Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | sefil  | | Posted: | Sep 26, 2015 17:33 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 10552-1 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 76371 Yellow Duplo, Brick 1 x 2 x 2 with Bottom Tube (Alternate) (match ID 1)
* Add 1 Part 76371pb004 Yellow Duplo, Brick 1 x 2 x 2 with Bottom Tube with Traffic Light Pattern (Alternate) (match ID 2)
* Change 1 Part Yellow 4066 Duplo, Brick 1 x 2 x 2 {match ID 0 to 1}
* Change 1 Part Yellow 4066pb388 Duplo, Brick 1 x 2 x 2 with Traffic Light Pattern {match ID 0 to 2}
Comments from Submitter:
We have this set and noticed that the yellow 1x2x2 bricks have bottom tube.
|
 |
| Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Sep 25, 2015 12:24 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 2521-1 | | Viewed: | 17 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 6 Part 98313 Black Arm Mechanical, Exo-Force / Bionicle, Thick Support (Alternate) (match ID 2)
* Add 8 Part 553c White Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top - Hollow Stud with Bottom Axle Holder x Shape + Orientation (Alternate) (match ID 3)
* Change 6 Part Black 53989 Arm Mechanical, Exo-Force / Bionicle {match ID 0 to 2}
* Change 1 Part Flat Silver {93787 Minifig, Weapon Spiked Flail - Flexible Rubber to 59232 Minifig, Weapon Spiked Flail}
* Change 8 Part White 553b Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top - Blocked Open Stud with Bottom Axle Holder x Shape + Orientation {match ID 0 to 3}
Comments from Submitter:
Sealed set contents.
|
|
| Author: | viejos | | Posted: | Sep 25, 2015 11:32 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 41107-1 | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 1 Part Black {30258 Road Sign Clip-on 2 x 2 Square to 15210 Road Sign Clip-On 2 x 2 Square Open O Clip}
Comments from Submitter:
Sealed set.
|
| Author: | npogson | | Posted: | Sep 25, 2015 10:23 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 70011-1 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 4 Part 4085b Red Plate, Modified 1 x 1 with Clip Vertical - Type 2 (thin U clip) (Alternate) (match ID 5)
Comments from Submitter:
have just parted out 6 sets and found a total of 6 as 4085c the other 18 were 4085b.
|
|
| Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | Sep 25, 2015 01:41 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 75099-1 | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 6081pb020 Dark Red Brick, Modified 2 x 4 x 1 1/3 with Curved Top with Irregular Orange Patch Pattern (Sticker) - Set 75099 (Counterpart)
* Add 2 Part 6081pb019 Dark Red Brick, Modified 2 x 4 x 1 1/3 with Curved Top with Two Orange Stripes Pattern (Sticker) - Set 75099 (Counterpart)
* Add 1 Part 50950pb089L Dark Red Slope, Curved 3 x 1 No Studs with Black Circles Pattern Model Left Side (Sticker) - Set 75099 (Counterpart)
* Add 1 Part 50950pb089R Dark Red Slope, Curved 3 x 1 No Studs with Black Circles Pattern Model Right Side (Sticker) - Set 75099 (Counterpart)
* Add 1 Part 3069bpb413 Light Bluish Gray Tile 1 x 2 with Dark Red Console with Screen and Control Buttons Pattern (Sticker) - Set 75099 (Counterpart)
* Add 1 Part 98834pb05 Dark Bluish Gray Vehicle, Spoiler 2 x 4 with Handle and Dark Red Irregular Patches Pattern 1 (Sticker) - Set 75099 (Counterpart)
* Add 1 Part 98834pb06 Dark Bluish Gray Vehicle, Spoiler 2 x 4 with Handle and Dark Red Irregular Patches Pattern 2 (Sticker) - Set 75099 (Counterpart)
* Add 2 Part 45677pb089 Dark Red Wedge 4 x 4 x 2/3 Triple Curved with Vehicle Plate and Rivets Pattern (Sticker) - Set 75099 (Counterpart)
* Add 1 Part 75099stk01b (Not Applicable) Sticker for Set 75099 - International Version - (21525/6116841) (Alternate) (match ID 1)
* Change 1 Part (Not Applicable) 75099stk01 Sticker for Set 75099 - (21526/6116842) {match ID 0 to 1}
|
|
| Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Sep 24, 2015 11:07 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 10195-1 | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 2 Part 4150pb167 Tan Tile, Round 2 x 2 with Dark Red SW Semicircles on Tan Background Pattern (Sticker) (Counterpart)
* Add 2 Part 4150pb002b White Tile, Round 2 x 2 with SW Republic Pattern on White Background (Sticker) (Counterpart)
* Add 1 Part 6179pb095 White Tile, Modified 4 x 4 with Studs on Edge with Black Vents on Gray, Transparent Background Pattern (Sticker) - Set 10195 (Counterpart)
* Add 2 Part 3009pb195 Light Bluish Gray Brick 1 x 6 with Dark Bluish Gray Squares and Black Grids Pattern (Sticker) - Set 10195 (Counterpart)
* Add 2 Part 3039pb088 Dark Bluish Gray Slope 45 2 x 2 with Dark Red SW Semicircle on Tan Background Pattern (Sticker) - Set 10195 (Counterpart)
|
|
| Author: | Kelcy | | Posted: | Sep 23, 2015 23:14 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 6936-1 | | Viewed: | 17 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 2 Part 3044c Black Slope 45 2 x 1 Double - with Bottom Stud Holder (match ID 1)
|
| Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Sep 23, 2015 17:38 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 75102-1 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 4 Part Black {2714 Bar 8L with Stop Rings and Pin (Technic, Figure Accessory Ski Pole) - Rounded End to 2714b Bar 8L with Stop Rings and Pin (Technic, Figure Accessory Ski Pole) - Flat End}
Comments from Submitter:
New variant has been added to the catalog.
