Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | axaday  | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2020 11:51 | | Subject: | Re: Element 6286835 wrong colour | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Dino1 writes:
| | In Catalog, Drudatz writes:
There are many elements in unknown colors.
|
With PCCs?
|
| Author: | Dino | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2020 11:15 | | Subject: | Re: Element 6286835 wrong colour | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Drudatz writes:
There are many elements in unknown colors.
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2020 20:05 | | Subject: | Re: New 2020 Colors | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | I am waiting for
I want to add zombie-teal to my collection 
but so far I have only found bricks with older mold numbers.
|
I didn't have to wait long 
|
 |
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jan 8, 2020 20:39 | | Subject: | Re: New 2020 Colors | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WhiteVanMan writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | This is not a comprehensive list. As always, it would be most helpful if BrickLink
included an easy way to see these.
New appearances in dark turquoise:
* | | 18923c01 Vehicle, Base 8 x 16 x 2 1/2 with Mudguards Raised, 4 x 14 Recessed Center with 3 Holes, and Dark Bluish Gray Wheels Holders
Parts: Vehicle, Base |
|
Still waiting for these: in Dark Turquoise
I really want to be able to build one of these in this colour!
Paul
|
I am waiting for
I want to add zombie-teal to my collection
but so far I have only found bricks with older mold numbers.
|
|
| Author: | fracksfreakshow | | Posted: | Jan 8, 2020 00:28 | | Subject: | Re: Stores Need Attention | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Did you shop at other stores, put items in the cart, and change your mind about
ordering them? This usually happens to me when I put together an order, leave
it for a night, come back and the store has sold items I had in my cart or changed
price on them.
In Catalog, QNIKET8 writes:
| | I am new to Bricklink. I recently decided to get out my lego to rebuild some
of my old Lego Star Wars sets. There were 2 sets I wanted to build but noticed
I was missing some pieces. I ordered two pieces last night (awaiting arrival)
for the first time, but then realised I needed more pieces for the other set.But
it says that 2 stores need my attention, why is that?
Thanks
|
|
|
| Author: | QNIKET8 | | Posted: | Jan 8, 2020 00:23 | | Subject: | Stores Need Attention | | Viewed: | 191 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| I am new to Bricklink. I recently decided to get out my lego to rebuild some
of my old Lego Star Wars sets. There were 2 sets I wanted to build but noticed
I was missing some pieces. I ordered two pieces last night (awaiting arrival)
for the first time, but then realised I needed more pieces for the other set.But
it says that 2 stores need my attention, why is that?
Thanks
|
| Author: | AZbrickGUY | | Posted: | Jan 7, 2020 22:11 | | Subject: | Batman Movie figures S1/2 | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Is there anyway we can split up the two sets of minifigs from Batman movie lines??
Series 1 and 2 are all under one. Disney is 1 and 2 and not all together. I cant
help to fell that they should be, Batman Movie S1 and S2? Just sayin.
|
| Author: | Duq | | Posted: | Jan 7, 2020 19:47 | | Subject: | Element 6286835 wrong colour | | Viewed: | 114 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| | Element 6286835 is 28870 in black, not medium azure. |
| Author: | waltzking | | Posted: | Jan 7, 2020 18:49 | | Subject: | Alternate Images | | Viewed: | 79 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please add these alternate images for comparison of mini doll head patterns 37591
vs 66706 and also 37592 vs 66600 with new but similar print.
Jonathan
|
|
|
| Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | Jan 7, 2020 14:35 | | Subject: | Re: Please approve | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
and this one
|
|
| Author: | WhiteVanMan | | Posted: | Jan 7, 2020 12:28 | | Subject: | Re: New 2020 Colors | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | This is not a comprehensive list. As always, it would be most helpful if BrickLink
included an easy way to see these.
New appearances in dark turquoise:
* | | 18923c01 Vehicle, Base 8 x 16 x 2 1/2 with Mudguards Raised, 4 x 14 Recessed Center with 3 Holes, and Dark Bluish Gray Wheels Holders
Parts: Vehicle, Base |
|
Still waiting for these: in Dark Turquoise
I really want to be able to build one of these in this colour!
Paul
|
|
| Author: | pikachu3 | | Posted: | Jan 7, 2020 11:45 | | Subject: | Re: New 2020 Colors | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Huw writes:
| | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
Yes, that does appear to be a new colour, which LEGO abbreviates to 'TR.
