CCL Messageboard

I've got to vent....

Whoever’s idea it was to start replacing volume numbering with the year it was first published was friggin’ high! It was bad enough that CCL didn’t follow proper volume numbering to begin with (i.e. - Powers, Fathom, etc.) now you’re just going to confuse the hell out of everyone (more) by switching the system on them. The idea of technology is to make things easier for people, not harder. You open the cover to a comic, you look at the indicia, it says the title, volume (sometimes), issue number, month and year that issue was published NOT the year the series was published. Come on people you’re making this harder than it has to be, just follow the indicia!

Believe me, this change was not made lightly. We really do want to follow the indicia... it's pretty much our mantra. The problem is that publishers, especially Marvel and DC, aren't consistent with their numbering of volumes.

Many publishers don't put volume indicators on their titles any more. And even when they did, they might not be accurate. For example, Marvel didn't count the original Wolverine mini as a Volume and called the first regular series "Vol 1".

Not only that, but there are a few series that have the same titles but jump publishers, or two publishers that have similarly names series that are completely unrelated. Transformers is an example of the former, Robin is an example of the later. It's hard to justify volume indicators on titles like these, but we need something to differentiate them from each other otherwise they show up jumbled in the stores.

I appreciate your frustration with this... there has been no small amount of frustration on our parts as the Approvers as we've hashed this out. While no system that we could create will be perfect, we really believe that this is the best option to try to keep things straight. Between the start year in the title and the captions which give years for the run, it should be pretty clear.

That's his very nice way of saying that we've (the approvers) been fighting about this for months.
On top of the excellent examples he gave in his response, this 'new' change is also more in line with a majority of established sites, catalogs, and guides than how we had things before.

Like he said, it's not perfect - but we're open for input and better ideas.

And publishers. In the latest Marvel Previews there are multiple references to titles using the starting date as a distinguisher, including both Marvel Comics Presents (1988) and Marvel Comics Presents (2007).

Not complaining, I've adjusted to CCL's standards...but I always viewed that first Wolverine mini as just that, a mini. The same way Marvel viewed it. CCL was the first time I had ever seen that four issue mini listed as Volume 1.

Other mini's on this site aren't listed as volumes. There are a few inconsistencies here on CCL I'm not crazy about, but I've adjusted.

I have seen other places start listing books with the year as well. At first I thought it was just someone being stupid..then I started seeing it more and more and was like..eh..they will change their mind in 6 months and go back to something else.

ShenValleyInitiative wrote:

There are a few inconsistencies here on CCL I'm not crazy about, but I've adjusted.

I too have adjusted, I just needed to vent! To paraphrase an ancient chinese curse- "May you live in interesting times." I am not a fan of change.

fenix1977 wrote:

At first I thought it was just someone being stupid..then I started seeing it more and more and was like..eh..they will change their mind in 6 months and go back to something else.

I can only hope...

At least the years are accurate, rather than the inaccurate Volume numbering that had been used...

If anyone has a better proposal, please post it.

Very, very, very true!


I don't see why we can't list it as we would find it in a reputable price guide?

Name one.
Serously - just one. I'm going to hold you to your use of the word "reputable" though, so Overstreet & Wizard are immediately out.

Because some of them are even more screwed up than we were. No guide is more reputable than Overstreet. Look at how they list Punisher:

Punisher
Punisher (vol 2)
Punisher (also see Double Edge)
Punisher (Marvel Knights)
Punisher (Marvel Knights) (Vol 3)
Punisher (Marvel Knights) (Vol 4)
Punisher (Marvel Max)
Punisher (Frank Castle in the Marvel Universe after Secret Invasion)

That last one is my personal favorite. Keep in mind Overstreet also uses dates on every title.