|
|
| Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Sep 23, 2015 15:28 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 75102-1 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 4346pb30 Light Bluish Gray Container, Box 2 x 2 x 2 Door with Slot and Black SW Rebel Logo on Light Bluish Gray Background Pattern (Sticker) - Set 75102 (Counterpart)
* Add 1 Part 3297pb037R Black Slope 33 3 x 4 with Silver Mechanical Panel Pattern Model Right Side (Sticker) - Set 75102 (Counterpart)
* Add 1 Part 3297pb037L Black Slope 33 3 x 4 with Silver Mechanical Panel Pattern Model Left Side (Sticker) - Set 75102 (Counterpart)
* Add 2 Part 15068pb042L Black Slope, Curved 2 x 2 No Studs with Orange Stripe on Left Edge on Black Background Pattern (Sticker) - Set 75102 (Counterpart)
* Add 2 Part 15068pb042R Black Slope, Curved 2 x 2 No Studs with Orange Stripe on Right Edge on Black Background Pattern (Sticker) - Set 75102 (Counterpart)
* Add 4 Part 93273pb048 Black Slope, Curved 4 x 1 Double No Studs with Orange Stripe on Black Background Pattern (Sticker) - Set 75102 (Counterpart)
* Add 1 Part 3069bpb412 Black Tile 1 x 2 with Target Screen and Control Panel Pattern (Sticker) - Set 75102 (Counterpart)
* Add 2 Part 2431pb400 Black Tile 1 x 4 with Orange and Light Bluish Gray Stripes Pattern (Sticker) - Set 75102 (Counterpart)
* Add 1 Part 14769pb076 Light Bluish Gray Tile, Round 2 x 2 with Bottom Stud Holder with SW White and Black Circles and Octagon Pattern (Sticker) - Set 75102 (Counterpart)
* Add 1 Part 14769pb075 Light Bluish Gray Tile, Round 2 x 2 with Bottom Stud Holder with SW White and Black Circles and Triangles Geometric Pattern (Sticker) - Set 75102 (Counterpart)
|
|
| Author: | elias3 | | Posted: | Sep 23, 2015 13:24 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 7979-6 | | Viewed: | 17 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 1 Part Dark Bluish Gray {3044 Slope 45 2 x 1 Double - Undetermined Underside to 3044b Slope 45 2 x 1 Double - with Inside Bar}
|
|
| Author: | kislibricks | | Posted: | Sep 23, 2015 11:30 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 7824-1 | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 2 Part 2493a White Window 1 x 4 x 5 with Solid Studs (Alternate) (match ID 1)
Comments from Submitter:
Part outed a 7824 sealed box today.
|
|
| Author: | kislibricks | | Posted: | Sep 23, 2015 11:28 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 7824-1 | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 2 Part 4081b Black Plate, Modified 1 x 1 with Clip Light - Thick Ring (Alternate) (match ID 2)
* Add 4 Part 3003old Red Brick 2 x 2 without Inside Supports (Alternate) (match ID 3)
* Add 2 Part 3002old Red Brick 2 x 3 without Cross Supports (Alternate) (match ID 4)
* Change 2 Part Black 4081a Plate, Modified 1 x 1 with Clip Light - Thin Ring {match ID 0 to 2}
* Change 4 Part Red 3003 Brick 2 x 2 {match ID 0 to 3}
* Change 2 Part Red 3002 Brick 2 x 3 {match ID 0 to 4}
* Change 2 Part Red {3044 Slope 45 2 x 1 Double to 3044a Slope 45 2 x 1 Double - without Bottom Pin}
Comments from Submitter:
Part outed a sealed 7824 box today.
|
|
| Author: | bb271702 | | Posted: | Sep 23, 2015 10:53 | | Subject: | Re: Website Keyboard Use | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | Yes, modernizing the design should not mean ditching accessibility.
|
I agree -good form design should include the ability to tab between input fields
and to eithet type entries or select from drop down list with the keyboard.
These used to be standard requirements for AAA/AA accessibility standards testing
on websites
|
|
| Author: | tstrathm | | Posted: | Sep 22, 2015 23:26 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1580-1 | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, tstrathm writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 2 Part Light Gray {4345 Container, Box 2 x 2 x 2 to 4345a Container, Box 2 x 2 x 2 - Solid Studs} {Regular to Alternate} {match ID 0 to 1}
Comments from Submitter:
Catalog shows part 4345a released from 1983 to 1992. Thus it would seem that it would appear in place of 4345 in some versions of this 1985 set.
|
You have to watch out with BL catalog dates. They are derived from the inventories,
and they can be *very* misleading at times, as in "several decades" misleading.
I just finished adjusting dozens of inventories that were providing some very
wrong dates for a few vintage parts. And they had been that way for years and
years, tricking unsuspecting BL surfers.
One time I picked up a book on basic Lego building that had a parts dictionary
in it, complete with dates of release. I was saddened to see that many of the
dates were wrong, and were so because they had been pulled directly from BL and
other online sources and had not been verified.
In this case, you are correct, but for different reasons than you gave. First,
one interesting thing to do is find stickered parts from a single set, like this
one:
The other thing going for you is that the first appearance of hollow studs in
instructions is from 1994, in this set (see image below):
Instructions were typically late in representing what actually ended up in the
set, but you have a margin here of 8 years, which is plenty. Sometimes you cannot
depend on instructions since they often never were changed to show the real part,
e.g. with the "pinned" versions of this part:
...and sometimes they were even ahead of production. But they are useful when
used with several other pieces of information.
Russell
|
Thanks for all this information; very interesting. For what it's worth, the
instructions for 1580-1 do show solid studs on the piece in question (though
it sounds like that may not mean much).
Andy
|
|
| Author: | viejos | | Posted: | Sep 22, 2015 19:34 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 8051-1 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, mojavamama writes:
| | Thank you for the information. In my opinion, its far too much work and very
confusing to enter a stickered part to a set inventory. Perhaps more folks would
be willing to contribute to the catalog inventory if this was an easier process?
Thanks
Alice W.
|
It is a lot of work, and there are some things I am sure that will be done in
the future to streamline the process. But the system does work, and it takes
a lot less time as one gets used to the process.
I suggest you try submitting these and see how it goes before making a decision
not to contribute at all. You may be surprised at how rewarding it can be to
have something you created be added to BrickLink.
Russell
|
|
| Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Sep 22, 2015 11:04 | | Subject: | Allow My Inventory dropdown search:Element ID | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Entering a Lego Element ID in the All Items search works (it finds the part and
color combination. This also works for searching Catalog Items.
It even works if you go to your My Inventory page, and enter the Element ID in
the Keywords box and search.
However, in the My Inventory dropdown search available on every page, searches
for Element IDs return zero results. Please fix so that it shows the correct
inventory lots.
