|
 |
| | | Author: | randyf  | | Posted: | Jan 19, 2015 12:34 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 9491-1 | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 4661484 Trans-Clear Plastic Wings Double with SW Geonosian Pattern, Sheet of 2 Different Double Wings (Counterpart)
Comments from Submitter:
The Counterpart section should be used for things that are irreversible or hard to take apart after having built the set. It should not be used for parts that need to be used in the set and are already included as parts of minifigs.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | RobErNat | | Posted: | Jan 19, 2015 12:45 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9491-1 | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 4661484 Trans-Clear Plastic Wings Double with SW Geonosian Pattern, Sheet of 2 Different Double Wings (Counterpart)
Comments from Submitter:
The Counterpart section should be used for things that are irreversible or hard to take apart after having built the set. It should not be used for parts that need to be used in the set and are already included as parts of minifigs.
|
Sorry Randy, but exceptions should be made when sub items of minifigs (or other
items) are attached to eachother, they serve a purpose: on part out's they
can be listed as 'new' during the PO, if one doesn't have a choice
(figs can be parted out together with the rest of the set) and one would sell
1/2 of such a plastic sheet (because a buyer just buys 1 wing) it would become
'used' no?
Example (that doesn't cause an issue as it's regular):
[p=bb181set]
So these kind of counterparts should remain for the purpose of PO's, previous
inv.admins have handled such well, it's not because new admins are in place
that we need to change options or the ways things have been done in the past,
all of a sudden. There is always a purpose 
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | viejos | | Posted: | Jan 19, 2015 12:53 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9491-1 | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, RobErNat writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 4661484 Trans-Clear Plastic Wings Double with SW Geonosian Pattern, Sheet of 2 Different Double Wings (Counterpart)
Comments from Submitter:
The Counterpart section should be used for things that are irreversible or hard to take apart after having built the set. It should not be used for parts that need to be used in the set and are already included as parts of minifigs.
|
Sorry Randy, but exceptions should be made when sub items of minifigs (or other
items) are attached to eachother, they serve a purpose: on part out's they
can be listed as 'new' during the PO, if one doesn't have a choice
(figs can be parted out together with the rest of the set) and one would sell
1/2 of such a plastic sheet (because a buyer just buys 1 wing) it would become
'used' no?
Example (that doesn't cause an issue as it's regular):
[p=bb181set]
So these kind of counterparts should remain for the purpose of PO's, previous
inv.admins have handled such well, it's not because new admins are in place
that we need to change options or the ways things have been done in the past,
all of a sudden. There is always a purpose
|
Actually, Randy's suggestion is the classic rule for counterparts - it *is*
what was done in the past. And counterparts are not included in partouts, so
that reason shouldn't factor into the equation.
This is a tricky situation as we are choosing between two non-ideal solutions.
Russell
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | RobErNat | | Posted: | Jan 19, 2015 13:10 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9491-1 | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
| | Actually, Randy's suggestion is the classic rule for counterparts - it *is*
what was done in the past. And counterparts are not included in partouts, so
that reason shouldn't factor into the equation.
This is a tricky situation as we are choosing between two non-ideal solutions.
Russell
|
Conterparts are part of part-outs when using an offline program like Brickstock
(that does download full inventory, including counterparts), quite handy, one
just erases the subparts and keeps the counterpart, I use that frequently on
wheels for example, as I don't like to sell either the tyres, either the
hubs seperatly. Options need to stay open for all users and they don't interfere
with the actually inventory for 'used' sets, so quite practical.
Things like that have been well examined by both formal Inv.Admins.
If you remove options (or disallow to have them added on new sets), the only
thing you'll end up with is aggravation from sellers. Things have been done
for a purpose in the past...
I really think Jen and you are a great asset for the community as new inv.admins,
but you need to think wider then just a nice looking inventory, this is after
all a 'marketplace' so all options need to remain possible for all purposes,
regardless of personal opinions (and rest assured I needed quite some time to
figure that out for myself, as you know I'm quite a 'die hard' collector
)
So I surely hope you and Jen discuss such matters by looking at all options (and
sides) before make any rash descisions.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | viejos | | Posted: | Jan 19, 2015 15:12 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9491-1 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, RobErNat writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
| | Actually, Randy's suggestion is the classic rule for counterparts - it *is*
what was done in the past. And counterparts are not included in partouts, so
that reason shouldn't factor into the equation.
