According to this article
https://en.wikipedia....ey_Library, the strange numbering without 1-4 and 10 is not the originals that the publishers had.
If inducks will keep this type of indexing, there have to be an explainating list in the gallery at least to inform us not to search internet what 1-4 and 10 looks like, not knowing there have another number!
There is a list in the article but since I cannot upload it here, I am adding the inducks numbers (A) as there are now and next (B) the originals (release order and date) from 1-9.
A=B : 5=5, 6=4, 7=1, 8=6, 9=8, 11=3, 12=2, 13=9, 14=7.
Why the numbering wasn't like B from the start, it is something only the publishers can answer.
You could also add the link of the article in the gallery for explanation
The books have only one number and that is the number that is used in Inducks. I do not see any problem with that.
(The "B" numbers that you list are not real numbers, only indications about the order of publication.)
The first print of "Lost in the Andes" didn't have any information about a volume number inside, so we actually started listing the books in the published order. But the rest of the books have the volume number we list printed inside the books. And that's also what Fantagraphics use on their webpage and what online bookstores like Amazone use.
So lising them in the published order only led to a lot of confusion and error reports requesting us to change it to how it is now.
But I added the text "The Books are not published in the same order as the volume number" to the gallery page.
Thank you FAa.
At least there is a typical note about it. As I explained above, it is not a problem of inducks but of fant/cs. And for someone who doesn't know what going on a note was,is,will be needed. It will help those who bought it or will buy it. I hope that in the near future Fant/cs will go back to the printed number.
"As I explained above, it is not a problem of inducks but of fant/cs"
No, as *I* tried to explain, it is not a problem at all. The "B" numbers do not exist.
"I hope that in the near future Fant/cs will go back to the printed number."
This simply does not make sense at all.
Never mind.
It is your oppinion this is not a problem. For others it is a problem and the indexing of inducks did not help. I have a friend who has these volumes and wants to continue to buy all of them. But after we saw the wikipedia article and saw the release dates (B) it made sence to check them by the printed number and be sure there is no volume missing!! And this makes much sence.
You still don't understand what this is about, since you keep talking about "the printed number". The ONLY printed number on the issues is the number that Inducks is using.
But as I write before, never mind. If you don't understand it, too bad, I can't make it more clear than I tried before.
If there was a place in coazilla to upload images of what the article has it would be more clear. I will have these volumes in my hands in a few days and I will check them here and write what they have as numbers.
"I will have these volumes in my hands in a few days and I will check them here"
You can do that, but I already *know*. I had the volumes in my hands when I wrote the previous message. Why don't you simply believe me? :-(
It was never about believing or questioning inducks. It is about the someone wanting to order missing volumes and not end up getting the wrong ones! That is why along with the printed number it will be necessary to know the release date and any other info the volume has, just to be sure. and why not checking them from the original volumes if a friend has them? And all this is because this publication of the complete works of Barks is very popular since it is the only recent in english. And it was a mistake from Fantagraphics part to not understand this and just start normallly, like any other publication, with No1. It is not something personal about you, me or another induckser. It's just a need about the correct info 100%.
Hey Pavlos,
You have the right to invent numbers and ask that we use them in Inducks. However, we will give them as much importance as they really have...
"why not checking them from the original volumes if a friend has them?"
I wrote before:
"I had the volumes in my hands when I wrote the previous message."
Which part of that sentence do you not understand?
Either you have no idea what I wrote (or did not care to read it carefully or ask me what I meant), or you do not trust me and want to check the original volumes AGAIN.
Cacou, I didn't invent any number. You should read all the comments. In the very first sentence I gave the link which has this list. I only did what everyone does when finds something useful. And it was useful to find out the dates according to the number in one list. And from that I wrote A=B. It what I will use to order them for myself.
This is according to the article from wikipedia which is in columns I cannot paste here. Who ever made this article made this list which shows what volume was published (with or without printed number) according to the released day "number". A = B. This list helped those of us couldn't understand all this confusing marketing idea of fantagraphics and wanted to place an order to someone (who does know inducks) that sells them.
5 = 5: 2013-11-10
6 = 4: 2013-05-16
7 = 1: 2011-12-05
8 = 6: 2014-05-02
9 = 8: 2015-05-15
11= 3: 2012-11-07
12= 2: 2012-07-17
13= 9: 2015-10-17
14= 7: 2014-11-05
For Pavlos: thank you for completely ignoring my texts. And for having the nerve to tell someone else "You should read all the comments"...
I still think your English is much worse than you think it is, since you misread and misinterpret the wikipeda article AND all my texts.
Since you ignore my texts, I will ignore yours in the rest of this subject.
For anyone else: the wikipedia page talks about "release order" (this is in the part that Pavlos did NOT quote), which is obviously not the same as "printed number", as Pavlos suggests. So the indexes do not need any change anymore.
Case closed.
Let me explain something.
I asked Pavlos to help me (with info) to buy volumes of the Bark's Library. One seller was using only the wikipedia article "numbers" by the "release order and date" and didn't care at all about inducks. We couldn't agree about the correct numbers and finally we solved the problem by the cover-volume and ignored any kind of number! (I know that others doublecheck any volume they want to buy.)
Inducks is not so well known as you may think it is. And for your information, Pavlos is the only one I know who uses it to help disney fans (not only greeks) find out informatiom about issues. You shouldn't be so rude to someone who advertized (and taught how to use) inducks to many disney fans.
Still cann't understand why the publisher couldn't release the volumes from number 1 like any other publication. It's Barks, in the original english, it will be a big success!
Case closed for me.
Case open for Fantagraphics.
p.s. there should be in COAzilla a way to edit or delete a message/comment after it is send.