--
Marc.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Sep 22, 2015 08:04 | | Subject: | Re: Website Keyboard Use | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, JohnnyQuest writes:
| | So, it use to be that one could tab from the top of the page, change the search
category with the keyboard, type in a term, and press enter. That was really
useful. It doesn't work any more.
So my suggestion is to put that back.
The key sequence was something like Alt-D (to get to the address bar) TAB, TAB,
TAB, a letter, such as C for catalog, then TAB, then enter a search term, then
press enter.
Instead, I now have to pull down the drop-down and choose a category. It takes
*forever*.
I realize I am in the minority, most people navigate with the mouse. For me,
it feels like every time you make me touch the mouse, a fairy dies. Just saying.
|
Yes, modernizing the design should not mean ditching accessibility.
|
|
| Author: | viejos | | Posted: | Sep 22, 2015 00:28 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 6932-1 | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 2 Part Black {3475 Engine, Smooth Small, 1 x 2 Side Plate (Undetermined Axle Holders Type) to 3475b Engine, Smooth Small, 1 x 2 Side Plate with Axle Holders}
Comments from Submitter:
As found by member maxlego.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 17:57 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, viejos writes:
| | In Suggestions, enig writes:
| | In Suggestions, LordSkylark writes:
| | In Suggestions, Andy_Bell writes:
| | In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | Having to scroll on images is the worst user experience since the internet exists.
|
I actually think the worst user experience on the internet is click on a small
image for a larger one/or view larger link and being presented with a large image
that is only fractionally larger than the one you were just looking at.
Why the tease? Why waste my time?
http://alpha.bricklink.com/pages/clone/catalogitem.page?M=njo163#T=P
In this case they are previewing the large image, but at almost full size. If
larger large images were allowed then this effect would be minimize.
Considering the reason someone wants to look at the a large image is to see it
in more detail. The present size is limiting and submitters often submit images
that are smaller than the maximum allowed.
Why not a "full resolution" link on the large image tab? Which calls up the larger
(pixel and file size) for those who want to see it? Leave the large image at
it's present size.
Andy
|
I voted yes.
Also, as viejos pointed out, the resizing which is done with the bricklink server
itself significantly distorts the image quality. (I'm wondering if the problem
is merely that the automatic resizing does not save the JPG output at a high
enough of a setting.)
I also think that now that they have recently updated the website with a feature
that automatically makes a thumbnail and small image out of a large image, there
really isn't any point even to submitting both small and large images anymore.
They should make submissions now ONLY large images, and the website can make
thumbnails/smaller images automatically out of them. In this suggestion, it would
mean that a large image would be able to be submitted for EVERY color of a part,
not just the base image.
Andy
|
Not a bad idea in theory, but more often than not, large images will have some
white space around the parts and/or will not be in 4:3 ratio. You really want
to max-out the 80x60 pixels that are available for the small images.
|
Yeah, the automatic features are ones we should be staying away from IMO. I always
make my small images directly from the original instead of from the large image
and they look better that way. Remember, every time you save a JPG file, you
lose quality. Ideally all processing for an image should be done in a "non-lossy"
format such as BMP, and then the file is saved once (and only once) in the exact
JPG size needed.
When we upload an image to BL as JPG at max 640 pix, and then allow the system
to auto generate the small image, the file is saved twice (extra loss) and I'm
almost certain the BL resizer applies a sharpen process automatically as well
with every resize, so then you get the hyper-pixelization found on so many BL
small images. Compare these two:
|
If they allowed the format to be in PNG there wouldn't be a problem with
lost image data even when the system were to resize it. However, there wouldn't
be as noticeable of a problem with the system resizing the image in JPG if they
saved the JPG at a higher quality rate, like 95~100.
(Regardless, JPG is a terrible format is my opinion to use in this age --
it was great when 99% of people had dial up and websites had a strict limit on
bandwidth and online storage space).
But also in regard to what was stated:
"large images will have some white space around the parts and/or will not be
in 4:3 ratio. You really want to max-out the 80x60 pixels that are available
for the small images."
I always max out the large image pixels available. So if most people were doing
that, then I don't think there would be any problem with the system making
an automatic small image out of it -- as long as it could resize/resave at
a higher quality.
Andy
|
|
| Author: | viejos | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 17:09 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, enig writes:
| | In Suggestions, LordSkylark writes:
| | In Suggestions, Andy_Bell writes:
| | In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | Having to scroll on images is the worst user experience since the internet exists.
|
I actually think the worst user experience on the internet is click on a small
image for a larger one/or view larger link and being presented with a large image
that is only fractionally larger than the one you were just looking at.
Why the tease? Why waste my time?
http://alpha.bricklink.com/pages/clone/catalogitem.page?M=njo163#T=P
In this case they are previewing the large image, but at almost full size. If
larger large images were allowed then this effect would be minimize.
Considering the reason someone wants to look at the a large image is to see it
in more detail. The present size is limiting and submitters often submit images
that are smaller than the maximum allowed.
Why not a "full resolution" link on the large image tab? Which calls up the larger
(pixel and file size) for those who want to see it? Leave the large image at
it's present size.
Andy
|
I voted yes.
Also, as viejos pointed out, the resizing which is done with the bricklink server
itself significantly distorts the image quality. (I'm wondering if the problem
is merely that the automatic resizing does not save the JPG output at a high
enough of a setting.)
I also think that now that they have recently updated the website with a feature
that automatically makes a thumbnail and small image out of a large image, there
really isn't any point even to submitting both small and large images anymore.
They should make submissions now ONLY large images, and the website can make
thumbnails/smaller images automatically out of them. In this suggestion, it would
mean that a large image would be able to be submitted for EVERY color of a part,
not just the base image.
Andy
|
Not a bad idea in theory, but more often than not, large images will have some
white space around the parts and/or will not be in 4:3 ratio. You really want
to max-out the 80x60 pixels that are available for the small images.
|
Yeah, the automatic features are ones we should be staying away from IMO. I always
make my small images directly from the original instead of from the large image
and they look better that way. Remember, every time you save a JPG file, you
lose quality. Ideally all processing for an image should be done in a "non-lossy"
format such as BMP, and then the file is saved once (and only once) in the exact
JPG size needed.
