Dates don't matter that much campaign!

[Libelle]

On that note, I'd really like to see how the pet counting experiment works with rares. However, since rares are harder to find, I think a bigger sample size than 20 will be needed. Personally, 20 is about the most that I'm willing to do at one time. But, I thought that if there were a few people who were interested to do this, we could each look at 10-20 accounts and put the data together.

The only thing I'm not quite sure about it how we avoid counting the same users twice. I think the easiest way would probably be for everyone to check 10-20 accounts independently, make a note of the username where they found the pets, and then we could eliminate duplicates. Alternatively, if there is one kind volunteer who would like to gather enough random usernames for everyone, then we could distribute them that way.

The other issue would be organizing the data. I'm thinking a Google doc would probably be best? I'm open to ideas.

Keep in mind that older users are probably more likely to go "incognito" and not appear in the online users display in the forum menu. Newer users might not know the hide function exists, and they would also be more likely to have only newer pets. To have an accurate experiment, maybe try to select some offline users too and see how it turns out.

I see a privacy issue there. Collecting data about users in spreadsheets and distributing these speadsheets is a privacy issue. There is a reason why Chicken Smoothie does not include usernames in public trade links. Moreover, there is a reason why users go private and hide their online status. This experiment would cancel their efforts.

Also, to talk about dates- have you ever noticed the distaste towards rares+ with a dec 18 date on them ?? Every year it rolls around I notice a ton of threads looking for "true date" pets and I even see some people who refuse to take in pets that are from dec 18 !! Just because they aren't originally from 2008,09,10 etc ! It's a little insane to think about how important that time stamp is to some people !

It's not 'insane'. It's going to a folder that's full of every CS dog ever, going to say, July 08 and see that you're missing one. But the archive says you have it! Where is it? It could be anywhere

That's why it's important to me. For people that just put dogs in folders by month, it does not matter as much, but for me, I need them with the littermates.

Calling a person's behaviour, choice or opinion "insane" is ableist and discriminatory. I agree with Shian. Huge groups of pets are easier to navigate if every pet has its original date of release.

[Bilaz]

I like true dates because it legit bothers me to have pets that aren’t from the original date 😅😂 I get bothered really easy by something as simple as a date tbh, sometimes I get annoyed by dates that look particularly unbalanced or whatever (no I realise that doesn’t make sense)
Like I specifically hunted down an 03-06-09 WWA 😂😂😂

My personal silly reason aside, the deal with true dates are:
- some people have a preference for them for personal reasons like me or Shian
- more people seek to swap true dates than there are people looking to swap for a rerelease + little extra
- VR and OMGSR true dates (unless it’s a recent-ish UR) are harder to find than their rerelease counterparts
-> they go for higher market value -> they have more prestige attached for that reason -> more people want them

As much as the thread is about dates not mattering, it was really about the release dates of the pets. I believe true dates will always be an odd issue and because there will always be someone who wants it more than a rerelease they’ll always have value

[Poserpanda]

Perhaps instead of collecting names, we can just gather data based on what anonymous people have collected, and add our own collections as well.

[Wookieinmashoo]

I don't really have the time right now, but I thought about doing the counting experiment with butterfly wolves. My idea was that they're an "in between" species. Most people like them yet there's some that don't. I would pick ones from the months May, June, and July since at least at the beginning, there are no events going on. I would pick those months from 3 or 4 different years, but only ones two years apart. Example 2019, 2017, 2016, 2014. I would like to see about 200 users checked. I hopefully can do this myself when I have more time, but I'll probably be doing some classes soon so I won't be able to get to it.

[lil rascal]

One suggestion would be to actually have some people test this, and compare the prevalence of pets with the same rarity but different dates. I tried this when it came up on a different thread, so I can put that here.

Disclaimer: this was one very small sample with a few specific pets. By itself it means absolutely nothing, and it is completely anecdotal. Also, I saw someone else this with different pets and get totally different results. That’s why other people should run their own tests so we can see if we notice any trends.

Okay, so after I suggested it, I couldn't resist testing the experiment I mentioned. The three pets I chose and the numbers of them that I found are below. The rules I made for myself when choosing the pets were:

1. All pets must be the same species.
2. Basic line art only
3. No event pets (though you could do a different version with only event pets).
4. All pets must the same rarity.

Originally I wanted them all to be exactly 5 years apart, but I it took me a little while to find a common '10 cat, and then I didn't really want to go and change my other picks.


To do the experiment, I picked 20 people at random and looked at their open groups to see how many of each pet I could find. (The pets were all added to my WL for easier searching.)

I was actually really surprised by the results. I thought there would be a bigger difference in how many '20 and '15 pets I found, and I was expecting to find at least a couple more pets from '10.

Jan 2020- 23 found

Jan. 2015- 15 found

August 2010- 1 found

I realize this is only one test, but I feel like it supports the hypothesis that years matter...but not nearly as much as people seem to think (with the possible exception of very old pets, where date seems like it could matter more).

If someone else wants to try this with different pets, rarities, etc. I would be really interested to see if how it turns out. Looking back, I feel like it might be more accurate to try this with uncommons. Most '10 pets are uncommon and up, so the common cat I chose is probably on the less common end of the "common" scale.

I tried the experiment again with some uncommon pets. Like last time, I picked 20 users randomly and looked at the open groups (pets were added to my WL for easier searching.)


