does not indicate his location, to know if we do not sleep during this time and to see when we wake up
Robot observes Central European timezone, and works somewhere between 1am - 4am.
Ahoj Jarcek,
Is there a possibility to either give the robot the authority or the super-power to you and other team members to verify some of the obvious data?
- like whether a round coin is round; an obviously rectangular banknote is rectangular indeed, or that early coins are hammered, while after a while they are all milled. … or that a certain country (like Czech or Hungary … or most Western Europe ++) is using the Latin alphabet by default - then if there are other scripts then it can be added.
With all the appreciation for your personal contributions and some other really enthusiastic folks, a lot of time passes by verifying really obvious requests :) — really driving away attention and time from significant new entries or more complicated requests.
Robot observes Central European timezone, and works somewhere between 1am - 4am.
Ahoj Jarcek,
Is there a possibility to either give the robot the authority or the super-power to you and other team members to verify some of the obvious data?
- like whether a round coin is round; an obviously rectangular banknote is rectangular indeed, or that early coins are hammered, while after a while they are all milled. … or that a certain country (like Czech or Hungary … or most Western Europe ++) is using the Latin alphabet by default - then if there are other scripts then it can be added.
With all the appreciation for your personal contributions and some other really enthusiastic folks, a lot of time passes by verifying really obvious requests :) — really driving away attention and time from significant new entries or more complicated requests.
I am working on those conditions these days. What I do not want is for the robot to enter errors into catalogue, so any condition has to be bulletproof.
As for scripts, this can be partially done as some characters are unique to some scripts. Just today I was gathering first testing batch for this area. If you know anything that is always true and can be checked and modified, or common typo, just let me know.
Numista is a 7/7 24/24, so as such there's no “night” time, and I think the servers are in Canada, you see? Your eyes will roll before you figure out, when the robot is doing its job🙃