BLUE OPAL'.
|
Lego calls it "362 Transparent Blue Opal". And there's another new color:
6294242 in set 43173. I'd assume it's "Transparent Pink Opal", but I
haven't found confirmation on the name/number yet.
|
|
| Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Jan 7, 2020 11:25 | | Subject: | Broken part x191c01? | | Viewed: | 97 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Should I be able to push all the way to the bottom with almost no
force when I cover up the hole, or does this mean that the part is broken? This
is the first small version I've had.
/Jan
|
| Author: | jim35 | | Posted: | Jan 7, 2020 09:41 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Policy Issues | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, mfav writes:
Love the "expert" one. 
|
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Jan 7, 2020 07:53 | | Subject: | Re: Remove image | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, mfav writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Why shouldn't rust be considered a verified color for this part?
|
I know it's daft of me to think this, but can't you just call up the
mothership and get an answer? Then definitively tell us what it is? I mean instead
of questioning us. Like we know.
You know. As in sincerely, can't you do that?
|
Regarding this color Rust, BrickLink's definition (and usage) don't line
up with the internal official palette, as you can see here:
http://ryanhowerter.net/colors.html
BrickLink sellers tend to list colors exactly as they see them, not what the
catalog says they are supposed to be. That is why there are 86 lots listed under
Rust, yet no inventory lists Rust as a "known" color. And the image "verifies"
the existence of this part in Rust - that's why I am hesitant to remove it.
As far as access to the "mothership" goes, it's still very early in the transition.
Yes, I could contact someone who could put me in touch with someone else who
has access to internal color info. But right now there are other much more important
issues to deal with, so I will be reserving my lifelines for those.
|
"Rust" is just red in certain non-ABS parts. If it is considered a legitimate
color, then we should also have the "medium old gray" of certain old 1x1 clips
and airtanks and maybe "translucent light yellow" for old minifig hands and airtanks.
|
According to Ryan's sheet, 216 Rust is an official LEGO color. And 13 Red
Orange falls into that category too:
|
Ryan's sheet also points out that there is a "rust" that is "Really 21 Bright
Red in softer plastics."
That is the case with the boat mast in question here. I don't think it is
a deliberate color by Lego in this part. It is considered red by Lego, but appears
dull because of the material. If we are going to use our own color definitions,
which I have no problem with, then we should allow them in similar situations
like I mention where the appearance does not match the official Lego color because
of the part material. .
|
|
| Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Jan 7, 2020 04:17 | | Subject: | Re: Remove image | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, normann1974 writes:
| | For part
* | | 476 Bar 12L with Open Stud, Tow Ball, and Slit (Boat Mast)
Parts: Bar |
the image for Rust color should be removed. This part doesn't
exist in this color (but may appear rust colored as written in the note).
/Jan
|
I'm not sure I follow this. This part does appear in a rust variant - we
have one here in the office. It's not exactly like other rust colors, but
it's not red either.
Why shouldn't rust be considered a verified color for this part?
|
If you have one there, could you make a better picture and upload to the catalogue?
The current one is small and blur...
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 22:02 | | Subject: | Re: Remove image | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location:  USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
 |
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, mfav writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Why shouldn't rust be considered a verified color for this part?
|
I know it's daft of me to think this, but can't you just call up the
mothership and get an answer? Then definitively tell us what it is? I mean instead
of questioning us. Like we know.
You know. As in sincerely, can't you do that?
|
Regarding this color Rust, BrickLink's definition (and usage) don't line
up with the internal official palette, as you can see here:
http://ryanhowerter.net/colors.html
BrickLink sellers tend to list colors exactly as they see them, not what the
catalog says they are supposed to be. That is why there are 86 lots listed under
Rust, yet no inventory lists Rust as a "known" color. And the image "verifies"
the existence of this part in Rust - that's why I am hesitant to remove it.
As far as access to the "mothership" goes, it's still very early in the transition.
Yes, I could contact someone who could put me in touch with someone else who
has access to internal color info. But right now there are other much more important
issues to deal with, so I will be reserving my lifelines for those.
|
"Rust" is just red in certain non-ABS parts. If it is considered a legitimate
color, then we should also have the "medium old gray" of certain old 1x1 clips
and airtanks and maybe "translucent light yellow" for old minifig hands and airtanks.
|
According to Ryan's sheet, 216 Rust is an official LEGO color. And 13 Red
Orange falls into that category too:
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 21:10 | | Subject: | Re: Remove image | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, mfav writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Why shouldn't rust be considered a verified color for this part?
|
I know it's daft of me to think this, but can't you just call up the
mothership and get an answer? Then definitively tell us what it is? I mean instead
of questioning us. Like we know.
