Forums > Suggestions > Backs and spines, again

user avatar

Игги Друге (46656) on 2/22/2016 11:30 AM · Permalink · Report

So I have submitted a game with cover scans, and I scanned the CD jewel case inlay flat, so that the spines are included. And the game entry is WIPed back, because those flaps are not really part of the back cover.

So, I can remove the spines from the scan and re-submit.

Now, I can imagine what happens next: The approver WIPs the game entry back because he can't see where I got the title spelling from (it's on the spine).

Is it really productive to persevere in excluding backs, spines and flaps from packages when it's a matter of adding one or two fields to the database? Spines and flaps are not just cosmetic, that's where information such as product codes and titles are written, and it doesn't make sense to strive for a complete, trustworthy games database while at the same time rejecting information sources.

user avatar

Tracy Poff (2093) on 2/22/2016 2:16 PM · Permalink · Report

I've been around for a while, so this is probably something I should already know, but what is the reason we don't accept scans of spines? It really seems like something we should have. I tried looking through the forum, but I didn't see anything concrete. Is there actually a reason, or is it just inertia?

user avatar

Patrick Bregger (298433) on 2/22/2016 3:39 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

Our autosize code can't handle the unusual dimensions and screws up the display. Other than that, because Trixter said so.

May I take the opportunity and plug this thread?

user avatar

Simon Carless (1835) on 2/22/2016 4:08 PM · Permalink · Report

I'd love for us to add spines. Also I really want us to add game advertisements :) (Which is something else that would need a new section but would be super cool :P)

user avatar

Kabushi (260810) on 2/22/2016 4:13 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Patrick Bregger wrote--]Our autosize code can't handle the unusual dimensions and screws up the display.[/Q --end Patrick Bregger wrote--]That doesn't seem to be the case anymore though.

user avatar

Tracy Poff (2093) on 2/22/2016 4:31 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Kabushi wrote--] [Q2 --start Patrick Bregger wrote--]Our autosize code can't handle the unusual dimensions and screws up the display. [/Q2 --end Patrick Bregger wrote--]That doesn't seem to be the case anymore though. [/Q --end Kabushi wrote--]

No, it's failing to resize tall images correctly, actually. They're resized again for display by your browser, but ideally we should resize them properly on the server.

So, if this is the only problem, and I fix it (spoiler alert: already done), then we can just start accepting spine scans?

user avatar

Pseudo_Intellectual (66248) on 2/23/2016 3:14 AM · Permalink · Report

Let's do it. (Now what are the odds we can get to the point where we can just scan the whole thing flat and the site will be able to automatically isolate the front, spine and back?)

PS Simon I made an entire blog full of game advertisements waiting for this day to arrive. Let me know when I can open the floodgates.

user avatar

Karsa Orlong (151849) on 2/23/2016 9:11 AM · Permalink · Report

So what's the point to isolate the spines at all? Especially if it comes to jewel cases. Or there will be rules for each type of the box? If we allow stripes, side/top/down scans of the box should be accepted as well. Not to mention manual fronts, adverts, etc. I'm all about this, but this requires some arrangements first

user avatar

Tracy Poff (2093) on 2/23/2016 12:15 PM · Permalink · Report

So what's the point to isolate the spines at all? Especially if it comes to jewel cases. Or there will be rules for each type of the box? If we allow stripes, side/top/down scans of the box should be accepted as well. Not to mention manual fronts, adverts, etc. I'm all about this, but this requires some arrangements first

Sure, let's work out the policy before we actually do anything. I just wanted to make sure I had cleared any technical obstacles.

We certainly will want to accept spines as separate scans for those kinds of packaging that aren't amenable to full-cover scans, e.g. boxes. I don't see any reason not to accept scans of the other bits as well.

The question of whether to accept full front+spine+back scans is another issue. It certainly makes sense to do so, but it also makes some sense separating them, as we do now. If we decided we wanted to accept full scans like that, we could simply add a scan type for them. There are quite a few potential variations, depending on the kind of packaging, but one type for 'Cover (full)' should be fine--what constitutes a 'full' cover scan will depend on the packaging type, which we list separately.

I'm in favor of allowing scans of manual fronts, feelies, or anything else that was in the package as part of our 'covers' section, though I think things like magazine ads belong in another section. Perhaps allowing image uploads in the ad blurbs section is the right way to go for those.

user avatar

Rwolf (22659) on 2/23/2016 2:58 PM · Permalink · Report

Some older boxes use wrap-around art that might be nice to combine into a larger image, also inlays that span left/right but missing a center strip looks odd, so I'm for a more varied layout, if possible. They may not need to be shown on the frontpage, if that makes it look odd.

user avatar

MAT (240710) on 3/6/2016 5:41 AM · edited · Permalink · Report

I just learned about this now after Karsa pointed me to this thread due to his submitted jewel case back cover with spines.

So, what is the new policy? As an approver and submitter I'd like to know. Many people have even taken covers with spines on file, trimmed the spine part and resubmit them as a replacements. That was fine. Is now everything different?

Let's not confuse these "spine" elements with thing we call "Spine Cover" which are common with Japanese released jewel cases.

