Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | calsbricks  | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2020 12:22 | | Subject: | Re: Show item quantity on catalog item page! | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, metropolis1927 writes:
| | Hello
Can you put somewhere quantity (Qty), shown on item search page, on catalog item
page?! See pictures.
That would be very useful!
Thank you.
Cheers,
Marko
|
Already exists - it is a setting here
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogOptions.asp?viewFrom=P
Show no of items by No items of r lots.
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Jan 2, 2020 23:21 | | Subject: | Re: Experts | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, Adjour writes:
| | In General, mfav writes:
The use of the sig figs make me laugh every time.
Looks like you have quite a collection now. 
That and bugs.
|
Far too many of both 
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Jan 2, 2020 22:49 | | Subject: | Re: Experts | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, mfav writes:
Hmmm = Good laugh at this time of the morning.
Happy New Year Mark.
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 31, 2019 13:22 | | Subject: | Re: hope for the new year | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, mfav writes:
| | In General, calsbricks writes:
| | BYW - why would I want to sign up to the experts ..... system. It is very rare
that BL listen to anyone on the forum me least of all.
|
Well...they don't tell you anything the most often.
|
Truer than you know. I even get the odd private message telling me nothing .
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 31, 2019 12:57 | | Subject: | Re: hope for the new year | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, mfav writes:
Thanks Mark - a good laught at this time of the year is always handy.
BYW - why would I want to sign up to the experts ..... system. It is very rare
that BL listen to anyone on the forum me least of all.
|
 |
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 30, 2019 06:05 | | Subject: | Re: Don't set "Ready" as default order status. | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Gaston.La.Brick writes:
| | After a user places an order, it gets the default status "Ready".*
This confuses buyers: they think the order was processed and is ready for shipping.
I would like to suggest setting the default order status always to "Pending".
*(Unless they pay at once using BL, it is set to "Paid" automatically. I can't
set it to that status manually. This is confusing since there is a payment status
as well. So that's double info and I would remove that possible value for
the status.)
|
Hi there
Don't use IC so do not have this problem . but I think it is worth noting
that lots of sellers use the status indicator for different situations.
For example - in our store we see Pending as order placed. We change that status
to Processing when we pick the order up and send out our acknowledgement to the
buyer. When the order is picked and pre-packaged the status changes to ready,
and when it is invoiced it goes to packed. We don't change it to paid - we
ship within 24 hours of being paid and change it then to shipped. So paid is
not something we use and we change the status at various times throughout the
process to match our processes. That seems to work well for us but it probably
would not suit others. Just depends on whether you use IC or bother with the
status at all. I don't believe Bricklink should get involved with changing
the status automatically in most cases - that should be left to the stores and
when appropriate the buyers.
Bill @ Calsbricks
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 22, 2019 04:53 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, calebfishn writes:
| | Whenever I read the original announcements, I am still struck by the very miniscule
amount said about Bricklink as a marketplace. Although we, as sellers are very
conscious of the selling aspect of Bricklink, the announcement text indicates
that Lego's motivation is about fan community and interaction. I take them
|
| | at their word in that regard.
|
And that was from both sides - well spotted. It seems the focus is to be on AFOL
Designer program (which could be a minefield
| |
The trend toward customer interaction, user experience, and related brand-consumer
relationship is growing across a number of industries, because companies see
value in it. Based on that, we should not assume that profit arising from Bricklink
seller's fees is of key importance to Lego's business decision to buy
Bricklink. It may even be peripheral.
|
There are quit4e a few of us who believe Bricklink did not reach profitability
(overall)but their accounts are buried in amongst the groups so we will never
really know. It is perhaps a bit of a moot point as they have been sold now and
the site is now part of Lego. They are still a family owned business so it will
not really be possible to determine what contribution they will be making.
| |
My suspicion is that Lego came into the deal with a clear idea of how Bricklink
would fit within their strategies for fan based customer brand loyalty and all
that, but probably have a much fuzzier idea of what to do with the actual marketplace
and its sellers. And, I think it will take them a while before they learn enough
about the marketplace to decide what to do about it, either positively, or negatively.
This suggests to me that dreams of Lego investing in enhancements to sellers
experience are fanciful.
|
You may be closer to reality than you think. With the mountain of data they now
own and their ability to 'data mine' it lots of things cvould happen,
none of which we should be discussing here.
Time will tell and by this time next year a heck of a lot more will be known.
Brickowl could grow substantially, a new site could spring up or all will be
well under the Lego flag.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 13:45 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, StormChaser writes:
| | In General, calsbricks writes:
| | 41% said they were undecided, 24% were negative and 35% were positive. That is
from 60+ stores - the majority of whom are in the USA.
|
I've gone through every response to the original announcement (except for
a couple that just came in during the past few minutes whilst I was working)
and here's my take on the positions expressed.
I tried to be completely unbiased and, for the sake of data transparency, am
including my data. It shows that, even though a range of opinions exist, the
majority opinion was negative. This is also what the news article reported.
|
Interesting - thanks for taking the time to do that. The trouble is there were
multiple threads about it and not everyone commented in each thread. In addition
only a couple of our forum people are on there (The majority of them do not use
this forum and as the stats on the forum prove that has always been the case
) But still it is a representation and that adds to the flavour. I wonder what
Lego feel about all this - we were supposed to have AMA sessions but that hasn't
transpired yet.
Almost like politics - lots of promises but not much in the way of realties.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 12:22 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, mfav writes:
I somehow knew you would get in on this.