You know. As in sincerely, can't you do that?
|
Regarding this color Rust, BrickLink's definition (and usage) don't line
up with the internal official palette, as you can see here:
http://ryanhowerter.net/colors.html
BrickLink sellers tend to list colors exactly as they see them, not what the
catalog says they are supposed to be. That is why there are 86 lots listed under
Rust, yet no inventory lists Rust as a "known" color. And the image "verifies"
the existence of this part in Rust - that's why I am hesitant to remove it.
As far as access to the "mothership" goes, it's still very early in the transition.
Yes, I could contact someone who could put me in touch with someone else who
has access to internal color info. But right now there are other much more important
issues to deal with, so I will be reserving my lifelines for those.
|
"Rust" is just red in certain non-ABS parts. If it is considered a legitimate
color, then we should also have the "medium old gray" of certain old 1x1 clips
and airtanks and maybe "translucent light yellow" for old minifig hands and airtanks.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 20:52 | | Subject: | Re: Remove image | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog Requests, mfav writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Why shouldn't rust be considered a verified color for this part?
|
I know it's daft of me to think this, but can't you just call up the
mothership and get an answer? Then definitively tell us what it is? I mean instead
of questioning us. Like we know.
You know. As in sincerely, can't you do that?
|
Regarding this color Rust, BrickLink's definition (and usage) don't line
up with the internal official palette, as you can see here:
http://ryanhowerter.net/colors.html
BrickLink sellers tend to list colors exactly as they see them, not what the
catalog says they are supposed to be. That is why there are 86 lots listed under
Rust, yet no inventory lists Rust as a "known" color. And the image "verifies"
the existence of this part in Rust - that's why I am hesitant to remove it.
As far as access to the "mothership" goes, it's still very early in the transition.
Yes, I could contact someone who could put me in touch with someone else who
has access to internal color info. But right now there are other much more important
issues to deal with, so I will be reserving my lifelines for those.
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 20:00 | | Subject: | Re: Remove image | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Why shouldn't rust be considered a verified color for this part?
|
I know it's daft of me to think this, but can't you just call up the
mothership and get an answer? Then definitively tell us what it is? I mean instead
of questioning us. Like we know.
You know. As in sincerely, can't you do that?
|
|
| Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 19:51 | | Subject: | Re: Instructions Dimensions -- way off? | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | In Catalog, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
| | On My Inventory the dimensions for set are 582mm x 378mm. Which is
the size of the Box itself (!)
How were these dimensions populated and what can I do to remove them altogether
(not just one by one)?
(Or better yet to mass-set the dimensions correctly.)
Thanhk you again.
|
LOL me again, and thank you for alerting me to this as well as I went back and
checked mine saw some of them had a base thickness of 1cm - this is wrong. Research
cap on and lo behold - I think there are still a few of these floating about:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1063022
So that gets to the how it is populated. How to mass change it is another matter
altogether. Would you just want to change the thickness or do you want actual
dimensions? For actual dimensions you are going to have to measure each and every
one which still has the z dimension set to 10mm or 0mm. There is no way to simply
check this you have to check your entire inventory manually as there is no tool
to search the packing dimensions of items in your inventory. I'm not quite
sure if you can mass change the dimensions for your inventory - are they not
all different? Setting them all to manual for the time being, would be the same
method as in that other thread, except now you go M for Manual.
To mass change the dimensions:
For an item which you want to change the dimensions to say dim X, dim Y, dim
Z to 180 x 38 x 28 mm
Use the find and replace method in this message:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1166531
You make the file as you would upload it and add the lines as follows: (put angle
brackets where I have now got square brackets)
[INVDIMX]180[/INVDIMX]
[INVDIMY]38[/INVDIMY]
[INVDIMZ]28[/INVDIMZ]
As I noted - you anyway have to punch in values for each one. It might be easier
to set them all to manual, have some unfortunae soul sit with a caliper for a
day and ask for mass update on this topic:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1059042
then reset your invetory again. It normally takes about a day for these to be
fixed, but since Russell is the only doing all of this now, I would suggest giving
a bit of extra time.
I'm also going to apologise here, I've never thought of checking those
dmension when I submit items for the catalogue. My bad. I will make a big fat
note to fix this oversight on my part, thank you again for pointing me in the
right direction.
HTH
|
Wonderful, Jean!
Between BrickStock and Notepad, it worked.
I changed every Instructions to Weight Bound and the Dimensions to 300x200x10mm
(A4 size). It works here because as long as it is under the 90cm linear measure,
only the weight counts for shipping rates.
