I *really* Hate The Way PSE Words Their Certificates!

Postmaster,
I have a slightly different perspective. If I were a certifying organization, especially if we were 'for profit', I would look upon the data that is gathered as being an important part of the organizations Intellectual Property (IP). The short-term money maker is a service. But building a certification organization overall value based solely upon a service tends to be ephemeral and largely based upon the quality of the current expertizers. The IP that can be generated and accumulated is a long-term asset and ultimately represents a significant portion of an organization market value. I think the primary assets of any certification organization would be its data and it reference library. These two things are what would represent the majority of the value of the entire organization to any investor or buyer (and also to philately in general).

As such, it comes down to this -- what questions would be asked of the data we could be gathering?

When you consider this perspective, then having 'what was it submitted as' has value.
Don

I think the "what was this submitted as" has additional value, which can add to the data richness (I'm sure there is likely a better term, so PLEASE don't go down that rabbit hole). For example, if one were to submit a Scott 114 without any specific request for identification, would a gray paper or gray paper on cover be overlooked? Would a possible EDU or fancy cancel, which may be of interest be overlooked?

In other words, if a stamp is submitted without any question except "what is this", what would be observed and recorded for its data?

I guess my confusion about the possible use for "submitted as" is that it leads to the exact problem in the OP. You could have a stamp that is a genuine Stamp B – which if submitted as Stamp B would get a garden-variety "good" cert – but because it was submitted as a Stamp A, it ends up with a cert saying "not genuine."

Sorry. I come from a "what is it" system, so the whole concept just doesn't make much sense to my German-centric brain. Like pretty much everything related to US collecting.

No, it ends up with a cert saying "it was submitted as stamp A, but it is actually stamp B. No cert ever simply says, "it's not genuine" unless it is a fake of some kind or altered. So if stamp A was a coil, and the perfs were counterfeit, that is what it would say. But if stamp A was actually a 123, and it was submitted as a 112, it would say that it is not a 112 but is a genuine 123.

Untrue.

The value of any database, in this case the collective knowledge of a group of certificates from any certifying organization, is what information can be derived from it. I have echoed PostmasterGS's post that the primary field should be "what it is", in other words to build from truth, then to have "submitted as" or other less accurate fields as secondary. I see the primary search most collectors will make is "let me see the items positively certified as #xxx" without interference of false hits, which could be obtained secondarily by searching the "submitted as" field.

Thus I agree with the ID on the PSE cert in the original post as a R36c, but I believe the description following the ID could be improved if it were longer. Perhaps: "It is a genuine used R36c, with the perforations TRIMMED off to fraudently resemble R36a"

Interesting discussion and I agree that

Sorry. I come from a "what is it" system, so the whole concept just doesn't make much sense to my German-centric brain. Like pretty much everything related to US collecting.

If I was only trying to gain value by getting a cert, for something I am not trying to market what is the point. For my own perspective it makes very little sense.

We have a difference of opinion about what constitutes "false hits". I want to see everything submitted when I search for an item, I have always learned more that way.

And I repeat, the problem with this is that the program may not actually be owned by the PF, and any changes may not be possible for reasons beyond their control.

But wasn't that pretty much the original complaint?

Yes, but that is a PSE cert, not a PF cert. The PF certs are worded better.

I have nothing against learning from examining the "false hits", but they should never be in the primary ID field, but in a secondary field. Such a pair of data fields would have more value than the current system. As for database/software ownership, that is a matter of buying a better product with better customer service, feedback, customer service, etc

Do you plan to pay for it? Or create it for free? Such changes are expensive.

Remember, the PF is a NON-PROFIT.

My point was that using the language requested in the OP – which, being submission focused, is the opposite of the PSE language – could potentially lead to a less-than-ideal result.

And your response was that my hypothetical wouldn't happen, because they would use certain other language – language which appears to me to be functionally identical to the PSE language. But the whole point of the thread was to argue that PSE shouldn't use that language.

I suggest that you look at some recent PF certs and read them, and then look at some PSE certs, and read them. Then perhaps you will not think they are functionally identical.