Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | 62Bricks  | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2020 11:44 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6274-1 | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Since we cannot add it to the regular section, I guess we can still have it in
the counterpart section.
|
The definition of counterparts:
Counterparts - Parts which are either assembled from or permanently
changed from parts in the Regular Items section during the process of building
a set according to the instructions. Examples include parts with stickers applied
and cut pneumatic hoses. In the absence of instructions, exceptions may be made.
Refer to Additional Information About Counterparts for further details.
Parts on sprues are addressed in the Additional Information About Regular Items
section here:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1562
|
Another chance to flog this horse.
Some of these plumes are quite expensive: https://www.bricklink.com/catalogPG.asp?P=4502a&colorID=11
The misguided policy that says all parts on sprues are now regular items means
that many of these plumes that were formerly considered "extras" and therefore
not required to be included in a "complete" set are now required per the Bricklink
policies.
$15-$20 is a significant difference in value.
And these changes have resulted in several listings like the ones below, which
were listed correctly as "complete" under the old policy, but which are now incorrect.
One wonders how many of the "complete" sets that do not have any comments also
do not include the former "extras."
This set sells used, complete, for around the same price as one of the small
black plumes alone.
This policy has removed historical information from the site (the information
about which parts are needed to build the set according to the instructions)
and has created the potential for real confusion and unhappiness between buyers
and sellers (Where's the black plume that Bricklink says should be included?).
It is a bad policy.
|
|
 |
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2020 08:29 | | Subject: | Re: Ability to identify parts for a specific set | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, Brickwilbo writes:
| | In Suggestions, HillbillyBricks writes:
| | How can you get a list of parts that you have in your inventory for a specific
set.
|
On your My Inventory page in the extra options Search My Inventory you can enter
a set number.
| | In the price guide it will tell you how many parts you have in inventory
for a set. I want to knw what those parts are.
|
Check the option Show Items in My Inventory to see if you've got the items
in your inventory on the Catalog page:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogOptions.asp?viewFrom=P
|
We used to have the ability to do this with a shop's listings, too. You could
see what parts from a set were for sale at any shop. That feature broke when
the site was redesigned and has not been fixed. It would be nice to have it back.
|
|
| 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: | 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: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2020 19:39 | | Subject: | Re: Items scheduled to be removed from catalog | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, swfoxtrot writes:
| | Doing some shopping and browsing and I have come across a few items that say
they are scheduled to be deleted from catalog. I’m curious if that mean removed
so I can no longer find/buy that piece and if that’s true then how would you
go about obtaining it? Also why would any piece be removed from the catalog?
Perhaps I’m not understanding the why behind it. Can someone explain to me please
|
There is often a note on the item's catalog page that explains why it is
being deleted.
Sometimes it is because a part's entry has been split into new entries for
different variants of the part. If that is the case, then you should see links
to those variants in the "similar parts" section of the catalog page. That's
where you can buy the parts.
Sometimes it is because the item was listed in error.
Sometimes it is because a Bricklink admin just decided it should be deleted.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Jan 2, 2020 18:41 | | Subject: | Re: New 2020 Colors | | Viewed: | 113 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Here's the list with the color codes added so you can see which ones need
images (it's most of them at this posting).
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:
New appearances in black:
New appearances in white:
New appearances in pearl dark gray:
New appearances in dark bluish gray:
New appearances in light bluish gray:
New appearances in tan:
New appearances in reddish brown:
New appearances in red:
New appearances in blue:
New appearances in yellow:
New appearances in orange:
New appearances in green:
New appearances in lime:
New appearances in pearl gold:
New appearances in bright light yellow:
New appearances in bright light orange:
New appearances in bright light blue:
New appearances in bright green:
New appearances in bright pink:
New appearances in dark pink:
New appearances in dark orange:
New appearances in dark blue:
New appearances in dark red:
New appearances in dark azure:
New appearances in dark green:
New appearances in dark tan:
New appearances in dark purple:
New appearances in dark brown:
New appearances in magenta:
New appearances in light aqua:
New appearances in lavender:
New appearances in medium lavender:
New appearances in medium dark flesh:
New appearances in medium azure:
New appearances in coral:
New appearances in trans-neon orange:
[P=35252,18]
I got tired of sorting colors, so here are the rest:
This is now in trans-neon green:
This is now in trans-light blue:
This is now in glitter trans-light blue:
This is now in trans-dark pink:
This is now in trans-orange:
This is now in metallic gold:
This is now in sand green:
This is now in violet:
This is now in yellowish green:
This is now in flat silver:
Finally, if you missed these, here are some entirely new parts:
[P=bb1115]
|
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Jan 2, 2020 18:17 | | Subject: | Re: Part Variants | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Suggestions, StormChaser writes:
| | In Suggestions, Admin_Russell writes:
Could you explain this term in more detail? I'm genuinely not sure what
it means. I've gone back through and reread all the forum posts where it
is used and I'm still not sure of the definition.
|
If an entry with 400 lots is split into two entries, you may see 250 listings
go to one variant and 300 go to another. That would mean that effectively 150
of those lots were also split.
