CGC Audit

[Darkowl]

I audit my posts before I make 'em.

 

And look at where that gets us.

I need tighter quality control.

 

You crack me up man!

[Unca Ben]

 

[Balham's Finest]

There's absolutely nothing to stop you, or a group of boardies, from doing this. I can't see why CGC would pay an external auditor when they already do an internal audit.

 

Your plan doesn't factor in damage to books in between gradings, by the way (either through shipping or some other way). I suppose your tolerable variance idea is supposed to cover that, but it might not in all situations.

 

Also, CGC would probably lose business if they graded the same every single time - the speculative resub market would disappear. The possibility of grade bumps is an important money-maker for them.

 

 

[vaultkeeper]

The whole basis of CGC is to remove subjective and bias grading, and use a more “scientific method” approach to grading. This will (in theory) insure us that the same book will grade the same whether it is submitted one time, or 100 times.

 

This is done by removing (or minimizing) all variables as much as possible.

 

The two largest variables in the scientific method are:

 

1) The equipment being used .

 

2) The people using the equipment.

 

The equipment being used in the testing should be calibrated on a regular basis to ensure the correct results are being achieved each and every time. This is usually done by testing a known “standard” ( a sample that the results are known to be) to ensure that the results on the “standard” are adhering to a very tight specification.

 

How does this pertain to CGC?

 

If CGC is using a light source to detect color touch ( I think they are), then that light source should be calibrated periodically. This light source emits a very specific wavelength of light to get color touch to fluoresce (or glow). The bulb in the light source may not be the same throughout its entire life. It may be stronger when new, and over time may “shift” in power, causing a different result over time. By calibrating the equipment with a known standard , the equipment can be verified as working correctly.

 

To ensure that people are using the equipment and following procedures correctly a “Round Robin” approach is used. This is where all of the people performing the tests are given the same samples to test and all of the results are compared to see if there are any discrepancies in the results.

 

I would be very surprised if CGC is not already using these techniques in their company.

 

And yes, my background is in Research and Quality Control.

[Balham's Finest]

The whole basis of CGC is to remove subjective and bias grading, and use a more “scientific method” approach to grading.

 

Just curious - where do you get this notion from? I don't see how grading a comic can be anything but subjective, frankly.

[Jeffro.]

From what I understand CGC does an internal audit.

 

It's not done by a 3rd party.

 

This sort of thing is very common in customer service industries.

 

But they don't normally audit themselves. Kind of defeats the purpose.

 

Companies audit themselves all the time. Just because one department audits another within the same company doesn't mean that it cannot be an impartial audit.

[Waylander]

The whole basis of CGC is to remove subjective and bias grading, and use a more “scientific method” approach to grading.

 

Just curious - where do you get this notion from? I don't see how grading a comic can be anything but subjective, frankly.

 

By having people complete the task of grading - it is by nature subjective - people sees thing differently.

[Balham's Finest]

The whole basis of CGC is to remove subjective and bias grading, and use a more “scientific method” approach to grading.

 

Just curious - where do you get this notion from? I don't see how grading a comic can be anything but subjective, frankly.

 

By having people complete the task of grading - it is by nature subjective - people sees thing differently.

 

Brian, I think you're agreeing with me aren't you?

 

Grading is always going to be subjective. I was asking where the idea that CGC are trying to remove the subjective element came from. It was presented as a fact and I don't think it's part of their mission statement!

[Waylander]

The whole basis of CGC is to remove subjective and bias grading, and use a more “scientific method” approach to grading.

 

Just curious - where do you get this notion from? I don't see how grading a comic can be anything but subjective, frankly.

 

By having people complete the task of grading - it is by nature subjective - people sees thing differently.

 

Brian, I think you're agreeing with me aren't you?

 

Grading is always going to be subjective. I was asking where the idea that CGC are trying to remove the subjective element came from. It was presented as a fact and I don't think it's part of their mission statement!

 

We are on the SAME page (thumbs u

[vaultkeeper]

The whole basis of CGC is to remove subjective and bias grading, and use a more “scientific method” approach to grading.

 

Just curious - where do you get this notion from? I don't see how grading a comic can be anything but subjective, frankly.

 

By having people complete the task of grading - it is by nature subjective - people sees thing differently.

 

Brian, I think you're agreeing with me aren't you?

 

Grading is always going to be subjective. I was asking where the idea that CGC are trying to remove the subjective element came from. It was presented as a fact and I don't think it's part of their mission statement!