By the wsay why can't I find your configurator anymore?
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 12:16 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, StormChaser writes:
| | In General, calsbricks writes:
| | the peddlers of bad news far outweigh the good news people.
|
Any evidence to support this claim, or just a personal opinion based on your
experience with news media?
|
None to hand but I am quite confident if it were that would be the case.
| |
| | The article in question
takes a relatively downcast view of the takeover of Bricklink by Lego.
|
The reaction I've personally seen from the community has definitely trended
toward negativity (which, frankly, surprised me). A quote from the article:
|
Not really sure why it surprised you. As you are very well aware (More than most
of us) the last takeover didn't work out the way we all wanted it to.
| |
"Adam White, editor of the Bricksfanz site, said fans’ reaction had been mostly
negative."
Is it possible that the reporter is unfamiliar with the adult LEGO fan community
and this is the impression received from reading what's out there? How much
of what has been posted right here in the BrickLink forums has been negative?
|
Highly - that is what we meant about taking snippets and turning that into doom
and gloom. On our own forum site the view of the majority of stores that responded
was 'undecided' - need to wait and see and that is our view as well.
It may not turn out the way we hope and then again it might surprise all of us.
But we won't know that for a while yet.
| |
I haven't done any serious research on the overall trend of the reactions
to the sale of the site, but it is entirely within the realm of truth to see
the reactions as more negative than positive. An outlook I don't share,
by the way.
|
I think all of us are aware of that being your thoughts.
| |
| | nor is it correct to take
things and make up stories about them when you have no idea what is really going
on.
|
Did we read the same article?
|
I am sure we did - not sure your question there,. The author took quotes from
various sites and wrote a doom and gloom article, almost completely ignoring
the Lego statements on the subject. We certainly did read the same article.
| |
| | The writer in the Guardian (A relatively well thought of paper in the UK)
has taken a few quips from others and turned it into a doom and gloom article
and yet he knows less than we do about it.
|
She. Zoe Wood was the reporter. Could the story have been researched better?
Yes. Was the Guardian willing to pay for that kind of research for a low-priority
story like this? Probably not.
|
Apologies - She. They waited nearly a month before this article so the answer
is no and obviously the ran out of things to put in the paper , hence this article.
| |
Still, the general feeling I've gotten from the community seems fairly in
line with what was reported in the article. If you have hard data to prove your
point that the community is collectively rather complacent and has taken a let's-wait-and-see
approach to the sale, then I'd like to see that data.
|
We do have our data from our site but only the results are available here not
the raw data.
41% said they were undecided, 24% were negative and 35% were positive. That is
from 60+ stores - the majority of whom are in the USA.
| |
| | Time will tell on all of this and people have to have patience to see what the
new owners intend to do. Then it will be time to decide what to do.
|
You opinion. I share that opinion and additionally have a positive view of the
sale. But the way we look at things is not, from what I've seen, the majority
viewpoint.
|
Not from the Bricklink forum posters it isn't. Hence why we would like a
poll capability here on this forum where people can vote in anonymity. But until
and unless Lego look at the redevelopment of the site, that isn't going to
happen.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 11:46 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, legoman77 writes:
| | In General, Teup writes:
| | In General, stacey_love writes:
My goodness why the focus on all de doom thinkers, now it sounds like everyone
assumes it will be terrible. That's neither correct, nor to our advantage.
I thought the replies to the news were really pretty balanced. We've seen
a whole range of different opinions and expectations. But I guess that's
how media work.
|
Every sale or transfer of this site has shown a decline in the functionality
of BrickLink. I do not see that there will be an improvement and that Lego will
consider this site a money making proposition. If they did not think that, they
would not have bought it. Lego, after all, is for profit. That is their bottom
line. So far they have kicked off Brickarms. And yes, I am in the doom column
and there is nothing wrong. I hope that I am wrong.
I see the 3% fee going away. I see something more like ebay feedback or the
feedback being eliminated. I see Lego making sellers not undercut the cost of
bricks that they sell in their Shop at Home site. I also see not allowing current
sets to be sold on Bricklink. At one time they gave Peeron permission to post
the instructions, except for the current and I believe the past years. So they
could do that with new sets. Lego is all about profit. They are not Lego enthusiasts
unless it is about sales.
I hope that I am wrong.
John P
|
I think it is fair to say JOhn that we all hope you are wrong
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 11:28 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, StormChaser writes:
| | In General, Pippyblocks writes:
| | Since when have the media ever spread good news, they focus on the negative,
its what sells and allows 'them' to try and brainwash the masses.
|
What I saw below is not about politics.
I find it deeply disheartening to watch the slow spread of distrust and dislike
for news media and the critically important work they perform.
Journalists around the world are tortured, imprisoned, and murdered every year
for bringing the truth to light. Don't allow the missteps, greed, and biases
of some news outlets to inform your opinion of all media.
|
I don't believe we do. But it is the sensationalists that sell stories and
the peddlers of bad news far outweigh the good news people. The article in question
takes a relatively downcast view of the takeover of Bricklink by Lego. We all
will make up our own minds on it after it has had time to settle in and we understand
what is happening. Yes there are journalists who go through the pains you have
mentioned as well as their families. That is not right nor is it correct to take
things and make up stories about them when you have no idea what is really going
on. The writer in the Guardian (A relatively well thought of paper in the UK)
has taken a few quips from others and turned it into a doom and gloom article
and yet he knows less than we do about it.