(Will have to adjust the bigger ones A3 size manually, but they're only a
few.)
Thank you again for your detailed explanation!
I will be uploading many Instructions this year, hopefully I can enter the correct
dimensions to the Catalog whenever Catalog Changes are working again.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 19:14 | | Subject: | Re: New 2020 Colors | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
Thank you!
*makes note to add these to my wanted list*
|
| Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 18:48 | | Subject: | Remove image | | Viewed: | 115 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| For part
* | | 476 Bar 12L with Open Stud, Tow Ball, and Slit (Boat Mast)
Parts: Bar |
the image for Rust color should be removed. This part doesn't
exist in this color (but may appear rust colored as written in the note).
/Jan
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 18:25 | | Subject: | Re: Official Lego Part Codes vs Bricklink Codes? | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | Incidentally since most minifig hair and headgear are listed by Legos Design
I.D I noticed that there are some parts which aren’t listed by this as the primary
reference. For instance hair 6093 is listed as ‘x104’ and you have bandanas listed
as ‘x70’ instead of ‘2543’ I know this reference is still displayed as an alternative
number but it would be nice if all parts were listed as Legos official design
I.D as the primary reference it’s just when I sold some of the bandanas the other
day all I could see when picking my order was reference ‘x70’ which doesn’t mean
much to me compared with Legos Design I.D 2543
Does anyone share a similar view or am I alone here?
|
I think the same, as I wrote here: https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1165039
|
Yes it would make sense if some of those old numbers were phased out and replaced
with either Legos official Design I.D’s and/or Element I.D’s (I guess easier
said than done for all the parts) but do people still rely on those other BL/Peeron
references? The only reason I might use them is because they are sometimes the
only reference I have to hand whilst I'm using bricklink
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 16:11 | | Subject: | Re: Instructions Dimensions -- way off? | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
| | On My Inventory the dimensions for set are 582mm x 378mm. Which is
the size of the Box itself (!)
How were these dimensions populated and what can I do to remove them altogether
(not just one by one)?
(Or better yet to mass-set the dimensions correctly.)
Thanhk you again.
|
LOL me again, and thank you for alerting me to this as well as I went back and
checked mine saw some of them had a base thickness of 1cm - this is wrong. Research
cap on and lo behold - I think there are still a few of these floating about:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1063022
So that gets to the how it is populated. How to mass change it is another matter
altogether. Would you just want to change the thickness or do you want actual
dimensions? For actual dimensions you are going to have to measure each and every
one which still has the z dimension set to 10mm or 0mm. There is no way to simply
check this you have to check your entire inventory manually as there is no tool
to search the packing dimensions of items in your inventory. I'm not quite
sure if you can mass change the dimensions for your inventory - are they not
all different? Setting them all to manual for the time being, would be the same
method as in that other thread, except now you go M for Manual.
To mass change the dimensions:
For an item which you want to change the dimensions to say dim X, dim Y, dim
Z to 180 x 38 x 28 mm
Use the find and replace method in this message:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1166531
You make the file as you would upload it and add the lines as follows: (put angle
brackets where I have now got square brackets)
[INVDIMX]180[/INVDIMX]
[INVDIMY]38[/INVDIMY]
[INVDIMZ]28[/INVDIMZ]
As I noted - you anyway have to punch in values for each one. It might be easier
to set them all to manual, have some unfortunae soul sit with a caliper for a
day and ask for mass update on this topic:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1059042
then reset your invetory again. It normally takes about a day for these to be
fixed, but since Russell is the only doing all of this now, I would suggest giving
a bit of extra time.
I'm also going to apologise here, I've never thought of checking those
dmension when I submit items for the catalogue. My bad. I will make a big fat
note to fix this oversight on my part, thank you again for pointing me in the
right direction.
HTH
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 15:58 | | Subject: | Re: Analysts Ruin Everything | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Problem, calsbricks writes:
| | interesting they are pundits over here.
|
Yep. Equally despised and, you know, exactly the same people. But new and improved
with a fresh name! To make us think they're not pundits. Or analysts. Or
abjectly stoopid.