When we upload an image to BL as JPG at max 640 pix, and then allow the system
to auto generate the small image, the file is saved twice (extra loss) and I'm
almost certain the BL resizer applies a sharpen process automatically as well
with every resize, so then you get the hyper-pixelization found on so many BL
small images. Compare these two:
|
|
| Author: | JohnnyQuest | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 16:43 | | Subject: | Website Keyboard Use | | Viewed: | 130 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| So, it use to be that one could tab from the top of the page, change the search
category with the keyboard, type in a term, and press enter. That was really
useful. It doesn't work any more.
So my suggestion is to put that back.
The key sequence was something like Alt-D (to get to the address bar) TAB, TAB,
TAB, a letter, such as C for catalog, then TAB, then enter a search term, then
press enter.
Instead, I now have to pull down the drop-down and choose a category. It takes
*forever*.
I realize I am in the minority, most people navigate with the mouse. For me,
it feels like every time you make me touch the mouse, a fairy dies. Just saying.
|
|
| Author: | enig | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 16:31 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, LordSkylark writes:
| | In Suggestions, Andy_Bell writes:
| | In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | Having to scroll on images is the worst user experience since the internet exists.
|
I actually think the worst user experience on the internet is click on a small
image for a larger one/or view larger link and being presented with a large image
that is only fractionally larger than the one you were just looking at.
Why the tease? Why waste my time?
http://alpha.bricklink.com/pages/clone/catalogitem.page?M=njo163#T=P
In this case they are previewing the large image, but at almost full size. If
larger large images were allowed then this effect would be minimize.
Considering the reason someone wants to look at the a large image is to see it
in more detail. The present size is limiting and submitters often submit images
that are smaller than the maximum allowed.
Why not a "full resolution" link on the large image tab? Which calls up the larger
(pixel and file size) for those who want to see it? Leave the large image at
it's present size.
Andy
|
I voted yes.
Also, as viejos pointed out, the resizing which is done with the bricklink server
itself significantly distorts the image quality. (I'm wondering if the problem
is merely that the automatic resizing does not save the JPG output at a high
enough of a setting.)
I also think that now that they have recently updated the website with a feature
that automatically makes a thumbnail and small image out of a large image, there
really isn't any point even to submitting both small and large images anymore.
They should make submissions now ONLY large images, and the website can make
thumbnails/smaller images automatically out of them. In this suggestion, it would
mean that a large image would be able to be submitted for EVERY color of a part,
not just the base image.
Andy
|
Not a bad idea in theory, but more often than not, large images will have some
white space around the parts and/or will not be in 4:3 ratio. You really want
to max-out the 80x60 pixels that are available for the small images.
|
|
| Author: | enig | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 16:26 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, viejos writes:
| | In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | In 1999/2000, there was a valid reason for 640x480. In 2015, there is no reason.
Please remove the 640x480 limit on large images.
Many search engines now explicitly require a minimum of 800 or 1000 on the long
side. BL can do much better with larger images.
|
I agree and voted yes. There was a sticker sheet I scanned the other day that
was as big as a letter-sized sheet of paper. When I shrunk it down to 640 pixels,
I could barely read some of the lettering on the stickers. Image size restrictions
make for the possibility of errors and a real headache while working with stickered
counterparts, amongst other things.
The other thing I have to mention since we are on this topic, is the resizing
(by the catalog) of submitted images that *do* fall within the restrictions.
This is related to this suggestion because the pressure to keep things as small
as possible is the same thing keeping the lid on larger limit in general.
Here is a part I submitted recently, in three stages (see image below):
1. as resized by the catalog after being uploaded to BL (360 pix)
2. as I could have resized it myself, direct from the original (360 pix)
3. as I originally submitted it to BL (480 pix)
Such resizings after an image has already been resized and sharpened should never
happen. They reduce image quality and reflect poorly on the site *and* the submitter.
When this has happened in the past to one of my images, I resubmitted my own
resized image (that was only processed once - like the middle image below), but
the change was rejected as not being "significantly better".
In 2015, are we going to be quibbling over the few Kb of difference between 360
and 480 pixels? Images, more than anything else we have on BL, help to sell things,
and I just don't see the point of being stingy in this area.
Russell
|
+1
BL banana always looked more like a corn on a cob to me
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 15:44 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Andy_Bell writes:
| | In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | Having to scroll on images is the worst user experience since the internet exists.
|
I actually think the worst user experience on the internet is click on a small
image for a larger one/or view larger link and being presented with a large image
that is only fractionally larger than the one you were just looking at.
Why the tease? Why waste my time?
http://alpha.bricklink.com/pages/clone/catalogitem.page?M=njo163#T=P
In this case they are previewing the large image, but at almost full size. If
larger large images were allowed then this effect would be minimize.
Considering the reason someone wants to look at the a large image is to see it
in more detail. The present size is limiting and submitters often submit images
that are smaller than the maximum allowed.
Why not a "full resolution" link on the large image tab? Which calls up the larger
(pixel and file size) for those who want to see it? Leave the large image at
it's present size.
Andy
|
I voted yes.
Also, as viejos pointed out, the resizing which is done with the bricklink server
itself significantly distorts the image quality. (I'm wondering if the problem
is merely that the automatic resizing does not save the JPG output at a high
enough of a setting.)
I also think that now that they have recently updated the website with a feature
that automatically makes a thumbnail and small image out of a large image, there
really isn't any point even to submitting both small and large images anymore.
They should make submissions now ONLY large images, and the website can make
thumbnails/smaller images automatically out of them. In this suggestion, it would
mean that a large image would be able to be submitted for EVERY color of a part,
not just the base image.
Andy
|
|
| Author: | therobo | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 15:31 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Andy_Bell writes:
| | In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | Having to scroll on images is the worst user experience since the internet exists.
|
I actually think the worst user experience on the internet is click on a small
image for a larger one/or view larger link and being presented with a large image
that is only fractionally larger than the one you were just looking at.
Why the tease? Why waste my time?
http://alpha.bricklink.com/pages/clone/catalogitem.page?M=njo163#T=P
In this case they are previewing the large image, but at almost full size. If
larger large images were allowed then this effect would be minimize.
Considering the reason someone wants to look at the a large image is to see it
in more detail. The present size is limiting and submitters often submit images
that are smaller than the maximum allowed.
Why not a "full resolution" link on the large image tab? Which calls up the larger
(pixel and file size) for those who want to see it? Leave the large image at
it's present size.
Andy
|
Yes, why not storing images in 3 sizes? Small, large, and full size?