BarkScarpa: I think Pavlos is the one being rude when he ignores my messages and questions.
Fantagraphics is not the first to publish "out of order". It is done quite often. Remember the Carl Barks Library from the 1980s?
-Just because someone editor did something not usefull it doesn't mean it will work better in the future. It's bad business. It is the worst thing to bother the buyer with bizarre marketing ideas. They messed up my whole planning to buy these volumes.
-I know of any Barks (or Scarpa) publications from inducks but I know also they are out of market or they cost too much and many not be in good condition. Also I didn't want to have them in b/w.
I am trying to find the lowest price for the new ones. I bought the new italian and greek publications but the english pub/tion has additional interesting material and articles.
-The way I read the messages here, I see that you also ignored everything and only cared defending the inducks indexing.
Cacou even wrote that Pavlos inveted (lol) numbers!!!
Hey people it's not war, it's just comcis!! Cool it down.
-You should add the release dates in each volumes, etc. You have done this in many other publication, here it is muuuch more useful.
-Think seriously about allowing editing these messages by each writer. It will allow those you accuse about their poor english to correct them!
-And another thing, since I cann't write it anywhere else. Inducks has frequently serious technical problems (server, etc). Somewhere Cacou wrote about needed space. Since inducks cann't function as a foruum, facebook group, blog etc, you could put all of this way and have more space for the database, which is the reason we visit this website.
It looks like everything we write is misunderstood or misinterpreted...
"They messed up my whole planning to buy these volumes."
I really don't understand the problem. Simply order your volumes by title (NOT by number) and keep track of the advertisements.
"I know of any Barks (or Scarpa) publications from inducks"
I only mentioned the Carl Barks Library as an example of issues that are published OUT OF ORDER. Because THAT is what the discussion was about.
"The way I read the messages here, I see that you also ignored everything and only cared defending the inducks indexing."
Then I think you read my messages wrongly. I keep trying to tell Pavlos (and now you) that you do not understand the wiki page and that you do not understand what I write. Or that you simply ignore what I write. I asked a question in an attempt to help make myself more clear ("Which part of that sentence do you not understand? ") and I got no answer, so if that is not "ignoring", then what is?
(BTW, it is quite frustrating that my texts seem to be misunderstood and that I don't understand some of your texts. That has an influence on the tone of my texts.)
"Cacou even wrote that Pavlos inveted (lol) numbers!!!"
Pavlos interpreted a publication ORDER as a NUMBER. While we kept saying that there ARE no such numbers.
"You should add the release dates in each volumes"
I fully agree! Don't we do that already? I just checked: every CBDL issue has the publication date in its index. So what is the problem here?
"Think seriously about allowing editing these messages by each writer. It will allow those you accuse about their poor english to correct them!"
I think everyone can edit his own texts. I will try to edit this text after sending it.
--> and this line is added later! Simply go at the COAzilla page again and press the "edit" icon. <--
"you could put all of this way and have more space for the database"
These extra features really don't use much space. Probably less than 1%.
Anyway, we are working on server issues, it will only take some time.
-Pavlos is abroad, with limited interet access.
-I found the edit box next to the name. Thanks. I am still learning of inducks functions. I was searching for it on the right side while writing the new message. I also saw the delete choice.
-FAa's comment at the gallery made it more clear afterwards. The date needed a special note there is a problem with irregular release date.
-You didn't understand what happened. By seeing a volume without No1 made me not ordering it until I find out what happened. I am not an american to see any inner country explaining or advertizing. After seeing that there is no 1,2,3, it was better to buy some volumes cheaper from individuals. This time he was a very difficult one to communicate. I wanted to be sure he was not going to send me something else because he would not except any returning, very serious problem! Anyway it went well by the cover method.
-Still see it a very bad idea not to have a publication so important as this by 1,2,3... And it will be a very bad idea for any kind of publication. Whenever a publisher did something like that, I as a buyer am wondering where the other numbers are and start search for nonexisting issues. It can mees up you buying plans if you have a limited bugget. Ones there was just a disney toy but with no issue (a publication like the italian classicci) and everyone was searching in the shop if the issue fell off! The publisher after hearing many complains explained it was just an "idea"!
Inducks part here can be to add as many helping info as possible if there is something different from the ussual type of publication so that anyone will see it with the first glance.
My friend Andy bought 2 volumes twice because he couldn't remember which ones he had already bought. For the brief time (for now) I could look at 1 of his volumes I couldn't find a number at the side of a volume. Didn't have the time to check the small letters in the inside pages. With the help of the inducks cover gallery he knows the missing volumes he can order. Unfortunately 9 is one of them.
With Gottfredson it was the easiest thing, he has 1 & 2, he will order 3-6.
HF wrote = Fantagraphics is not the first to publish "out of order". It is done quite often. Remember the Carl Barks Library from the 1980s?
There are 20 titles only in inducks-USA about Barks. If they are older publications I only look at the general information. I was more interested for the 90's albums I saw in a friend's house. Unfortunately he had a few.
As for the 80's, you probably mean this one,
http://coa.inducks.or...?c=us/CBL. After you mentioned the dates I noticed them. But in the gallery I see 1-10.
If a publication is an exception it is always helpful to know about it from a note in the gallery. But this one has "note - page numbers are listed". How could I understand to check the dates!?
8-)
Andy (in inducks is Andros) has 6 volumes (5-8,11,12). As an info for all users that may read this, only Vol 5,6,8 have in the info page the numbering of the volumes. Vol. 7,11,12 were released first and they have only the info of the other volumes, no numbers. Since all this may continue, the other method to have them in our shelves is to put the by year. This maybe done also for the greek publication for the Barks volumes.