$1 per 1,000 points is back, plus new daily prizes in the COMC Challenge

The community has been awesome this month – good suggestions, helpful feedback, and amazing participation have gotten us 70% of the way to a complete basic catalog.  We’ve been listening, and folks have asked for the return of our reward from March: $1 of Store Credit for every 1000 points completed.  So it’s back, but for a limited time only!  Take advantage while you can, because now it’s even better than before:

  • INSTANT PAYOUTS  When you earn 1000 points by submitting data in the COMC Challenge, $1 of Store Credit will be immediately deposited into your account.
  • FOCUS ON YOUR INVENTORY  With our new Fast Track mode, you can earn Store Credit while speeding up the catalog creation of your own items.
  • DAILY PRIZES We’ve got some new contests with more winners than ever – you don’t need to spend the whole week competing, now you can win in one day.

Prize #1: Top Daily Overall Scores2014facebookmockup01

1st place: $40
2nd place: $20
3rd place: $10
4th place: $5

Prize #2: Fastest Weekly Times (“Ultimate Card # Race” only, with 100% accuracy)

1st place: $40
2nd place: $20
3rd place: $10
4th place: $5

And YES, you can win in both categories.  You can submit data in ANY Challenge and be eligible for these prizes, but please note that data submitted in Fast Track mode is not timed and so it cannot win for fastest time.

Prize #3: Get the word out

We want this news to reach as many people as possible, so if you have a Facebook account you can enter to win another prize!

1)      ‘Like’ our Facebook page
2)      Comment on the Facebook post below
3)      In your comment, tag a friend (use the “@” symbol and type their name)

We’ll randomly pick four winners who will each receive $25 in COMC Store Credit!

Finally, some of our Challenge superstars are accumulating an incredible number of points.  To any user who at any time earns a total of more than 1 million lifetime points, we will award an exclusive red COMC Contributor badge to your username on the site in honor of your amazing contribution.  This opportunity will badgebe ongoing, as new Challenges over the coming year will help us build a catalog that is deeper and richer than ever before. Earning a million points will be an incredible effort, but some people are more than halfway there already!

We appreciate everyone who has done even one Challenge; this is a community effort, and we are committed to eventually presenting a catalog with depth and accuracy that honors and reflects the community spirit of our hobby.

Thanks,
COMC

23 thoughts on “$1 per 1,000 points is back, plus new daily prizes in the COMC Challenge

  1. Good job on the new and various rewards programs Tim. It will help alleviate some frustration for some and for others I am persuaded it seems like icing on the cake being a part of the effort. If you have the means to give any rewards I receive to the charity please do so as someone else can probably use payout more than I. I only do this for fun now and to be honest, I kind of like using the 30 plus years in the hobby to help with a concise and informative catalog you are striving for.

    It seems you are surely listening to suggestions and complaints as well. And I commend you now for doing so in spite of the difficult situation COMC has experienced the past few months and the tremendous pressure you’ve been under. Best wishes for the future and it looks as though you have a loyal support group of dealers and hobbyists.

    Happy Easter to all – if it applies,
    MrMint

    PS/ If Moe is the type of folks you choose to hire, you will succeed for sure.

    • Are you the real Mr Mint? I just came across one of your cards I was actually going to send in to COMC in my next batch. It is an autograph card from 1998 I think. Kinda cool.

      • Hello David,
        I am the real COMC “MrMint” but the “Mr. Mint” I think you are referring to is from NYC and his last name is Alan Rosen.
        Ken

  2. Re: Card Number Challenge

    If a card is ST9, should we enter + for multiple numbers or 9 for the card number of that subset?

    I’ve received three ZEROS because of this issue, I believe.

  3. The system has incorrectly told me I’ve had wrong answers many times the past couple of days, primarily when I choose things like missing/wrong prefix or not visible. Are these being reviewed? The last week you gave out store credit, these “errors” were reviewed quickly; generally the next morning my point total showed an increase. I haven’t seen this happen yet, over the last couple of days I’ve been shorted probably at least a dollar worth of store credit because of this. I already have to press “skip” almost every time I see something slightly oddball-ish numberwise; it wastes my time having to skip so much and your time since you want these card numbers to be analyzed and have errors found.

    • The last few days I have been getting 200 points on my first challenge of the day, so if it’s happening to you it’s affecting only some users?

