[Archive]

Posted By: Frank

Thanks to all who replied and e-mailed. I was starting to wonder if you all thought I was crazy as this thread was approaching second page fast with only 1 response ... but now that we have some interest, we can start talking nuts and bolts. As the OP, my only request is to stay close to the project, however it develops, and have some shared input into it's creative elements. Some thoughts...

- Scot's point about building an accurate set with front / back I think is critical. The major point about the superset is the backs, so it's a no-brainer. As for validation, I don't know how we validate the front/back combo before being checklisted, but we should probably have a central 'depot' where the scans go, and that person validates and checklists each card based on the scans, the source of the scans, and any other evidence they have to go on. We'd try to stick to trusted sources whenever possible. Actually, Scot would be an excellent choice for something like this.

- The hosting...Bill W, Dennis W, and Leon have all graciously offered to host the Virtual Monster. It makes sense to host it here but one way or the other we need to take advantage of Marty's domain name t206superset.com. But first and foremost, the layout and visual element need to be top notch and do justice to the set, so our webmaster has to know his stuff. Dennis has e-mailed me and it sounds like he has done quite a bit of this kind of thing- Leon, can you give permission to Dennis to post a couple links here in this thread to a sample of his work?

-ChiSoxFan, I have thought a little about how it would look. I was thinking maybe the main page shows the checklist in a matrix style similar to the main tab of the superset spreadsheet that distributed here on a few occasions, shown below. This shows every combination possible in one compact view and serves as the master checklist. Then, when you click on the cell for a particular subject/back combination it opens up a window with the scans, and maybe any interesting notes about the card, player, etc. Somehow we would need to standardize the scans so they all presented uniformly. And we keep upgrading with better examples as we go. I know better is subjective, but I'm sure we'll figure it out.