Moxy wrote:

scshunt wrote: Also I can't disagree more with anyone saying that you shouldn't be able to view all your cards from different inventories at once. That's my #1 use case: I want to know all the cards of something that I own, regardless of where they are.

Maybe a good comparison is thinking of inventories as separating your cards in the same way another account separates the cards in that account from the cards yours. You wouldn't look at a listing of your cards mixed with my cards. They're distinct entities. The only way our inventories would ever really interact with one another is through some sort of trade or buy/sell transaction. Moving a card from one of our inventories into the other inventory.

If you have a collection of cards you want to see grouped together for some reason using tags would likely be a better solution.

If you have a collection of cards you keep *strictly* separate then inventories would be better.

vikirosen wrote: I know that the Inventory button is intended to show every card in my collection, but I keep my Rebecca Guay collection strictly separate from all my other cards, so when I search through my Inventory I would prefer not to see those at all, by default, with the option, of course, of making them visible if need be.

moxy wrote: if you manage a personal inventory and a community inventory. This is for groupings of cards that won't intermingle with one another.

Both examples of using inventories to *strictly* separate cards. Neither of these situations would you want to see both sets of cards together at once as a whole.


What situation would you want to group and see various inventories listed together where using tags for such groupings would be sub-optimal?

I keep a few pretty distinct collections (in different places) and sometimes would want to see if I have something at all or not.

Chaim wrote: I keep a few pretty distinct collections (in different places) and sometimes would want to see if I have something at all or not.

Would using the Card Database to search for what you're looking for and the My collection tab on the card details suggestion mentioned previously not suffice for this?

I've been watching this thread since it started to get an idea of what other people would like and to formulate an opinion of my own. I personally don't have distinct sets of cards that never mix together so I wouldn't benefit as much as some others from multiple inventories. However, I can see the benefits that it would give to some users who have sets that they never want to mix with others and they will never want to trade. I personally would be benefitted the most by fre-eform tags attached to individual cards. In addittion it would be very nice to ihave the ability to include specific cards in decks.

So I guess from my perspective the best option would be to implement both free-form tags as well as multiple inventories. Just my 2 cents.

Moxy wrote:

Chaim wrote: I keep a few pretty distinct collections (in different places) and sometimes would want to see if I have something at all or not.

Would using the Card Database to search for what you're looking for and the My collection tab on the card details suggestion mentioned previously not suffice for this?

Why scratch your left ear with your right hand? (i.e. why go the long way around)

I came to the forums to post a suggestion that I think is already covered in this thread, so let me just reiterate it from my viewpoint. :D

I'm a collector, meaning that I don't just keep random or playable cards, but I seek basically every card from almost every set. I never sell or trade out of my collection, only add to it (or swap out something, like a foil upgrade). Cards not in my collection go in a trade box or binder, which I don't currently inventory anywhere.

It's very important to me that my trade stuff stay separate from my primary collection. I don't own six of that card, two in the trade binder, I own four, and the other two are trade stuff. I'm sure that's a silly distinction for some people, but that's my motivation.

What I want is a way to have a completely separate inventory on Deckbox for trade stuff. I thought of two methods:
1. A second distinct MTG inventory, as has already been suggested in this thread. I can have separate MTG and WoWTCG inventories, for example, just let me spawn multiple MTG inventories. I'll put my wish list and trade stuff in the trade inventory and start selling/trading. I don't need any way to easily move cards between inventories, nor do I want/need any top level view that shows both inventories merged.

2. Allow a second account with linked trade and seller ratings. I thought this might be easier to implement.

As it is, I completely respect the "one account per person" rule, and as such, choose to keep my collection here and not my trade stuff. Barring an upgrade from Deckbox, I'll likely use a different site for sale/trade stuff, which is not great for either me (two sites to get used to) or Deckbox (no chance for commission).

Posting in this thread a response to a different feature request thread, just to keep it all in one place.



With regard to marking cards for trade that are not in decks, the discussion is a bit more complicated that it appears :). It also ties into other feature requests like inventory management with tags, separate inventories, and detailed cards usage in decks.