As others have stated, we went around and around and around and around with ideas on how best to handle this mess that we were in. Because, let's face it - CCL was in a mess with the way the Volume numbers were applied. Either we had no Volume number from publishers, or duplicate Volume numbers from publishers, or Volume numbers that skipped around, or (rarely) Volume numbers that actually made sense. None of which gave us a solid ground to work from. So, CCL decided on a formula that made up Volume numbers to apply to titles. Did it work? Sometimes - and the rest of the time it was just inaccurate, confusing, and frustrating.

Dates were the simplest piece of data that didn't have any confusion or publisher's screw ups. Is going with dates the best solution? Possibly not. Is it the simplest and pretty easily understood? Quite possibly.

It was a compromise solution. And, it does follow in the footsteps of a lot of other sources for comic information. Maybe someday EVERYONE in the industry will be able to get on the same page and handle identically titled series in the same way. Just don't hold your breath for that - it won't be pretty.

I was on the side of follow the indicia - period. Until I started to have examples laid out in front of me where it was just way too screwed up to do so. After seeing those examples, I agreed there was just no way to follow the indicia in regards to Volume numbers. And since I didn't have any mind-blowing solutions that caused a chorus to go "Ta-da!", I figured I could agree that dates would work.

I think I can say this for all of the Approvers - We get your frustration about this because we feel it too.

Transformers is a great example of why we had to do something. If we left it alone, they were just both titled Transformers. If we went by the indicia, they'd both be Transformers (Vol 1). Either way they get all mixed together in stores when you would look at the inventory.

Now, maybe some folks would have preferred Transformers (Marvel) and Transformers (IDW), but then what happens if a title switches publishers mid-run (as plenty have done)? So years became the easiest, and mostly commonly used elsewhere, solution.

Like many have said, it's not perfect, but it's closer to perfect than the made-up volume indicators were and better for the software/database than using the messed-up publisher provided ones.

Same here. Like I said, this current solution isn't perfect and we argued about it for a long time. I don't think there is a single approver who is 100% in agreement with the new method, but after a lot of discussions and voting this is the best compromise we've arrived at (so far).

I guess what I don't get is if Henry Ford could introduce standardization in the early 1900's why hasn't the rest of the world figured it out by now? Ah well, if I knew that I'd be rich.

Well, I'm not one for change either, but you guys do a great job on settling on something, and then letting everyone know in a timely manner. Plus, guys like Pat, Xylob, Padreglcc, Swifty, Scott, etc. are on CCL all the time. If anybody ever can't find something, just PM or start a thread. Now, I realize for newbies/customers that don't frequent the boards,that doesn't apply, but hey, it's better than any other site.

You can't imagine how many times I ask myself that same question when discussions come up about "gee, how do we handle this?" and it's some publisher who just does things their own way...

Really, how hard can it be to standardize on ONE format to use for indicias?!?!? Apparently, impossible.

When we first started the discussion, I was annoyed that everyone thought that the publishers volume numbering was too hard to follow. I was using the WildStorm universe comics as my example, and they've always done a very good job of keeping the volume numbering correct.

Then I looked in the rest of my comics and realized what a complete mess Marvel had made of the volume numbering system (they're not the only ones, they're just the majority of my collection). If they could get their act together and pay attention to the history of their publications, I'd really love to use volume numbering. But I don't think they care enough about it to even try.

I want to remind you that approvers also use the software and must adjust to changes like everyone else. I can tell you that the biggest thing CCL has done for the members of the site was to create boards made up of the members/approvers. This has made sure that before any more changes happen there has been a lot of thought, and debate to find the best way to get the need change done, as well as sticking to the outcome. The other thing that this has done is to have at least 1 approver that will share your thoughts about a change and will voice them with the other approvers. As stated before you can see where some approvers took what was said & changed their minds. I think that this is working well & helps the members get the changes they want.

Dude, look at the mini. No Vol. # in the indicia, I think (Ah! I just sold my last set yesterday!). Then you look at the first series, it says Vol. 1. Then you look at the second series, IT SAYS VOL. 3!!!! WTF?!!?!?

I know why the change was necessary, but I just finally got all my Vol. #s labeled in my inventory with post-its. :( :(