What this means for the buyer is that they now only have 250 or 300 lots to
choose from, not 400. This may not seem like a big deal, but when you narrow
their options down to domestic shipping, and add the complexity of finding a
few dozen other parts from their wanted list in the same store, it becomes a
significant issue, and it could cost them more in shipping charges and higher
part prices.
Looking at it another way, if you have 5000 parts listed in various lots under
an entry, and the entry is split, 2000 may go to one variant and 3000 would then
go to the other.
And in both these examples, if there is an undetermined entry that needs to be
retired, that splits things in three ways instead of two, at least for a year
or so.
Listing strength is one of the advantages that BrickLink has over its competition.
If you look at any given part, there is a greater quantity available from more
sources than on any other site.
Of course, listing strength isn't a big deal if you are only out to buy one
or two parts. But for most of our users, getting the most parts from the fewest
number of sources is likely one of the biggest challenges they face when dealing
with the constraints of thier building budget.
| | | | the fewest possible entries
|
| | eliminate some variants that don't really need to be distinguished by the majority
of buyers and sellers.
|
Fair enough. I always thought there must be some way to structure the catalog/site
so that all variants could be distinguished without affecting commercial interests.
I still feel like that would be the best possible outcome. It would allow the
site to serve all users equally.
But I understand that some variants really are unimportant and I see the chaos
that variants have on inventories. And I haven't heard anyone propose a
solution that would work well. I'm not sure that one exists.
But if we are going to make a distinction (and the site already does) between
important and unimportant variants, it would probably be helpful to clearly define
that distinction in writing so that everyone knows where the line is drawn.
|
Absolutely. Nothing like this will be done behind closed doors.
| | | | give a fixed, reasonable length of time for sellers to
deal with undetermined entries in their stores, instead of waiting until all
items have sold out.
|
Yeah, maintaining hundreds of Marked for Deletion items for years is not the
best policy.
|
Leniency on sellers in this respect was done to appease folks who thought the
catalog was going too far in the direction of the collectors and specialists.
But I really do believe if we can come to a compromise on this issue, sellers
will gladly relinquish their grip on those old entries.
|
For variants that share a part number and are distinguished by a suffix, it would
be possible to add a "pseudo" entry on the parts browsing page that would lead
to search results for all variants. For example, on this page:
https://www.bricklink.com/browseList.asp?itemType=P&catString=27
could be an entry for, say, "Plate, Modified 1 x 1 with Clip Vertical - All variants"
with a list of colors like the other entries. The links would lead to a wildcard
search for that part number in that color, as in:
https://www.bricklink.com/search.asp?viewFrom=sa&itemBrand=1000&colorID=9&q=4085%2A&searchSort=P&sz=25
Additionally, it would be a matter of a few minutes to add a checkbox to the
item search page at https://www.bricklink.com/searchAdvanced.asp?utm_content=subnav
that said "Show all variants" and that would append the * wildcard to the part
number entered.
These are things that could be done now, with no underlying changes to the catalog
or functionality. They would allow buyers to see all the variations in one set
of results.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Jan 1, 2020 08:44 | | Subject: | Re: minifig cty0006 inconsistency error. | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, joesecc writes:
| | Hi,
Whilst checking this minifig prior to packing it for an order. I noticed a discrepancy
with the description.
The minifig description is listed as having black sunglasses.
but the head description in its inventory states it as having Dark Blue sunglasses.
* | | 3626bpx299 Minifigure, Head Glasses with Dark Blue Sunglasses, Closed Mouth, Light Brown Sideburns and Goatee Pattern - Blocked Open Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
How does this get sorted?
Joe
|
I don't find a version of this head with black lenses in the sunglasses,
and it looks like the lenses are dark blue in the minifig photo, so I'm guessing
it's just an error in the minifig title. You can submit a change request.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 31, 2019 09:11 | | Subject: | Re: Define This Item | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Lightweight writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, jbroman writes:
| | Technically, it’s an antenna tipped with a rangefinder.
So how about we label it as just that “antenna/rangefinder”
|
Sure, sounds decent enough. I'll submit the title change requests.
|
Also—these things should be added on the helmet for pictures one way (on left
side or right side) for consistency
|
I believe they are pictured as they are shown assembled in the instructions.
So if Lego is inconsistent, that will be reflected in the BL catalog.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 27, 2019 05:44 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | Minifig inventories support assembled part entries. Every hips/legs combo and
torso/arms torso, for example. It's not a functionality issue.
|
I am aware that figure inventories may contain assemblies. I was speaking about
the functionality of inventories when they interact with other features like
wanted lists and set part-outs. There was a good explanation of this posted
some time ago in the forum, but I cannot now locate it.
|
Every minifig (that is, every minifig of the classic form) already has assemblies
in its inventory and they interact fine with the part out and want list functions.
The net effect of making the changes would be to remove one single part entry
(the head) and include it with an assembly. It would not affect functionality
at all.
And if it does, then is a rule that breaks the site functionality a good rule?
