TCG Prices Showing Wrong

TappedOut forum

Posted on Nov. 1, 2016, 1:46 p.m. by Gidgetimer

I haven't done too much testing on exactly what cards are affected. I just noticed that Survival of the Fittest was showing up at $4.75 and was wondering why the price had dropped so drastically. Following the pricing link took me to Sliver Hive's TCG player page.

Since the Exodus set page has the proper pricing, I will be doing some testing to see if it is a problem with Digital only distributions of older cards being the default displayed.

Gidgetimer says... #2

Checked all the rares from Tempest Remastered that are over about $10 in paper. Survival seems to be the only one messed up.

November 1, 2016 2:05 p.m.

GeminiSpartanX says... #3

I have noticed that the site prices don't seem to follow the new tcgmarket price, but rather the old 'mid' price on most cards. It also seems to take more than a day for prices of cards to update on the site. It's kind of unfortunate since the prices used to reflect tcg pricing quite accurately in the past before tcg went to their 'market price' way of things.

November 1, 2016 3:12 p.m.

pskinn01 says... #4

Mid price is still supported by tcg, just they are pushing market prices. I don't think they currently allow market prices to be used on other sites. I know all the programs that retrieve price data from tcg still use low, mid, and high. Which would be why this site uses it. Mtggoldfish still uses mid also. I don't trade by market price anyway, so don't care. I have had someone try to trade me at market prices, and the cards they wanted were not available in nm for market price.

November 1, 2016 3:33 p.m.

yeaGO says... #5

well, what's the recommendation here? to dump tcg mid and start using the market price? it seems kind vague.

November 1, 2016 4:15 p.m.

Gidgetimer says... #6

Sorry I assume that everyone knew the card i was talking about and it's actual value. Survival of the Fittest is a $45 card, that is still that price. I was reporting a bug that Survival is linked to the TCG price tracking of Sliver Hive for some reason making it display as $4.75 in the price view.

November 1, 2016 5:03 p.m.

pskinn01 says... #7

Original post was about a price linking error, I was responding to the message by Gemini

November 1, 2016 6:17 p.m.

Femme_Fatale says... #8

yeaGO I think the issue now is because of how TCGplayer changed how they present prices that our system currently doesn't link to their prices very well. I would recommend that you contact TCGplayer about this issue yourself if they provided you the code of sorts to work with.

If not, the code will have to be redone, and if so, I would do TCGplayer low. As Rudy from Alpha Investments has said: mid is too heavily influenced by single vendors who do silly shit.

November 4, 2016 1:20 p.m.

Gidgetimer says... #9

I feel like the conversation has strayed from the original post and that is all well and good if you want to use this to discuss the different problem that was raised by Gemini, but I would like one of the site admins to acknowledge that the problem posed in the OP was not about lag or variance of a few percent of the price.

Survival of the Fittest displays at $4.75, a discrepancy of 90%. I followed the hyperlink to the card page on here and then to TCG Player to find out why. The page it took me to was for Sliver Hive, not Survival of the Fittest. I don't know if it is something that can be fixed on this side or if you need to escalate the report to TCG Player that an automatic query for information on Tempest Remastered Survival of the Fittest returns results for Sliver Hive instead of Exodus Survival of the Fittest.

November 4, 2016 3:29 p.m.

Femme_Fatale says... #10

Gidgetimer, I believe the same issue I described applies here, as I hadn't noticed nor heard of this back before I went on hiatus, which was when TCGplayers far superior graph displays were presented. Why they got rid of the date graphs I don't know.

November 4, 2016 4:27 p.m.

Gidgetimer says... #11

I don't see how a change in how prices are presented links one of the cards to a completely different card. You may know more about it than I do, but I don't understand what how prices are presented has to do wrong association of one of their cards to one on this site. It seems like if the problem was a large scale indexing error like would happen with system upgrades, it would be many more cards than just the one.

It just being the one leads me to conclude that it is just faulty association of the one card at some point. As long as it is understood that the price is correct for the page it is pulling from and it is just pulling from the wrong page I will rest assured that the problem is understood and being addressed. I have only seen speculation on what would make the price wrong when pulling from the correct page though.

November 4, 2016 11:21 p.m.

Femme_Fatale says... #12

I'm referring to the TCGplayer site update that occurred sometime when I was on hiatus. They removed their date graphs and coincidentally, all of the prices across this site seem to have been frozen and the online only sets that normally didn't have broken links now do.

November 5, 2016 12:47 a.m.

I'm sorry I piggybacked on your conversation Gidgetimer. I know what you're referencing. If you click on Survival of the Fittest, then click on one of the tcgplayer prices on the page that comes up, it takes you to the Sliver Hive card on tcgplayer (which is why SotF shows as $5 instead of $40ish). You're bringing up a specific reference error while I was pointing out a general change I've noticed on this site (and likely should have started my own thread about it). I'm sure one of the site admins can remedy the problem with Survival of the Fittest. I was just pointing out a different concern that would have shared the same title as your post here.

November 5, 2016 12:48 p.m.

yeaGO says... #14

should be fixed?

gidgetimer, yeah, i think it was some issue when encountering an error and iterating through all printings, so a printing would inadvertantly get saved with data from a whatever the previous printing was.

November 5, 2016 11:19 p.m.

This discussion has been closed