Time will tell on all of this and people have to have patience to see what the
new owners intend to do. Then it will be time to decide what to do.
The other thread about 'here's a thought) showed that over 100 store
owners have invested well in excess of what it would cost to redevelop this site
- there is food for thought.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 10:37 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
| | In General, calsbricks writes:
| | In General, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
| | In General, calsbricks writes:
| | In General, Pippyblocks writes:
| | Since when have the media ever spread good news, they focus on the negative,
its what sells and allows 'them' to try and brainwash the masses.
| | In General, stacey_love writes:
My goodness why the focus on all de doom thinkers, now it sounds like everyone
assumes it will be terrible. That's neither correct, nor to our advantage.
I thought the replies to the news were really pretty balanced. We've seen
a whole range of different opinions and expectations. But I guess that's
how media work.
|
|
The answer to that is bad news sells, good news rarely does. It is, unfortunately
the way the world is. What a dreadful state of affairs that is
|
Sorry to disagree, but IMO* , there is no such thing as "the way the world is".
We all are making the world.
I once had a Belgian Buyer with a "me" page reading that he and his wife through
their 3 children all supported children in Africa. I dearly relate to that, I
support education for children in Africa as well, and my children will too, so
I wrote him He explainedme that the reason why he subscribed each of his children
to that program is that way they will grow understanding and being aware that
not all children in the world have the same opportunities they have. There is
no doubt in my mind that these children are going to be more sensitive to others
realities and less egoccentric.
We have to make the change we want to see in the world, to quote a poet.
I love good news, they sell to me. I spread good news. They sell to the people
I'm spreading. The bad, not really. Unless it is to allert to something potentially
nefarious.
I could go on with examples of playlists on the radio and tv shows, but maybe
some other day...
*There is no such thing as IMHO either, just political correctness 
|
We understand your points but the world will not be changed by the minority,
unfortunately.
|
I agreee, we/I will not change the world, but we are/ I am changing the world
of said children in Africa, that's for sure.
The world is the sum of our small worlds. It is the end result of the examples
we set. Not everyone will be a Mandela or a Madre Teresa, but if we all do our
nanopart, it will make a difference.
| | We don't buy newspapers anymore (Haven't for years) as
they are all about sensationalism. The web is filled with it. It is a sad fact
of life that that type of story/news is what sells papers, not the good news
that we all want to read.
A damming indictment on society, I am afraid We. like many others want to see
the change that is needed to get back to the 'good old days' (if there
ever were any of those)
You are right, of course there are many who deal in good news and try very hard
to promote a better 'everything' but their voices are faint and nowhere
near as loud as those who see the half empty glass rather than the half full
one.
The only thing that will resolve this particular issue is when the 'devil
in the detail' is known and of course time.
|
Regarding this particular issue, I think you mean LEGO taking over BrickLink?
I think there is potential for good things to arise but LEGO being a big corportation
and thus exposed to the possibility of legal actions, this will (already is)
taking a toll on BrickLink. These Custom Parts and Studio IP infrigements banning,
makes sense from a big corportation point of view, but for BrickLink they would
pass unoticed among raindrops. So it is good for LEGO, but will hurt BrickLink
a bit.
I really hope LEGO tries to understand what BrickLink is, the reason of its success.
As well as the AFOL mindset, which admittedly LEGO has been growing aware of,
since the LugNet ol'days (does anybody here remembers Jake?), with many AFOL
oriented sets, and now with the great AFOL Design program, sure LEGO made a long
way to understand the AFOL community and consider them am interesting and respectable
market.
I also hope that LEGO embraces the ReSellers. We've all been hearing sad
stories of LEGO banning them, which seems double standards to me, no matter how
you look at it.
I hope LEGO will make roundtables as well, and will have the oppotunity to hear
many interesting people with lots of interesting ideas that are not participating
on the Forum
I hope LEGO will provide BrickLink with 24/7 communication with the community.
Better site running and stability.
Better protection for Buyers, clearer store terms, inability for Seller retaliatory
feedback.
Better protection for Sellers, ability to cancel an order at Buyer's request
without fearing any feedback (void transaction without any feedback would be
ideal).
I really do hope that BrickLink will not be a footnote on the TLG, because in
a moment that the financial health of TLG decreases (hopefully not), BrickLink
would be the WeakestLink.
I want to believe that LEGO has the best intentions to maintain BrickLink independency
within the parameters of a big corportation, but without meddling too much, like
undercutting sellers, monitor which parts or sets are selling well or suddenly
out of stock and sell those parts themselves on BrickLink. (While it may appear
good for the Buyers in the short term, in the long term it would dictate the
end of BrickLink and hence, bad for the Buyers.)
And although these seems too much to ask for Xmas I think this takeover has
lots of potential and may be a great thing for BrickLink, the AFOL community
and also the casual Buyer or Seller.
|
I Believe we are broadly in agreement. Yes it is about the takeover and most
importantly the 'devil is in the detail' and it will take time for this
to settle down so we can all see where we are going.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 09:16 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
| | In General, calsbricks writes:
| | In General, Pippyblocks writes:
| | Since when have the media ever spread good news, they focus on the negative,
its what sells and allows 'them' to try and brainwash the masses.
| | In General, stacey_love writes:
My goodness why the focus on all de doom thinkers, now it sounds like everyone
assumes it will be terrible. That's neither correct, nor to our advantage.