Because there is no doubt the rules apply here.
| |
| | At any rate, I wonder what would/will happen should we start applying the rules
to minifig inventories.
|
Nothing would happen because figure inventories would not change. What would
change is how sets are inventoried. Figure parts would be included in the set
inventory and figures themselves would be essentially counterparts like all other
assemblies.
|
I'm suggesting that if the current policy of inventorying everything that
can be inventoried as it was packaged, then some minifig inventories should be
changed to reflect the way they were packaged. The head and torso assembly entries
would be replaced by a new part assembly with the head, torso, arms and hands
assembled as they came in the box.
That's if we were following the rules as they stand now. But we aren't.
I understand this may simply be because nobody has proposed the changes yet.
Or it may be for the reasons I suspect, which is that a decision was made at
some point not to. I think that's what the "display only" exception may have
been intended to forestall, but it does not apply.
But you understand I am arguing against the rules as they stand now, and
I am using this as an illustration of how the rules may be creating unintended
exceptions needlessly. If it were my catalog, then you are correct - figure parts
would be separate in the inventories and the figures could be counterparts, no
different than others. They could still be bought and sold as single units and
have their own names and section of the catalog.
Which would also get rid of that little bit of mental math one has to do if one
is concerned with reconciling the BL part count with the Lego part count by parting
out the minifigs. Since you and others like to use this as a kind of checksum
to verify the accuracy of the inventory, I'd think the idea would have some
support.
| |
| | I suspect if we
start changing minifig inventories people will squawk.
|
I confess that I have never heard a human squawk. I would be interested in experiencing
this sonic delight.
Figure inventories are very rarely changed for a number of reasons. Those reasons
don't derive much from the noises people utter, but instead the reasons they
produce those sounds. If a figure inventory needs to be changed, the standard
practice is to mark that catalog entry for deletion and create a new catalog
entry which is given a correct inventory.
| | That may be the reason
it has not been tackled yet, or why an exception is being made.
|
No, I don't think so. There was a great fear in the past of disturbing the
masses, which is one of the reasons why known catalog/inventory problems were
not addressed. I believe the philosophy is somewhat different now, or is at
least changing as time goes by.
|
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 26, 2019 21:52 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | If we're in the business of applying current policies retroactively to old
sets, someone should start fixing these minifig inventories.
|
Right now nearly all inventories are incorrect when it comes to figures. The
figures should be reflected in inventories as they came. However, they are not
shown that way currently because of a lack of functionality in the inventories
system.
Again, I believe that additional inventory functionality would solve some things.
I'm willing to admit the possibility that I'm wrong, though.
|
Minifig inventories support assembled part entries. Every hips/legs combo and
torso/arms torso, for example. It's not a functionality issue.
|
At any rate, I wonder what would/will happen should we start applying the rules
to minifig inventories. It doesn't surprise me that nobody else is too riled
up about 1x1 round plates or assembled windows and frames, but I suspect if we
start changing minifig inventories people will squawk. That may be the reason
it has not been tackled yet, or why an exception is being made.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 26, 2019 20:02 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | If we're in the business of applying current policies retroactively to old
sets, someone should start fixing these minifig inventories.
|
Right now nearly all inventories are incorrect when it comes to figures. The
figures should be reflected in inventories as they came. However, they are not
shown that way currently because of a lack of functionality in the inventories
system.
Again, I believe that additional inventory functionality would solve some things.
I'm willing to admit the possibility that I'm wrong, though.
|
Minifig inventories support assembled part entries. Every hips/legs combo and
torso/arms torso, for example. It's not a functionality issue.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 26, 2019 19:54 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | I would still like to know how you are defining the "site's preference."
|
It means "what the administration determines is in the best commercial interests
of the site."
| | And I know I won't shut up about it, but it seems to me that any talk of
putting assemblies together to "improve the site's usefulness" goes right
out the window when you look at this part:
[p=4073c01]
Run this part through the series of questions you pose in favor of keeping the
airplane wheel assemblies together.
Does taking them apart damage them? No.
Are they often found assembled in used lots? No.
Is it how sellers prefer to sell them? No.
Does separating them move them to different parts of the inventory list? No.
Do they align with parts lists and instructions? No.
Do they align with "official" part counts? No.
So why are they put together in the inventories?
|
Those are sprues, not assemblies. Different category, different rules. These
are added as complete sprues because they were the lone exception to the rule.
All other sprues are treated in the same manner, which is also how stickers are
handled.
But of course, you already know this, because you have in the past participated
in several threads where the reason for this was expounded in great detail.
[p=3742c01]
| | Worse than inconsistency in the catalog inventories and entries is inconsistency
in applying an organizational principle. The 4073c01 being listed in inventories,
in my opinion, is completely ridiculous. It completely abandons what I think
is the obvious intention of the toy.
I just cannot believe that usefulness is currently a guiding principal. If putting
the assembly in the regular section means it is the "site's preference" that
the assembly be bought and sold that way, then "the site" is encouraging us to
sell this useless part?
|
Absolutely. Many collectors do not see a sprued part as useless. It adds value
to the used set if it kept intact, or if part of the sprue is kept with the set.