So, jewel case spines are to be submitted with a cover? While keep case spines need to be submitted separately? I no longer have any of my covers so I won't be able to redo anything, but just want to know for the future.

As for manual scans, we so far accepted them when they serves as a jewel case front cover at the same time. But it seems that Simon might allow us to accept full scans in the nearby future, so maybe it's better not to start allowing only front cover scans for the time being if we'll start allowing them in full soon.

Edit: We've also forced people to separate keep case inlays to left and right side. I suppose from now on full picture is to be accepted instead of split left and right side?

Edit 2: Not really sure why we'd start allowing side spines which are just very thin images with no real content except the title. But if we were to start allowing all sides of all boxes, maybe Tracy could make a code which would allow 3D representation of a cover based on uploaded covers. It might need some tinkering with HTML5 layers and JS (or some other way), but it shouldn't be too hard to make it work, imho. I might give it a try if we decide on it, though.

user avatar

Patrick Bregger (298433) on 3/6/2016 7:15 AM · Permalink · Report

The technical limitations for spine coverage have been solved (or will be solved in the next site update). A new policy has been proposed, but is not in effect yet.

user avatar

Karsa Orlong (151849) on 3/6/2016 9:23 AM · Permalink · Report

I guess we can go with jewel spines already, as there is no discrepancy - spines should be a part of the front/back cover without separation. The other spines (keep case, cassette part size spines, consoles covers) need some arrangements for sure, extras is another thing to decide.

user avatar

Patrick Bregger (298433) on 3/6/2016 9:35 AM · edited · Permalink · Report

I don't agree. Because the front cover is used in several places as representation of the game (the game's main page, search), it needs to be separated. Therefore the back cover and spine need to be separated, too.

I understand what you are getting at, but there are many PC games as well which were only released in Jewel Cases. Plus a lot of games which may have been released in a box, but we only have scans of jewel case re-releases. I don't like the idea of introducing specific rules for "other" scans.

user avatar

Karsa Orlong (151849) on 3/6/2016 9:57 AM · Permalink · Report

I may understand this if it comes to front covers (there are no spines in 99,9 % of PC cases anyway), but why back jewel covers? Every time we cut cover we lose some pixels during the process. I'm talking about back of jewel cases only, like this one http://www.mobygames.com/game/great-war-1914-1918/cover-art/gameCoverId,324741/ . Really see no point of separating spines here without some visualisation MAT mentioned about. And there is one more (probably most essential) argument here - contributors won't be happy to remove these and add as 3 parts. What's the reasoning? Sometimes you have to meet the expectations of contributors, after all this site can't exist without them.

user avatar

Игги Друге (46656) on 4/9/2016 2:47 PM · Permalink · Report

I agree that the front cover needs to be separated, but separating the spine from the back cover is needless.

user avatar

MAT (240710) on 3/6/2016 9:29 AM · edited · Permalink · Report

Okay, thanks. So for the time being we are still not accepting the side cover together with back cover or front/back combo for keep cases. Got it.

BTW, if we do decide to accept all sides, it might be better to have visual representation of each cover and side instead of uploading it as a series of images. Something like this...

Jewel case sample:

      O
     OXO
      O

To clarify representation, each of the letters would be a square with text below to upload a scan. In case of jewel case top one would be for uploading FRONT, bottom for BACK, and left and right for LEFT and RIGHT spine. The X would be a 3D cover representation (static, auto-rotateable or manually-rotateable) constructed from available images on all sides. It would work even if there is only front or only left image, it would just visually be incomplete and we could see what is missing.

In our cover section, only 3D images would be listed as covers (with link below each to display it in more detail like in the schematic above), which would save a lot of space and we could literally list several different covers in a same row, all with their own 3D visual representation.

Keep case unlike jewel case would only have FRONT, BACK, and SIDE cover. Box covers would have 6 sides, sleeve would have 4 sides, slipcase would have 5 or 2 (depending if it's just a slipcase for disc or for a box/case) sides, etc. so schematics would be made for each cover type of cover. This would also have to cover variants where some boxes are openable and have flaps, and so on. But it would be doable.

This way all our covers would already be fine, they would just create incomplete 3D representation (due to our not accepting of side covers so far), and we wouldn't have to think about new categories like "Complete Cover" which would contain front/side/back of keep case as a single image or jewel case back cover which would contain 3 sides (double-jewel cases have side cover for both front and back, though).

user avatar

Tracy Poff (2093) on 3/6/2016 9:35 AM · Permalink · Report

So, what is the new policy?

To be determined. The update that fixes thumbnail rendering should go out next time we deploy. If some coding support can prevent us from doing any policy contortions, someone should let me know, but otherwise I'm happy to leave the specifics to people who submit and approve covers.

very thin images with no real content except the title

The title on the spine is valid as an alt. title, so by allowing the images we'd have evidence to support them. Spines can also contain product codes, logos for publishers, or other information, though it is true that they don't often contain much of interest.

maybe Tracy could make a code which would allow 3D representation of a cover based on uploaded covers. It might need some tinkering with HTML5 layers and JS (or some other way), but it shouldn't be too hard to make it work, imho

You're thinking of some kind of interactive widget you can spin around? I imagine there's some JS library that could be used, but I can't see it being very useful, personally. It's not something I'd prioritize.