Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | qwertyboy  | | Posted: | Sep 10, 2018 22:43 | | Subject: | Re: Difference between mold types | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Help, mfav writes:
| | It's very subtle, this difference.
|
So 19159 might no accept a bar in those pins (easily), correct?
Niek.
|
| Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Sep 7, 2018 22:28 | | Subject: | Re: Add weight for 71287-1 | | Viewed: | 17 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, kompeitou writes:
| | Please add weight for set 71287-1 = 70 grams
|
Please use the proper catalog change request form:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReq.asp
Niek.
|
 |
| Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Aug 31, 2018 13:56 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, DeLuca writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, danielclark writes:
| | I'd be less inclined to shop in a store that restricts how much of an item
I could buy, especially if I could see they had more. When I search for parts
it's by highest quantity for my most desired elements. If a store is going
to retain some inventory then it's going to show further down on that list.
|
I agree, you should not see it. It would work exactly the same as the stockroom
currently works: You don't see what's back there that you cannot order.
|
The full quantity of a given item would not be visible on the item's Catalog
entry, but would it be visible on the item's entry in the store? It
is my understanding that it would, hence my concerns.
|
No, it should not be visible anywhere, just like a stockroom items is not visible.
If I have a lot of 5000 but limit it to 500 per buyer, it should show as a 500
size lot everywhere on Bricklink.
I intended it as a more automated version of the current way to do the same thing,
listing 500, switching on "retain" and writing "4500 left" in the remarks.
I agree it would be annoying to see things you couldn't buy.
|
There is a small downside that if a buyer places an order for 500, then happens
to browse the store again while not logged in, then they see that more stock
is available. So they log in and the stock is no longer available to them as
they have a current order.
|
It would take more than just a few changes. For instance, if you set a max of
100 per customer, and someone buys 100, when would your shop show 100 in inventory
again? If it gets shown right away (assuming you have enough set up), the customer
would see another 100, and could potentially add them to his existing order.
If you expect BL to block this particular customer from seeing the new lot, when
would this "lock" be lifted? At payment time? After shipping? Maybe never? Or
do you accept them being able to see the new 100 and do an order addition, thus
being able to buy them all in several order additions?
There would be quite a few checks etc needed, with many options for fringe cases
messing things up.
I do appreciate the idea, but I don't think it would be easy to implement.
Niek.
|
|
| Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 09:30 | | Subject: | Re: How many sets released ? | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, MiStErLu writes:
| | Hi,
On the first page of BrickLink i see 14 729 sets
When i download the set catalog to compare, i see 14 761 sets
Someone can explain me the difference ?
|
The number of sets you see in the catalog is “real time”, the one on the front
page is likely from when the page was rebuilt during a maintenance cycle.
Niek.
|
|
| Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Aug 10, 2018 12:21 | | Subject: | Re: Part variations | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, mattkaupke writes:
| | I’ve noticed as of late that there have been some changes to the catalog resulting
in a number of my items being changed to “undetermined type”. For example 1x1x5
bricks listed as 2453 used to be hollow stud and 2453b was solid. Now 2453 is
undetermined, hollow is 2453a and solid 2453b
Is there an easy fix for this beyond manually changing each item part number?
Also, is there a list of the parts that have been changed in this way?
For the admins- is it possible for you guys to automatically do this for the
sellers when you make the changes?
|
As to this last question - the entry for 2453 had a description of "Brick 1 x
1 x 5", so it did not have "hollow" specified. Most sellers used it to sell the
hollow variant, but technically it could contain both. Moving all 2453's
automatically to 2453a would cause issues, as likely there are many listed under
2453 with a solid stud.
Niek.
|
|
| Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Aug 8, 2018 23:40 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 8247-1 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 2 Part Black {2536 Plant, Tree Palm Trunk - Undetermined Type to 2536d Plant, Tree Palm Trunk - Short Connector, Axle Hole with 2 Inside Prongs}
|
No undetermined parts seem to be in the bag. There are a couple of 2536d's
where they were supposed to be.
|
Kudos for updating these. But I am curious - it sounds like you were verifying
there are no “undetermined” variants in this set. Are you simply saying they
are now a specific variant, or were you half expecting to actually find an undetermined
version? Would your check not make the versions determined?
Niek.
|
Niek, meet sarcasm. 
|
I have to admit, like Sheldon, I sometimes need someone to wave the “sarcasm”
sign...