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 15:41 | | Subject: | Re: Analysts Ruin Everything | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Problem, mfav writes:
| | In Problem, calsbricks writes:
| | I'll stick with analyst I cannot, for the life of me, understand why there
is such open hostility towards that.
|
Pretty much every pro football/TV/media talking head "analyst" in the US is an
example of why there's open hostility towards that term. Less accurate than
weathermen and infinitely more obnoxious.
|
interesting they are pundits over here.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 15:38 | | Subject: | Re: Analysts Ruin Everything | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Problem, yorbrick writes:
| | | | I'll stick with analyst I cannot, for the life of me,understand why there
is such open hostility towards that. it's as if what everyone wants - improvement
is just going to happen. we have had 6 years of very little, if any real improvements
(blamed on spaghetti code) and tangent developments like mosaick and the afol
design program which certainly helped the cash situation for BL but did little
for the stores.
|
If it was the AFOL design program that got LEGO interested in the purchase of
BL then it might have done a huge amount for the stores here, at least in the
long term if not the short.
|
somehow I doubt it but the early press we have seen has reflect Ted a keenest
on it and stud.io
how that is going help existing stores is still very much up in the air
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 15:36 | | Subject: | Re: Analysts Ruin Everything | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Problem, calsbricks writes:
| | I'll stick with analyst I cannot, for the life of me, understand why there
is such open hostility towards that.
|
Pretty much every pro football/TV/media talking head "analyst" in the US is an
example of why there's open hostility towards that term. Less accurate than
weathermen and infinitely more obnoxious.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 15:18 | | Subject: | Re: Analysts Ruin Everything | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | I'll stick with analyst I cannot, for the life of me,understand why there
is such open hostility towards that. it's as if what everyone wants - improvement
is just going to happen. we have had 6 years of very little, if any real improvements
(blamed on spaghetti code) and tangent developments like mosaick and the afol
design program which certainly helped the cash situation for BL but did little
for the stores.
|
If it was the AFOL design program that got LEGO interested in the purchase of
BL then it might have done a huge amount for the stores here, at least in the
long term if not the short.
|
|
| Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 15:14 | | Subject: | Re: Official Lego Part Codes vs Bricklink Codes? | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | Incidentally since most minifig hair and headgear are listed by Legos Design
I.D I noticed that there are some parts which aren’t listed by this as the primary
reference. For instance hair 6093 is listed as ‘x104’ and you have bandanas listed
as ‘x70’ instead of ‘2543’ I know this reference is still displayed as an alternative
number but it would be nice if all parts were listed as Legos official design
I.D as the primary reference it’s just when I sold some of the bandanas the other
day all I could see when picking my order was reference ‘x70’ which doesn’t mean
much to me compared with Legos Design I.D 2543
Does anyone share a similar view or am I alone here?
|
I think the same, as I wrote here: https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1165039
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 15:04 | | Subject: | Re: Analysts Are People, Too | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Problem, mfav writes:
Fair enough. You're most likely right.
In an ideal world the catalog would be rebuilt as necessary and the database
would be relational in the ways you've advocated. The catalog and its inventories
would then be managed by people with education in an appropriate field (such
as information science).
And all of this is moot anyway, because none of us have any idea what TLG's
plans for the site are. I rather doubt we'll be consulted about or informed
of any major decisions that are made regarding the site.
Therefore, all of us would be wise to take your advice and not get involved in
these kinds of discussions until we see what is to come.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 14:49 | | Subject: | Re: Analysts Ruin Everything | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Problem, mfav writes:
| | In Problem, StormChaser writes:
| | It's difficult to offend me, so do not trouble yourself in that regard.
|
Well, first this: http://v4ei.com/mini-fig-ure-outer/comics/index.php
Second:
Oh, good grief. You can't solve this problem alone, Robert. You can't.
You don't have the requisite tool set.
Bill suggests we get some help from people with the proper tool set to augment
the knowledge you have and you see fit to throw him under the bus.
Tell me the site has worked out all the problems you point out over the past
10 years. Has it? Those problems persist, don't they? Those problems do exist,
continue to not be resolved, and clearly you, we, the community, cannot solve
the problems by ourselves. If they could be resolved by us, then certainly they
would have been over a period of 20 years of community involvement.
Hell, in the thread about what's a tile and what's a plate and so on
you can't come to consensus. So let's have some rules. Because rules
fix everything. F--- all that. Redesign the database properly (this probably
does warrant the involvement of somebody other than you or the community) and
that argument of what something is and what something isn't becomes moot.
Really really wish you'd expend all this good energy you have in investigating
information studies instead of beating the dead horse. Again. Maybe you'd
feel better if Bill stopped using the word "analysts" and started using "information
design specialists".
Anyway, you keep beating your drum, and Bill keep beating his drum, and I'll
keep doing whatever the hell it is that I do.
|
hi mark
fancy titles like that usually cost more money
I'll stick with analyst I cannot, for the life of me,understand why there
is such open hostility towards that. it's as if what everyone wants - improvement
is just going to happen. we have had 6 years of very little, if any real improvements
(blamed on spaghetti code) and tangent developments like mosaick and the afol
design program which certainly helped the cash situation for BL but did little
for the stores.
