| Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | calsbricks  | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 14:07 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | […]
There
are well over 1/2 million members of Bricklink now - even if only 20% of them
contributed […]
|
You’re overly optimistic about contribution rate.
I don’t think that there ever were 20% of BLers who contributed, even back when,
even counting one-time contributors.
And for something that will only interest sellers, 0.02% (100 people) seems more
likely. But maybe it would suffice 
|
There are two of us who have already said we would supply our data which, I can
assure you, would make a dent in what is needed. We are all 'whistling in
the wind' over this cause BL do their own thing and changes to the catalogue
are changes to their single most important and valuable asset. You will remember
the saga over image rights when they took over and how there is a shyness to
open the catalogue any further (the changes to Brickstock and logging in). Good
to get this out in the air and see what peoples thoughts are but it ain't
going to happen.
If it promotes dialogue with BL development we will have achieved something.
Dimensions, weights etc ?????
|
 |
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 13:49 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 14 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, brickbrowser writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
There are far greater weight discrepancies / inconsistencies in batches of packaging
materials (even from same supplier), than those attributed to mold or part colour
differences. Furthermore, one weight submitter's scales and measuring technique
probably differs from another's to the extent that the exercise is moot.
I doubt that would ever be an effective use of people's time.
|
You may be right - the only thing is surely we have to start somewhere - as I
said in an earlier reply the current generic system only works because sellers/stores
have been doing this manually
|
For the record - when doing up shipping cost for an order, we have _never_ weighed
the order, we always used BL's supplied weight (unless of course the weight
was not specified). As far as I can recall, we have never had issues with an
order needing more postage than what was indicated by using supplied weights.
As others have indicated as well, adding weights to PPCs is a massive undertaking,
time that would be better and more profitably spent elsewhere.
Niek.
|
We weight every order and totally disregard BL's weight as
it does not make allowances for bags, other packaging materials and of course
the box we use. Strange you don't weigh your orders?
|
Poor choice of words, my bad. I meant - we don't weigh orders before determining
shipping cost. We have a good handle on what fits into where, and that includes
how much weight to add for packing material. We have enough NBPs to make packing-up-and-then-unpacking
a pain in the behind. If we over-estimated shipping, we refund. If we under-estimated,
we eat the diff. Same will happen when auto-checkout will come by.
For us, PPC weights are a non-issue, and (again for us) efforts would be better
spent developing other features.
Niek.
|
Then AFOL's comments about checking MyWeight a PPC weight or defaulting to
the generic weight solve that issue - if the PPC weight were available.
BTW
We work very differently to you. Our parts are picked and prepacked to determine
an accurate shipping cost - we never under or overcharge - no refunds no administration
just simply parcel sent at cost given to buyer. It has worked well for us for
6 years and 4100+ orders - not sure we need to change it. Haven't had an
NPB in all that time - so again that is not an issue for us. I have said this
many times and will keep saying it - if instant checkout can replace a manual
system which doesn't get it wrong - ever - then subject to them sorting out
the Paypal on site payment issue (to do with addresses) we will look at it in
seriousness if not we will stay with what works for us and hasn't let us
down - the old expression applies if it ain't broke don't fix it.
There are huge number of things that are needed on the site - we agree with
that but that all appears to be out of our (The community's) control or influence
- the roadmap has changed a multitude of times - no one knows where the seller
tools are or if we will ever see them - so many other things do need doing -
we agree but we and others do not see this as being the lead weight to bring
it all to a halt it would simply be another enhancement to the BL catalogue.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 13:36 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, WoutR writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, DadsAFOL writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
Yes, we have manually recorded lot weights on thousands of PCC's over the
years of selling. I would be happy to share that info to seed the database.
From there like everything else here it just gets crowdsourced over time and
wouldn't really be a big deal. Just set up the system with a bit of a waterfall...
if MyWeight exists, use that; if not then if PCC weight exists use that; else
use ItemID weight.
Here's a good example of why this would be helpful:
- Catalog - 0.36
- Black actual - 0.3331 (-7.5%)
- White actual - 0.3425 (-4.9%)
- Trans Clear actual - 0.3836 (+6.5%)
So if someone bought 1000 of these in your store, and you wanted to weigh them
using the catalog weight instead of counting them...
- Your customer would get 1075 black and your inventory would be short 75 for
the next order
- Your customer would get 1049 white and your inventory would be short 49 for
the next order
- Your customer would get 935 trans clear and your inventory would be over 65,
and your customer would be upset asking for a refund or for you to ship the missing
parts.
Same issue applies to postage calculation. Its totally possible that the system
undercharges on postage for the trans clear because 1000 actually weighs 383g,
not 360g like the catalog expects.
|
Thank you for joining this thread and the detail you provided it is helpful for
others to see what a difference the weights can make towards shipping. We would
be happy to share our data with BL as well.
|
The transparent parts are heavier because they are made in a different material.
LEGO often has a different designID for those parts,which BrickLink sees as an
alternative (to keep things simple for buyers and sellers).
I have been studying the small design changes on the 3001 bricks. I have seen
many mold changes that would cause such small changes in weight, and the exact
weight of the raw material might differ from one batch to the next (especially
because LEGO uses several suppliers). Even mold wear adds weight to the parts.
The only correct way to do this would be to assign a tolerance to the weight,
it is an illusion that the part weight is constant in so many decimals.
|
Hardly an illusion based on the data presented, although we agree nothing is
constant with Lego. They weigh parts that they send out for their B&P site and
the count can be significantly out on the same item. Everyone agrees this is
not an exact science - we are simply exploring other possibilities that may help
to solve or improve on the current system, which, with the best will in the world
is far too generic.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 12:07 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, DadsAFOL writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
Yes, we have manually recorded lot weights on thousands of PCC's over the
years of selling. I would be happy to share that info to seed the database.
From there like everything else here it just gets crowdsourced over time and
wouldn't really be a big deal. Just set up the system with a bit of a waterfall...
if MyWeight exists, use that; if not then if PCC weight exists use that; else
use ItemID weight.
Here's a good example of why this would be helpful:
- Catalog - 0.36
- Black actual - 0.3331 (-7.5%)
- White actual - 0.3425 (-4.9%)
- Trans Clear actual - 0.3836 (+6.5%)
So if someone bought 1000 of these in your store, and you wanted to weigh them
using the catalog weight instead of counting them...
- Your customer would get 1075 black and your inventory would be short 75 for
the next order
- Your customer would get 1049 white and your inventory would be short 49 for
the next order
- Your customer would get 935 trans clear and your inventory would be over 65,
and your customer would be upset asking for a refund or for you to ship the missing
parts.
Same issue applies to postage calculation. Its totally possible that the system
undercharges on postage for the trans clear because 1000 actually weighs 383g,
not 360g like the catalog expects.
|
Thank you for joining this thread and the detail you provided it is helpful for
others to see what a difference the weights can make towards shipping. We would
be happy to share our data with BL as well.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 11:11 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, brickbrowser writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | Have you looked at the preview site and how it works in comparison with BO? There is almost a deafening silence here about the preview site, which, of course adds to people's
concerns.
|
Not looked again since July, as I'm not aware of any further progress.
My thoughts on issues at that time were in regard to missing dimensions:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1045320
|
Remember that - we voiced our concerns at the time as well, and so did others.
It certainly isn't going to go away - things need to be out in the open about
it - are there dimensions being held somewhere ? Have the converted stud measurements
to mm? Can we see and modify those? Lots and lots of question really but unfortunately
there are not a lot of answers coming out, which is a shame really.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
|