(What is full size btw.? Whatever someone decided to upload, or better consistently
uniformed?)
Why sticking to the small window width (in fact width was reduced) when completely
redesigning catalog pages?
Ask the developers...
|
|
| Author: | therobo | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 15:25 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Stragus writes:
| | In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | While 640x480 (or bigger if the site would be capable to show images adequately)
would be ok for sets, and maybe for other item types, it does not make sense
for many other items as long as the site does not use more modern techniques
to display images in regards to the various modern devices, such as 4k capable
mobile screens
|
Ah! If store tabs could be visible on high resolution screens, that would already
be a good starting point.
By the way, modern websites detect the resolution one is running to display appropriate
images. No bandwidth is wasted.
|
If images are only resized, bandwidth is wasted as the images have to be stored
and loaded (then resized) based on the highest resolution.
There are techniques to resize images on the fly on the server based on the specification
the website sends.
AFAIK Brickset (for example) sends the required format to the Lego server when
loading the images.
|
|
| Author: | Andy_Bell | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 15:24 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | Having to scroll on images is the worst user experience since the internet exists.
|
I actually think the worst user experience on the internet is click on a small
image for a larger one/or view larger link and being presented with a large image
that is only fractionally larger than the one you were just looking at.
Why the tease? Why waste my time?
http://alpha.bricklink.com/pages/clone/catalogitem.page?M=njo163#T=P
In this case they are previewing the large image, but at almost full size. If
larger large images were allowed then this effect would be minimize.
Considering the reason someone wants to look at the a large image is to see it
in more detail. The present size is limiting and submitters often submit images
that are smaller than the maximum allowed.
Why not a "full resolution" link on the large image tab? Which calls up the larger
(pixel and file size) for those who want to see it? Leave the large image at
it's present size.
Andy
|
|
| Author: | therobo | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 14:49 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | But why would you base BL on the worst resolution screens around? Some people
use phones (I am right now). Why not base the user interface on a phone screen
instead?
|
AFAIK BrickLink has stated they are working on a mobile version.
|
|
| Author: | therobo | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 14:48 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, viejos writes:
| | In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | In 1999/2000, there was a valid reason for 640x480. In 2015, there is no reason.
Please remove the 640x480 limit on large images.
Many search engines now explicitly require a minimum of 800 or 1000 on the long
side. BL can do much better with larger images.
|
I agree and voted yes. There was a sticker sheet I scanned the other day that
was as big as a letter-sized sheet of paper. When I shrunk it down to 640 pixels,
I could barely read some of the lettering on the stickers. Image size restrictions
make for the possibility of errors and a real headache while working with stickered
counterparts, amongst other things.
|
As noted above, the current store window (right frame) gives the limit for image
size.
They started with a new viewer on catalog detail pages, but this viewer is not
scrollable at all, which would make it impossible to view larger images on "normal"
screens.
| |
The other thing I have to mention since we are on this topic, is the resizing
(by the catalog) of submitted images that *do* fall within the restrictions.
This is related to this suggestion because the pressure to keep things as small
as possible is the same thing keeping the lid on larger limit in general.
Here is a part I submitted recently, in three stages (see image below):
1. as resized by the catalog after being uploaded to BL (360 pix)
2. as I could have resized it myself, direct from the original (360 pix)
3. as I originally submitted it to BL (480 pix)
Such resizings after an image has already been resized and sharpened should never
happen. They reduce image quality and reflect poorly on the site *and* the submitter.
|
The BrickLink image resizer which is part of the approval function never has
produced decent quality and has always been subject of our complaints.
| | When this has happened in the past to one of my images, I resubmitted my own
resized image (that was only processed once - like the middle image below), but
the change was rejected as not being "significantly better".
In 2015, are we going to be quibbling over the few Kb of difference between 360
and 480 pixels?
|
It's not the byte difference. As long as the image system of BrickLink does
not get overhauled in general, we try to adjust the images sizes in regards to
the item size, i.e. simlar items get similar image sizes, up to 640x480 max.
Of course this is limited to only few predefined image sizes.
Resubmit your 360 version and we'll approve it.
| | Images, more than anything else we have on BL, help to sell things,
|
Hey, we're praying this for years but many submitters still refuse to upload
images for their items. Maybe this will change when the new upload form goes
live which requires images included in item submissions.
| | and I just don't see the point of being stingy in this area.
|
Again, as in my reply to Ray, under better system conditions, I'd say yes.
|
|
| Author: | bb138026 | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 14:43 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | While 640x480 (or bigger if the site would be capable to show images adequately)
would be ok for sets, and maybe for other item types, it does not make sense
for many other items as long as the site does not use more modern techniques
to display images in regards to the various modern devices, such as 4k capable
mobile screens
|
Ah! If store tabs could be visible on high resolution screens, that would already
be a good starting point.
By the way, modern websites detect the resolution one is running to display appropriate
images. No bandwidth is wasted.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 14:41 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| But why would you base BL on the worst resolution screens around? Some people
use phones (I am right now). Why not base the user interface on a phone screen
instead?
|
|
| Author: | therobo | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 14:16 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | In 1999/2000, there was a valid reason for 640x480. In 2015, there is no reason.
|
There is.
Most notebooks still have a resolution of max. 800-900 pixel in height.
This gives you a net height in stores of ~430-550 pixel, depending on browser.
See image below.
Allowing larger images requires more scrolling than we already have.
Having to scroll on images is the worst user experience since the internet exists.
Voted NO.
|
Your logic is impeccable. Maybe you should inform Google, et al, why they should
drop all large images (and make scrolling easier).
My impression has been that most sites with any decent code will reconfigure
the images dynamically to deal with smaller views. I think there may be even
HTML tags that deal with that.
|
It has always been possible by HTML code to resize images to be *displayed* in
any size, however this does not change the file size in bytes.
If unlimited upload sizes would be allowed and then simply resized for being
displayed in preferred (user setting) size it would cause a huge data traffic
with all these current gigapixel photo devices and would make the site slower
than it already is.
BrickLink once *had* an auto-resize function for large images which resized and
*saved*(smaller file size) the images to 640x480 but it was retired because it
caused a lot of problems.
One problem was that we then had to spent much more time for tweaking images
and less time for real catalog work because the system cannot recognize what
is shown on the image.
