[Implemented] POLL : Hiding Minor Variant display when using filters and sorting results

[DJCMH]

Hello All

https://colnect.com/en/stamps/list/coun ... issue_date

Currently when using filters, minor variants will still appear as separate listings in the results you bring up even when in your user account you have marked "Hide When Parent Stamp Is On The List" so that all minor variants are nested within the listing of the major variant.

In cases where there many hundreds of minor variants that fit into the parameters of the filter, this can mean that major listings end up being listed several pages later due to their not being listed in the first page based on the criteria selected for the filter (in my case above, sorting the results by issue date, with 250 results per page).

I'd like to propose that, at least in cases where the user has marked to Hide When Parent Stamp Is On The List in their user account, that when filtering ONLY the main root listings appear in the search results, and all minor variants within that listing remain nested within the main listing (provided the main listing was in the filter result).

I think this would make finding results when using filters much easier as most users will be looking to find the results showing the main stamp listings, not the dozens/hundreds of minor variants listed separately because the main listing does not appear in the first page of results based on the sorting category.

Please offer any comments below

Thanks Much

DJCMH

Stamp Catalogue Coordinator

[barryhe]

Thank you for the query. I have 2 comments:

1. I agree that when searching the main item and not the variants should appear. Since the main items usually have links to variants, it should pose little inconvenience, if any, to the searcher.

2. I don't know how to respond to survey questions that are phrased in the negative. "Should minor variants "not" be displayed...?" If I answer yes, does that mean yes I want them displayed or yes I don't want them displayed. I see this often in other surveys. When I taught survey design many years ago, it was OK to have a negatively worded stem, but the responses should inquire about the level of agreement with the statement. An alternate phrasing might be "Colnect will no longer display variants in search results. Please indicate your level of agreement with this process."

• Strongly agree

• Agree

• Disagree

• Strongly disagree

There are certainly other ways to approach the poll, but this was confusing.

Henry

[DJCMH]

Thank you for the query. I have 2 comments:

1. I agree that when searching the main item and not the variants should appear. Since the main items usually have links to variants, it should pose little inconvenience, if any, to the searcher.

2. I don't know how to respond to survey questions that are phrased in the negative. "Should minor variants "not" be displayed...?" If I answer yes, does that mean yes I want them displayed or yes I don't want them displayed. I see this often in other surveys. When I taught survey design many years ago, it was OK to have a negatively worded stem, but the responses should inquire about the level of agreement with the statement. An alternate phrasing might be "Colnect will no longer display variants in search results. Please indicate your level of agreement with this process."

• Strongly agree

• Agree

• Disagree

• Strongly disagree

There are certainly other ways to approach the poll, but this was confusing.

Henry

If you say yes, then you do NOT want the minor variants to directy appear in the results of a filter, only the major variants

[harryffm]

it would be even better to add a switch to the main menu, because some users might consider minor variants only for some countries.

[WernerFriedl]

only the main item should appear

[ARightGathering]

My concern is that minor variants differ from stamp to stamp.

Some stamps have minor variants listed because they have features that differ. Other stamps have two main entities listed based on features that differ.

Until there is a consistent approach I would rather see all variants included in search results. I can then add them to a personal list and remove records from that list as I narrow down my search.

BTW I think a consistent approach will never be achieved!

Examples of stamp features that I recall seeing that result in two approaches include watermarks, printing method, perforations, colours and papers.

[Dandolone]

Vorrei che comparissero le sole entità principali di ogni francobollo, con le varianti minori nidificate al loro interno. Questo semplificherebbe enormemente la prima ricerca dell'esatta collocazione di ogni francobollo

[DJCMH]

My concern is that minor variants differ from stamp to stamp.

Some stamps have minor variants listed because they have features that differ. Other stamps have two main entities listed based on features that differ.

Until there is a consistent approach I would rather see all variants included in search results. I can then add them to a personal list and remove records from that list as I narrow down my search.

BTW I think a consistent approach will never be achieved!

Examples of stamp features that I recall seeing that result in two approaches include watermarks, printing method, perforations, colours and papers.

The differences between major and mionor have been clearly explained in the Editors and Contributors Guidelines in the Colnect Wiki https://colnect.com/en/collectors/wiki/ ... Guidelines specifically section 6.3.3

Basically, if the technical differences are easily visible, such as different perforation gauge or change of watermark on a similar design or completely different color, then the stamp is a major variant of the first and gets a full listings, whereas if the difference is more nuanced, then the variant is considered minor.

[tcawe]

Currently I think of adding an option to "Stamp minor variants visibility" which will be "Always hide" and wouldn't ever show minor variants.

Question: how important is it to present the major item when only a minor of it conforms to the filter (meaning the major doesn't conform to the filter)? Because I believe we can add the major to the last page of the list with a note such as "One or more minor variants of this item [VARIANT IDs or NAMEs] conforms to the current filter.” and a question mark showing “As you have chosen to hide minor variants, we show only the major item when a minor variant should be included according to the current filter. You’re welcome to see the major item full page for more details”

But if you tell me it's not important to show the major item in such scenarios, then it's even an easier solution.

[Tyroxin]

Currently I think of adding an option to "Stamp minor variants visibility" which will be "Always hide" and wouldn't ever show minor variants.

Question: how important is it to present the major item when only a minor of it conforms to the filter (meaning the major doesn't conform to the filter)? Because I believe we can add the major to the last page of the list with a note such as "One or more minor variants of this item [VARIANT IDs or NAMEs] conforms to the current filter.” and a question mark showing “As you have chosen to hide minor variants, we show only the major item when a minor variant should be included according to the current filter. You’re welcome to see the major item full page for more details”

But if you tell me it's not important to show the major item in such scenarios, then it's even an easier solution.

I believe the only place where this might be important to finding a stamp, are irregular watermark variants. Every other parameter that would be employed to look up a stamp by hand is already considered a major variant. Some formats, such as Stamp with attached label and Stamp with collectible margin however are mainly, in some countries, exclusively, filled with minor variants. If they are not hidden accordingly for people selecting that option, there may be some need for a solution there.

But my opinion is only of minor importance, because I am using the setting to show all variants anyways.

[DJCMH]

Currently I think of adding an option to "Stamp minor variants visibility" which will be "Always hide" and wouldn't ever show minor variants.

Question: how important is it to present the major item when only a minor of it conforms to the filter (meaning the major doesn't conform to the filter)? Because I believe we can add the major to the last page of the list with a note such as "One or more minor variants of this item [VARIANT IDs or NAMEs] conforms to the current filter.” and a question mark showing “As you have chosen to hide minor variants, we show only the major item when a minor variant should be included according to the current filter. You’re welcome to see the major item full page for more details”

But if you tell me it's not important to show the major item in such scenarios, then it's even an easier solution.

I think this would be a good solution, as it would clearly inform the user that there is a minor variant that does fit the filter that its base major variant does not.

As Tyroxin notes this would be a rare occurrence, but it could come up in certain situations.

[UnhingedStamp]

I think this would be a good solution, as it would clearly inform the user that there is a minor variant that does fit the filter that its base major variant does not.

As Tyroxin notes this would be a rare occurrence, but it could come up in certain situations.

Unless I've misunderstood something, this is a somewhat common occurrence when you filter by year and the minor variant was issued in that year, but the major variant in a different year.

[Skyforger]

The option to always hide minor variants is released: https://colnect.com/en/forum/viewtopic!t=123562.