Changing Contribution Policies?

I've been contributing to Numista for a few years now, adding new coins, offering photos, revising information, and so forth. I try to do research and make quality contributions. I enjoy doing so and am glad to be helpful. I've also been grateful that it has been okay to add a new coin even if I don't know everything about it or have the resources to make a polished contribution. Is this policy changing?

I ask because I'm getting increasingly more challenging modification requests in response to my submissions. Today I put in the work to add five more coins from my collection that aren't currently on Numista and received modification requests on all five asking for things that I haven't been asked for in the past. I was, for instance, asked to only submit coin images with white backgrounds, to include relevant reference numbers, and to try to do more research so that I could include more information about the coin ("Reference, Metal, History (sometimes), Different varieties.") “It is best to add as much information as possible so no one comes along and edits it behind you.”

I agree that all of this can be helpful. But the more overwhelming it feels to contribute to Numista, the less likely people are going to offer their help. And I actually like the way Numista has operated as a collaborative endeavor; I like the idea that I can offer what I can about a particular coin and then other collectors can come by later and improve and add to the information. 

I suggest that Numista continue with policies that make it encouraging, stress-free, and enjoyable for users to contribute to the database.

You don't have to create a master piece just general and most important data is enough and that entrails denomination, material, (preferably dimensions and weight) as well as the year list (would be nice if also major variants are included) and depending on what type of coins we are talking about this data is easy to attain and not really stressful.

The more information from the start the better, this leads to few doubles and unnecessary work.

When we added the banknote section extremely many stub pages were created (and worse approved), with a bad title, maybe some pictures and incomplete year lists. Then when I got the referee position for some banknotes I had to wade through a big mess and essentially redo entire pages (would have made less work to recreate them completely). Especially an incomplete or wrong year list can be a big pain in the ass afterwards when people populate it and afterwards you can't separate the owners and move them to the right lines or edit them without going through a catalog admin.

The one with the white background is policy as long as I remember being on Numista (not necessarily circular cropped but at least as little background as possible). Makes things easier for the people who have to crop it later.

References for most modern (but not too modern) should be quite easy to find even if you don't have a catalog. Google books has the Krause catalog scanned or NGC site etc. can be found through google searches. But I don't think that is absolutely necessary.

On these resources you can also find the metal, years and major variants. 

History is just a bonus and not really needed from the start.

Just a point of few from the other side.

No - white backgrounds 

No - reference numbers 

No - more information 

 As in, no need (in my opinion) - namely I would never ask anyone to add them. 

What I would like to see - most if not all of these > 

Good title - not just six submissions with same title - add something to distinguish them. 

Country - says it on the coin. 

Diameter - even if approximate, with a ruler. 

Thickness - if you can fairly accurately measure that small. 

Weight - but only if you know it, from your own coin. 

Shape - far too many leave it blank - there is ‘Round’ in the drop-down box. Use it! 

Orientation - easy, surely. 

Descriptions - just say what you see. 

Lettering - assuming it is an alphabet you understand. 

Edge description - easy, surely. 

Year - says it on the coin. 

Pictures - fairly close, so not 90% background. 

 Would like to see what Xavier, or other referees think though. 

Personnally I make the edits by myself when description, references, etc are missing or incomplete.

I just ask for good quality photos and at least a relevant source, but I agree to do the cut out around coins by myself for instance.

My philosophy is: a creation request is a poke to the referree about a missing entry in the catalog; I dont expect the requester to be an expert in numismatics, a specialist of Numista forms or to spend hours in online research. 

I'm not just a validator of requests and I dont consider myself a teacher having to train people; I try to enrich entries by myself as often as I can before publishing.

But maybe if same member do several requests with always same missing infos like shape, mint etc, I'll write to him in comments how to improve his submissions.

[Edit]: i must say i can do all of that because I dont have a huge amount of requests, its pretty calm most of the time.

 Similar here. I would add that saying no to those three earlier is not wrong, 

just that if the member was able to do them, they would already have been done. 

 I also make small corrections myself, without asking the member to re-do the page. 

Such as yesterday George was mis-spelled as something like Geroge so I just changed it. 

ZacUK

No - white backgrounds 

No - reference numbers 

No - more information 

 As in, no need (in my opinion) - namely I would never ask anyone to add them. 

What I would like to see - most if not all of these > 

 

Good title - not just six submissions with same title - add something to distinguish them. 

Country - says it on the coin. 

Diameter - even if approximate, with a ruler. 