This is a tricky situation as we are choosing between two non-ideal solutions.
Russell
|
Conterparts are part of part-outs when using an offline program like Brickstock
(that does download full inventory, including counterparts), quite handy, one
just erases the subparts and keeps the counterpart, I use that frequently on
wheels for example, as I don't like to sell either the tyres, either the
hubs seperatly. Options need to stay open for all users and they don't interfere
with the actually inventory for 'used' sets, so quite practical.
Things like that have been well examined by both formal Inv.Admins.
If you remove options (or disallow to have them added on new sets), the only
thing you'll end up with is aggravation from sellers. Things have been done
for a purpose in the past...
I really think Jen and you are a great asset for the community as new inv.admins,
but you need to think wider then just a nice looking inventory, this is after
all a 'marketplace' so all options need to remain possible for all purposes,
regardless of personal opinions (and rest assured I needed quite some time to
figure that out for myself, as you know I'm quite a 'die hard' collector
)
So I surely hope you and Jen discuss such matters by looking at all options (and
sides) before make any rash descisions.
|
We are indeed looking at all options, and frankly have not had time yet to really
discuss anything in depth.
Regarding adherance to the past, my point about counterparts is something that
came directly from Emma. Why, for example are no flowers on sprue included as
counterparts? It's really the same issue. It's because this was not done
in the past, despite the benefit of providing a link to the catalog.
So what you are arguing for is not an adherance to the past but a change for
the future. Some change should be expected with new Admins, but rest assured
no rash decisions will be made (I don't believe in them  ). You can see
examples of this in my post here:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=879592
...and the pending change to set 70165:
One of the things I hope to bring to the table is an idea of how the inventory
system could be set up in the future so as to handle these problems. I have thought
about these problems for years (and I would be arrogant to think that I was the
only one who did), but only recently have I started to develop a workable solution.
I propose that each inventory be expanded to include several new sections, and
several new views, so that we can meet the needs of everyone involved - partout
of new sets, inclusion of catalog parts, advanced handling of variants and alternate
builds, practical measures for the selling of used sets, and of course a consideration
of historical concerns.
Russell
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | viejos | | Posted: | Jan 19, 2015 15:20 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9491-1 | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, RobErNat writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
| | Actually, Randy's suggestion is the classic rule for counterparts - it *is*
what was done in the past. And counterparts are not included in partouts, so
that reason shouldn't factor into the equation.
This is a tricky situation as we are choosing between two non-ideal solutions.
Russell
|
Conterparts are part of part-outs when using an offline program like Brickstock
(that does download full inventory, including counterparts), quite handy, one
just erases the subparts and keeps the counterpart, I use that frequently on
wheels for example, as I don't like to sell either the tyres, either the
hubs seperatly. Options need to stay open for all users and they don't interfere
with the actually inventory for 'used' sets, so quite practical.
Things like that have been well examined by both formal Inv.Admins.
If you remove options (or disallow to have them added on new sets), the only
thing you'll end up with is aggravation from sellers. Things have been done
for a purpose in the past...
I really think Jen and you are a great asset for the community as new inv.admins,
but you need to think wider then just a nice looking inventory, this is after
all a 'marketplace' so all options need to remain possible for all purposes,
regardless of personal opinions (and rest assured I needed quite some time to
figure that out for myself, as you know I'm quite a 'die hard' collector
)
So I surely hope you and Jen discuss such matters by looking at all options (and
sides) before make any rash descisions.
|
We are indeed looking at all options, and frankly have not had time yet to really
discuss anything in depth.
Regarding adherance to the past, my point about counterparts is something that
came directly from Emma. Why, for example are no flowers on sprue included as
counterparts? It's really the same issue. It's because this was not done
in the past, despite the benefit of providing a link to the catalog.
So what you are arguing for is not an adherance to the past but a change for
the future. Some change should be expected with new Admins, but rest assured
no rash decisions will be made (I don't believe in them ). You can see
examples of this in my post here:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=879592
...and the pending change to set 70165:
One of the things I hope to bring to the table is an idea of how the inventory
system could be set up in the future so as to handle these problems. I have thought
about these problems for years (and I would be arrogant to think that I was the
only one who did), but only recently have I started to develop a workable solution.
I propose that each inventory be expanded to include several new sections, and
several new views, so that we can meet the needs of everyone involved - partout
of new sets, inclusion of catalog parts, advanced handling of variants and alternate
builds, practical measures for the selling of used sets, and of course a consideration
of historical concerns.