I thought the replies to the news were really pretty balanced. We've seen
a whole range of different opinions and expectations. But I guess that's
how media work.
|
|
The answer to that is bad news sells, good news rarely does. It is, unfortunately
the way the world is. What a dreadful state of affairs that is
|
Sorry to disagree, but IMO* , there is no such thing as "the way the world is".
We all are making the world.
I once had a Belgian Buyer with a "me" page reading that he and his wife through
their 3 children all supported children in Africa. I dearly relate to that, I
support education for children in Africa as well, and my children will too, so
I wrote him He explainedme that the reason why he subscribed each of his children
to that program is that way they will grow understanding and being aware that
not all children in the world have the same opportunities they have. There is
no doubt in my mind that these children are going to be more sensitive to others
realities and less egoccentric.
We have to make the change we want to see in the world, to quote a poet.
I love good news, they sell to me. I spread good news. They sell to the people
I'm spreading. The bad, not really. Unless it is to allert to something potentially
nefarious.
I could go on with examples of playlists on the radio and tv shows, but maybe
some other day...
*There is no such thing as IMHO either, just political correctness
|
We understand your points but the world will not be changed by the minority,
unfortunately. We don't buy newspapers anymore (Haven't for years) as
they are all about sensationalism. The web is filled with it. It is a sad fact
of life that that type of story/news is what sells papers, not the good news
that we all want to read.
A damming indictment on society, I am afraid We. like many others want to see
the change that is needed to get back to the 'good old days' (if there
ever were any of those)
You are right, of course there are many who deal in good news and try very hard
to promote a better 'everything' but their voices are faint and nowhere
near as loud as those who see the half empty glass rather than the half full
one.
The only thing that will resolve this particular issue is when the 'devil
in the detail' is known and of course time.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 07:10 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 79 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, Pippyblocks writes:
| | Since when have the media ever spread good news, they focus on the negative,
its what sells and allows 'them' to try and brainwash the masses.
| | In General, stacey_love writes:
My goodness why the focus on all de doom thinkers, now it sounds like everyone
assumes it will be terrible. That's neither correct, nor to our advantage.
I thought the replies to the news were really pretty balanced. We've seen
a whole range of different opinions and expectations. But I guess that's
how media work.
|
|
The answer to that is bad news sells, good news rarely does. It is, unfortunately
the way the world is. What a dreadful state of affairs that is
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 06:59 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 96 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, stacey_love writes:
Firstly thank you for posting this. Interesting read.
With our love of stats we have been monitoring this situation across a large
number of sites since the announcement. The most consistent answer to it has
been undecided - need to wait until the detail has been published. That remains
the case. It does look, however like the deal has now been done (completed) as
when we paid our fees yesterday we paid the Lego company not Bricklink.
So now maybe after the holidays and into early 2020 we will all find out what
this really means to our stores.
Lots of emphasis everywhere on MOC's but no one is really talking about the
majority of stores who sell parts.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 15, 2019 04:33 | | Subject: | Re: Parts Category Tree | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | I get (for the most part) what mfav and calsbricks are proposing, but it remains
to be seen the level of investment TLG is willing to sink into the catalog (and,
considering their own websites, what the results would be). Provided that the
site chooses to retain the hierarchical system, I think we all agree it can definitely
be improved.
|
Nope. It won't be improved. It will be different. This is just rearranging
the content on shelves in the supermarket.
If the last couple deployments of "site improvements and updates" aren't
enough to dissuade you from tinkering with the site, well...I don't know
what to think. Kind of feels like the wheels are coming off the stagecoach and
the horses are headed for the ravine.
I sincerely appreciate the time, thought, enthusiasm, and commitment you have
for the catalog. Sincerely, I do. That said, I recommend letting stuff settle
down a bit. I'm afraid anything you cook up at this point may be wasted effort.
Stuff that was working two days ago may not be working now.
But it's your effort to waste, so I respect that.
|
That is very well put, I second that. I appreciate the effort people are making,
but to be honest I feel like the results would mostly satisfy some people's
personal feeling of how things make the most sense, rather than actually have
basis in UX testing or answers to identified findability problems. I could also
imagine a new catalog that would seem perfect to myself, but probably others
could still struggle with it. Perfect for revamping your own storage, but imposing
it on a global marketplace is something else.
A new catalog would be the most dramatic reorganisation in my 15 year Bricklink
"career" and probably for some other category based sellers as well. While I'm
not asking for sympathy, we better make sure that changes are objective improvements
rather than just new alternative ideas. That way the ton of work that would go
into reorganising a store at least feels like a productive effort. And then there's
also the issue of compatibility with other marketplaces that we lose. So let's
not lose our heads in the enthusiasm...
|
I believe there are many members who would like to see change but are as wary
as we are about what that change may be. Track record at present is not great
and Lego are not really an IT company - that is pretty much an Achilles heel
for them as well. We, like others, will not give up in trying to bring about
changes that are needed but until the owner (whoever that ends up being) commits
to the investment that is required and puts the correct development team and
processes in place, it is a bit of 'wishful thinking'
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 15, 2019 04:26 | | Subject: | Re: Parts Category Tree | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | I get (for the most part) what mfav and calsbricks are proposing, but it remains
to be seen the level of investment TLG is willing to sink into the catalog (and,
considering their own websites, what the results would be). Provided that the
site chooses to retain the hierarchical system, I think we all agree it can definitely
be improved.
|
Nope. It won't be improved. It will be different. This is just rearranging
the content on shelves in the supermarket.
