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

Many expertising organisations charge a fee based on the catalogue value. These include BPA Expertising and RPSL in the UK. Both have a fixed fee up to a specified catalogue value and a percentage charge above that value. If not found genuine, there is a different charge.

The Dutch NVPH charges a percentage of its catalogue value that is floored and capped. Another Dutch expertiser, NAK, however, charges a fixed fee.

Yes, I'm aware of that. My point was--for the cert organizations that charge as a percentage of cat value, the submitter must suggest what the stamp is, to calculate the fee that they send in. So to those posters here saying they don't care what the submitter proposed, to me, once the cert organization has the proposed ID, it doesn't make sense for the cert organization to "bury" it, even if they determine a different identification and change the fee.

A good discussion and I appreciate the other opinions given above.

Reading through this thread, I find that many have expressed their opinions and sense that few have changed their views. I am in both camps. I come from a scientific background of wanting organized and documented facts. I note this thread started off about PSE, but the PF has been brought into the mix, so I'll use them as an example.

A building is only as good as the bricks it is built from.
The PF database is only as good as the certificates it is based on.
I believe their certificates are typically accurate in their findings, but bassackwards in their data reporting format, which leads to a collective database, which is far less useful and valuable than it should be.

The Scott 1d illustrated on page 3 of this thread is a good example.
Submitted as a 1b, found to be a 1d instead. Certed for indexing purposes as an ID of 1b.
If ask the simple question of "How many stamps has the PF certified as 1b inrecent years?" their search includes the Scott 1d on page 3 of this thread as interference.
If I ask "How many stamps has the PF certified as 1d in recent years?", their search excludes this stamp as an omission.
Adding search parameters to include the notes field does not improve clarity of the results.
Try the same with a search for Scott 534B and see how many "were not" findings there are.
It quickly becomes apparent that the PF database is built on certificates driven by "submitter's IDs", rather than a database built on the PF's value-added product of "PF findings".
Quite the reverse of what one would expect..

It clearly demonstrates the importance of competent data handling at the micro level of each individual item and at the macro level of database design to have each field populated with consistent data (i.e., all TRUE or all FALSE, but not a mixture of both). This can best be accomplished by consistent data reporting on each individual certificate (each brick, if you will). I agree with the posters who see value in knowing BOTH the submitter's ID the final ID (I do too), but the actual ID is and value-added product of the PF and what has the most immediate value to researchers, etc. I believe the clarity of the individual certificates and the usefulness of the database would be improved by first emphasizing what the item *IS* and to use that for indexing and identification, and to have any submitter's ID reported in secondary fields. YES, that would mean the there would be two searchable fields, one for "PF ID" and one for "submitter's ID", which would provide for less-contaminated searches of real ID's, and yet provide for interesting searches of the secondary "submitted-as" and "notes" field for those who want to dig deeper and analyse common collector mistakes or which items are used a faking material, condition comments, etc.

When I go to the grocery, I don't see signs that say "oranges" and then "actully we found these to be apples" in the fine print underneath. One should not have to read the fine print to determine what something is or isn't. Clear communication is important.

I cannot imagine the added time currently involved to try screen for previous submissions of an item. Yes, it would take time and money to bring the PF database up to a first-class resource. The first step would be to change the wording on the certificates to read more like: "We have examnied the enclosed item, of which a photograph is attached, and we are of the opinion that it is Scott xxx, etc ..." and to add the submitter's ID parenthetically in the notes if it differs, rather than the current practice of essentially hiding behind the submitter's ID. It gives the appearance that the submitters are running the process, rather than the PF.

For those who support the current certificate/database practice, please detail your real-life experience with database design and management ... specifically of having the most important field populated with both true and false data only differentiated in the notes which must be manually screened.

ROTFL
Excellent recap of the thread, thanks.

Briefly, to summarize, most important is to know what the item actually is, and that should be prominently displayed on the certificates, and searchable in the databases.
Of secondary importance, and still useful for some people or some situations, to know what the item was submitted as. This should be listed on the certificate as a footnote or otherwise less-prominent text, and searchable in the databases (in a secondary search field, as Submitted As).

It would be an insurmountable task to manually update the certificates and the database, but seems like it should be an "easy" case study for AI to create the necessary separation of the two database fields. The wording of the certificates is fairly precise and limited in scope, it should be easy to parse, even without LLM AI. There may be an enterprising student willing to take that on, if the raw database were available in the public domain, though I don't believe it is.

Interesting points about the certificate fees related to what the item is submitted as, and someone who mentioned they randomly threw in different catalog numbers for Submitted As. If the initial fee is based on what I submit it as, I want to use the lower catalog value item so I can pay a lower fee at submission. If it turns out to be the higher catalog value item, I will happily pay the additional fee. I wonder how many people who think they have a "613" actually pay the thousand dollar cert fee up front when submitted as a "613".

Either way, sometimes the Submitted As field will contain junk data, but hopefully this happens only a small percentage of the time.

Interesting discussion throughout. Has anyone in this discussion seen the structure of the database?

If yes then discussions of what can be or should be changed would be I am sure be helpful and valuable to PSE, PF or other certificate organizations. If the database structure has never been seen by anyone, something that I would think PSE, PF would be most anxious to not provide as I would think their database would be considered their most valuable business asset and intellectual property. Everyone here adding fields, providing search fields is assuming that the database would be SQL or similar. Is that even known? Finally you are making the assumption that any changes would be to the current data structure whereas it can be argued that any large change should be first to convert to a NoSQL database which could support possible certificates storages much more efficiently while providing greater data scope.

In summary it is hugely beneficial to any organization to understands what customers, users would like to see in their products. Suggesting how to technically provide what needs to be changed should be avoided.

I have designed and implemented the PSE cert database.
https://stampsmarter.org/features/Home_PSE.html

I have repeatedly offered over the last decades or so to do the same to PF (either improve an existing one if possible or design and implement a new one that could be used 'stand-alone' or used in conjunction with an existing one). My offers were not taken up.
Don

Don,

I am amazed that no-one from PSE or PF took you up on your offer as it must be their largest asset or at least should be.

To their credit, PSE has given Lorry and myself permission to publish a database of their certifications. (Lorry gathers the data and I developed the database and the SQL connected webpages, get it the data into the database, and get it published.)
I assume that PSE sees this as something that is positive, it does generate a fair amount of traffic back to the PSE website and also raises awareness of their service. But most importantly, PSE did not and does not have to invest any human resources or money; Lorry and I have done the whole thing ourselves.

I do not fault PF for not at least looking into my offer to freely help them for whatever reason(s) they might have. If I had access to their existing data, I could do the same thing as we did with PSE. Build an independent SQL database and supporting webpages. This would not be any impact to PF at all in terms of needing any money or resources from PF.

It is important to note that there is a difference between developing an independent SQL database/supporting webpages vs. going in and making changes to any existing database that might be in place. Making changes to any existing database means making changes to the way the data entry works. In my opinion no one likes change, especially in our hobby.
Don