Database/file mistakes & problems I've noticed

[theassassin]

Hi everyone, just joined but have lurked for a while. Wasn't sure if this was the right place to post but I just wanted to create a place to report mistakes/problems I've noticed with the database or files within in

Firstly, the download linked in the page for Official UK Playstation Magazine Issue 19 has the file name "Official_Playstation_Magazine_USA_Issue_19_April_1999_cbz". I haven't actually downloaded it to check but the inclusion of "USA" and "April 1999" in the filename suggests someone has uploaded this file in the wrong place. I suspect RetroMags doesn't even have the UK version of issue 19 since no other issues of the UK magazine at all appear to be available here.

Will add more reports as/when I notice them

[theassassin]

Also with the UK Magazine "Computer and Video Games" there is a database problem to sort out too. It's a little confusing -

The issue cover-dated July 1989 (with James Bond on the cover) was the 93rd issue to be published, but at this point the magazine did NOT actually print the issue number on the cover.

The next issue, cover-dated August 1989 (with Shinobi on the cover) was the 94th issue to be published. And they've now decided to put the issue number on the cover. But apparently the designers/writers counted wrong, so it says "Issue 93" on the cover. This mistake carried over - the next issue (September 1989) was the 95th issue to be published, but was numbered as "Issue 94" on the cover, and so on.

I've heard CVG collectors solve the problem by referring to the July 1989 issue as #93 and the August 1989 issue as #93b. I'd suggest RetroMags do the same. Edit the existing August 1989 entry to be named "Issue 93b" and add a new entry for July 1989 named "Issue 93".

[Areala]

Welcome to the forums, Assassin.

Thank you so much for posting these. I can't fix them since I'm just a forum mod, but it's important that we have members pointing out things like this so the big heavies (Philly and E-Day) can look into these things and come up with a course of action. Much appreciated!

*huggles*
Areala

[theassassin]

Thanks. Also you guys seem to be missing the UK magazine "Planet Playstation" from your database. It seems fairly obscure as there aren't any on ebay UK current or completed, but I remember buying this magazine back in the day so it definetely existed. I seem to recall it included a lot of posters. Here's a few images I found on google image search:

I can't provide much other info on these mags but hopefully someone else will be able to help with dates and issue numbers etc.

[rjlucas1982]

Hello. I also noticed the following links/files are missing:

1. Nintendo Power Issue 90 (November 1996)
2. Next Generation Issue 11 (November 1995)
3. Next Generation Issue 13 (January 1996)
4. Next Generation Issue 22 (October 1996)
5. Electronic Gaming Monthly Issue 53 (December 1993)
6. Electronic Gaming Monthly Issue 55 (February 1994)
7. Electronic Gaming Monthly Issue 88 (November 1996)

Thank you for anyone able to fix these issues! Happy New Year!

[rjlucas1982]

Never mind. Links are broken to FileFactory in the database but are working okay in the Downloads section.

[Sean697]

Hello. I also noticed the following links/files are missing:

• Nintendo Power Issue 90 (November 1996)
• Next Generation Issue 11 (November 1995)
• Next Generation Issue 13 (January 1996)
• Next Generation Issue 22 (October 1996)
• Electronic Gaming Monthly Issue 53 (December 1993)
• Electronic Gaming Monthly Issue 55 (February 1994)
• Electronic Gaming Monthly Issue 88 (November 1996)

Thank you for anyone able to fix these issues! Happy New Year!

I have. A thread listing all the EGM download links not updated yet to the server download. Eventually all these will be addressed.

[E-Day]

I plan on addressing the links issues sometime this weekend.

[theassassin]

Shouldn't the title of the magazine in the database be "Official UK Playstation Magazine" instead of just "Official Playstation Magazine"?

Apart from the first issue, the cover always included UK in it's name/logo

[miketheratguy]

I don't know if this has been brought up before but I just noticed that a few dozen issues of Gamepro are mislabeled. Starting with number 81, the file names continue in correct numerical order but the issues themselves jump forward by ten. For example downloading issue 80 will result in getting issue 80 like it should, but downloading issue 81 results in getting issue 91 instead. It remains this way for the rest of the issues: Issue 100 is actually issue 110, issue 110 is actually issue 120, and so on.

So basically, somehow the issues of Gamepro between 80 and 90 were skipped and are apparently not available for download as a result, but the file names don't reflect this and as a result are off by ten issues from 81 onward.

EDIT: Wait, upon further inspection it seems that the issues DON'T jump ahead beginning with 81. 81 just happens to be the first issue that's numbered on the cover of the magazine. However that number says 91, even though it's only the 81st issue in the download order. So somehow there are still ten issues missing, or Gamepro was off by ten issues when they started numbering them.