We want all users (both buyers and sellers) to know that these parts originally
came on a sprue in these sets, and we want to create a good market for the special
unseparated sprue part for sellers that have them. If the whole sprue isn't
in the inventory, the catalog entry is orphaned.
Whereas, the individual 4073 parts are NOT orphaned. They are inventoried in
the 4073c01 part and have complete color, set, and year information in the catalog.
Another thing that has not been brought up (recently, at least) is that the sprued
version of 4073 has the sprue mark on the side, and the LEGO logo is perfect
on these parts, unmarred by a top sprue mark like modern 4073s are.
|
Putting sprue parts in the counterparts would attach them to that set inventory.
They would not be orphaned. So that is not a valid reason.
And if the pip location is important enough to justify a separate entry we need
a lot more variant entries in the catalog to encourage that market.
No, despite all the supposed explanations, I am no more clear on the reason behind
this part being in the regular inventory than before. Or rather, despite all
the explanations, it seems confirmed to me that the only reason is a foolish
consistency that treats Lego as the source of canon law whenever possible.
|
I personally prefer to see the inventory of a set in its initial state, so seeing
sprues, pre-assemblies,...and I think I am not alone, but I would also love to
have the option to see it after the set is built. (no sprues, stickers applied,...)
Hopefully we can have both soon, everybody happy.
It is interesting that TLG also gave some credits to sprues. Not only it appears
on the printed partlist on the box of some sets, I have one example where it
appears in the instructions: iconic set
|
An interesting example, as this is from the era when minifigs were packaged with
the heads and torso assemblies assembled. These partial assemblies were sometimes
pictured assembled on parts lists on the box, appeared assembled in instructions
(as in the page you show) and were counted as a single piece in the part count
on the box.
Yet they are not cataloged or inventoried as single parts. According to the written
policies on regular items, they should be. It is probably just one of those unwritten
exceptions that are the result of overwrought rule-making. It is not the "display
purpose" exception. The display sections usually also had the hat or helmet in
the assembly. The head/torso assemblies were in the bags with other parts, and
also in sets that did not have display boxes.
If we're in the business of applying current policies retroactively to old
sets, someone should start fixing these minifig inventories.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 26, 2019 18:24 | | Subject: | Re: 4085a light gray 2 types? | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
| In Colors, sf_bricks writes:
| | Hi,
i have many grey 4085a parts. Normally the only gray what is existing is light
gray. But some parts are a litte bit darker??
down is the "normal" light gray. On the top is a light bluish gray of part 4085d.
But what is this in the middle??
|
This is a known variation in color for this part. Lego experimented with different
designs and materials for this piece, which is prone to breaking. The darker
version is not ABS plastic, but I believe is made of the nylon plastic used for
other "soft" parts of the era, such as axles and minifig airtanks. The color
is darker and more bluish, but somewhere between the light gray and light bluish
gray.
I usually list these for sale separately and put a description in the notes that
they are the darker variation. Some people are looking for them to match older
sets.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 26, 2019 11:29 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | I would still like to know how you are defining the "site's preference."
|
It means "what the administration determines is in the best commercial interests
of the site."
| | And I know I won't shut up about it, but it seems to me that any talk of
putting assemblies together to "improve the site's usefulness" goes right
out the window when you look at this part:
[p=4073c01]
Run this part through the series of questions you pose in favor of keeping the
airplane wheel assemblies together.
Does taking them apart damage them? No.
Are they often found assembled in used lots? No.
Is it how sellers prefer to sell them? No.
Does separating them move them to different parts of the inventory list? No.
Do they align with parts lists and instructions? No.
Do they align with "official" part counts? No.
So why are they put together in the inventories?
|
Those are sprues, not assemblies. Different category, different rules. These
are added as complete sprues because they were the lone exception to the rule.
All other sprues are treated in the same manner, which is also how stickers are
handled.
But of course, you already know this, because you have in the past participated
in several threads where the reason for this was expounded in great detail.
[p=3742c01]
| | Worse than inconsistency in the catalog inventories and entries is inconsistency
in applying an organizational principle. The 4073c01 being listed in inventories,
in my opinion, is completely ridiculous. It completely abandons what I think
is the obvious intention of the toy.
I just cannot believe that usefulness is currently a guiding principal. If putting
the assembly in the regular section means it is the "site's preference" that
the assembly be bought and sold that way, then "the site" is encouraging us to
sell this useless part?
|
Absolutely. Many collectors do not see a sprued part as useless. It adds value
to the used set if it kept intact, or if part of the sprue is kept with the set.
We want all users (both buyers and sellers) to know that these parts originally
came on a sprue in these sets, and we want to create a good market for the special
unseparated sprue part for sellers that have them. If the whole sprue isn't
in the inventory, the catalog entry is orphaned.
Whereas, the individual 4073 parts are NOT orphaned. They are inventoried in
the 4073c01 part and have complete color, set, and year information in the catalog.
Another thing that has not been brought up (recently, at least) is that the sprued
version of 4073 has the sprue mark on the side, and the LEGO logo is perfect
on these parts, unmarred by a top sprue mark like modern 4073s are.
|
Putting sprue parts in the counterparts would attach them to that set inventory.