I believe it is time to take this seriously now - back to the drawing board -
redesign, program, test, reprogram, test, etc. then document properly then launch.
in the interim period keep the existing site running, fix the bugs and grow the
site via Tlg marketing muscle
|
|
| Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 14:18 | | Subject: | Instructions Dimensions -- way off? | | Viewed: | 69 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| On My Inventory the dimensions for set are 582mm x 378mm. Which is
the size of the Box itself (!)
How were these dimensions populated and what can I do to remove them altogether
(not just one by one)?
(Or better yet to mass-set the dimensions correctly.)
Thanhk you again.
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 14:03 | | Subject: | Re: Analysts Ruin Everything | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Problem, StormChaser writes:
| | It's difficult to offend me, so do not trouble yourself in that regard.
|
Well, first this: http://v4ei.com/mini-fig-ure-outer/comics/index.php
Second:
Oh, good grief. You can't solve this problem alone, Robert. You can't.
You don't have the requisite tool set.
Bill suggests we get some help from people with the proper tool set to augment
the knowledge you have and you see fit to throw him under the bus.
Tell me the site has worked out all the problems you point out over the past
10 years. Has it? Those problems persist, don't they? Those problems do exist,
continue to not be resolved, and clearly you, we, the community, cannot solve
the problems by ourselves. If they could be resolved by us, then certainly they
would have been over a period of 20 years of community involvement.
Hell, in the thread about what's a tile and what's a plate and so on
you can't come to consensus. So let's have some rules. Because rules
fix everything. F--- all that. Redesign the database properly (this probably
does warrant the involvement of somebody other than you or the community) and
that argument of what something is and what something isn't becomes moot.
Really really wish you'd expend all this good energy you have in investigating
information studies instead of beating the dead horse. Again. Maybe you'd
feel better if Bill stopped using the word "analysts" and started using "information
design specialists".
Anyway, you keep beating your drum, and Bill keep beating his drum, and I'll
keep doing whatever the hell it is that I do.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 13:21 | | Subject: | Re: Official Lego Part Codes vs Bricklink Codes? | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | Does anyone share a similar view or am I alone here?
|
I share a similar view. We need to get rid of those old part numbers carried
over years ago from other sites.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 13:07 | | Subject: | Re: Analysts Ruin Everything | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Problem, WildBricks writes:
| | | | I'm not against volunteerism. I'm against working for free for a for-profit
company on something for which they then claim complete ownership.
|
I certainly understood your reasoning then and I think it is doubly true now
that the site is owned by a company with pockets as deep as TLG's. Some sort
of compensation for the insane # of hours and planning you were putting into
the site was absolutely a reasonable request.
|
I do not believe anyone disagrees with that. The problem was the former owner
did not agree and as it was his organisation he felt compelled to refuse the
reasonable request. TLG have much deeper pockets than JK and we hope a much better
idea of how to take the site forward. To that end, I think they should develop
a 'compensation method' for those that spend exhaustive hours helping
the community (and of course the site). Whether that is monetary or otherwise
depends on lots of factors. It should also not be something that can be easily
abused.
Good luck to them in working out a scheme for that, if they decide to.
They have a lot to learn about Bricklink, much more than is apparent and it will
take time for them to adjust, but they do have one thing in abundance that the
former owners did not and that is knowledge of the product. The site has always
had more than its fair share of Lego guru's and now with TLG joining the
foray we must be top of the tower and we as stores have to use that to help grow
our businesses.
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 13:06 | | Subject: | Re: Official Lego Part Codes vs Bricklink Codes? | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Incidentally since most minifig hair and headgear are listed by Legos Design
I.D I noticed that there are some parts which aren’t listed by this as the primary
reference. For instance hair 6093 is listed as ‘x104’ and you have bandanas listed
as ‘x70’ instead of ‘2543’ I know this reference is still displayed as an alternative
number but it would be nice if all parts were listed as Legos official design
I.D as the primary reference it’s just when I sold some of the bandanas the other
day all I could see when picking my order was reference ‘x70’ which doesn’t mean
much to me compared with Legos Design I.D 2543
Does anyone share a similar view or am I alone here?
|
|
| Author: | WildBricks | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 12:58 | | Subject: | Re: Analysts Ruin Everything | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | I'm not against volunteerism. I'm against working for free for a for-profit
company on something for which they then claim complete ownership.
|
I certainly understood your reasoning then and I think it is doubly true now
that the site is owned by a company with pockets as deep as TLG's. Some sort
of compensation for the insane # of hours and planning you were putting into
the site was absolutely a reasonable request.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 11:51 | | Subject: | Re: It's a funny old world we live in | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Problem, StarBrick writes:
| | Good thinking, but it feels like 'Kim' all over again.
|
Gosh I hope not.
| |
I think it wiser to organise a round-table conference like was done before (US
and Europe round tables that was?