While 640x480 (or bigger if the site would be capable to show images adequately)
would be ok for sets, and maybe for other item types, it does not make sense
for many other items as long as the site does not use more modern techniques
to display images in regards to the various modern devices, such as 4k capable
mobile screens
http://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=87
| | My original suggestion is valid.
|
I think it is not valid under the current system conditions.
Under better system conditions I might be in your boat 
|
|
| Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 14:01 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, edeevo writes:
| | In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | In 1999/2000, there was a valid reason for 640x480. In 2015, there is no reason.
|
There is.
Most notebooks still have a resolution of max. 800-900 pixel in height.
This gives you a net height in stores of ~430-550 pixel, depending on browser.
See image below.
Allowing larger images requires more scrolling than we already have.
Having to scroll on images is the worst user experience since the internet exists.
Voted NO.
|
Your logic is impeccable. Maybe you should inform Google, et al, why they should
drop all large images (and make scrolling easier).
My impression has been that most sites with any decent code will reconfigure
the images dynamically to deal with smaller views. I think there may be even
HTML tags that deal with that.
My original suggestion is valid.
|
You beat me to the punch... well done!
|
But it goes well beyond anything that you or I have said here ...
Mobile devices (Apple, Samsung, Nokia, etc) are using screens that are well in
excess of 72 dpi. They crave large images, because they need to dynamically adjust
those large images to provide a sharp representation on a small screen. If you
give the mobile device a 72-dpi image, at a purported resolution that is smaller
than the device can handle, you wind up with an image experience that is lacking.
2x or 3x is typical for what these devices want. Mobile is the future. Desktop
and laptop, will continue to exist, but they are no longer the future.
To be perfectly clear about what caused the suggestion in the first place ...
This morning I happened to notice that BL was missing an image. In my mind, I
knew that I had sold a few of those once upon a time. So I dug back in my dusty
archives, and found the old jpg file. The creation date is Thursday, October
7, 1999 3:29 PM. The size of the image 735 × 563 pixels. I used that image to
sell a few copies of that set, on eBay, before BL existed. eBay could handle
that image in 1999. BL cannot handle that image in 2015. It's time to change
that.
|
|
| Author: | viejos | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 13:54 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | In 1999/2000, there was a valid reason for 640x480. In 2015, there is no reason.
Please remove the 640x480 limit on large images.
Many search engines now explicitly require a minimum of 800 or 1000 on the long
side. BL can do much better with larger images.
|
I agree and voted yes. There was a sticker sheet I scanned the other day that
was as big as a letter-sized sheet of paper. When I shrunk it down to 640 pixels,
I could barely read some of the lettering on the stickers. Image size restrictions
make for the possibility of errors and a real headache while working with stickered
counterparts, amongst other things.
The other thing I have to mention since we are on this topic, is the resizing
(by the catalog) of submitted images that *do* fall within the restrictions.
This is related to this suggestion because the pressure to keep things as small
as possible is the same thing keeping the lid on larger limit in general.
Here is a part I submitted recently, in three stages (see image below):
1. as resized by the catalog after being uploaded to BL (360 pix)
2. as I could have resized it myself, direct from the original (360 pix)
3. as I originally submitted it to BL (480 pix)
Such resizings after an image has already been resized and sharpened should never
happen. They reduce image quality and reflect poorly on the site *and* the submitter.
When this has happened in the past to one of my images, I resubmitted my own
resized image (that was only processed once - like the middle image below), but
the change was rejected as not being "significantly better".
In 2015, are we going to be quibbling over the few Kb of difference between 360
and 480 pixels? Images, more than anything else we have on BL, help to sell things,
and I just don't see the point of being stingy in this area.
Russell
|
|
|
| Author: | edeevo | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 13:35 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | In 1999/2000, there was a valid reason for 640x480. In 2015, there is no reason.
|
There is.
Most notebooks still have a resolution of max. 800-900 pixel in height.
This gives you a net height in stores of ~430-550 pixel, depending on browser.
See image below.
Allowing larger images requires more scrolling than we already have.
Having to scroll on images is the worst user experience since the internet exists.
Voted NO.
|
Your logic is impeccable. Maybe you should inform Google, et al, why they should
drop all large images (and make scrolling easier).
My impression has been that most sites with any decent code will reconfigure
the images dynamically to deal with smaller views. I think there may be even
HTML tags that deal with that.
My original suggestion is valid.
|
You beat me to the punch... well done!
Life is Good.
~Ed.
|
|
| Author: | edeevo | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 13:34 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | In 1999/2000, there was a valid reason for 640x480. In 2015, there is no reason.
|
There is.
Most notebooks still have a resolution of max. 800-900 pixel in height.
This gives you a net height in stores of ~430-550 pixel, depending on browser.
See image below.
Allowing larger images requires more scrolling than we already have.
Having to scroll on images is the worst user experience since the internet exists.
Voted NO.
|
Except that there is simple coding tweaks that allow for image resolution adjustments
regardless of the max pixels for a screen (loads of websites use it... click
on image, it opens at a max size based upon the resolution of the device... click
on it again and pan left, right, up, & down to see it in high-res)... 
Additionally, should the site be restricted based upon the resolution restrictions
of one notebook? Does *any* website work that way?
So, again, I agree that large images *should* be *large*.
Life is Good.
~Ed.
|
|
| Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 13:29 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | In 1999/2000, there was a valid reason for 640x480. In 2015, there is no reason.
|
There is.
Most notebooks still have a resolution of max. 800-900 pixel in height.
This gives you a net height in stores of ~430-550 pixel, depending on browser.
See image below.
Allowing larger images requires more scrolling than we already have.
Having to scroll on images is the worst user experience since the internet exists.
Voted NO.
|
Your logic is impeccable. Maybe you should inform Google, et al, why they should
drop all large images (and make scrolling easier).
My impression has been that most sites with any decent code will reconfigure
the images dynamically to deal with smaller views. I think there may be even
HTML tags that deal with that.
My original suggestion is valid.
|
|
| Author: | connie | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 13:24 | | Subject: | Re: Make Full Addresses required fields | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
| | Not infrequently I receive a new order from a member that has not completely
filled out their address.
Can we make the city, state/province, postal code, country fields mandatory
before the creation of an account - or at least mandatory before being able to
place an order.
I understand that there are specific countries that may not have "province" or
"postal code" fields that are applicable - so maybe this is only mandatory for
US, Can, UK, etc..