Niek.
|
|
| Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Aug 8, 2018 19:19 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 8247-1 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 2 Part Black {2536 Plant, Tree Palm Trunk - Undetermined Type to 2536d Plant, Tree Palm Trunk - Short Connector, Axle Hole with 2 Inside Prongs}
|
No undetermined parts seem to be in the bag. There are a couple of 2536d's
where they were supposed to be.
|
Kudos for updating these. But I am curious - it sounds like you were verifying
there are no “undetermined” variants in this set. Are you simply saying they
are now a specific variant, or were you half expecting to actually find an undetermined
version? Would your check not make the versions determined?
Niek.
|
|
| Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Aug 2, 2018 19:11 | | Subject: | Re: Question on catalog image uploads | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, crazylegoman writes:
| | In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, crazylegoman writes:
| | In Catalog, Pippyblocks writes:
| | Isn't 600 the longest side it can be?
In Catalog, crazylegoman writes:
| | I was just trying to upload an image to the catalog, and I got an error that
says,
Oops! There was a problem processing your request:
1. Parameter Error.
The image is within the 800X600 pixel size requirement. What else could be the
trouble?
David
|
|
It says 800X600 on the upload page. My image was 600 pixels tall, but less than
800 wide.
David
|
The error message for images that are too large specifically gives the reason.
Is it an accepted file type?
|
It's a .jpg file. Is there maybe a file size limit too? The file is 425KB.
|
I don’t know about a size limit, but a JPG under 800x600 weighing in at 425KB
is hard to believe. Even a 800x600 bmp will ‘only’ be 420KB. A JPG file is using
pretty agressive compression. Either the file is not a JPG, or it is not 800x600.
Niek.
|
|
| Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Jul 30, 2018 22:51 | | Subject: | Re: 4495, now 4495a and 4495b | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, runner.caller writes:
| | In Catalog, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Catalog, runner.caller writes:
| | In Catalog, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Catalog, Dino1 writes:
| | In Catalog, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Catalog, Dino1 writes:
| | In Catalog, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Catalog, Dino1 writes:
| | And which clown decide to delet the origin entry?
|
I for one would appreciate it if you kept things civilized. Is it really necessary
to start calling names?
Niek.
|
Sometimes, yes.
|
I see this name calling getting to be the norm in Internet conversations. To
me, people resorting to name calling admit defeat.
I thought (rather innocently I fear) that we in the BL forum could show some
restraint and be more civilized and have normal discussions, but it looks like
I am mistaken.
Sad.
Niek.
|
That has nothing to do with the internet. I would call you a clown too when you
are sitting in front of me and you did the same.
|
Like I said, sad.
And FYI - if you were to check, item 4495 is in the catalog. I am not sure if
they put it back or if it never left, but right now it is there. If they put
it back, it would be nice of you to acknowledge that.
Niek.
|
It's marked for deletion tho..
|
... and that is normal procedure, nothing new. See here for a list of all items
currently marked for deletion (several of them now have more distinctive mould
variants):
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?itemObsolete=Y&v=3
Niek.
|
What's your argument then in saying that "it would be nice of him to acknowledge
that it's in the catalog" stating that it's in the catalog currently
all matter of factly is pointless if it's marked for deletion.
|
If you read back, the literal post was: “And which clown decide to delet the
origin entry?”. The entry is not deleted, it is marked for deletion. Big difference.
| | The other
user was saying they should leave undetermined as a permanent option.
|
I have no objection to that at all. What I object to (and I thought I was pretty
clear) is the unnecessary name calling.
Niek.
|
|
| Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Jul 30, 2018 15:10 | | Subject: | Re: 4495, now 4495a and 4495b | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, runner.caller writes:
| | In Catalog, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Catalog, Dino1 writes:
| | In Catalog, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Catalog, Dino1 writes:
| | In Catalog, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Catalog, Dino1 writes:
| | And which clown decide to delet the origin entry?
|
I for one would appreciate it if you kept things civilized. Is it really necessary
to start calling names?
Niek.
|
Sometimes, yes.
|
I see this name calling getting to be the norm in Internet conversations. To
me, people resorting to name calling admit defeat.
I thought (rather innocently I fear) that we in the BL forum could show some
restraint and be more civilized and have normal discussions, but it looks like
I am mistaken.
Sad.
Niek.
|
That has nothing to do with the internet. I would call you a clown too when you
are sitting in front of me and you did the same.
|
Like I said, sad.
And FYI - if you were to check, item 4495 is in the catalog. I am not sure if
they put it back or if it never left, but right now it is there. If they put
it back, it would be nice of you to acknowledge that.
Niek.
|
It's marked for deletion tho..
|
... and that is normal procedure, nothing new. See here for a list of all items
currently marked for deletion (several of them now have more distinctive mould
variants):
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?itemObsolete=Y&v=3
Niek.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
Canada, Alberta