I'm so confused. Look, just check out Gamepro download 81. On the cover it says issue 91. This 10 digit discrepancy continues through the rest of the downloads. I need to get some sleep, someone else can figure this out.

[kitsunebi]

I seem to remember this being brought up before, and definitely recall noticing it myself. IIRC there was some sort of theory that GamePro was including some special issues to reach that mysterious number 91 (which ones? dunno). I don't think I ever found a completely satisfactory explanation, but since GamePro was never a magazine I cared for (sacrilege?) I never lost any sleep over it.

[miketheratguy]

I seem to remember this being brought up before, and definitely recall noticing it myself. IIRC there was some sort of theory that GamePro was including some special issues to reach that mysterious number 91 (which ones? dunno). I don't think I ever found a completely satisfactory explanation, but since GamePro was never a magazine I cared for (sacrilege?) I never lost any sleep over it.

Huh, that's got me really curious now. Maybe there was no error on this site then, and instead the problem comes from some bizarre numbering scheme on Gamepro's part. Being that they didn't start the numbering until 91 - just in time for a countdown to that issue 100 - this seems to be a highly possible scenario.

This does make me wonder if you're right and Gamepro released some extra issues to pad their total. If Gamepro simply fudged their numbers then I guess that's what everyone has to accept (maybe they didn't bet on anyone actually counting). If not though, and there are ten other "side" issues out there that contribute to the overall count, my OCD won't be able to rest knowing that the numbering on this site (as well as the files that I've placed on my ebook reader) is incorrect.

[kitsunebi]

My personal opinion (since the facts about this problem seem to be lost to time) is that GamePro simply made a mistake. However, once the mistake was made and continued unchanged for the life of the magazine, the new numbers became official.

As such, I think Retromags is listing them incorrectly (causing even MORE confusion) and there should simply be a gap (and perhaps a note of explanation) where the missing issues 81-90 are.

This example might stretch the point a bit as it was done intentionally, but just because they never made a Leisure Suit Larry 4 doesn't mean that Leisure Suit Larry 5 should be called LL4 even if it IS the 4th game in the series. So whether issue 91 is REALLY the 81st issue published or not, it should be called issue 91 since that's what they printed on the cover. My 2 cents.

[Sean697]

This actually came up recently when discussing the game players thread. And there are many other topics on the site discussing this. I am very much for keeping the numbering as printed on the cover. But there is some ambiguity on why it was done by the game pro editors. So I believe it's in limbo until a more compete answer is found.

[Areala]

I don't know if this has been brought up before but I just noticed that a few dozen issues of Gamepro are mislabeled. Starting with number 81, the file names continue in correct numerical order but the issues themselves jump forward by ten. For example downloading issue 80 will result in getting issue 80 like it should, but downloading issue 81 results in getting issue 91 instead. It remains this way for the rest of the issues: Issue 100 is actually issue 110, issue 110 is actually issue 120, and so on.

So basically, somehow the issues of Gamepro between 80 and 90 were skipped and are apparently not available for download as a result, but the file names don't reflect this and as a result are off by ten issues from 81 onward.

EDIT: Wait, upon further inspection it seems that the issues DON'T jump ahead beginning with 81. 81 just happens to be the first issue that's numbered on the cover of the magazine. However that number says 91, even though it's only the 81st issue in the download order. So somehow there are still ten issues missing, or Gamepro was off by ten issues when they started numbering them.

I'm so confused. Look, just check out Gamepro download 81. On the cover it says issue 91. This 10 digit discrepancy continues through the rest of the downloads. I need to get some sleep, someone else can figure this out.

GamePro themselves are responsible for this error. There was a ten-month period where the magazine was not produced, and when the magazine resumed publication, the editors chose to acknowledge this by continuing their numbering scheme as though they hadn't missed nearly a year's worth of monthly releases.

Dealing with this is a double-edged sword. If Retromags numbers the issues "properly" (in other words, jumping straight from issue 80 to issue 91 like the cover numbers indicate), it leaves the impression that we're missing ten issues in the collection. Most people don't know or remember that GamePro took a ten-month "vacation", so...

If we stick to our current system, where we're counting actual issue numbers released and not going by GamePro's cover numbers, it's clear to visitors that we have that uninterrupted run of mags, but creates confusion with all of the cover numbers being off by ten.

This is the way Phillyman's chosen to handle it, and while the database isn't set in stone, the current system is likely to remain in place barring some extremely compelling argument for switching everything around. Since both ways inevitably result in confusion, Philly chose to err on the side which shows the uninterrupted run instead of the one that makes it appear we're missing a huge chunk of entries in the database.

I hope that makes sense, Miketheratguy.

*huggles*

Areala

[miketheratguy]

This actually came up recently when discussing the game players thread. And there are many other topics on the site discussing this.

Really? I guess I need to touch up on my exploration skills.