      Also, today the site (not necessarily the whole site, but at least the challenge part) keeps going down. So far it’s happened four times when I’ve been in the middle of doing a challenge, the site stops responding for a certain amount of time. Sometimes for a few minutes, once for about 20. I’m sure the site’s resources may be a bit overloaded, but this shouldn’t be happening so many times, with the site consantly going back and forth between working perfectly and being frozen.

      • Same here Jason. I’ve been getting my 200 points for the first batch each day. The site has been going up and down all day. This last time it took 32 minutes to do a batch of 50 that usually takes 90 seconds.

      • My last post was yesterday afternoon, since then the site (at least the challenges portion) has had a lot of problems. The site kept going out last night, for much longer periods of time than during the afternoon. I came back this morning and it was working well, but now it’s going out again. Is any one else having these problems?

  4. For what it’s worth, the 2005 Topps Rookie Cup Reprints set almost universally has the wrong number listed for each card. The problem arises because each card is a reprint of a previous Topps card of the player, and reprints that number on the back. Each card for the 2005 set is given a new number, which is printed in extremely fine print on the back of the card.

    For example, the Jonny Gomes reprint in the set is a 2006 Topps base card, number 23 (the fact that a 2005 set has a “reprint” of a 2006 card is a separate issue). The reprint of Chuck Knoblauch is a 1992 Topps, also #23. However, in the 2005 set, Topps has renumbered them, so that Gomes is #6, and Knoblauch is #76. “#6″ and “#76″ appear in extremely small font on the far right hand side of the back of the cards, however, and are thus easy to miss. #23 was instead entered during the COMC challenges, and is now listed as the number for both cards.

    Most of the set is thus listed incorrectly on COMC.

    • I remember that set. It was a BFD that we got a preview of the 2006 design. (The set released in the fall.) Anyway, I agree. Any set with reprints across multiple other sets will have to be revisited for this reason.

      That set really takes me back. It had one of the first rainbows, and it was also the only place to get a Pawelek auto (even if it was a sticker). That would be a $200 box if he had panned out, although I think people would have still preferred a Chrome auto from 2006.

  5. Any way to get rid of that watermark in the challenges, it is often on top of serial numbers and is a royal PITA.

  6. I received a response from COMC since my previous post. They said that there are people checking “incorrect” answers, but I haven’t seen any progress with that on my account. It still feels like my point total should have been credited 1000+ points for a lot of incorrect “wrong” answers, primarily from last week when they started this current run of earning store credit.

    Also, I think it would be a good idea (and I’m sure pretty everybody else would agree) if they started issuing points/store credit for giving confirmed answers using the “edit” feature for individual cards. I’ve done this a little bit for cards I’ve purchased, or certain cards I’ve seen while browsing (I’m not a seller on this site, so I have no for-sale cards to edit). It would be nice to have an incentive to keep doing this, which I would prefer exponentially to the challenges (personally I can not stand typing in card numbers anymore). It would allow users to focus in on cards that they’re more familiar with, and that they actually like doing. And like I mentioned before, it would give users an (incentivized) opportunity to do something different than typing in numbers or doing that awkward thing with typing in the first two letters of players’ names.

    • Jason, I’m with you.

      The only way to gather points and the associated COMC credit is by doing the challenges.

      But if you get on an editing kick with your own stuff or just a set/subset and edit the cards contained therein, you receive no credit.
      I had to spend a cumulative few hours just revising my stuff because the Name associated with the Challenge’s intials were incorrect (very common for scrub players) or even the teams (i.e., St. Louis Cardinals was listed erroneously listed compared to Johnson City Cardinals).

      Challenge work = non-challenge (editing) work, and I don’t know where COMC stands on this issue as the latter receives no credit.

      I would hope they would extend the waiver of another month’s fees if we hit a certain number of points in a month. It would help tremendously with the big sellers and active Challenge takers.

      In closing, I appreciate COMC’s willingness to work with the users as we are the ones who really are keeping the site afloat.

      • I think it is absurd to think that they should waive another months storage fees. And I pay around $140-150 a month. Things are getting back to normal and sales are picking up.

      • Do not count on them to waive the fees again. They are technically not supposed to assess the fees on cards “missing” key information. I think the real debate is what is considered key information. I personally feel the CORRECT name, the correct set name/subset name and the correct card number. I have a total of 6 cards on my first page that I consider to have the correct minimum information currently.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s