First problem with the current system is that you cannot mark decks as being either "built" or "ideas".

If we did that, next issue would be that "built" decks should not contain generic cards like now, but specific cards, from your inventory, with exact printings & conditions etc. Since these cards are now part of your built decks, they should be visible as so in your inventory, and somehow be "separate" from your main collection. This makes working with these cards more difficult.

Some users will not want to trade out of their built decks, other will, this is one source of confusion, as we have to choose and design a way to interact between these built decks and your tradelist.

Furthermore, some people will have a set of Tarmogoyf, and will want to use it in 4 decks, without having to buy 16 Tarmogoyfs. Hence there would need to be a way to signify in these built decks that one of them actually has the goyfs, the other 3 decks just have proxies of them.

And so on it goes... :)

As always, I'd love to hear your thoughts on these issues. I did not yet come to a conclusion for myself, nor did I have time as I hoped to start seriously thinking of an implementation for this, but it comes back time and again, and I assure you it is always in the back of my mind, stressin' me from there :)

Mm... This is why I don't think that we should require distinct inventories, but just allow tags that a card may have one or more of. You can then represent a deck as a specific kind of tag. If a player doesn't want to trade his deck cards, he can do a search for cards tagged with deck tags and remove them from his tradelist. If you have a single copy of a card that you move between decks, tag that copy with multiple deck tags.

This could theoretically be different from the decklist feature, but to me dealing with that seems straightforward. Have columns "Number on decklist" and "Number in deck" on the deck view; the former is the number of cards you have on the list, the latter is the cards actually tagged with the deck's tag. If you click the number in deck, you get the popup window for that card, so that you can edit it. This also seamlessly allows for a card to be in the deck but not on the decklist. This is true for one of my Commander decks; it has several placeholders that don't appear on the "official" list but are physically in the deck. Privacy settings should allow a player to display publicly only the decklist, the number of each card in the deck, or the specific versions of each card in the deck.

sebi wrote: First problem with the current system is that you cannot mark decks as being either "built" or "ideas".

A simple check box on the deck edit page would be enough to mark a deck as built or not. Just that a check box. Don't worry about verifying that all the cards are actually owned. See below...

sebi wrote: If we did that, next issue would be that "built" decks should not contain generic cards like now, but specific cards, from your inventory, with exact printings & conditions etc. Since these cards are now part of your built decks, they should be visible as so in your inventory, and somehow be "separate" from your main collection. This makes working with these cards more difficult.

IMHO with us able to specify the condition and other markings of cards, the cards should have been individually addressable from the very start. Each row in the database should be considered a different card. You can do some DB tricks such as lumping "duplicate" cards into a single row and using a column that indicates the number of those duplicates but in the end each of those should be an individual card. If something happens to one of those (say I get one of my 12 copies signed) then when I go and update that card it would end up creating a new row in the DB indicating that the one that is signed is different from the other 11 because of the signature.

sebi wrote: Some users will not want to trade out of their built decks, other will, this is one source of confusion, as we have to choose and design a way to interact between these built decks and your tradelist.

This is a users preference. The user should be smart enough, if they don't want to trade from their deck, to check the trade count when creating and/or editing a deck. Alternatively, I could see a tool provided that removes all cards in your decks from your trade list with the option to choose only built, unbuilt, or all decks. I don't see why you would need to implement something to enforce this preference in the system. Seems like something a user could do themselves.

sebi wrote: Furthermore, some people will have a set of Tarmogoyf, and will want to use it in 4 decks, without having to buy 16 Tarmogoyfs. Hence there would need to be a way to signify in these built decks that one of them actually has the goyfs, the other 3 decks just have proxies of them.

This actually requires no changes. A user can add a card to the deck that he doesn't own. You could allow a deck to be mark built even if not all the cards in that deck are owned. In this case the user would have one deck that would have 4 of the cards and they would be marked as "in use" with that particular deck. The other 3 decks would have 4 cards and they would simply show up as in the decklist count but there's no cards available to mark as "in use". When the user takes the deck apart that actually has those 4 cards in it he will be updating the deck in deckbox to signify that deck is no longer built. He would then go mark those 4 cards as being in the deck he actually put them in.

