Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobo Aullando
Geez, man. I actually started typing this point up, then decided I should get back to work.
They like to say that all their graders can do any card, which makes it sound like everyone is doing anything. Taking that at face value, I posit that it doesn't mean they have to completely silo their graders if they decide to have some specialize. (And they still get to say "everyone can do anything," which is easy to elide from "everyone can do anything.")
At risk of sounding like an organizational consultant, having graders with concentrations builds more knowledge than having a bunch of generalists, which is what it seems like they have right now. Have folks do cross-training (aka, "going on detail").
If they're worried about consistency, they already have published standards with affirmative details. Simply have everyone in those little rooms hew to those standards instead of trying to achieve some goal of relative consistency, which can shift. Emphasizing everybody being a generalist might help homogenize the outputs in the short term, but it seems to have led to inconsistencies over time.
|
First, they are off far more than .5. I could live with their being off by .5. The issue is far greater than that. So using half grades more often does not address the issue, in the least. They have to see a half grade first in order to use them and presently they cannot distinguish an 8 from a 6.
Next, I could not imagine looking at cards 6 to 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year when most of that time I would be issuing mostly 9s and 10s. It is going to throw off anyone's perspective if they then are assigned a vintage order.
I do not know what the answer is but I feel like this is the explanation for why they are crushing vintage. No adjustment will be made by PSA or SGC unless they see submissions drop off.