MLPMerch.com Update! Online Check- and Wishlist of all generations! + Notes

[katrine2309]

Concrete errors in terms of the Nirvana Ponies (with proof), missing info like release years etc can all be PM'ed to me. I want to fix it I promise. But I can't do it in one day.

It’s great that you want to fix it, it really is! But I have to point out that I strongly feel that the responsibility for correct info on your page is yourself, including ensuring as correct information as possible. Of course I can email you with what I know(and I am sure others want to as well), but to be honest- your site is very flawed in this section that it is a lot of work. Just by using the name «nirvana» for the section is one major flaw in my opinion. It is grey areas with this term of course, but others again are very clear. Gypsy and all of her set for instance have never been nirvanas... The issue with your site isn’t concrete errors, such as incorrect years of release (although you have those errors as well). That is a quick fix. The issue as I see it is with the structure of section. That is not a quick fix.

You are asking for proof sent with the information, and that is great- but it raises the question I asked earlier; what is your current source of information for this section? Is all the information on there already proof-checked? Since you are asking for proof for new information, it seems like it is and to be honest that worries me even more....

I understand that you can’t do it in one day, it is an overwhelming task you’ve started. If I were you I would have taken the «nirvana» section down for now and put it up after you’ve worked on it some more. Especially if you are unsure of your source. I would think it isn’t a goal in itself to have all ponies on there, if it is not correct?

I’m sorry if I seem harsh. I don’t mean to be. Like I said in my other post, I really like your site for G4 and I am amazed at what you’ve been able to do

[Taffeta]

Concrete errors in terms of the Nirvana Ponies (with proof), missing info like release years etc can all be PM'ed to me. I want to fix it I promise. But I can't do it in one day.

@Katrine, I'm glad you posted, because hopefully that means what I post will be less annoyed. I won't make any apologies though if I am harsh - because basically this is trampling on what I've spent 20 years trying to sort out, and that upsets me.

@TornadoTwist

If you run a website, responsibility for researching information and providing correct intel is yours. Not anyone else's. You run a great G4 site, so I imagine you are well aware of that responsibility.

G1 is not G4. Things are different because there are so many global variations that G4 doesn't have. You also don't have an immediate what's out now and on store shelves aspect. You are dealing with history. That makes it more work and harder to do properly.

The proof demand bothers me. You clearly haven't used validated source material thus far because otherwise you wouldn't have imaginary Paradise on your site. It's a bit off to tell us to prove things when you haven't checked proof with the stuff you already have.

As for proof, my sig contains the link to my website. I may not be the sophisticated web designer you guys are, but I do have time on my side. That site has been there in one form or another for 20 years. That's longer than the Arena. Longer than Nirvana ponies. Longer than any other existing ID site. It was set up to prove the differences in UK release from the US, back in 1998. It is full of backcards, leaflets, advertising, hasbro intel, etc. There is your proof. My frustration is that people expect me to also fix their websites for them as well as run my own. I'm not going to do that. My site is there as a resource. I suggest maybe using it.

This is 2018. We've moved beyond the time period when it was ok to just cobble together international ponies any old way and hope for the best. People actually expect correct information now. Meeting that expectation is your responsibility if you want to run a G1 database on your site. It's just common sense that you do the research to ensure your information is right before you go live. You wouldn't do any different with G4, so it makes no sense to drop your standards for G1.

[banditpony]

Feature makes more sense then theme. Theme really isn't the right word at all.

But as I said. The community has used the word gimmick for g1s (way before G4s). So why not use the word that's been used in the community for a long time? personally think it's cute rather than negative .. but that I can admit is personal.

The fact of the matter is smelly 3D symbols, tails that grow, and wings that flap when you press a button ARE gimmicks. That I *will* argue about.

And what's negative about those things? Nothing.

[KarentheUnicorn]

Feature makes more sense then theme. Theme really isn't the right word at all.

But as I said. The community has used the word gimmick for g1s (way before G4s). So why not use the word that's been used in the community for a long time? personally think it's cute rather than negative .. but that I can admit is personal.