Russell
|
P.S. Forgot to mention, thanks for the info about Brickstock. I hadn't considered
that to be an option, but you're right, that is something to consider. Makes
me wonder why we don't have the option on BrickLink.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 19, 2015 17:05 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9491-1 | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, RobErNat writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
| | Actually, Randy's suggestion is the classic rule for counterparts - it *is*
what was done in the past. And counterparts are not included in partouts, so
that reason shouldn't factor into the equation.
This is a tricky situation as we are choosing between two non-ideal solutions.
Russell
|
Conterparts are part of part-outs when using an offline program like Brickstock
(that does download full inventory, including counterparts), quite handy, one
just erases the subparts and keeps the counterpart, I use that frequently on
wheels for example, as I don't like to sell either the tyres, either the
hubs seperatly. Options need to stay open for all users and they don't interfere
with the actually inventory for 'used' sets, so quite practical.
Things like that have been well examined by both formal Inv.Admins.
If you remove options (or disallow to have them added on new sets), the only
thing you'll end up with is aggravation from sellers. Things have been done
for a purpose in the past...
I really think Jen and you are a great asset for the community as new inv.admins,
but you need to think wider then just a nice looking inventory, this is after
all a 'marketplace' so all options need to remain possible for all purposes,
regardless of personal opinions (and rest assured I needed quite some time to
figure that out for myself, as you know I'm quite a 'die hard' collector
)
So I surely hope you and Jen discuss such matters by looking at all options (and
sides) before make any rash descisions.
|
We are indeed looking at all options, and frankly have not had time yet to really
discuss anything in depth.
Regarding adherance to the past, my point about counterparts is something that
came directly from Emma. Why, for example are no flowers on sprue included as
counterparts? It's really the same issue. It's because this was not done
in the past, despite the benefit of providing a link to the catalog.
So what you are arguing for is not an adherance to the past but a change for
the future. Some change should be expected with new Admins, but rest assured
no rash decisions will be made (I don't believe in them ). You can see
examples of this in my post here:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=879592
...and the pending change to set 70165:
One of the things I hope to bring to the table is an idea of how the inventory
system could be set up in the future so as to handle these problems. I have thought
about these problems for years (and I would be arrogant to think that I was the
only one who did), but only recently have I started to develop a workable solution.
I propose that each inventory be expanded to include several new sections, and
several new views, so that we can meet the needs of everyone involved - partout
of new sets, inclusion of catalog parts, advanced handling of variants and alternate
builds, practical measures for the selling of used sets, and of course a consideration
of historical concerns.
Russell
|
My pending request for
has precedence already in the catalog:
I don't why it is not being approved. If mine is not approved, then all of
the other instances I list above need to be changed.
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | viejos | | Posted: | Jan 19, 2015 17:41 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9491-1 | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | My pending request for
has precedence already in the catalog:
I don't why it is not being approved. If mine is not approved, then all of
the other instances I list above need to be changed.
Randy
|
Your request has brought up the larger issue of whether or not BL goes by the
build or by the official TLG set inventory. We haven't discussed this much,
but this issue has far-reaching implications, including what we do with brick
separators and universal type sets such as:
Russell
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | viejos | | Posted: | Jan 20, 2015 17:17 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9491-1 | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | My pending request for
has precedence already in the catalog:
I don't why it is not being approved. If mine is not approved, then all of
the other instances I list above need to be changed.
Randy
|
Your request has brought up the larger issue of whether or not BL goes by the
build or by the official TLG set inventory. We haven't discussed this much,
but this issue has far-reaching implications, including what we do with brick
separators and universal type sets such as:
|
We've gone ahead and approved your request, but will discuss this issue at
some point in the future.
Russell
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | par016 | | Posted: | Jan 19, 2015 17:47 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9491-1 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 4661484 Trans-Clear Plastic Wings Double with SW Geonosian Pattern, Sheet of 2 Different Double Wings (Counterpart)
Comments from Submitter:
The Counterpart section should be used for things that are irreversible or hard to take apart after having built the set. It should not be used for parts that need to be used in the set and are already included as parts of minifigs.
|
I apologize, I feel like I have opened a can of worms with my original question.
That was not my intention. I hope that something good comes out of this though.
-Pete
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, Ohio
Belgium, Flemish Brabant