Where a delegation of the community collectively with Lego-corp would try to
outline a future for the site including all that has been posted/shared/invented/promised
in the last few years but never saw the light emerging at the end of that tunnel.
And based on that make a schedule with priorities and deadlines and thén get
people on it, managed by... Lego! They own this site and I am sure they will
make have a mucg better approach than 'Kim' had.
|
Don't disagree totally with that and it could work but it still needs analysts
to take the ideas that are agreed and turn them into design. It also needs experienced
people to sort out the elements of the site - we certainly do not need to redevelop
the 'wheel'. Most accounting systems will deal with the order processing
and billing system - but we need one that caters for linking and that should
come from very senior experienced people.
| |
(Still not sure he saw this as just another investment vehicle instead of a truly
Lego addicted AFOL community with real treasures....)
|
The former we believe. He also tried to acquire several other Lego sites (and
did not succeed).
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 11:47 | | Subject: | Re: Analysts Ruin Everything | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Problem, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Problem, calsbricks writes:
| | […]
| | Yeah. Maybe I should be gentler with them. I just have a fondness for getting
things done within, say, a given decade.
|
That isn't how it works normally. We have 2 senior analysts on board and
another contractor we can use when and if required. They are given jobs with
timelines and get paid based on that.
|
That’s because you’re a (relatively) small structure and have a direct, person-to-person
relation with your analysts.
|
Correct but my colleagues in this business also have the same results (some are
much larger than us and some are about the same size as us). I agree with you
on large corporates usage - that is strangely why some of us smaller dudes get
the business we do. I cannot reveal names here but our largest customer is a
worldwide organisation with an it department that is probably as large as Microsoft
but they came to us to develop their risk management system and have been using
it for 17 years now - quite happily (Yes and it works - not because we are risk
management people but because our analysts did a good job of listening and design)
| |
TLC hires the likes of Accidenture and Debacle.
Look at the S@H website (and even, there you’re relatively lucky because you
speak English).
|
Everyone makes mistakes I agree with you that TLG and their current software
site are in need of assistance and that is a worry - but then again what is worse
- no development, development by the seat of your trousers or by someone who
does not understand the application? I know where my choice would li and it isn't
with any of those 3.
|
|
| Author: | StarBrick | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 11:41 | | Subject: | Re: It's a funny old world we live in | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Good thinking, but it feels like 'Kim' all over again.
I think it wiser to organise a round-table conference like was done before (US
and Europe round tables that was?
Where a delegation of the community collectively with Lego-corp would try to
outline a future for the site including all that has been posted/shared/invented/promised
in the last few years but never saw the light emerging at the end of that tunnel.
And based on that make a schedule with priorities and deadlines and thén get
people on it, managed by... Lego! They own this site and I am sure they will
make have a mucg better approach than 'Kim' had.
(Still not sure he saw this as just another investment vehicle instead of a truly
Lego addicted AFOL community with real treasures....)
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 11:36 | | Subject: | Re: Analysts Ruin Everything | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Problem, calsbricks writes:
| | […]
| | Yeah. Maybe I should be gentler with them. I just have a fondness for getting
things done within, say, a given decade.
|
That isn't how it works normally. We have 2 senior analysts on board and
another contractor we can use when and if required. They are given jobs with
timelines and get paid based on that.
|
That’s because you’re a (relatively) small structure and have a direct, person-to-person
relation with your analysts.
TLC hires the likes of Accidenture and Debacle.
Look at the S@H website (and even, there you’re relatively lucky because you
speak English).
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 11:25 | | Subject: | Re: Analysts Ruin Everything | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Problem, StormChaser writes:
| | In Problem, bje writes:
| | I really hope you are not offended by this, but with the greatest of respect,
you yourself walked away from this very idea that it should be a community thing.
|
It's difficult to offend me, so do not trouble yourself in that regard.
My position on this is commonly misunderstood. I believe I came close to explaining
it well two years ago:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1066807
I'm not against volunteerism. I'm against working for free for a for-profit
company on something for which they then claim complete ownership.