If the last couple deployments of "site improvements and updates" aren't
enough to dissuade you from tinkering with the site, well...I don't know
what to think. Kind of feels like the wheels are coming off the stagecoach and
the horses are headed for the ravine.
I sincerely appreciate the time, thought, enthusiasm, and commitment you have
for the catalog. Sincerely, I do. That said, I recommend letting stuff settle
down a bit. I'm afraid anything you cook up at this point may be wasted effort.
Stuff that was working two days ago may not be working now.
But it's your effort to waste, so I respect that.
|
So do I but mfav is 100% correct.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 14, 2019 04:55 | | Subject: | Re: Parts Category Tree - Update | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | it's impossible to project what disruptions there may or may not be.
|
It's not impossible to make educated guesses.
| | categories as we now recognize them is . . . not relational-database-thinking.
|
Could you provide an example of a large online database that is structured this
way so that I could understand it better?
| | Yes, yes. Many people find my ideas useful while objecting to me having ideas.
|
There seems to have been a miscommunication. I was saying I would object to
a system that required more effort and offered less certainty when performing
catalog/inventory work. That's probably not the system you were describing,
though - just how I imagined it would work. Again, I'd like to see an example
of the relational database you're proposing so that I could more fully understand
it.
|
To help you get a better idea of the desing and development of a relational database
you might want to look here.
https://www.opengatesw.net/
There is a free 30 day trial and it deals with the issue in simple and straightforward
terms for non-programmers. In fact with the free trial you can design a catalogue
and see how it breaks it up and relates.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 12, 2019 17:10 | | Subject: | Re: Add Search Options to Advanced Catalog Search | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, StormChaser writes:
| | I need the ability to select from the following unavailable options as checkboxes
on the Advanced Catalog Search page:
Items Inventoried as Regular
Items Inventoried as Counterpart
Items Inventoried as Extra
Items Inventoried as Alternate
Thank you.
|
definitely agree especially counter parts
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 11, 2019 08:23 | | Subject: | Re: Parts Category Tree | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, calsbricks writes:
| | […]
It is almost like waiting with baited breath.
Roll on New Years.
|
2020: SuperPlasticCorp contracts Accidenture to audit BL’s systems and databases.
2023: Accidenture’s multi-million-euros 632-PowerBullet-slides report finally
delivered.
It boils down to: “Oh my god! It’s full of noddles!”
2025: SuperPlasticCorp contracts Debacle to modernize BL’s database.
2038: Another year, another billion sunk into the still not delivered Debacle
system.
Old BL is still running, somewhat, for people who kept their 2010 PCs and
like 500 errors.
(Names have been changed to protect the victims’ families.)
|
Good grief - I might not make it then
Roll on the fountain of youth - or something similar. 
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 11, 2019 06:49 | | Subject: | Re: Parts Category Tree | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | There seems to be some conflation or confusion regarding the data and the database
structure and how those things relate.
The structure is how it's built and the data is what's within the structure.
Rebuilding the data from the ground up is not necessary. Some of the data is
fine as is and simply would need to be migrated or an existing field related
to a new table and field.
There's no other way to increase functionality or make operations more efficient
without some fundamental change to the underlying structure.
There is no way to create substantive efficiencies within the existing framework.
You have 256 deck chairs and a 900 x 900 foot deck. You can rearrange the chairs
all you want, but it's never going to be more than 256 deck chairs. The arrangement
that makes chair #125 easier to find may make chair #93 harder to find. Everything
is a trade-off.
There is no quick and there is no easy.
If you want to undertake "reorganizing" or "cleaning" the data...for example,
examine all the minifig heads. Rewrite all the descriptions in a uniform manner...start
from top to bottom...hair, eyebrows, eyes, nose, mouth, whiskers, scars, blemishes,
wrinkles, and so on...then that will lead to an incremental improvement in the
data. Functionality isn't going to be improved without a change in the available
tools. I often state that you can cut down a tree with a spoon, but it's
not the best tool for the job. It will get done, but with great effort and it
will take a long time. Invest in an appropriate tool, like a chainsaw, and the
effort decreases, the time decreases, and the satisfaction increases.
Your argument seems to be for changing one spoon for another.
Additional categories won't solve anything. At this point, this is the difference
between sorting mixed pieces of lego in 230 boxes or 240 boxes. You're just
rearranging the deck chairs. Again. When the supermarket redesigns the floor
plan and product location within the store you've been shopping in for 10
years, does that help you find the chicken soup?
Not that I expect you to go through the exercise, but here http://v4ei.com/mini-fig-ure-outer/index.php
is the custom search instruction thing I wrote. It will take about 2 or 3 hours
to complete if you want to do it. Anyway, going through the source information
(skip creating the html if you want) will kind of lay bare the inconsistencies
within the current data. You'll find obvious typos. You'll find similar
items described similarly, but with differing sequences...like items described
dissimilarly...dissimilar items described similarly...nothing you wouldn't
expect when the data is crowd sourced over a long period of time. Some swaths
of data are really good. There has been effort put into the data, but not always
of consistent quality or consistent methodology.
Looking at a dataset as a whole, and not piecemeal, can be quite enlightening.
Do we need any listing that contains the phrase "without such-and-such"? Is it
helpful to list what something doesn't contain? Fish without bicycle spokes.
Butterfly without steel beams.
So, to answer your question, yes and no. I'm making the argument for additional
data. I'm making the argument for additional database structure. I'm
making the argument for thinking things through thoroughly before starting to
build something.
Right now there's no way to add deck chairs to our deck. We need another
deck. And a way to get chairs from one deck to another. And ways to get users
from deck to deck and chair to chair.