Thickness - if you can fairly accurately measure that small. 

Weight - but only if you know it, from your own coin. 

Shape - far too many leave it blank - there is ‘Round’ in the drop-down box. Use it! 

Orientation - easy, surely. 

Descriptions - just say what you see. 

Lettering - assuming it is an alphabet you understand. 

Edge description - easy, surely. 

Year - says it on the coin. 

Pictures - fairly close, so not 90% background. 

 

 Would like to see what Xavier, or other referees think though. 

As a contributor, I absolutely love this post.  I'd like to see every referee post something like this after a suitable amount of time to get into the swing of things.  Perhaps the referee you work with on the regular (for me it's been exonumia lately) has a greater value on certain aspects of the listings.  Good communication means more coins get added and added well!

https://en.numista.com/help/what-are-the-mandatory-requirements-for-submitting-a-new-item-24.html

stratocaster

https://en.numista.com/help/what-are-the-mandatory-requirements-for-submitting-a-new-item-24.html

French version : https://fr.numista.com/help/quelles-sont-les-conditions-requises-pour-soumettre-un-nouvel-objet-64.html

I would like to add that for modern coins there's almost no excuse for not providing the information. In Canada, for coins from the Royal Canadian Mint all the information is there on the RCM web site, in both official languages. The RCM reference number (Product Number) is very usefull to us referees when you submit an “incomplete” new item. 

Best regards,

Québécois

I would like to add that for modern coins there's almost no excuse for not providing the information. In Canada, for coins from the Royal Canadian Mint all the information is there on the RCM web site, in both official languages. The RCM reference number (Product Number) is very usefull to us referees when you submit an “incomplete” new item.

+1

I don't understand people who add mints to pages without evidence. 

Recommendation: Consult the catalog to see how the photos are presented

Compare

The better the coin is presented in image, the better it can be imagined

All this being said, I understand drdrew's point of view that this is a collaborative site and that sometimes for some coins, it's better to have in an incomplete item than nothing.  I'm more and more encline to accept a new item with missing information and let the community complete it. Again I don't think this should be the case for modern coins. Some people really need to do some efforts.

When I accept an incomplete item I don't mark it as “Verified”. This will helps me not to forget and I will get back to it later and try to complete the missing info myself if no one added the info since it was “Approuved”.

Members have to realize that a referee has limited time to do research and the person who has the coin in hand is probably the best person to complete the infos about it.

I often get contribution requests to add new coins, and they looks like this:
Titel: AUSTRALIA ONE DOLLAR COIN

No basic information what so ever.

No obverse/reverse description, no lettering, no translation

No year in date line

I've even got a requests to add a coins with just one word written in the whole sheet, and it was in the title field where it say “DOLLAR”. I don't remember for which country, but I do remember that the specific country does not use the dollar as currency. 💩

To prevent requests like these two examples, I too have begun to ask for at least the basic information as shape, size, weight. I am also requesting to add at least the lettering, and a correct title. I believe most of us referees are getting tired of the stat hunters - those who just want a good statistics.

In this specific case I don't know the details, but this could be a reason for a picky referee.

Hello,

I fully support drdrew's original message. We should not be asking too much from contributors so that every contributor feels welcome and encouraged to contribute again.

Referees should not reject or send back for edits just because the page is not fully complete. We defined a list of mandatory requirements, in an attempt to balance between enough information so that the coin is clearly identifiable and not too many requirements to reduce barriers to contributions. If a referee believes that some information could be provided on top of this list of mandatory requirements, they should accept the addition and they can still ask for additional details or add remarks as a comment to the approved addition request.

I prefer an incomplete (but still clearly identifiable) coin page rather than no page because the contributor is unable to provide all information or feels the process is too complex. Numista is collaborative: it will still be possible for other people to incrementally improve any incomplete information.

@ddrew, for the specific cases you mentioned, feel free to appeal the decision so that a catalogue admin can approve the pages and contact the referee if needed. The “appeal” link is on the top right corner of the page about the coin creation request.

ngdawa

I often get contribution requests to add new coins, and they looks like this:
Titel: AUSTRALIA ONE DOLLAR COIN

No basic information what so ever.

No obverse/reverse description, no lettering, no translation

No year in date line

 

I've even got a requests to add a coins with just one word written in the whole sheet, and it was in the title field where it say “DOLLAR”. I don't remember for which country, but I do remember that the specific country does not use the dollar as currency. @

 

To prevent requests like these two examples, I too have begun to ask for at least the basic information as shape, size, weight. I am also requesting to add at least the lettering, and a correct title. I believe most of us referees are getting tired of the stat hunters - those who just want a good statistics.