Again, it's like going to a major chain supermarket and putting in eight
hours a week stocking shelves for free. It's nonsensical unless you just
enjoy the feeling of being used. But there is a vast difference between that
and volunteering for Wikipedia, which is a non-profit.
I did not walk away from the idea that it should be a community thing.
I walked away from the idea that the work should be a community thing
and the profit and ownership should belong to those who weren't doing
the work.
I walked away from being used and my philosophy is very simple: either pay me
for the work I do or give me some ownership in the work I'm doing.
| | Analysts are paid to do a job
|
Yeah. Maybe I should be gentler with them. I just have a fondness for getting
things done within, say, a given decade.
|
That isn't how it works normally. We have 2 senior analysts on board and
another contractor we can use when and if required. They are given jobs with
timelines and get paid based on that. It is like everything in life really. Just
look back at the former owners initial letter to the community - filled with
promises that, quite honestly did not make it into reality, or at least most
of them. We, like many others would like to see progress here on the site. That
might have something to do with running a successful business or it might have
something to with something else. Volunteers to non-profit organisations often
do lots of unpaid work and that is normally for a cause and, as you say for a
non-profit organisation. When a business is either making money or increasing
the value of its assets for free there is something not quite right about that
and we agreed with you when you posted your 'goodbye thread'. But as
you say things move on - we want the site to improve (and so do lots and lots
of others) but it isn't going to happen by the seat of its trousers. It
needs thought, careful analysis and a plan that everyone can commit to (including
the members). We feel the only real way to achieve that is get the drawing board
out and get started. That needs 'experts' as well as analysts working
together to achieve what is the way forward.
| |
| | I think every project you had in place to start, has been on hold for all of the time you've not been here.
|
I noticed that and I confess some disappointment.
| | And those were to a large extent also cosmetic
|
Possibly so. I was working on things that could be worked on within the limited
scope of my position. Obviously I couldn't force the site to implement new
functionality.
|
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 11:23 | | Subject: | Re: Analysts Ruin Everything | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Problem, calsbricks writes:
snip
Thanks for that link Bill, we had national electricity and data issues again
over the weekend, so I am still playing catch-up. I took a very quick look at
that now and it looks like I will be able to make this work for my terms pages
and get rid of hosted images. I will try it for invoices as well.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 11:09 | | Subject: | Re: It's a funny old world we live in | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Problem, EnchantedBricks writes:
| | In Problem, calsbricks writes:
| | For quite some time now there have been discussions on the forum about catalogue
changes as well as other areas of improvement to the site (Performance etc.).
There have been lots of different people involved and Russell has commented on
a couple of occasions but of course nothing is out in the open for plans at present
whilst the Lego takeover completes.
One thing I find strange and that is with all the talent (Programming wise) that
exists on the site, coupled with the technical Lego knowledge that also exists,
no one other than a couple of people have chimed in about getting some senior
analysts involved with a plan to redevelop. This is a very complex site but it
can be broken into segments |(elements) many of which can be handled by existing
software. For example the core processing behind the site is an order processing
system. We are aware of at least two products which could deal with that side
of it easily and have been built with 'linking in' other elements in
mind.
Inventory control, which in our opinion, is an essential element which has been
needed for some time is also out there and fits nicely into either of the two
above products. Again this needs an analyst to look at it and report to the decision
makers what needs to be done. It doesn't, with all due respect, require a
programmer to sit down and write the code first.
The catalogue is a different animal and needs a huge amount of thought. The data
currently held is priceless - not sure even Lego have it all, so that needs some
TLC and a significant amount of time spent to come up with the best way forward.
But, and it is a little word with a great big meaning here, the costs of doing
this are nowhere near outrageous and if libraries of code can be used e,g, order
processing, inventory control etc, then huge amounts of money and time can be
saved in achieving what is required.
The redevelopment of this site will not cost a fortune and it was well within
the means of the former owners to accomplish. They chose, for whatever reason,
not to do that - Lets hope that Lego will look at it differently.
Lets get behind hiring some senior analysts and get the project off the ground.
There was never a better time to start than now. With the strength of Lego and
its marketing machine behind the site who knows where we can go.
|
I support this message !!
|
Thank you for your support.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
Luxembourg
Germany, Berlin
Netherlands, Zuid-Holland
Australia, Victoria
Ireland, Dublin
)
)
Poland, w. Wielkopolskie
United Kingdom, England
Denmark
Spain, Comunidad Valenciana
Portugal
South Africa, Western Cape
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine