Our mission

Your thoughts on a BARcode feature

svreef

Webmaster
BOD
I’m running across many cases of a frag being transferred from one owner to another. Rather than a new piece, it is the same one that was given originally.
A gave a frag to B and then B gave that same frag to C.

The easy way to handle this is to just change the owner when the transfer happens. The downside is that you lose a bit of history. For example, the lineage tree would show that A gave it to C. A journal entry could mark the transfer, but it would get a bit buried.

The alternative - to track all of that - gets gnarly.

Thoughts? Should I take the easy way out?
 
Last edited:

JVU

President
BOD
Agree with Meshmez. The important relationship to track is between the people who grow/frag it and the people who have it now, not the middle-man step. I’m surprised this is coming up a lot though.
 

svreef

Webmaster
BOD
What if B had it for a year and gave out a bunch of frags?

This happens when someone tears down their tank and transfers all of their DBTC items.
 

Meshmez

Supporting Member
I would just treat it as a "new" frag at that point. I thought you meant they literally handed off the same coral.

Does it really track individual corals? Or just people? I would think when they pass it off, and have already fulfilled adding back to the chain, that link just "goes dead" as in the person doesn't have the coral and doesn't have any available. Same as if the coral died
 

svreef

Webmaster
BOD
It tracks individual frags and each has an owner. And I do mean a transfer.

When you add something to the system, a mother frag is created owned by you. If you give B a frag of it, a new row is created for the new frag with B as the owner and your coral as the mother.

Now, B grows that frag for a year and gives frags to C, D and E. Each get their own row with the appropriate owners (and journal, pictures, etc).

Then, B tears down their tank and gives that original frag they got from you to X.

If we simply change that frag’s owner to X, all records of B disappear. It will look like you gave the original to X and X gave frags to C, D and E. This is not terrible, but it does rewrite history.
 
Can there be an additional option that is similar to “it died” and then B gives their original piece to X as a new frag and the unique ID that had been used for the piece is retired and it is giving a new ID?

It would maintain the history at the cost of giving the same item a new unique ID.
 

svreef

Webmaster
BOD
The underlying problem is that the system doesn’t track historical “transactions” - it just has a simple view of the world
 

svreef

Webmaster
BOD
Can there be an additional option that is similar to “it died” and then B gives their original piece to X as a new frag and the unique ID that had been used for the piece is retired and it is giving a new ID?

It would maintain the history at the cost of giving the same item a new unique ID.

Yeah, this would work
 

RandyC

Supporting Member
It tracks individual frags and each has an owner. And I do mean a transfer.

When you add something to the system, a mother frag is created owned by you. If you give B a frag of it, a new row is created for the new frag with B as the owner and your coral as the mother.

Now, B grows that frag for a year and gives frags to C, D and E. Each get their own row with the appropriate owners (and journal, pictures, etc).

Then, B tears down their tank and gives that original frag they got from you to X.

If we simply change that frag’s owner to X, all records of B disappear. It will look like you gave the original to X and X gave frags to C, D and E. This is not terrible, but it does rewrite history.

At that point is it really the same frag as the original? Maybe just treat the handoff as a frag given and have a different status for X. Like “retired” or something.
 
Last edited:

JVU

President
BOD
Yeah I don’t see your example as being a frag simply handed off. More like B made frags and shared them with C, D, E, and X. Then B didn’t have any frags left, which is the same as B’s died.

According to most DBTC rules, B would then be entitled to preferentially request frags of it again once they start up a new tank later since they completed the chain before they lost their coral. So yes they need to still be part of the chain, just without a currently living coral.

Same as if B handed out those 4 frags and then their colony died. They are still part of the chain and should be able to get a frag back from someone. We can’t have them be deleted just because they lost their coral. For a lot of people, this is the whole point of DBTC.
 

svreef

Webmaster
BOD
Yeah I don’t see your example as being a frag simply handed off. More like B made frags and shared them with C, D, E, and X. Then B didn’t have any frags left, which is the same as B’s died.

According to most DBTC rules, B would then be entitled to preferentially request frags of it again once they start up a new tank later since they completed the chain before they lost their coral. So yes they need to still be part of the chain, just without a currently living coral.

Same as if B handed out those 4 frags and then their colony died. They are still part of the chain and should be able to get a frag back from someone. We can’t have them be deleted just because they lost their coral. For a lot of people, this is the whole point of DBTC.

True, but there is a distinction to be made between a coral dying and being transferred. In some chains folks will say things like “I’m giving my piece to X, I’m no longer part of this chain”. This hints to them forfeiting their right to get one back. Of course, they can because our members are extremely generous - no one is going to deny them another chance.

It’s clear that the history shouldn’t be lost, so I know what to do now.
 

Meshmez

Supporting Member
I think the issue in question is if B hands it off to X, it looks like it's a frag of B instead of a frag of A.

I also think ultimately it doesn't matter a ton. It's all tracked back to A. Which is ultimately the point.
 

RandyC

Supporting Member
True, but there is a distinction to be made between a coral dying and being transferred. In some chains folks will say things like “I’m giving my piece to X, I’m no longer part of this chain”. This hints to them forfeiting their right to get one back. Of course, they can because our members are extremely generous - no one is going to deny them another chance.

It’s clear that the history shouldn’t be lost, so I know what to do now.

i don’t think it necessarily forfeits their right. What if they have already met their requirements of giving two frags or had given even more than that. I think it’d okay in that situation to ask for another frag and jump the priority list. Maybe if they didn’t meet the requirements of that particular DBtC then they need to go to the back of the line.
 

svreef

Webmaster
BOD
Is it only possible to import threads /DBTCs that you originated? It looks like when I go to import, it only shows DBTCs that I started. I wanted to add a frag that I received from a chain that hasn't been imported yet (received from @max_nano, but it was originally started by @ofzakaria)

(Ofzakaria bubble gum digi)

Yes, you are limited to your own threads. Allowing import of someone else’s threads has a lot of implications that could get troublesome.

Maybe the best way to do it is for you to ask the thread owner to get on it.
 

Coral reefer

DBTC Officer
BOD
Yes, you are limited to your own threads. Allowing import of someone else’s threads has a lot of implications that could get troublesome.

Maybe the best way to do it is for you to ask the thread owner to get on it.
Or maybe if it’s easy enough for me I could go through and start adding all of them chains for people? Once the old ones are added the point is kinda moot right?
 
Top