I could see an option available to "automatically assign unused cards to decks" where in if a lazy user in this case were to mark his first deck unbuilt and then go about his merry way the system would recognize that 3 other decks are "built" and use this card but that the card isn't marked "in use" in those decks. It would then pick one (which one doesn't really matter) and assign those 4 cards to that deck. Not really the greatest solution to this problem but hey, it's a lazy user anyway.

scshunt wrote:Mm... This is why I don't think that we should require distinct inventories,

Distinct inventories as I have envisioned them have no bearing on this at all. Being distinct sets there would not be any mixing of the cards between the inventories, EVER. You would never have a deck with cards made from both inventories. Just wouldn't happen. The entire purpose of having inventories separated at such a high level is to indicate their unique quality that they NEVER EVER mix. Think of each inventory as a different deckbox user account. Your cards and my cards never mix, thus one inventory and a second inventory will never mix. A card would only exist in one and only one inventory at a time ever, and an inventory would have its own set of unique tags, decks, lists, etc. that is not shared with any other inventory.

scshunt wrote: but just allow tags that a card may have one or more of. You can then represent a deck as a specific kind of tag.

Now tagging, yes tagging would allow a cards to mix and belong to multiple tags at a single time.
This is essentially what the decks are today. Sadly their hierarchical nature today prevents them from being in multiple groupings. When they truly move to being tags we could put a single instance of a deck in multiple groupings (folders).

scshunt wrote: If a player doesn't want to trade his deck cards, he can do a search for cards tagged with deck tags and remove them from his tradelist. If you have a single copy of a card that you move between decks, tag that copy with multiple deck tags.

Precisely, even if the decks aren't implemented as tags allowing a search of "cards in decks" (with an option of built, unbuilt) might even suffice in lieu of the tool I spoke of above.

scshunt wrote: This could theoretically be different from the decklist feature, but to me dealing with that seems straightforward. Have columns "Number on decklist" and "Number in deck" on the deck view; the former is the number of cards you have on the list, the latter is the cards actually tagged with the deck's tag. If you click the number in deck, you get the popup window for that card, so that you can edit it.

Well put.

scshunt wrote: This also seamlessly allows for a card to be in the deck but not on the decklist. This is true for one of my Commander decks; it has several placeholders that don't appear on the "official" list but are physically in the deck.

This I disagree with. The point of all this is to indicate where your cards physically reside. If they're in your deck they should be marked as in your deck. If they're in your collection they should be marked as in your collection. Why would you possibly want to mark something as in your collection if it is actually in your deck? The only reason I see here is being able to pass around a bogus decklist to friends so they don't really know what you're playing.

On second thought I could see you having an "official" decklist maybe via net decking that lists cards that should be in the deck you don't own and your "place holders" are your substitutes for those cards until you can acquire them. You want to keep the "official" decklist so you remember what cards are supposed to be in the deck but you also want to know what cards are actually physically in your deck. The more correct way to go about this would be having two decklists. The "official" decklist the unchanged one marked as unbuilt and a second decklist that includes the cards you actually put in your deck and it would be marked as built. You still have your reference and you now have an accurate representation of where your cards are at.

That said as above you could have something in your deck list that isn't in your collection. It would seem strange to me and it would probably break the deck tools to allow you to set the decklist number to 0 in the deck editor and to set the "number in deck" to a >0 number. If it were me doing this I would have a constraint placed on the decklist column that it would always be >= to the number in deck column. This would help ensure the user is marking this where they physically are.

scshunt wrote: Privacy settings should allow a player to display publicly only the decklist, the number of each card in the deck, or the specific versions of each card in the deck.

I'm all up for greater privacy filters. I like this idea. Might also add a filter for built/unbuilt settings. If I'm working on some secret tech maybe I don't want to share it before it's time. If you end up adding a built/unbuilt check box could probably add a check box for visible. This way if a user wanted to filter privacy at the deck levels he could.