They would not be orphaned. So that is not a valid reason.
And if the pip location is important enough to justify a separate entry we need
a lot more variant entries in the catalog to encourage that market.
No, despite all the supposed explanations, I am no more clear on the reason behind
this part being in the regular inventory than before. Or rather, despite all
the explanations, it seems confirmed to me that the only reason is a foolish
consistency that treats Lego as the source of canon law whenever possible.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 26, 2019 09:25 | | Subject: | Re: BRICKS & PIECES availability and price | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, Tholwin writes:
| | Hello,
While I favor buying other people's unwanted pieces, I always check the price
of each piece on "BRICKS & PIECES" (Lego website), in an attempt to avoid buying
on bricklink pieces I could get cheaper and brand new from Lego.
This is the reason why I would love to see in bricklink if pieces are available
on "BRICKS & PIECES", and at which price, without having to search.
Best regards
|
I don't sell new parts, so I have no dog in this race, but it does make me
imagine what might happen if Lego put links to the BL listings from the Bricks
and Pieces site.
This is what Amazon did when they bought and then integrated Bibliofind, a used
book site. That is when they started offering items from independent sellers
alongside the ones being sold directly by Amazon.
Lego's customer support has already been sending people to Bricklink for
years to find parts they no longer offer themselves. What if they started linking
directly to them from the Lego site?
I might be able to predict what could happen - the same thing that happened when
Amazon did it. For a while, individual used book sellers made good money. The
added exposure resulted in lots of sales. A brand new book with a sticker price
at $25 was being sold by Amazon for $20, and booksellers could list (and sell)
a used copy for $15.
But then market forces rolled up. People realized that by increasing efficiency
and accepting tiny margins, you could commodify used books. They bought them
up in large remainder lots and from the stock of stores that were closing, set
up software that let them easily scan the barcode and manage large inventories
of stock, and bots that would scrape price information and automatically set
and adjust prices. That $15 used book was now being sold for 99 cents (the minimum
price Amazon allowed at the time). They were making mere pennies per sale, but
they were making thousands of sales every day.
I don't think we have much to fear by pointing Bricklink buyers to Lego,
but I fear what might happen if Lego started pointing people here.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 26, 2019 08:27 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | But why do we feel the need to make a guess when we already know something for
certain?
The individual parts are known to be in the set. Although it is likely, it is
not known for certain that they came assembled. So this change is proposing we
replace something known with something unknown. How is that an improvement? The
current information is not wrong, it just may not conform to the recent change
in inventory policy.
I don't like that policy, as I have said before, so I imagine my question
will be taken as opposition. But I really just want us to be asking the question
of whether we are making changes to actually improve the usefulness of the catalog,
or are we just making changes for the sake of making changes.
|
These changes are designed to improve the usefulness - especially the commercial
usefulness - of the catalog. If they weren't, I wouldn't allow them to
happen.
Regarding pre-assembled parts, including this one:
* | | 8c01 (Inv) Plate, Modified 2 x 2 with Wheel Holder Bottom with Red Wheel with Black Tire 14mm D. x 4mm Smooth Small Single (8 / 3464c01)
Parts: Aircraft {Blue} |
...by placing these in the Regular section of the inventory, the site is encouraging
sellers and buyers to use this entry. It is the site's preference that these
be sold together.
Why? There are many reasons, and I have outlined them in detail if you wish to
read what I wrote on this subject. The new Dropbox links are added further down
in the thread:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1027443
Referring to what you said in another recent post about granularity - yes, there
are merits to reducing everything down to the subparts, because you will typically
have less selling units to deal with and therefore greater listing strength.
Also, in Dan's situation, he was trying to get as many one-to-one connections
with Peeron, and that's how they handled things.
|
I'm curious what you mean by the "site's preference." Do you mean you?
The current part and inventory admins? Consensus of all the users? Aggregated
market data?
|
I would still like to know how you are defining the "site's preference."
And I know I won't shut up about it, but it seems to me that any talk of
putting assemblies together to "improve the site's usefulness" goes right
out the window when you look at this part:
[p=4073c01]
Run this part through the series of questions you pose in favor of keeping the
airplane wheel assemblies together.
Does taking them apart damage them? No.
Are they often found assembled in used lots? No.
Is it how sellers prefer to sell them? No.
Does separating them move them to different parts of the inventory list? No.
Do they align with parts lists and instructions? No.
Do they align with "official" part counts? No.
So why are they put together in the inventories?
Worse than inconsistency in the catalog inventories and entries is inconsistency
in applying an organizational principle. The 4073c01 being listed in inventories,
in my opinion, is completely ridiculous. It completely abandons what I think
is the obvious intention of the toy.
I just cannot believe that usefulness is currently a guiding principal. If putting
the assembly in the regular section means it is the "site's preference" that
the assembly be bought and sold that way, then "the site" is encouraging us to
sell this useless part?