If you decide to do the custom search creation, all of it, I think by the end
of that exercise it should provide enlightenment as to the limitations of what
can be done within the current structure and the quality of the current dataset.
Those things should be able to inform your thinking on how to better conceive
a plan for improvement within the current limitations.
Read what Bill says in the light of Bill actually knows what the f--- he's
talking about instead of Bill's a cranky old man. Bill is a cranky old man
because he actually does know what the f--- he's talking about. When
you fully understand what Bill is saying, at that point you'll understand
the complexity of the issue. You seem to think the problem is lack of simple
programming. It's not. It's waaaaaay deeper than that.
Discussion at this point isn't leading to any solutions. I currently find
no value in the obsessive hand-wringing, worry-warting, prognostication of doom,
hopes, wishes, unfulfilled dreams, and ideas of improvement around here. Be patient
and wait for Superplasticorp to take over the Titanic and see where we are in
a month or two.
If you need to do something because you need to do something, I'd suggest
creating a wish list to present to Superplasticorp. They say they want to engage
with the AFOLs. Well, here's your opportunity. What's most important?
Is it more data that's definitive and easily accessible? Is it greater selection
of trans-neon-green elements? History? Factory tours? Let Superplasticorp know
what they can do to facilitate their selling you more stuff...they'll listen
to that.
Improvements of the type often discussed here on the board will take years
to implement, if that's even an option. It could be that Superplasticorp
leaves the current BL management in place and things carry on in the lopsided
manner they have been for the last several years. Or Superplasticorp could actually
value the AFOL community, engage with the community, cooperate with the community,
respect the community, find value in the knowledge the community has to offer,
and not expect those with the knowledge and who actually provide the content
to work for free versus working for mutual benefit. Time will tell. Maybe.
I'm going to shut up now.
|
No need to shut up. This goes the way it always goes as we are always trying
to find WHAT must be done with the data, as opposed to WHERE the data must be.
As someone who has worked in an actual library and made a top to bottom study
of the Dewey, AL and Coleridge's systems, I can only say +1 000 to everything
both you and Bill wrote. And I'll add a tail piece - if you do not document
a la Dewey how you are supposed to classify, then nothing will come of it. You
can tag, describe, redesign all you want but if there is no consistent documented
method of adding a minifigure head with its correct description, then mistakes
will appear again, meaning all of the work preceding that single mistake is factually
useless.
There is a reason some very clever people spent many years designing library
catalogue systems such as Dewey. There is also a reason the best accounting systems,
whether an open source ERP or a shelf package, all start with the design of the
chart of accounts - it is the basic start as to WHERE the data must go, not what
must be done with it. I have consistently designed charts of accounts to be useful
across the board - whether it is a micro business or a group of companies, the
basic chart design comes down to knowing upfront where that data must go. Even
in the old days of HAPAS, it only took for 1 first year clerk with an allocation
error as a result of bad documentation to screw up an entire chart in use for
3 years and from there the P&L and the Balance sheet. All of the discussions
on here, including Bill's discussion some time ago about the catalogue, end
up with what must be done with the data. In a well designed system, the data
is available anywhere for anything because it is known how it is classified.
Thus, a user can extract his sales data for individual colours of individual
parts only when the data is consistently available across the entire platform.
At present you have to search for cushions in order to find the chairs and do
not ask for different colours of chairs
The catalogue does not IMO need another band aid over the festering and pus filled
wound of its poorly designed descriptors and poorly documented and inconsistent
application of catalogue entries. It needs corrective surgery, much like everything
else. Time will tell if the investment required will be made. At present though,
there is still not enough information to make that call. All I see is that searching
the catalogue, even with the best of tools, remains for many users a difficulty.
IF the present systems is deemed to be the way forward, then by all means bring
in the tags (which was supposed to have been done sometime this year if I remember
correctly) and resort categories. It will be fun, but not productive. TLG might
want suggestions and make improvements, then again they might look at the scope
of what needs to be done and decide that plasters is maybe a bit cheaper and
more readily available. After all - adding tags and reclassifying will be done
with volunteers, redesign has to be done with (paid) employees. Some things require
money and that is the measure of the commitment. TLG's commitment remains
to be measured - we know the level of commitment of volunteers already.
|
Hi Jean
I have spent the better part of my life designing and implementing charts of
accounts - some for the UK's largest organisations both commercial and charitable.
It is a complex job and needs a level of understanding which Dan and Eric will
have had but as there wasn't the quality documentation that was needed the
current development team will have found difficult - hence their reluctance to
delve into the 'Spaghetti code' they were left.
You need to understand what is required at the end of it as well as how to use
it for the purposes of data collection
Hence my earlier comments about system analysts doing a system design job before
code gets written.
Time will tell what Lego are prepared to put into the site as well as where the
resources for this need to come from. There is a tremendous amount of knowledge
and talent in the membership and this time it needs to be used as opposed to
being overridden or ignored. .
It is almost like waiting with baited breath.
Roll on New Years.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 11, 2019 04:00 | | Subject: | Re: Parts Category Tree | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | There seems to be some conflation or confusion regarding the data and the database
structure and how those things relate.
The structure is how it's built and the data is what's within the structure.
Rebuilding the data from the ground up is not necessary. Some of the data is
fine as is and simply would need to be migrated or an existing field related
to a new table and field.
There's no other way to increase functionality or make operations more efficient
without some fundamental change to the underlying structure.