Specifically addressing the issue of wanting to mark all cards in decks as "not tradeable":

1. As a stopgap measure, being able to sort inventory by the Deck Count column would go a long way toward removing the pain of manual work, as would the idea of "flattening" the inventory (temporarily disregarding the version information).

2. Along this same line, for those of us with a large number of cards without version information (still working my way through) being able to run a job to mark the version information for all cards where there is only a single printing would be helpful.

3. I would say that you could enforce version information in decks tagged as non-tradeable. Much easier to deal with from this direction as the cards are probably on hand and easy to pull/reference.

Moxy wrote:

scshunt wrote: This also seamlessly allows for a card to be in the deck but not on the decklist. This is true for one of my Commander decks; it has several placeholders that don't appear on the "official" list but are physically in the deck.

This I disagree with. The point of all this is to indicate where your cards physically reside. If they're in your deck they should be marked as in your deck. If they're in your collection they should be marked as in your collection. Why would you possibly want to mark something as in your collection if it is actually in your deck? The only reason I see here is being able to pass around a bogus decklist to friends so they don't really know what you're playing.

On second thought I could see you having an "official" decklist maybe via net decking that lists cards that should be in the deck you don't own and your "place holders" are your substitutes for those cards until you can acquire them. You want to keep the "official" decklist so you remember what cards are supposed to be in the deck but you also want to know what cards are actually physically in your deck. The more correct way to go about this would be having two decklists. The "official" decklist the unchanged one marked as unbuilt and a second decklist that includes the cards you actually put in your deck and it would be marked as built. You still have your reference and you now have an accurate representation of where your cards are at.

That said as above you could have something in your deck list that isn't in your collection. It would seem strange to me and it would probably break the deck tools to allow you to set the decklist number to 0 in the deck editor and to set the "number in deck" to a >0 number. If it were me doing this I would have a constraint placed on the decklist column that it would always be >= to the number in deck column. This would help ensure the user is marking this where they physically are.

Yes, this is what I'm referring to. The list in question was not made by net decking, but it's a Commander list that I have not yet finished. I'm only missing 7 cards, though, and none of them are crucial, so the deck physically has 7 other cards which are not going to be in the final version, but which make the deck legal. Right now, I have notes stored on the deck telling me which cards I'm missing; it would be nice if I could easily keep track of this and the extra cards that I've added in. Keeping two decklists seems like overkill, especially since if I decide to make a change to the list, then I have to go and edit both copies.

This discussion is becoming more and more interesting.
I see many aspects being covered with a lot of smart ideas.

While I was trying to understand which of the proposed features/solutions would best fit my needs, I realized I first had to classify my needs.

Here is my basic list, for simplicity's sake I named the six basic needs.

1. INVENTORY: keeping track of what cards I have
2. DECK LISTS: keeping track of decks I "like"
3. MY DECKS: keeping track of decks I have currently built
4. STORAGE: keeping track of where my cards are physically located
5. WISH LIST: keeping track of the cards I need
6. TRADE LIST: keeping track of the cards I'm willing to trade/sell

and here is how I see DB supporting me so far:

1. INVENTORY: with the latest release I'm pretty much ok, the only thing missing is the ability to distinguish between BB and WB foreign first editions. Almost there. CHECK
2. DECK LISTS: I can keep track of decks regardless if I have the cards to build them or not. CHECK
3. MY DECKS: I can keep track of decks for which I own cards. If I want to distinguish DECK LISTS from MY DECKS I believe the only way is to use separate folders. Not the most flexible option, but it works CHECK
4. STORAGE: I have binders, large and small boxes, you name it. MISS
5. WISH LIST: significantly improved after multiple-pictures feature in the latest release CHECKED
6. TRADE LIST: significantly improved after multiple-pictures feature in the latest release CHECKED

So STORAGE is a problem.

I do agree with Moxy about ultimately having to go 1 physical card = 1 database record in order to have impossible-to-beat accurate tracking of a card's conditions. This, from my point of view, would allow both perfect INVENTORY and perfect STORAGE tracking.

What scares me, is the usability. If I have 200 Swamps same edition/language/conditions and in the same box. I'd prefer entering the information just once rather than 200. Also, when I look at my inventory, I'd like to see one line with 200 identical swamps rather than 200 identical lines. But this can be managed regardless the granularity of the database, I assume.

The other interesting point I wanted to discuss about is TAGs. In general I'm not a fan of tags, actually I'm a bit scared about freeform tags as they can be a very powerful organizer but they can also become a nightmare if not properly managed, especially with large inventories and multiple tagging.

Said that, I like a lot scshunt's idea of separating deck lists from the cards I have in decks, and to use a Tag to indicate in which physical deck a card I own is currently placed. Simple and elegant. Love it. I have a feeling this same concept could be extended to manage the whole STORAGE problem.

If the whole MY DECKS + STORAGE could be managed through "controlled" tagging maybe it would help with sebi's concern about "working with these cards more difficult".

Last point, I don't see me using multiple/separate inventories but I understand why someone could need/use such a feature.

Not sure if I'm adding something useful to the discussion.
But I'm sure coming back to see how it evolves.

Mateframtg wrote: What scares me, is the usability. If I have 200 Swamps same edition/language/conditions and in the same box. I'd prefer entering the information just once rather than 200. Also, when I look at my inventory, I'd like to see one line with 200 identical swamps rather than 200 identical lines. But this can be managed regardless the granularity of the database, I assume.

As for creating new inventory I don't see why it couldn't stay the way it is. If you tell it you have 200 of the same cards that could be entered as one record and managed as one record until one of those items changes. Or if it's not a single record there's no reason the computer can't automate the creation of 200 duplicate records.

As for displaying this is just as easy too. It would be handle by way of grouping statements in the back end. Anything that is sufficiently identical in the display can be grouped together and displayed as a single record.

Moxy wrote: As for creating new inventory I don't see why it couldn't stay the way it is. If you tell it you have 200 of the same cards that could be entered as one record and managed as one record until one of those items changes. Or if it's not a single record there's no reason the computer can't automate the creation of 200 duplicate records.

As for displaying this is just as easy too. It would be handle by way of grouping statements in the back end. Anything that is sufficiently identical in the display can be grouped together and displayed as a single record.

This is exactly what I meant with "But this can be managed regardless the granularity of the database, I assume.".

Going to maximum database granularity without some smart grouping statements, as you suggest, would create more problem than it solves. Totally agree with you.

I'm a big fan of introducing a tagging feature, but I'd also like to be able to tag cards in my wishlist, or leave public/private comments on them. For instance, I add a few cards to my wishlist with a view to building an artifact deck; a couple months later I change my mind...If free tagging were enabled I could just pull up all the cards with the artifact tag on and remove them from the list.

I've thought a lot about tagging lately (and deck tags), and about the new flags that are needed (artist proof, misprint, altered, signed). We also need notes (public and private) and images (for scans).

The more I think about this, the more I feel adding everything will make things confusing in the interface. Filters for tags, saved searches, flags, notes etc.

One way I thought we could simplify everything would be:
- have one field of public notes and one for private notes
- only have 2 flags: foil and modifed. Where modified means any of signed, altered, misprint, etc etc.
- otherwise all tagging and flagging can be done via hashtags in the notes field. E.g. "#misprint - miscut" or "#signed by artist at Worlds 2013"

Then users can flexibly tag and untag things without a complicated interface. I feel it would also be understandable, since everybody uses hashtags on social networks nowadays.

Private notes can also be used to tag things freely, like "#borrowed to mike. Otherwise belongs in #blue_box_basement".

What do you think?

And we can still have saved searches in this scenario too, that filter a set by the presence of some tags and absence of others.

Hi Sebi,

Will cards inherit tags from the decks they are in? My main goal is to be able to mark all cards in my built decks as not tradeable. I could see this working by filtering the inventory on NOT #sleeved, for example, and then importing the resulting list as the tradelist. You've mentioned the problem of multiple editions and decks increasing the complexity before, but I'm fine with managing that problem external to deckbox.

Thanks as always for the great work.

/ted

With regard to deck tagging, I've been thinking of doing it in a way that was touched upon in this thread by you & Moxy & others.

In built decks we'd have some sort of smart way for each card to pick something from your inventory that can be used for it.

for ex, you have "2 Mountain" in your deck. You click somewhere and you see a list of all the exact mountains that you own in the inventory, and you can check which 2 of them are actually in this deck.

Afterwards, the 2 you have selected will be tagged as such in your inventory. They will have a #deck_234 tag on them.

Then can then have a button in inventory tools that says "Mark all cards that do not have some kind of #deck tag as tradable".

Also a point worth discussing is if you can tag a card as being in 2 decks at the same time... because in my mind that would not make sense. One of the decks has it actually in it, the other one does not... although it is listed in the decklist, the actual specific card is not there, so it should not be tagged I think.

sebi wrote:Also a point worth discussing is if you can tag a card as being in 2 decks at the same time

I personally think this should be allowed. For example: I have both a modern and a legacy burn deck. Both decks run 4 Lightning Bolt, 4 Lava Spike, 4 Rift Bolt, 4 Goblin Guide etc. About 2/3 of the cards overlap and I only have 4 copies of each card.

I don't know how common this sort of situation is, but for me personally it would be nice to be able to tag cards as being in two (or more) decks.

Add: As for your other ideas, I like them. :)

sebi wrote:I've thought a lot about tagging lately (and deck tags), and about the new flags that are needed (artist proof, misprint, altered, signed). We also need notes (public and private) and images (for scans).

The more I think about this, the more I feel adding everything will make things confusing in the interface. Filters for tags, saved searches, flags, notes etc.

One way I thought we could simplify everything would be:
- have one field of public notes and one for private notes
- only have 2 flags: foil and modifed. Where modified means any of signed, altered, misprint, etc etc.
- otherwise all tagging and flagging can be done via hashtags in the notes field. E.g. "#misprint - miscut" or "#signed by artist at Worlds 2013"

Then users can flexibly tag and untag things without a complicated interface. I feel it would also be understandable, since everybody uses hashtags on social networks nowadays.

Private notes can also be used to tag things freely, like "#borrowed to mike. Otherwise belongs in #blue_box_basement".

What do you think?

I like the idea of replacing the flags with tags. Also replacing the tags with the # is good too. At the end of the day it's the same idea. If you look at one of my previous posts you could simply replace the {}'s with a # and bam same thing.

moxy wrote: So combining these things together you might get something that looks like:
2 Thallid, Fallen Empires, Played, English, {Deck:G FE Thallids} {Box 3} {Pic A}
1 Thallid, Fallen Empires Played, English, {Deck:G FE Thallids} {Box 3} {Pic B}
1 Thallid, Fallen Empires, Played, English, {Artist-Proof} {Binder Proofs}

I am assuming you will convert the existing flags into tags before removing them though. I wouldn't be to happy losing that information.

Putting the tags in a notes field via a # marker isn't a bad idea. I've not ever used this # system but it seems intuitive enough to figure out quickly.

As far as the search goes. Can there be a way to search across private and public notes for your cards at the same time? Maybe "Search in Public Comments", "Search in Private Comments", "Search in Public and Private Comments"

I'm taking the idea of additional inventories is right out? That still would be a great use at least to me.

For the deck tagging if the deck tagging is done by adding #deck_### what's stopping me from adding this tag to another card later through the notes interface in lieu of the deck building interface? What would happen in this case? Does that card get marked as being in that the deck? What if that card isn't in that deck list? Does removing that tag from a card remove it from the deck, what about the deck list? What if I manually add two different deck tags to a card is it now magically in two decks at once? What if I manually add a deck tag with a number that isn't in my list of decks?

Un-built deck lists are simply lists of cards and none of your cards in your collection have that tag?
Partially built are deck lists where some but not all the cards have a deck tag?
Does sideboard have to marked in use? I often use the sideboard as a list of potential cards to consider when building a deck. I often leave it when I'm done for the future if I want to modify the deck. I wouldn't want to consider those as being in the deck.