 

We are on the SAME page (thumbs u

 

I agree that people can see things differently when it comes to grading. One person might not deduct as much as another person would on any given defect. CGC has come up with their own “standards” as far as arriving at a numerical grade.

 

Restoration detection should be a more scientific approach. Either it has been restored or it has not been restored.

[Waylander]

The whole basis of CGC is to remove subjective and bias grading, and use a more “scientific method” approach to grading.

 

Just curious - where do you get this notion from? I don't see how grading a comic can be anything but subjective, frankly.

 

By having people complete the task of grading - it is by nature subjective - people sees thing differently.

 

Brian, I think you're agreeing with me aren't you?

 

Grading is always going to be subjective. I was asking where the idea that CGC are trying to remove the subjective element came from. It was presented as a fact and I don't think it's part of their mission statement!

 

We are on the SAME page (thumbs u

 

I agree that people can see things differently when it comes to grading. One person might not deduct as much as another person would on any given defect. CGC has come up with their own “standards” as far as arriving at a numerical grade.

 

Restoration detection should be a more scientific approach. Either it has been restored or it has not been restored.

 

But they are still relying on a person (and we all have flaws) deciding if there is restoration or not.

[Santos208]

cool story

[vaultkeeper]

The whole basis of CGC is to remove subjective and bias grading, and use a more “scientific method” approach to grading.

 

Just curious - where do you get this notion from? I don't see how grading a comic can be anything but subjective, frankly.

 

By having people complete the task of grading - it is by nature subjective - people sees thing differently.

 

Brian, I think you're agreeing with me aren't you?

 

Grading is always going to be subjective. I was asking where the idea that CGC are trying to remove the subjective element came from. It was presented as a fact and I don't think it's part of their mission statement!

 

We are on the SAME page (thumbs u

 

I agree that people can see things differently when it comes to grading. One person might not deduct as much as another person would on any given defect. CGC has come up with their own “standards” as far as arriving at a numerical grade.

 

Restoration detection should be a more scientific approach. Either it has been restored or it has not been restored.

 

But they are still relying on a person (and we all have flaws) deciding if there is restoration or not.

 

You and I may grade a book differently, but If we were both graders at CGC we would be using the same equipment to detect restoration and following the same procedures and standards that CGC has set in place to arrive at a grade. We should come out with the same results within an allowable degree of accuracy.

[Flaming_Telepath]

Grading is subjective only to a limited degree. The observational part of grading is objective...does the book have water damage, does it have a coupon clipped, does it have a tear on the bottom edge, does it have the tip of a corner missing, is the cover detached from one staple, is that a sub crease running through the book?

 

Those flaws should limit and loosely define the grade range and the subjective element is introduced when deciding how to accurately pigeon-hole your observations. Sometimes people are lacking in knowledge...there is an extremely handy tool in the Overstreet Grading Guide, but not everybody knows of it or uses it...or sometimes they lack experience in assessing the cumulative effect of various defects.

 

However, an experienced grader who is aware of the OS guidelines and accepted conventions should not differ greatly from another experienced grader who is aware of the OS guidelines and accepted conventions.

 

I'd like to say a one point variance either way, but would reluctantly accept a two point variance.

 

Beyond that, it's nothing to do with subjectively and all about the $$$

[Flaming_Telepath]

The whole basis of CGC is to remove subjective and bias grading, and use a more “scientific method” approach to grading.

 

Just curious - where do you get this notion from? I don't see how grading a comic can be anything but subjective, frankly.

 

By having people complete the task of grading - it is by nature subjective - people sees thing differently.

 

Brian, I think you're agreeing with me aren't you?

 

Grading is always going to be subjective. I was asking where the idea that CGC are trying to remove the subjective element came from. It was presented as a fact and I don't think it's part of their mission statement!

 

We are on the SAME page (thumbs u

 

I agree that people can see things differently when it comes to grading. One person might not deduct as much as another person would on any given defect. CGC has come up with their own “standards” as far as arriving at a numerical grade.

 

Restoration detection should be a more scientific approach. Either it has been restored or it has not been restored.

 

But they are still relying on a person (and we all have flaws) deciding if there is restoration or not.

 

You and I may grade a book differently, but If we were both graders at CGC we would be using the same equipment to detect restoration and following the same procedures and standards that CGC has set in place to arrive at a grade. We should come out with the same results within an allowable degree of accuracy.

 

Define 'an allowable degree of accuracy'?

[Waylander]

The whole basis of CGC is to remove subjective and bias grading, and use a more “scientific method” approach to grading.

 

Just curious - where do you get this notion from? I don't see how grading a comic can be anything but subjective, frankly.