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2019 08:24 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
Since you and Russell raised the same points, I replied once under Russell's
post
...
| |
And how, precisely, could I look at a 150 piece set with the current inventory
system, see that the box count was 89 pieces, and have any way of judging the
accuracy of the inventory? Please explain how the current inventory system functions
well enough to solve that issue.
|
How do you know what is meant by "89 pieces?" It means something different today
than it did ten years ago. And ten years ago it meant something different that
it did 30 years ago. And for much of Lego's history, for much of the world,
there was no "89 pieces" printed anywhere on the box or in catalogs.
For that matter, when Lego tells you a part is "brick yellow" and Bricklink tells
you it's "tan," how can you be sure it's accurate?
Bricklink was built by fans, not by Lego. We depart from Lego's "official"
information in many ways. It should not scare us to do the same with inventories.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2019 08:09 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | Instead, we should look for the simplest possible rule, which is to stick to
the basic elements. Those will not change, they will only increase in number.
We would not need to add any functionality to the present catalog to do this,
we would just have to abandon this fruitless path. All of the information
that is desired - how a set was packaged and all of the individual elements in
it - could be included in set inventories today even with the current site design.
The reason it is not is because the policies currently in place are preventing
it, and the philosophy is to follow the pole star of Lego's shifting practices
rather than the practices of the users of Bricklink.
|
I have rewritten that last sentence for you:
"...the philosophy is to follow the pole star of the LEGO Group's practices
(which seldom ever shift) rather than the personal listing whims of Bricklink
sellers."
|
I disagree. There are numerous examples, and neither you nor I can see the future.
Those little pre-packaged accessory packs are a fairly recent example how Lego
changed its production process
| |
I am wondering now whether you read my "reasons.pdf" document I referred to earlier.
In that document, I argue both sides. I have copied this section below:
Reasons to keep separate:
As an organizational principle, every assembly should be reduced to its basic
elements.
I honestly think if this theory had been practical, it would have
been implemented throughout the inventory system long ago. But the fact is,
it’s not practical, and even a cursory observation will show that we are dealing
with a continuum on BL, not an absolute one way or the other.
For example, to really get down to basic elements, the axles in the early small
wheel assemblies should be listed separately. Yes, the early types did come apart
easily before Lego added little loops to hold the axles in place. And the wheels
DO come off the axles with a little work. So why weren’t these changed along
with removing tires from all the wheels?
And the motorcycles from the eighties are currently not listed separately. Why?
Because this would be pedantic and impractical. They never came disassembled
to begin with, and most buyers and sellers wish to only deal with the *whole*
assembly.
Motors are not broken apart into screws and casings, minifig arms are not
separated from the torso, hinges are not dismantled, nor are winches, claws,
or electrical cables. It’s just the practical thing to do to leave things in
their normal, intended state.
But small wheels [today read: elementary window parts] have somehow been made
an exception of.
|
Lego is a system of parts that are designed to be interchangeable and interlocking
with each other. (How's that for pedantic?)
Describing that system should be our pole star. If it were, then there would
be a bright line on the continuum you describe - are the parts connected using
a "system" connection? Then they should be broken out.
Yes, that would mean motorcycle chassis and wheels (and tires) separately, with
the complete assembly in the counterparts.
I don't understand the shock that seems to cause in people. I think, based
on Rob's comment in his response, it may stem from the desire to have the
part count number on the BL inventory match the one Lego sometimes puts on the
box. But if the parts themselves are our focus, we should stop worrying about
that.
The definition of a "system" connection is all we need to worry about, then.
This is mostly obvious - a screw in a motor casing is not a Lego system connection,
so those parts are not broken out. I think the only refinement needed would be
to include connections that are unique to one particular part form - such as
minifig arms and legs.
The intended use of Lego parts is that they be assembled and reassembled using
a system of interlocking connections. The motorcycle is packaged as one possible
configuration for that particular set, but you can swap the red wheels for clear
ones, the tread tires for smooth ones, or take the wheels off and make a hoverbike.
You can also take the wheels off and attach them to a different type of piece
(the 2x2 plate, a Fabuland trailer). Yes, you can remove a minifig arm from a
torso, but then what else can you attach it to? Only another torso. They are
technically interchangeable with one another, but the type of connection is unique
and not integrated in the system.
So the inventories should reduce assemblies to the point where the parts are
usable within the system. That means taking the 1x1 plates off the sprues and
opening the tool accessory bags. It does not mean prying apart minifig torsos.
The corollary to when to break things down is when to enter them as counterpart
assemblies. Parts that came assembled or attached in the box, but that have
system components which are broken out in the inventory, should be counterpart
assemblies. So should assemblies that are created during the building of the
set which use non-system connections - like stickers on tiles.
It really does not need to be any more complex.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2019 22:10 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | Opposite to my philosophy is the idea that the data has to be wrangled and defined and rules have to be written and rewritten and exceptions considered and so on and so on.
|
I struggle to imagine that philosophy in practice.
Without rules, literally anything could be added to the catalog. So we have
a first rule: only LEGO products. Already that is against the philosophy.
Then there is a second rule: no random assemblies of parts. Without that rule,
the catalog would expand as close to infinity as several hundred thousand people
could accomplish until space ran out. So we have two necessary rules now and
the philosophy is weakened further.
I won't continue on, but I trust you get the point. Rules are necessary.