I think if you're going to do the deck tagging like this and put it in a user view-able / editable field you might want to make it friendlier. I am guessing the deck names have to be unique right now. Why not use the deck name instead of deck number? "#deck that blue deck some dude posted" is more understandable then "#deck_329285".

sebi wrote: Also a point worth discussing is if you can tag a card as being in 2 decks at the same time... because in my mind that would not make sense. One of the decks has it actually in it, the other one does not... although it is listed in the decklist, the actual specific card is not there, so it should not be tagged I think.

I agree 100% with this. I feel a card can only be added to one deck at a time. Thus the questions of manually messing with the deck tags if they're in a user accessible field. I know others that will disagree with this though because they move cards between decks when they play but I really thing that wouldn't be the right thing to allow in an inventory management system.

sebi wrote: In built decks we'd have some sort of smart way for each card to pick something from your inventory that can be used for it.
for ex, you have "2 Mountain" in your deck. You click somewhere and you see a list of all the exact mountains that you own in the inventory, and you can check which 2 of them are actually in this deck.

This will HAVE to be super slick. Right now it takes a decent amount of time for me to add new basic lands to my inventory. Enough that I've considered not tracking them in deckbox. I'm not blaming the program it could be my computer but it's an issue I deal with. I have so many of them it just takes a bit of time for it to load. I haven't even gotten around to splitting out the different pictures and as of right now I won't be doing that because of the time it takes for them to load. I cringe at the thought of being given a screen and waiting for all my mountain entries to load just to add that one extra land I want to add to the deck. Maybe load the first X newest or latest edition owned entries not in a deck and if you want more offer a search? This would probably give you the cards you want to add 99% of the time. Would probably also return all the cards you owned 99% of the time. But in the case of the land cards I always add the newer lands to the deck first and work back toward the older ones.

I just want to tag the version of a card so that the price of the deck will be accurate. Tagging to know where a card is in my inventory could be useful, but at the end of the day I don't really need this feature.

I do overlap cards I'm using for various decks because I like to brew lists, and I like to save old lists for decks I've taken apart, but might rebuild some day. I only own 1 mana crypt for example, but I use the same one when I build an EDH list as in a vintage list, though I may not always have the vintage list sleeved up.

Hashtags would be fine provided people use them correctly and that they are searchable. When you allow user entered data (instead of a drop down selection) you run into typos and people listing as #artistsigned #artist_signed #artist-signed #signed or whatever, when all of these mean the same thing. I imagine this type of fragmentation would probably make it harder to actually use these new tags when searching for people who have them them for trade. To me, half the reason for the tag is to be able to search for them.

sebi wrote: I'll post my older idea for implementation for this, but this is still in flux. I'd like to ask you guys how you would like to use such a tool to organize your cards, and what features you'd like from it.

I am currently importing(manually) a decently sized collection. roughly 1500 of these are mine. The other 6000 or so are mine to use, technically on loan indefinitely. The whole purpose for this inventory, for me, is to be able to USE these cards after they are imported, knowing with confidence that, if the actual owner of these cards decides he wants them back, I will have access to a list of 'his' vs. 'mine' and return them. At the same time, the whole point of this loan was that he had all these cards just sitting in a closet and I am an active player. I want to be able to have a physical deck put together with the confidence that I won't have to play "what box does this go into" every time I switch things out. As time goes by, my own collection will be growing because I can't stop buying cards, so the whole process will become more unwieldy over time. This is what I would be using a flag/label system for. As of right now, I am using the mint designation to keep things separate. As I am not a seller or trader at this time, it is working. When I decide it's time to start trading, I have no idea what I'm going to do. So there is my answer for that.

(If anyone has a better solution for my issues here, please let me know. I keep cataloging cards in the hopes that labels or flags are actually on the way, and I know that twisting the mint column is a less than ideal situation. Keeping everything physically separate all the time is simply not a viable option, and I would really like to be able to keep ONE digital inventory instead of two, for geeky reasons)

**Edited to add: I will also have two sons, a son-in-law, and possibly a daughter looking through these things and building temporary decks, as goofy little tournaments have become a thing when the kids come to visit, which adds a whole new layer of "Who does this card belong to" to the whole mess.