 

By having people complete the task of grading - it is by nature subjective - people sees thing differently.

 

Brian, I think you're agreeing with me aren't you?

 

Grading is always going to be subjective. I was asking where the idea that CGC are trying to remove the subjective element came from. It was presented as a fact and I don't think it's part of their mission statement!

 

We are on the SAME page (thumbs u

 

I agree that people can see things differently when it comes to grading. One person might not deduct as much as another person would on any given defect. CGC has come up with their own “standards” as far as arriving at a numerical grade.

 

Restoration detection should be a more scientific approach. Either it has been restored or it has not been restored.

 

But they are still relying on a person (and we all have flaws) deciding if there is restoration or not.

 

You and I may grade a book differently, but If we were both graders at CGC we would be using the same equipment to detect restoration and following the same procedures and standards that CGC has set in place to arrive at a grade. We should come out with the same results within an allowable degree of accuracy.

 

Ignoring the grading, restoration should be a simple yes / no but what you may say is yes restoration (using the same equipment etc as I), I may say no - that's just life - even the same person on different days can say yes one day and no the next - its subjective.

[Comicopolis]

The whole basis of CGC is to remove subjective and bias grading, and use a more “scientific method” approach to grading.

 

Just curious - where do you get this notion from? I don't see how grading a comic can be anything but subjective, frankly.

 

By having people complete the task of grading - it is by nature subjective - people sees thing differently.

 

Brian, I think you're agreeing with me aren't you?

 

Grading is always going to be subjective. I was asking where the idea that CGC are trying to remove the subjective element came from. It was presented as a fact and I don't think it's part of their mission statement!

 

Their super secret grading standards are based on science!

[Waylander]

Grading is subjective only to a limited degree. The observational part of grading is objective...does the book have water damage, does it have a coupon clipped, does it have a tear on the bottom edge, does it have the tip of a corner missing, is the cover detached from one staple, is that a sub crease running through the book?

 

Those flaws should limit and loosely define the grade range and the subjective element is introduced when deciding how to accurately pigeon-hole your observations. Sometimes people are lacking in knowledge...there is an extremely handy tool in the Overstreet Grading Guide, but not everybody knows of it or uses it...or sometimes they lack experience in assessing the cumulative effect of various defects.

 

However, an experienced grader who is aware of the OS guidelines and accepted conventions should not differ greatly from another experienced grader who is aware of the OS guidelines and accepted conventions.

 

I'd like to say a one point variance either way, but would reluctantly accept a two point variance.

 

Beyond that, it's nothing to do with subjectively and all about the $$$

 

But even with the Overstreet Grading Guide - its your interpretation of flaw verses mine - and you and I standing next to each other with the same book at the same time could disagree on flaw and then also on the extent the flaw affects the grade.

[Waylander]

The whole basis of CGC is to remove subjective and bias grading, and use a more “scientific method” approach to grading.

 

Just curious - where do you get this notion from? I don't see how grading a comic can be anything but subjective, frankly.

 

By having people complete the task of grading - it is by nature subjective - people sees thing differently.

 

Brian, I think you're agreeing with me aren't you?

 

Grading is always going to be subjective. I was asking where the idea that CGC are trying to remove the subjective element came from. It was presented as a fact and I don't think it's part of their mission statement!

 

Their super secret grading standards are based on science!

 

They stick books behind a light fliter like your avatar

[Comicopolis]

Grading is subjective only to a limited degree. The observational part of grading is objective...does the book have water damage, does it have a coupon clipped, does it have a tear on the bottom edge, does it have the tip of a corner missing, is the cover detached from one staple, is that a sub crease running through the book?

 

Those flaws should limit and loosely define the grade range and the subjective element is introduced when deciding how to accurately pigeon-hole your observations. Sometimes people are lacking in knowledge...there is an extremely handy tool in the Overstreet Grading Guide, but not everybody knows of it or uses it...or sometimes they lack experience in assessing the cumulative effect of various defects.

 

However, an experienced grader who is aware of the OS guidelines and accepted conventions should not differ greatly from another experienced grader who is aware of the OS guidelines and accepted conventions.

 

I'd like to say a one point variance either way, but would reluctantly accept a two point variance.

 

Beyond that, it's nothing to do with subjectively and all about the $$$

 

But even with the Overstreet Grading Guide - its your interpretation of flaw verses mine - and you and I standing next to each other with the same book at the same time could disagree on flaw and then also on the extent the flaw affects the grade.

 

You'd be wrong and Nick would be right