There is no way to create substantive efficiencies within the existing framework.
You have 256 deck chairs and a 900 x 900 foot deck. You can rearrange the chairs
all you want, but it's never going to be more than 256 deck chairs. The arrangement
that makes chair #125 easier to find may make chair #93 harder to find. Everything
is a trade-off.
There is no quick and there is no easy.
If you want to undertake "reorganizing" or "cleaning" the data...for example,
examine all the minifig heads. Rewrite all the descriptions in a uniform manner...start
from top to bottom...hair, eyebrows, eyes, nose, mouth, whiskers, scars, blemishes,
wrinkles, and so on...then that will lead to an incremental improvement in the
data. Functionality isn't going to be improved without a change in the available
tools. I often state that you can cut down a tree with a spoon, but it's
not the best tool for the job. It will get done, but with great effort and it
will take a long time. Invest in an appropriate tool, like a chainsaw, and the
effort decreases, the time decreases, and the satisfaction increases.
Your argument seems to be for changing one spoon for another.
Additional categories won't solve anything. At this point, this is the difference
between sorting mixed pieces of lego in 230 boxes or 240 boxes. You're just
rearranging the deck chairs. Again. When the supermarket redesigns the floor
plan and product location within the store you've been shopping in for 10
years, does that help you find the chicken soup?
Not that I expect you to go through the exercise, but here http://v4ei.com/mini-fig-ure-outer/index.php
is the custom search instruction thing I wrote. It will take about 2 or 3 hours
to complete if you want to do it. Anyway, going through the source information
(skip creating the html if you want) will kind of lay bare the inconsistencies
within the current data. You'll find obvious typos. You'll find similar
items described similarly, but with differing sequences...like items described
dissimilarly...dissimilar items described similarly...nothing you wouldn't
expect when the data is crowd sourced over a long period of time. Some swaths
of data are really good. There has been effort put into the data, but not always
of consistent quality or consistent methodology.
Looking at a dataset as a whole, and not piecemeal, can be quite enlightening.
Do we need any listing that contains the phrase "without such-and-such"? Is it
helpful to list what something doesn't contain? Fish without bicycle spokes.
Butterfly without steel beams.
So, to answer your question, yes and no. I'm making the argument for additional
data. I'm making the argument for additional database structure. I'm
making the argument for thinking things through thoroughly before starting to
build something.
Right now there's no way to add deck chairs to our deck. We need another
deck. And a way to get chairs from one deck to another. And ways to get users
from deck to deck and chair to chair.
If you decide to do the custom search creation, all of it, I think by the end
of that exercise it should provide enlightenment as to the limitations of what
can be done within the current structure and the quality of the current dataset.
Those things should be able to inform your thinking on how to better conceive
a plan for improvement within the current limitations.
Read what Bill says in the light of Bill actually knows what the f--- he's
talking about instead of Bill's a cranky old man. Bill is a cranky old man
because he actually does know what the f--- he's talking about. When
you fully understand what Bill is saying, at that point you'll understand
the complexity of the issue. You seem to think the problem is lack of simple
programming. It's not. It's waaaaaay deeper than that.
|
Cranky old man ??? Hmm - Just because I want it done correctly?
| |
Discussion at this point isn't leading to any solutions. I currently find
no value in the obsessive hand-wringing, worry-warting, prognostication of doom,
hopes, wishes, unfulfilled dreams, and ideas of improvement around here. Be patient
and wait for Superplasticorp to take over the Titanic and see where we are in
a month or two.
If you need to do something because you need to do something, I'd suggest
creating a wish list to present to Superplasticorp. They say they want to engage
with the AFOLs. Well, here's your opportunity. What's most important?
Is it more data that's definitive and easily accessible? Is it greater selection
of trans-neon-green elements? History? Factory tours? Let Superplasticorp know
what they can do to facilitate their selling you more stuff...they'll listen
to that.
Improvements of the type often discussed here on the board will take years
to implement, if that's even an option. It could be that Superplasticorp
leaves the current BL management in place and things carry on in the lopsided
manner they have been for the last several years. Or Superplasticorp could actually
value the AFOL community, engage with the community, cooperate with the community,
respect the community, find value in the knowledge the community has to offer,
and not expect those with the knowledge and who actually provide the content
to work for free versus working for mutual benefit. Time will tell. Maybe.
I'm going to shut up now.
|
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 10, 2019 11:48 | | Subject: | Re: Parts Category Tree | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | The category tree is not really the issue.
There needs to be an understanding of the difference between classification and
identification.
Browsing probably takes place against classification.
Identification should not be limited to classification. Identification should
take place against element attributes.
The existing database framework is inadequate to meet what is desired.
The underlying database needs many additional tables and fields to store specific
relevant information.
Classification of any single piece should not be restricted to a single category.
For example
should be categorized as brick and wedge
should be categorized as plate and wedge
should be categorized as panel, window (if transparent), wall element,
windscreen...and perhaps other things.
Identification should be effected against several different and some as-yet-non-existant
fields with specific criteria.
Instead of trying to identify by the contents of the q (title or name) field,
which is the only option at the moment, additional fields should be created that
contain specific attributes of an element: how many studs, how many sides with
studs, how many sides with stud receptors, how many sides without studs, symmetrical
or asymmetrical shape, general shape (rectangular, circular, triangular, rhomboid,
irregular, etc.), protruberances and sockets (axle holders, holes, clips, bars,
pins), and so on.
All this needs to be paired with an illustrated glossary of terms.