Jan '20
6


Jan '16
3


Jan '12
1


March '10
2


Jan '09
0

One problem with both of these examples, which could be skewing your results, is that in both cases the oldest pets are more natural/neutral designs, which many people tend to either hoard or hold onto. Also the tabby cat is from August 2011, not 2010, not that I think that really skews the results I know that in the age ranges there are very limited of those rarities to choose from but just wanted to point out that those types of designs could skew results as much as event pets, line edits etc.

[musicgurl333]

Also, to talk about dates- have you ever noticed the distaste towards rares+ with a dec 18 date on them ?? Every year it rolls around I notice a ton of threads looking for "true date" pets and I even see some people who refuse to take in pets that are from dec 18 !! Just because they aren't originally from 2008,09,10 etc ! It's hard to think about how important that time stamp is to some people !

While there are some people who won't accept re-release pets, I think they're in the minority. I've personally never had any trouble getting the full value for re-releases that I've traded away. It might be slightly more difficult than trading away a true date, but not significantly.

I do understand the preference for true dates though. I personally don't value re-releases any less than true dates but if given a choice between the two, I'm going to take the true date. Sure, it's worth exactly the same, but it just fits nicer in my groups.

I don't really have the time right now, but I thought about doing the counting experiment with butterfly wolves. My idea was that they're an "in between" species. Most people like them yet there's some that don't. I would pick ones from the months May, June, and July since at least at the beginning, there are no events going on. I would pick those months from 3 or 4 different years, but only ones two years apart. Example 2019, 2017, 2016, 2014. I would like to see about 200 users checked. I hopefully can do this myself when I have more time, but I'll probably be doing some classes soon so I won't be able to get to it.

That would be awesome! I'd be really interested to see what happens with a larger data set.

Perhaps instead of collecting names, we can just gather data based on what anonymous people have collected, and add our own collections as well.

That's what's already happening with the mini experiments that have been run (though I personally haven't included my own pets). But I was trying to figure out a way that multiple people could work together, without duplicating the users that we look at. Still not really sure what would be the best way to do that.

One problem with both of these examples, which could be skewing your results, is that in both cases the oldest pets are more natural/neutral designs, which many people tend to either hoard or hold onto. Also the tabby cat is from August 2011, not 2010, not that I think that really skews the results I know that in the age ranges there are very limited of those rarities to choose from but just wanted to point out that those types of designs could skew results as much as event pets, line edits etc.

Good call on the cat! I don't know how I mixed that up. I'll change it in my original post. I do agree that design type could influence results. I tried to keep designs...not similar, necessarily, but all either natural or all unnatural. But as you said, selections become a lot more limited with the older pets. I was also trying to keep them as close to January release dates as I could. Partly so that they would be exactly x years apart, and partly because it's just easier for me to do it that way. That further limited my design choices.

I would definitely be interested to see the results if someone wanted to try this experiment while keeping pets designs as similar as possible.

[Poserpanda]

So should I try all pets of one natural design, or more fanciful coloring? I know that some people might go for the more natural ones if they very closely resemble a pet that they've had. But sometimes even the fantasy ones that don't resemble a pet at all is collected as well. So my data could be skewed anyway.

[frye]

I did a counting experiment with common dogs, but I've just done one with store pets. I did my best to pick more simple designs with average demand to keep things fair. I looked through 30 accounts this time; the years they joined were spread pretty reasonably.

2008-2011: 6 users
2012-2015: 11 users
2016-2018: 8 users
2019-2020: 5 users

^ 2013 - 4 found ^



^ 2016 - 5 found ^



^ 2019 - 6 found ^

Conclusion? These are all wayyyy closer than I would've expected. So the alpaca is probably still rarer than the deer, but probably isn't a gap worth a 2010 rare or whatever they're going for. If anyone else would like to help build my sample pool, I didn't look at any usernames starting with a-p or t-z.

[Poserpanda]

This is the animal that I chose to look for.
It's uncommon. And I chose users whose names start with P.

Only one person had it for trade, and the rest of them had mostly commons or un-commons to trade. Even fewer people had duplicate rares for trade, if they had any to spare.
And two of them had adoption groups.

[musicgurl333]

This is the animal that I chose to look for.
It's uncommon. And I chose users whose names start with P.

Only one person had it for trade, and the rest of them had mostly commons or un-commons to trade. Even fewer people had duplicate rares for trade, if they had any to spare.
And two of them had adoption groups.

Interesting! I thought it would have been more common. One thing to keep in mind is that I think it works a bit better to look for pets from different years,
but with the same rarity. That way the numbers can be easily compared.

I did a counting experiment with common dogs, but I've just done one with store pets. I did my best to pick more simple designs with average demand to keep things fair. I looked through 30 accounts this time; the years they joined were spread pretty reasonably.

2008-2011: 6 users
2012-2015: 11 users
2016-2018: 8 users
2019-2020: 5 users

^ 2013 - 4 found ^



^ 2016 - 5 found ^



^ 2019 - 6 found ^

Conclusion? These are all wayyyy closer than I would've expected. So the alpaca is probably still rarer than the deer, but probably isn't a gap worth a 2010 rare or whatever they're going for. If anyone else would like to help build my sample pool, I didn't look at any usernames starting with a-p or t-z.

I love the idea of noting first letters to of usernames to avoid repeats! I may have to try this at some point and get some additional data for you.