 

In this specific case I don't know the details, but this could be a reason for a picky referee.

Hi

Not all requests are perfect and not all will be like taken out of the gutters. So as a referee, you have to be prepared for really terrible stuff. Although these do come on very rare occasions and may be in the end kind of funny, I just got one like that couple of days ago. It was actually horrible, just like being made by Numista Robot to check if I am validating stuff without any checks whatsoever. I have cancelled it without any reply and if I am being rude by that, I question what was the motive behind publishing something of really beyond low quality. 

I don't mind if people drop out lettering in case where new page requests are in very low numbers by specific user. But adding hundreds of new pages just for the sake of statistics (new pages added, like the situation with many notes I personally collect) and leaving most of the available data (which can be read from note or coin) empty, where even the referee is passing this thru, is simply not Numista style.

LP

Xavier

 

Referees should not reject or send back for edits just because the page is not fully complete. 

 

I prefer an incomplete (but still clearly identifiable) coin page rather than no page because the contributor is unable to provide all information or feels the process is too complex. Numista is collaborative: it will still be possible for other people to incrementally improve any incomplete information. 

 What??! So a lazy member just adds a title and two pictures and we are supposed to accept it. Never. 

If it is a modern coin with clearly identifiable lettering, then surely the member can add the lettering - 

and descriptions, edge description, orientation, diameter, and so on. Surely? 

 Seen a few like that this week. Will not give links. Do not want the members identified - apart from 

which would not be able to find those pages again now, a few days later. 

 So you want 

‘other people to incrementally improve any incomplete information’ 

thereby letting the lazy member get away with doing hardly anything. What is this site coming to? 

 Same as when the banknotes section started; two pictures and a title, and nothing else - 

yet page after page got accepted. Yes I am still annoyed about that, 

however many months or years later it is now since that section began. 

ZacUK

 What??! So a lazy member just adds a title and two pictures and we are supposed to accept it. Never. 

If it is a modern coin with clearly identifiable lettering, then surely the member can add the lettering - 

and descriptions, edge description, orientation, diameter, and so on. Surely? 

 Seen a few like that this week. Will not give links. Do not want the members identified - apart from 

which would not be able to find those pages again now, a few days later. 

 So you want 

‘other people to incrementally improve any incomplete information’ 

thereby letting the lazy member get away with doing hardly anything. What is this site coming to? 

Let me post the link again: https://en.numista.com/help/what-are-the-mandatory-requirements-for-submitting-a-new-item-24.html

Descriptions and letterings are part of the expectations when adding a new coin.

The dimensions, weight, type of edge, orientation, watermarks, etc. are also expected if the user owns the coin.

All relevant references, metal, history, varieties, etc. are welcome, although it would be counter-productive to make them mandatory. 

Pages with barely any valid information (as mentioned by ngdawa and mikimaus above) should be rejected of course; no doubt about that.

 I wrote all that based just on what you wrote. 

Not opened the link. 

 Descriptions and letterings are part of the expectations when adding a new coin. 

Agreed 

 The dimensions, weight, type of edge, orientation, watermarks, etc. are also expected if the user owns the coin. 

Agreed 

 All relevant references, metal, history, varieties, etc. are welcome, although it would be counter-productive to make them mandatory. 

Agreed 

 Pages with barely any valid information (as mentioned by ngdawa and mikimaus above) should be rejected of course; no doubt about that. 

Agreed  

 Summary; thanks. 😊 

Perhaps consideration should be made to having than one ‘Required field’ when a member is creating a listing.

Currently, the only required field is the country.

I would consider that some basic information ought to be required in addition to Country:

1. Year.

2. Value.

3. (for a banknote) composition. Generally they are paper or polymer. Coins can be trickier.

4. Size - if known - if someone is uploading an image of their own banknote or coin, they ought to measure it. This should be a requirement for someone who is uploading an image of their own [could this be triggered with an if-then loop?].

5. shape. 

6. Obverse description - something should be required.

7. Reverse description - something should be required.

Hibernia

Perhaps consideration should be made to having than one ‘Required field’ when a member is creating a listing.

Currently, the only required field is the country.

I like this suggestion. There should be mandatory section that must be filled before a cage creation request can be sent. Let's bring forward our common friend – the red asterisk!