After the foundation is laid, then the data needs to be populated in a regular
manner which adheres to strict conditions for consistency. In the instances where
a field can contain discrete "checkboxable" items, that should be simple. Where
a field is "open" criteria should be set in place such that the data is entered
in a logical and repeatable manner.
The much discussed "tag system" is nothing more than an additional name/title
field, perhaps with a character limit in excess of 256 characters, but is susceptible
to the same problems as the current name/title field. It's just more of the
same thing as exists now, so it will fail/succeed/operate in the same manner
as the current name/title field, just in a second field. If the "solution" of
the "tag system" is effected, then you're still going to have data inconsistency...some
items will have value A in field one and some items will have value A in field
two. So that ends up compounding the frustration instead of alleviating it.
Colors should not necessarily be limited to any one institution's nomenclature.
The colors are indexed by an integer value. Any one value can carry multiple
labels. Thus XXX can be both Medium Stone Gray and Light Bluish Gray.
Ultimately this means something like a 10x increase in data (or more), additional
fields, additional forms for both discovery and data entry, and more.
tl;dr
A glossary needs to be in place describing all pertinent aspects and glossary
terms should be used in the datasets.
The underlying database needs to be 1) expanded and 2) available for modification
on a periodic basis as needed.
The data needs to be more, better, and consistent within a field.
It's going to be a lot of work.
|
Hiya
Nice post and quite accurate. Most modern day research into tagging v hierarchical
systems show that neither are quicker and there are pluses and minuses for both
– so the best recommendation is to incorporate both in your database design.
Lots of articles about best practices for this.
What it needs is a couple of senior analysts to sit down and design this properly
possibly in conjunction with a number of experts that exist within the community.
From there hand it to the programmers and let them write it – test it thoroughly,
correct it – test it again etc. Then release it fully documented. Lots and lots
of the core data that is needed is already in the database – but yes it does
need work eliminating, where possible, inconsistencies.
Analysts can be expensive people but quite honestly they are worth their weight
in gold. Testing is the same – whatever length of time you spend on it up front
is more than compensated for in the less time fixing it when it is supposedly
‘live’. And if it is well documented less time in supporting it.
Modern day software should have lots and lots of parameters built in so that
individuals do not lose features that they utilize. Major accounting software
today – products like Navision, Axapta, Great Plains, SAP + others are heavily
customizable within the organisation that bought the product. Oracle are the
same – that is where they make the majority of their money from consultancy to
set it up the way you wish to use it.
Yes it is lots of work, or at least it can be but if it had been started 6 years
ago maybe we wouldn’t be having this conversation today and time would not have
been spent on tangent developments.
Still lets see what Lego has to say about this as and when they begin exerting
influence/decisions on the site. That isn’t that far away, at least from early
comments about completing by the end of 2019.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 9, 2019 06:55 | | Subject: | Re: Parts Category Tree | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, calsbricks writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | I've been pondering the category trees. When you click on Parts from the
main catalog page you get hit with 230 categories. It's hard to justify
adding further categories, even though needed for some existing categories, because
there are already too many.
I've also been thinking about simple fixes that maintain the BrickLink look
and feel and imagined what it might be like with some submenus (the large image
below with the selections shrunk from 230 to only 85). The little plus signs
might not be the best way to do this - they just indicate for the purposes of
discussion that this category can be expanded or leads to another menu.
I've also imagined a Themed Parts menu and a Minifigure Items menu (those
menus happen when you select those options from the main menu) and added those
images.
Of course, I would always want to be able to see the entire category tree by
default if I chose that option.
Good things: you don't have so much to wade through - allows quicker selection
of exactly what you're looking for. Also, the categories within submenus
could be significantly expanded to make finding items even easier without fear
of adding to the existing mess.
Bad thing: you have to click into more menus to get where you're going.
Thoughts?
|
This is a good idea and follows our Family level above categories which we put
into the forum a very long time ago. but whether anything will ever get done
about it remains to be seen. Since your departure and recent return nothing much
has happened on the development side and with the Lego acquisition due shortly
it may be some time before anything actually does. We have done this offline
with our own database system.
It does work and is not clumsy nor long winded - after all unless your are really
into the catalogue you probably don't even know that much about all the sub
menus. A 'soccer mom' might want a star wars set for her son but will
she know which one of the sub menus it is under - not likely - that is for collectors
and enthusiasts.
|
I think it needs a complete rethink and a more modern idea - where something
can be more than one thing. So for example, I'd like to see one category
called "Bricks", and inside this, there can be all the existing types of bricks
categories. This would allow someone to search just through the "Bricks" parent
category but all of them at once. However, there are also technic bricks, which
don't get called "Bricks, technic", rather they are "Technic, bricks". They
are also bricks, so should be searchable under a "Bricks" parent, but also under
a "Technic" parent too.
|
That is pretty much the way our system works. We decide what the families are
(level above categories) and what goes in them. All of our analysis is done by
family but if we want to take it lower we can. We have bricks, Minifigs, Other,
Plates, Sets (Small polybags), Slopes, Technic and tiles. Other is obviously
the catch all for items that don't fall into any of the others. It does work
and it makes it very easy for us to see what is moving and what isn't
We think the level above categories should be user definable as not everyone
will want to combine the same things. It isn't that complicated to program
and lots of the big high end inventory management systems have it built in, so
there is excellent code examples out there to accommodate.
I think the only real thing we can say is - no harm in dreaming.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
United Kingdom, England