On a different topic raised in this thread, I would also like to say that one of the reasons I chose this site to keep my inventory in, is that it is possible to add cards to decks. This way I can log in on my lunch break and brew decks from my phone. That being said, the ability to add a card I only have one physical copy of to several decks is appealing to me, because not all decks I would be putting here will be manual. Some are just in my head.

1230350194 wrote:

sebi wrote: I'll post my older idea for implementation for this, but this is still in flux. I'd like to ask you guys how you would like to use such a tool to organize your cards, and what features you'd like from it.

I am currently importing(manually) a decently sized collection. roughly 1500 of these are mine. The other 6000 or so are mine to use, technically on loan indefinitely. The whole purpose for this inventory, for me, is to be able to USE these cards after they are imported, knowing with confidence that, if the actual owner of these cards decides he wants them back, I will have access to a list of 'his' vs. 'mine' and return them. At the same time, the whole point of this loan was that he had all these cards just sitting in a closet and I am an active player. I want to be able to have a physical deck put together with the confidence that I won't have to play "what box does this go into" every time I switch things out. As time goes by, my own collection will be growing because I can't stop buying cards, so the whole process will become more unwieldy over time. This is what I would be using a flag/label system for. As of right now, I am using the mint designation to keep things separate. As I am not a seller or trader at this time, it is working. When I decide it's time to start trading, I have no idea what I'm going to do. So there is my answer for that.

(If anyone has a better solution for my issues here, please let me know. I keep cataloging cards in the hopes that labels or flags are actually on the way, and I know that twisting the mint column is a less than ideal situation. Keeping everything physically separate all the time is simply not a viable option, and I would really like to be able to keep ONE digital inventory instead of two, for geeky reasons)

**Edited to add: I will also have two sons, a son-in-law, and possibly a daughter looking through these things and building temporary decks, as goofy little tournaments have become a thing when the kids come to visit, which adds a whole new layer of "Who does this card belong to" to the whole mess.


On a different topic raised in this thread, I would also like to say that one of the reasons I chose this site to keep my inventory in, is that it is possible to add cards to decks. This way I can log in on my lunch break and brew decks from my phone. That being said, the ability to add a card I only have one physical copy of to several decks is appealing to me, because not all decks I would be putting here will be manual. Some are just in my head.

It is probably a big deal, but a make your own flag sort of like Outlook would be ideal. We could just have a set of colors and define a flag, then flag cards as Red - Tim's or Purple - My most favorite cards or Blue - Ravinica Holiday Box

A thought just occurred to me and I thought I'd add it here: for privacy purposes, I will only want others to be able to see the deck lists themselves, not the details about each card in the deck. That's another thing to bear in mind, thanks!

As the post noted above, privacy would be a nice factor.

Also, as a buyer of bulk collections, I would like to have a tag for how much I bought the item for, even if I could arbitrarily enter a number, that would suffice. If I could label a card as part of a collection I purchased and know the total value from the purchase (by later sorting/searching) that would be helpful. That way (maybe), I could enter in a collection I bought, enter the price paid for the lot, and have the value of each card divided by the price paid for the lot.

For instance, I would like to label a lot I bought that contained about 400 cards. Each card would be labeled as something like "lot #1." If you clicked on "lot #1" it would display all the cards bought in that collection and how much I paid, in addition to their current value. Also if I looked at each individual card, it would tell me that I paid $35 for the entire lot, so $35 divided by 400 equals the specific amount I paid for that card. So for my Volcanic Island in that lot it would say I paid roughly $.08.

Are these improvements still on the drawing table? Have any been implemented yet?

jewellee107 wrote:Are these improvements still on the drawing table? Have any been implemented yet?

Nope, not yet. I have come back to them a few times but the feature is non trivial and I always got side-tracked with more urgent features or changes... time is limited :)

But it is very much still on my list to do.

Any news on this in 2022? Big make or break for me tbh...