This is the way Phillyman's chosen to handle it, and while the database isn't set in stone, the current system is likely to remain in place barring some extremely compelling argument for switching everything around. Since both ways inevitably result in confusion, Philly chose to err on the side which shows the uninterrupted run instead of the one that makes it appear we're missing a huge chunk of entries in the database.

I hope that makes sense, Miketheratguy.

*huggles*

Areala

The explanation regarding this site's numbering choice does make sense, since you're right - either way results in confusion and one might as well place the blame where it lies, which does seem to be with Gamepro. If there was a ten month gap, do you know when it occurred? I've been skimming around the various issues and they seem to be consistent from one month to the next, leading me to wonder if Gamepro made an even dumber mistake: getting their count wrong and never realizing it.

Sure makes that issue 100 (90) celebration kind of lame.

[Sean697]

The apparent missing issue problem could be solved by making dummy database entry or entry's with a photo or something saying no issue exists as the publisher skipped these issues. I'd rather the cover number match the actual issue number.

[miketheratguy]

The apparent missing issue problem could be solved by making dummy database entry or entry's with a photo or something saying no issue exists as the publisher skipped these issues. I'd rather the cover number match the actual issue number.

Areala's right, it seems that neither of the other choices are optimal because both lead to confusion. I keep going back and forth as to what I should number the magazines on my ebook reader: On the one hand it bugs me to think of having several dozen issues that are numbered incorrectly in the list. On the other hand it would also bug me to just have an unaccountable gap between issue 80 and 91. I hadn't even realized that this was a thing until I went through a bunch of headache trying to figure out how I'd mislabeled a bunch of my downloads and what happened to the ones that were suddenly missing. Your idea would make things more clear and eliminate potential frustration for future downloaders, but at the same time I understand why Philly and E-Day made the choice that they did. That must have been an irritating issue to have to deal with.

I think the best possible solution to all of this is to go back in time and punch Gamepro right in the face.

[kitsunebi]

I don't think it would be confusing at all if only there were an explanation at the front of the GamePro database. To be thorough, there could also be a dummy entry between issues 80 and 91 that showed the explanation in the place where the cover photo would normally go.

I found a different website that handled it like so at the outset:

"There are no issues #81-90. When GamePro started numbering the title with issue #91 they misnumbered and continued using the incorrect numbering for the series.

Series ended monthly publication in October 2011 but continued as a Quarterly publication titled GamePro Quarterly in Mid-November 2011.

This is pretty simple solution, I think. Thanks to the note of explanation, the reader knows what to expect and is not confused. Andknowingishalfthebattleyojoe.

It's the disparity of the numbers without any explanation that makes it confusing here. I suppose it's a matter of opinion, but personally, I've renumbered all of the files I downloaded from here to reflect the issue numbers listed on the cover.

[theassassin]

Just FYI staff/admins, it's been a month now since I reported several problems via my posts in this topic, and none of these problems have been fixed yet. Please could someone allocate/schedule these fixes to be made?

[theassassin]

Just to point out another 10 months have gone by and I don't believe any of the issues I reported here have been addressed

[theassassin]

GamePro #49 database link goes to GamePro #48 download page

[kitsunebi]

GamePro #49 database link goes to GamePro #48 download page

 

Fixed.

[kitsunebi]

Firstly, the download linked in the page for Official UK Playstation Magazine Issue 19 has the file name "Official_Playstation_Magazine_USA_Issue_19_April_1999_cbz". I haven't actually downloaded it to check but the inclusion of "USA" and "April 1999" in the filename suggests someone has uploaded this file in the wrong place. I suspect RetroMags doesn't even have the UK version of issue 19 since no other issues of the UK magazine at all appear to be available here.

 

Your guess was correct.  Fixed.

 

 

Shouldn't the title of the magazine in the database be "Official UK Playstation Magazine" instead of just "Official Playstation Magazine"?

 

Apart from the first issue, the cover always included UK in it's name/logo

 

Fixed the database title.  I'm going to leave the issue titles as is, since it would require me to change each one separately issue by issue, and frankly, considering we don't have so much as a single cover pic, let alone any scans of any issues of the mag, exactitude isn't a priority right now.

[retrochain]

When checking to see if my remaining small collection of magazines has already been preserved, I noticed the Gamepro discrepancy and almost came to the conclusion my issue of Gamepro had not been scanned yet - as 94 shows a different cover. Only on scrolling back up the page and catching a glimpse of the familiar cover alerted me that the issue numbers are off, and I came to the forum to see if anybody else had pointed this out. The explanation is satisfactory, but I feel like moving the entries 10 issues forward and adding dummie entries for the unpublished issues with an explanation of what happened on Gamepro's part would be better for anyone looking to donate their magazines to the cause.