Where rules exist, there is always disagreement about them. All of this is
natural and inevitable regardless of what activity humans undertake together.
There is such a thing as too many rules and it seems you feel like that's
where we are now. But don't forget what we had just a few years ago: poorly-written
rules and unwritten rules that were enforced seemingly at random, resulting in
widespread inconsistency.
You may not be troubled by inconsistencies (except that I know you are), but
they make things confusing for everyone involved. Widespread inconsistencies
are not a desirable end result of cataloging 100K items and the only way to avoid
them is with rules.
Without written rules, it's all just the preference of whomever is doing
the approving. With written rules, you know. Written rules can be discussed,
debated, and changed as necessary, whereas unwritten rules can't. And we
know that no rules at all is simply anarchy.
Like I said, I struggle to imagine that rule-free philosophy in practice.
|
I'm not calling for anarchy. I'm not even calling for fewer rules. I
am calling for simpler rules that do not include or exclude information
based on shifting criteria (such as the way Lego chooses to package or count
its parts).
The individual pieces are the elements of the Lego system. They are the atoms.
These are what the catalog should be built on, and if that were Rule #1, so many
other things would fall into place.
If that were rule #1, then a set inventory would be defined by the elements included
in it. If, either in the course of assembling the set or already in the package,
some of those elements are combined to create stable molecules (like two halves
of a hinge, a door in a frame, a sticker on a tile) that information can also
be included in a separate section (counterparts) and also given its own entry
so it can be bought and sold as a molecule. What constitutes a stable molecule
is rule #2 - two or more parts designed to be used together as a single
unit. Simple.
Now we have a set of rules (and exceptions) that say some molecules are treated
like molecules sometimes and atoms at other times, depending on how Lego treated
them. And those who realize that this creates confusion and inconsistency are
calling for even more complicated rules and more complicated ways to define when
a molecule is or is not a molecule. It just does not need to be that way at all.
Instead, we should look for the simplest possible rule, which is to stick to
the basic elements. Those will not change, they will only increase in number.
We would not need to add any functionality to the present catalog to do this,
we would just have to abandon this fruitless path. All of the information
that is desired - how a set was packaged and all of the individual elements in
it - could be included in set inventories today even with the current site design.
The reason it is not is because the policies currently in place are preventing
it, and the philosophy is to follow the pole star of Lego's shifting practices
rather than the practices of the users of Bricklink.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2019 18:46 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | But why do we feel the need to make a guess when we already know something for
certain?
The individual parts are known to be in the set. Although it is likely, it is
not known for certain that they came assembled. So this change is proposing we
replace something known with something unknown. How is that an improvement? The
current information is not wrong, it just may not conform to the recent change
in inventory policy.
I don't like that policy, as I have said before, so I imagine my question
will be taken as opposition. But I really just want us to be asking the question
of whether we are making changes to actually improve the usefulness of the catalog,
or are we just making changes for the sake of making changes.
|
These changes are designed to improve the usefulness - especially the commercial
usefulness - of the catalog. If they weren't, I wouldn't allow them to
happen.
Regarding pre-assembled parts, including this one:
* | | 8c01 (Inv) Plate, Modified 2 x 2 with Wheel Holder Bottom with Red Wheel with Black Tire 14mm D. x 4mm Smooth Small Single (8 / 3464c01)
Parts: Aircraft {Blue} |
...by placing these in the Regular section of the inventory, the site is encouraging
sellers and buyers to use this entry. It is the site's preference that these
be sold together.
Why? There are many reasons, and I have outlined them in detail if you wish to
read what I wrote on this subject. The new Dropbox links are added further down
in the thread:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1027443
Referring to what you said in another recent post about granularity - yes, there
are merits to reducing everything down to the subparts, because you will typically
have less selling units to deal with and therefore greater listing strength.
Also, in Dan's situation, he was trying to get as many one-to-one connections
with Peeron, and that's how they handled things.
|
I'm curious what you mean by the "site's preference." Do you mean you?
The current part and inventory admins? Consensus of all the users? Aggregated
market data?
I have a feeling this is where my philosophy departs. I think if you give the
users all the data, the actual, real preferences will emerge. Opposite to my
philosophy is the idea that the data has to be wrangled and defined and rules
have to be written and rewritten and exceptions considered and so on and so on.
There is a very small subset of people who enjoy that kind of discussion, and
they are having an outsize effect on the catalog that is frequently disconnected
with actual established practice.
Deleting individual parts in inventories and replacing them with assemblies is
a prime example of this philosophy which seems to think that we should not be
shown all the data. Whenever you hear an admin talking about "clutter," you can
be sure they are of the school that thinks too much information is bad for us.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2019 08:02 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
...
| |
If things go in the best possible direction, as I sincerely hope they will, then
you will be able to click a button and see inventories however you want. That's
what we need and what I'm hoping to see. Instead of carrying on the forlorn
fight against the direction things have been going for years, perhaps you will
join me in my call to the new owners for additional site functionality that will
make the site truly serve all users equally.
|
I'm all in favor of additional functionality, but changes like this one I
do not think are in aid of that goal.