Mike.
|
Especially true for Asian countries. Some of those lines are so long they don't
fit on a label and it is nearly impossible to figure out where to cut and make
a new line.
Connie
|
|
| Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 13:13 | | Subject: | Re: Fee payment in Euro | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, George_Lucy writes:
| | If you want to make fair for all what about not allowing EU users to charge
paypal fees. I would love to not be charged any fees for my paypal account. I
could hire a full time employee for the fees we pay.
|
You can already add 3% to to every order if you want to.
--
Marc.
|
|
| Author: | therobo | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 13:11 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | In 1999/2000, there was a valid reason for 640x480. In 2015, there is no reason.
|
There is.
Most notebooks still have a resolution of max. 800-900 pixel in height.
This gives you a net height in stores of ~430-550 pixel, depending on browser.
See image below.
Allowing larger images requires more scrolling than we already have.
Having to scroll on images is the worst user experience since the internet exists.
Voted NO.
|
|
|
| Author: | calebfishn | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 12:49 | | Subject: | Re: Make Full Addresses required fields | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
| | Not infrequently I receive a new order from a member that has not completely
filled out their address.
Can we make the city, state/province, postal code, country fields mandatory
before the creation of an account - or at least mandatory before being able to
place an order.
I understand that there are specific countries that may not have "province" or
"postal code" fields that are applicable - so maybe this is only mandatory for
US, Can, UK, etc..
Mike.
|
Should certainly be required for anyone opening a store.
|
|
| Author: | George_Lucy | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 12:47 | | Subject: | Re: Fee payment in Euro | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| If you want to make fair for all what about not allowing EU users to charge
paypal fees. I would love to not be charged any fees for my paypal account. I
could hire a full time employee for the fees we pay.
In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | Fair enough, you do have a point there. But why should America get the advantage?
And your point about whether someone would leave BL, you could extend this to
'what if BL would charge Europe 5% instead of 3% fees' and people would
stay too, but it doesn't mean that's the way to go. It's one factor
that could contribute to BL being potentially US-centric. It's being US-centric
if it focusses on auto check-out with Creditcard instead of bank transfers, and
they're STILLLLL not implemeting the part dimensions database for countries
that have volume restricted selling options. From what I've heard they're
very willing to make BL work well in other important corners of the world, so
that's nice. But if they don't, then yes, factors like these actually
contribute to me taking my business elsewhere.
I'm aware it's not fair to provide for the EU and not for other countries,
but I think it's at least something? The EU is a big part of BL turnover.
It wouldn't make much sense to me to make BL all US-centric just because
they can't cater 100% for every country in the world.. the EU is big, I would
be more annoyed by them not taking the EU into account, than for them not supporting
the local payment methods we have in this tiny country (although it's relatively
big business-wise ). And Australia for example isn't much bigger than
the NL.
In Suggestions, Brettj666 writes:
| | I don't know if there are some issues with Bricklink, but I'll ask the
obvious question.
Is there an advantage for Bricklink to do this?
I mean, I don't think I've seen a European seller say "I'm packing
up shop because I can't pay my fees in EU"
So, they aren't at risk of losing business, are they?
it's not like sellers can claim they can't compete.
If the conversion fees are (say) 2%, then it's 2% of 3%, or .06% 6 cents
on $100 of every sale.
If they do it for the EU, do they do it for Pounds, Canadian dollar, Australian
dollar. It was set up as a US $ because Dan was in the US, and his parents after
that.
If you say it helps with your accounting, can't literally everyone say that?
Now, if I were running Bricklink, I may consider it because of all the sellers
in the EU, but I wouldn't be ignorant of the fact that if someone can say
"well, you did it for them, why not us" they will.
Do I want to set that precedent.. maybe not.
In Suggestions, an3 writes:
| | Hi all,
I've had this idea some time ago and didn't see a reason why it shouldn't be
possible: Why isn't Bricklink opening an 2nd PayPal Account in Europe, to let
the sellers pay directly in Euro and to save losses
a) due to the bad paypal conversion rate and
b) due to higher paypal taxes for international transactions
As a lot of sales is done in Euro it would be a very good opportunity to let
the european sellers pay their fees in Euro.
Of course I'm aware of the fact that BrickLink needs his money in USD, but i
suppose it would me more rentable to let the sellers pay in Euro and to exchange
the money by the bank exchange rates.
As a seller I got to handle this problem by letting people pay in USD, so I can
use that money for BrickLink fee payments. Nevertheless I suppose that other
sellers from EU accepting just Euro have to pay the bad conversion rate paypal
gives them (if not paying directly by credit card in USD, of course). But in
fact this suggestion should be of use especially for BrickLink itself.
I'd like to know what you are thinking about this.
Best regards
Andrei
|
|
|
|
|
| Author: | edeevo | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 12:34 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | In 1999/2000, there was a valid reason for 640x480. In 2015, there is no reason.
Please remove the 640x480 limit on large images.
Many search engines now explicitly require a minimum of 800 or 1000 on the long
side. BL can do much better with larger images.
|
Wholeheartedly agree on this one...
Life is Good.
~Ed.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 12:31 | | Subject: | Re: Fee payment in Euro | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Fair enough, you do have a point there. But why should America get the advantage?
And your point about whether someone would leave BL, you could extend this to
'what if BL would charge Europe 5% instead of 3% fees' and people would
stay too, but it doesn't mean that's the way to go. It's one factor
that could contribute to BL being potentially US-centric. It's being US-centric
if it focusses on auto check-out with Creditcard instead of bank transfers, and
they're STILLLLL not implemeting the part dimensions database for countries
that have volume restricted selling options. From what I've heard they're
very willing to make BL work well in other important corners of the world, so
that's nice. But if they don't, then yes, factors like these actually
contribute to me taking my business elsewhere.
I'm aware it's not fair to provide for the EU and not for other countries,
but I think it's at least something? The EU is a big part of BL turnover.
It wouldn't make much sense to me to make BL all US-centric just because
they can't cater 100% for every country in the world.. the EU is big, I would
be more annoyed by them not taking the EU into account, than for them not supporting
the local payment methods we have in this tiny country (although it's relatively
big business-wise ). And Australia for example isn't much bigger than
the NL.
In Suggestions, Brettj666 writes:
| | I don't know if there are some issues with Bricklink, but I'll ask the
obvious question.
Is there an advantage for Bricklink to do this?