The fact of the matter is smelly 3D symbols, tails that grow, and wings that flap when you press a button ARE gimmicks. That I *will* argue about.

And what's negative about those things? Nothing.

Okay so at this point it's kind of obvious that it's just disagreeing to disagree. I'm not the pony police who is gonna give out a ticket but my opinion stands on how I feel about using the word gimmick on a collecting ID site. You can either accept what I think as valid for me. You clearly think Theme is bad, but I have more of a feeling it's because I suggested/liked it, at the end of the day I really can Rett Butler whatever word is used.

If I have to choose what is more important in this discussion, I think a site giving out incorrect information is way more of a problem than my minor discomfort and dislike of a word.

As far as incorrect unvalidated information being presented as fact, I'm pretty tired of the 'usual' train these discussions take. Because I've seen it go on since 1997. I think the issue with insisting a long time collectors outside the usa needs to 'prove' their info is a bit much.

Ponypeople like Taffeta have been in the online community for a long time. Longer in fact than I have.

If people want to know who I went to back in the day (and even to this day) when I didn't know or was unsure on something, Taffeta was one of the collectors I would ask to help verify information.

I think from the beginning a lot of us have been frustrated with incorrect info where MLP collecting is concerned. You can even go back to dream valley, one of the original collecting sites that everyone always used; which was good for USA info but kind of shaky on international stuff. The internet was new and some stuff was seriously unknown. But because it was there on a well known site, some stuff was accepted as fact even when collectors outside the USA complained.

But in a lot of ways instead of trusting the people outside the USA, there have been situations where the USA collecting community would just brushed aside or flat out ignored what international pony people tell USA folks. Well it must be right, dream valley has it on there site. Etc, Etc.

I think it's gotten better but obviously from what I'm reading on here, there clearly seems be wrong information still being presented as fact and the only reply comes in as 'prove it'.

It's the same mentality, even with years in the collecting community I would never flat out tell a collector like Taffeta to 'prove it'. I mean I know what's going to happen, she more than likely will, especially if over the years that collector presented facts and info that line up with other collectors outside the usa.

I personally know USA ponies, just like most USA collectors do. It's pretty easy if you grew up in it. I think a lot of people would agree that most of the sites are setup revolving around USA release. And some stuff is made on assumption because someone else had it on their site, or book, or whatever.

But collectors like Taffeta grew up outside the USA, and have been as involved as most of us in MLP back then. So I think there is a pretty good chance that if she's telling you something is incorrect about MLP then my natural instinct is to go with her on it, because she's one of the pony collectors I trust in terms of giving out correct info about MLP and not just repeating stuff because it was on someones website or book or whatever.

Anyway, I don't like the whole 'prove it' mentality. I'd more rather let me check my sorces and ask for collaboration from those people who would know the subject.

And I get it, that's a difficult thing to do, especially if people are not as familar with the community of collectors or who is a long time collector, or who gives out correct info.

But I can vouch for Taffeta being a upstanding long time member of the MLP community who wants to have the correct info out there. If you feel strongly about MLP and having the correct info, I'd say talk to collectors like her. For some collectors it's more about having the right info out there, opposed to just having credit for the info.

So if ya wanna keep arguing about a word, but I'd rather the info be right and call it a kurfuffle pony than the site have misleading or incorrect information.

[banditpony]

Feature makes more sense then theme. Theme really isn't the right word at all.

But as I said. The community has used the word gimmick for g1s (way before G4s). So why not use the word that's been used in the community for a long time? personally think it's cute rather than negative .. but that I can admit is personal.

The fact of the matter is smelly 3D symbols, tails that grow, and wings that flap when you press a button ARE gimmicks. That I *will* argue about.

And what's negative about those things? Nothing.

Okay so at this point it's kind of obvious that it's just disagreeing to disagree

I am not trying to disagree O.o here I like the word gimmick (my opinion) but trying to give feed back on an alternative word because you dislike it (your opinion)

but I can separate my like from the issue. But I was saying if an alternative work was used, "feature" works. Which btw, you suggested it so please just stop thinking I'm arguing. I can't argue someone's opinion.