Let's imagine we can add the option for a user to view an inventory in their
choice of two ways, either "as packaged" (with pre-assembled parts appearing
as single parts, etc.) or as a list of all the individual parts. Then the inventory
will need to support the finest granularity of data, which is the individual
part list.
That level of granularity is now present in the 1881 inventory for the door/doorframe
assembly (but not for the windows, currently) as the parts are displayed both
as individual pieces (in the regular section) and as the assembly that (probably)
came in the package (as a counterpart).
However this proposed change removes that extra information that would be needed
to support the kind of functionality we are wishing for. It deletes the entries
for the individual parts and replaces them with an assembly. If the day comes
that we have the kind of functionality you imagine, this change will have to
be undone. Someone will have to go through and "part out" all the assemblies
so that those who wish can see them listed individually.
The same is true of the 1x1 round plates on a sprue and the pre-packaged accessory
sets. If we want to build a truly powerful database, then we need to be thinking
of something like a periodic table of elements. Then the user can choose to view
the data in any way he wants.
We perhaps have an example in front of us: the Stud.io parts menu. It is grouped
along the BL catalog, but it can be searched and organized into folders by the
user. You can view the contents of a set by importing it.
With future functionality in mind, we should be working toward increasing the
granularity of the data rather than decreasing it. We currently have the capability
to put individual parts in the regular section and assemblies in the counterparts,
but we do not have the converse capability - to display the assembly in the regular
section and the individual parts in a separate section.
So given the current constraints of the catalog, and assuming that we want to
move in the direction of more functionality and not less, the prudent thing to
do would be to put individual parts in the regular section and the assemblies
in the counterparts so we preserve the greatest granularity of data. By not doing
so, we are only creating work that will have to be undone in the future, and
that causes inconsistency and loss of clarity in the present.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2019 01:20 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | What evidence is there that the doors and windows came assembled in the package?
|
Or, to answer your question in a different way: what evidence is there that the
part shown below came preassembled in the set shown below?
If we can't see the set contents, then there is no evidence at all. However,
we do know that that part stopped coming preassembled in sets around 2006-2007.
Ever since then it has come in two pieces in every set for which it's been
included.
So the sensible approach when having no sealed contents would be to inventory
the part as two pieces in the set shown. And that's exactly where we are
with older inventories. We imagine that we have some knowledge because an inventory
exists and thus we don't want to change what we have already.
But the truth is that we should look at things exactly as we do in the example
above. Given no real knowledge of what is inside the box, what is the best guess
we can make? For set 1881, the smart money is on assembled doors and windows.
And also keep in mind that Dan altered some inventories from their original content
to align with his minimalist approach. For better or worse, that minimalist
approach has been shifting for years now to an approach where inventories reflect
the contents of a new set as closely as possible.
Having said all that, I don't support such arguments for part variants, or
at least not to the same extent. This approach is taken with variants, too,
and I've done it, but I really believe those kinds of requests should be
supported more firmly by evidence.
|
But why do we feel the need to make a guess when we already know something for
certain?
The individual parts are known to be in the set. Although it is likely, it is
not known for certain that they came assembled. So this change is proposing we
replace something known with something unknown. How is that an improvement? The
current information is not wrong, it just may not conform to the recent change
in inventory policy.
I don't like that policy, as I have said before, so I imagine my question
will be taken as opposition. But I really just want us to be asking the question
of whether we are making changes to actually improve the usefulness of the catalog,
or are we just making changes for the sake of making changes.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 22, 2019 23:00 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 4130 Red Door Frame 2 x 4 x 5
* Delete 1 Part 4131 Yellow Door 1 x 4 x 5
* Add 2 Part 4132c02 Red Window 2 x 4 x 3 Frame with Yellow Window 2 x 4 x 3 Pane (4132 / 4133)
* Delete 2 Part 4133 Yellow Window 2 x 4 x 3 Pane
* Delete 2 Part 4132 Red Window 2 x 4 x 3 Frame
* Delete 2 Part 4180c02 Black Brick, Modified 2 x 4 with Wheels, FreeStyle Red
* Delete 4 Part 3483 Black Tire 24mm D. x 8mm Offset Tread
* Add 1 Part 4180c02assy1 Black Brick, Modified 2 x 4 with Wheels, FreeStyle Red with Black Tires 24mm D. x 8mm Offset Tread (4180c02 / 3483)
* Change 1 Part Red 4130c03 Door Frame 2 x 4 x 5 with Yellow Door 1 x 4 x 5 (4130 / 4131) {Counterpart to Regular}
Comments from Submitter:
Changes will adjust part count to 281 parts, or one more than the 280 parts printed on set box. This is due to the brick separator being included, but not counted. Common for early '90s sets. The photos I'm about to add are not spectacular, but will suffice.
|
What evidence is there that the doors and windows came assembled in the package?
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 17, 2019 19:01 | | Subject: | Re: Item Consists Of 122 Parts | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Inventories, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
Good catch. They are present, but for some reason they are listed in the "extras"
section and so are not being included in the regular inventory.
Error when submitting the inventory maybe?
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