I mean, I don't think I've seen a European seller say "I'm packing
up shop because I can't pay my fees in EU"
So, they aren't at risk of losing business, are they?
it's not like sellers can claim they can't compete.
If the conversion fees are (say) 2%, then it's 2% of 3%, or .06% 6 cents
on $100 of every sale.
If they do it for the EU, do they do it for Pounds, Canadian dollar, Australian
dollar. It was set up as a US $ because Dan was in the US, and his parents after
that.
If you say it helps with your accounting, can't literally everyone say that?
Now, if I were running Bricklink, I may consider it because of all the sellers
in the EU, but I wouldn't be ignorant of the fact that if someone can say
"well, you did it for them, why not us" they will.
Do I want to set that precedent.. maybe not.
In Suggestions, an3 writes:
| | Hi all,
I've had this idea some time ago and didn't see a reason why it shouldn't be
possible: Why isn't Bricklink opening an 2nd PayPal Account in Europe, to let
the sellers pay directly in Euro and to save losses
a) due to the bad paypal conversion rate and
b) due to higher paypal taxes for international transactions
As a lot of sales is done in Euro it would be a very good opportunity to let
the european sellers pay their fees in Euro.
Of course I'm aware of the fact that BrickLink needs his money in USD, but i
suppose it would me more rentable to let the sellers pay in Euro and to exchange
the money by the bank exchange rates.
As a seller I got to handle this problem by letting people pay in USD, so I can
use that money for BrickLink fee payments. Nevertheless I suppose that other
sellers from EU accepting just Euro have to pay the bad conversion rate paypal
gives them (if not paying directly by credit card in USD, of course). But in
fact this suggestion should be of use especially for BrickLink itself.
I'd like to know what you are thinking about this.
Best regards
Andrei
|
|
|
|
| Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 11:57 | | Subject: | remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 122 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Discarded | |
|
| In 1999/2000, there was a valid reason for 640x480. In 2015, there is no reason.
Please remove the 640x480 limit on large images.
Many search engines now explicitly require a minimum of 800 or 1000 on the long
side. BL can do much better with larger images.
|
|
| Author: | TorontoLego | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 11:46 | | Subject: | Make Full Addresses required fields | | Viewed: | 116 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Not infrequently I receive a new order from a member that has not completely
filled out their address.
Can we make the city, state/province, postal code, country fields mandatory
before the creation of an account - or at least mandatory before being able to
place an order.
I understand that there are specific countries that may not have "province" or
"postal code" fields that are applicable - so maybe this is only mandatory for
US, Can, UK, etc..
Mike.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Sep 20, 2015 15:02 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 60097-1 | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 4073 Tan Plate, Round 1 x 1 Straight Side (Extra)
* Add 1 Part 4073 Green Plate, Round 1 x 1 Straight Side (Extra)
* Add 1 Part 4073 Orange Plate, Round 1 x 1 Straight Side (Extra)
* Change {4 to 5} Part Trans-Red 98138 Tile, Round 1 x 1 (Extra)
* Change {1 to 2} Part Light Bluish Gray 4073 Plate, Round 1 x 1 Straight Side (Extra)
* Change {3 to 4} Part Blue 4073 Plate, Round 1 x 1 Straight Side (Extra)
Comments from Submitter:
More extra parts from a brand new set.
|
|
| Author: | pdr507 | | Posted: | Sep 19, 2015 22:46 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 10226-1 | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 2 Part 60581pb052 Dark Tan Panel 1 x 4 x 3 with Side Supports - Hollow Studs with Blue Circle and Red Dot (British Roundel) Pattern (Sticker) - Set 10226 (Counterpart)
Comments from Submitter:
Adding stickered counterpart
|
|
| Author: | viejos | | Posted: | Sep 19, 2015 22:41 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1580-1 | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, tstrathm writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 2 Part Light Gray {4345 Container, Box 2 x 2 x 2 to 4345a Container, Box 2 x 2 x 2 - Solid Studs} {Regular to Alternate} {match ID 0 to 1}
Comments from Submitter:
Catalog shows part 4345a released from 1983 to 1992. Thus it would seem that it would appear in place of 4345 in some versions of this 1985 set.
|
You have to watch out with BL catalog dates. They are derived from the inventories,
and they can be *very* misleading at times, as in "several decades" misleading.
I just finished adjusting dozens of inventories that were providing some very
wrong dates for a few vintage parts. And they had been that way for years and
years, tricking unsuspecting BL surfers.
One time I picked up a book on basic Lego building that had a parts dictionary
in it, complete with dates of release. I was saddened to see that many of the
dates were wrong, and were so because they had been pulled directly from BL and
other online sources and had not been verified.
In this case, you are correct, but for different reasons than you gave. First,
one interesting thing to do is find stickered parts from a single set, like this
one:
The other thing going for you is that the first appearance of hollow studs in
instructions is from 1994, in this set (see image below):
Instructions were typically late in representing what actually ended up in the
set, but you have a margin here of 8 years, which is plenty. Sometimes you cannot
depend on instructions since they often never were changed to show the real part,
e.g. with the "pinned" versions of this part:
...and sometimes they were even ahead of production. But they are useful when
used with several other pieces of information.
Russell
|
|
|
| Author: | FelipeVinhao | | Posted: | Sep 19, 2015 20:16 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 76026-1 | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 43093 Blue Technic, Axle Pin with Friction Ridges Lengthwise (Extra)
* Delete 1 Part 71155 Black String, Net 10 x 10 Square (Extra)
Comments from Submitter:
Hello, so long not posting here nor opening new sets!
- Adding an extra axle pin (43093) to inventory: 2 for building + 2 for Gorilla Grodd (already inventoried with minifigure) + 1 extra = 5
- I'm aware that extra items aren't generally removed, but I'm trying requesting this time for this reason: the catalog in the end of the instruction book is still listing 2 string nets (71155) like mentioned in previous notes, but only 1 arrives in set, in a box numbered 6018431. That is, the number of parts that arrive in box and the instructions are right; the catalog at the end of the boox is wrong.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
Israel, Mehoz Hefa
USA, Illinois
Australia, New South Wales
Poland, w. Wielkopolskie
Belgium, Oost-Vlaanderen
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
United Kingdom, England
Canada, Ontario
Lithuania, Panevėžys
Germany, Berlin
Netherlands, Utrecht
Brazil, São Paulo