But I don't see how real flapping wings AREN'T a gimmick.

"Features real flapping flutter wings".

"Theme of real flapping flutter wings"

ETA, I see now you didn't suggest it, I read it in your post that you were thinking about it. So ignore that. But my point was I was trying to be open

Heck, you didn't even suggest theme...

[Ossie]

@katrine2309 / @Taffeta, our apologies if things got wrong worded, please allow me to rephrase.
The nirvana database, at the moment, is not the right name for all ponies in there, we understand. It's our goal to get good documentation and it appears that not all sources that we used were correct. The current release is our first release, and we had a bit of thought before putting in out, exactly for the reasons that were mentioned. Yet we decided to put it online, and I'm glad that this discussion got started, as it will help us approach the 'nirvana' in a better and correct way.

As you mentioned G1 is not G4, and I can't agree more! We have immense respect for those who had the time to investigate the history of local releases (let's avoid nirvana for now) and would like to get in contact with those people. To get the first release out we mainly relied on public sources (and this appears to not be the best approach) and are happy to get signals from you all on improvements. I'm happy to hear that you're willing to help (and we'll definitely take a look at the UK Scrapbook), but we understand that it's not just fixing a few names. Structural changes are needed, and we fully accept that, as our end goal is to get a complete and error-free database.

Regarding the proof, I think it's better to call this 'credibility'. We'd like to prevent to get even more stuff wrong and prefer contact from sources that have already been accepted by the community. No need for certificates in pony-science

[Taffeta]

Unicorn thank you

If I cared about making money out of my research I'd have written a book about MLP in the UK a long time ago. I care more about people getting and transmitting correct information.

It matters how long ago I began with this only because in 1998, MLP G1 stuff and info was much more available. And I was writing to Hasbro UK before I was online, and have a list from them from 1995 telling me what ponies they believed they had sold in the UK line from 1985 to 1994, so I got information from them right at the end of the G1 line, before stuff got ditched or downsized. That's important when it comes to building information about G1, because most of it is hard copy.

@Ossie - I think if you really did respect that work you would have used it more before this point. My website is also a public resource and easy to find on google and on my signature. You chose not to use it. That's not my fault.

As for credibility, your site claims an imaginary pony exists. Katrine asked you what your sources were, and you haven't provided any. I think credibility goes both ways. Also, in my experience, if someone tells you something or you read something, you should verify it before you include it anyway. That's just being responsible.

Newsflash: Being a site "everyone uses" also doesn't make it correct.

When Kim developed the year system in 1996 it made sense, because it was a US system for a US community and she did all that work from scratch. I may not like DV but I do respect her for doing that, because she did create something new. Everyone else since then has just copied what she did and then done the same stupid party trick of trying to force European ponies into that system, or segregating them out, rather than stopping to think that maybe the system doesn't work any more because it wasn't ever designed to include ponies from outside the US line.

I feel like if you had asked questions before going live with the site, I'd have been all over helping you with getting it organised, and providing links and pictures and proof, because that's helping people out. I am a helpful person, and I have a ton of material which I am more than happy to share in the interests of correct pony information.

But if you load the site and then tell us to prove our case, its is a slap in the face for the work we've done.

As Uni says, people not in the US have had to prove themselves 10x as much on information and still generally get pushed aside if a US centric site says its a certain way. It helps to have a US person say it, who's seen it happen first hand.  It feels a lot like it's only possible for a US system site to be an authority on international MLP and the credibility of those of us who grew up with it is constantly called into question :/


Another Newsflash. Websites that use the US system usually get international stuff wrong. (Though some are worse than others).


Your site has errors because you used those US system sites to build an international section. It's a scenario in which nobody wins. Not you. Not me. Not your users. It creates more work and hassle for all. So we really need to get to a point where the US system is no longer dominating pony organisation. And this is a good opportunity to put that into practice...

I agree with Katrine, you need to take down the international section, rework it, do some research and then come back.