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?
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 18:13 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, yorbrick writes:
| | If a minifigure comes in three sets and in one he is pictured without an accessory,
then he is holding accessory A in another set, and B in the third set, then that
is three different minifigures.
|
I confess that you have taken a significant portion of the wind right out of
my sails. This is a good point that has come up before, but which I had forgotten
until you mentioned it.
This fellow appears in 15 sets and has a different accessory in about two thirds
of them:
I guess that leaves us with the minimalist approach, which I don't think
anyone will go for.
Which really leaves us carrying on with the current task of trying to decide
if a round 1 x 1 plate on the floor should be included in an inventory or not.
That, of course, comes down to the whims of the people deciding. Perhaps in
the end it's the best that we as a community can do.
| | Some buyers will complain that BL/LEGO are just increasing the number of figures for collectors to need to collect without the minfiigures actually being different.
|
Which would be a fair compliant. Perhaps someone wiser than I can figure out
a clear, simple, consistent solution to figure inventories. 
|
It seems to be a somewhat self-imposed problem because of the hard-coded limitations
placed on minifig inventories that does not allow for additional part types within
the inventory.
Imagine a system that pared minifigs down to the basic four parts (legs, torso,
head, hair/hat/helmet) and then had a category in its inventory for everything
else (skis, hand thrusters, swords, backpacks, capes). Like a set, they could
be listed, bought and sold with or without the "extras."
Because this may be what is already happening. Just to grab an example:
Looking at the current listings, close to 20% of the new figures include the
hand thrusters which are not in the inventory because the BL rule excludes them.
And about 6% of the used listings are missing pieces that are in the inventory.
(This is just the listings - it would be more instructive to look at the actual
sales to see if buyers prefer to buy figures with the hand thrusters.)
Rather than trying to create ever-more complicated rules, we should look at the
problem from the angle of the user - what people are actually doing is a good
indication of what they want.
It's snowing where I live. City planners will sometimes go out after a snowfall
and look at the paths pedestrians create through the snow. These paths often
do not follow the paved paths that have been laid out by the planners. They reveal
what the actual users prefer to do. When you can see that most people cut across
the corner of the block because it's the shortest path between the coffee
shop and the subway station, you can better plan your city
This is another catalog discussion taking place from the point of view of city
planners sitting at a computer and writing rules instead of looking at the actual
paths in the snow.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 15, 2019 14:04 | | Subject: | Re: Who now “owns” copyright? | | Viewed: | 131 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Thunor writes:
| | @Admin Russell
This has probably been around before, my apologies!
Within international copyright law, i believe it states that copyright is automatically
vested in the creator. Unless rights are assigned (and/or reassigned) by contract.
Images supplied to BrickLink should be the property of the creator, however if
memory serves, BrickLink claimed copyright when BrickOwl emerged back in 2013.
Was copyright truly, legally transferred?
If so does LEGO group now own (or claim to own) said copyright?
OR do the individual creators of images still own Copyright?
Just curious, mostly interested in the images of minifigures being used and the
ability to use on eBay, individual stores own websites etc.
Thanks.
|
You always own copyright of your own original content unless it's a work
for hire or you actually transfer ownership to someone else.
Bricklink's terms do not transfer ownership to Bricklink when you upload
content. You are just agreeing to give Bricklink license to use your content
- forever.
It's all spelled out in the terms of use. Just don't confuse ownership
with license.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 12, 2019 22:07 | | Subject: | Re: Add Search Options to Advanced Catalog Search | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, StormChaser writes:
| | I need the ability to select from the following unavailable options as checkboxes
on the Advanced Catalog Search page:
Items Inventoried as Regular
Items Inventoried as Counterpart
Items Inventoried as Extra
Items Inventoried as Alternate
Thank you.
|
How would you use these features? Do you want to see a list of all items that
appear as, say, extras? Or do you want to take a specific part and find all the
sets in which it appears as an extra?
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 12, 2019 21:10 | | Subject: | Re: Add An Area for Catalog Scans | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, StormChaser writes:
| | I suggest that BrickLink add an area to the site for scans of printed catalogs.
There are other fan sites that already do this, but the results vary. This
would be a useful feature that would compliment the BrickLink catalog, enable
more effective catalog/inventory work, and draw more visitors to the site. Plus,
there would never be questions about copyright because TLG is publishing the
data themselves.
If this was done, I would add scans of my extensive Dacta/Education catalog collection.
Nearly all of the catalogs in my collection would only be available as scans
on BrickLink.
Thanks for considering it.
|
Great idea. It would be even better if they could be transcribed and made searchable.
Or even a list attached with the sets that appear in it.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 10, 2019 10:02 | | Subject: | Re: Parts Category Tree | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | I've been pondering the category trees. When you click on Parts from the
main catalog page you get hit with 230 categories. It's hard to justify
adding further categories, even though needed for some existing categories, because
there are already too many.
I've also been thinking about simple fixes that maintain the BrickLink look
and feel and imagined what it might be like with some submenus (the large image
below with the selections shrunk from 230 to only 85). The little plus signs
might not be the best way to do this - they just indicate for the purposes of
discussion that this category can be expanded or leads to another menu.
I've also imagined a Themed Parts menu and a Minifigure Items menu (those
menus happen when you select those options from the main menu) and added those
images.
Of course, I would always want to be able to see the entire category tree by
default if I chose that option.
Good things: you don't have so much to wade through - allows quicker selection
of exactly what you're looking for. Also, the categories within submenus
could be significantly expanded to make finding items even easier without fear
of adding to the existing mess.
Bad thing: you have to click into more menus to get where you're going.
Thoughts?
|
At a certain point - and we may be at that point now - it makes more sense to
start over rather than try to squeeze what has never been a hierarchical system
into a tree.
|
I think this is part of the cycle of this discussion: we spot imperfections,
changing them have implications, we imagine some deeper more principal changes,
realise we might as well start over, and then realise no system is perfect and
things are not all that bad the way they are..
Not saying it's necessarily a bad idea in every way.... but there's one
major drawback to starting over: By now the catalog transcends Bricklink. Some
form of it has been adopted by other websites for trading as well as for collection
organisation. And I think this is really great. People are talking about wanting
to be "independent" and fear that LEGO buying Bricklink will make them "lose
independence"... but I don't think being owned by a random billionare means
"independence" either. To me, independence means that we've created a universal
Lego vocabulary that we can use anywhere and we don't depend on any one site.
Everyone knows what a Brick,Modified or a Wedge or Slope,Curved is, or what
counts as a Hinge and what as a Plate,Modified. Isn't that great? I think
it's worth preserving and strengthening. Starting over will mean Bricklink's
taxonomy will be unique and not compatible with other sites, and one system is
already more than enough to learn. This means people will get stuck with one
site and the exchange between them will be reduced, which I think would be a
shame. We're stronger when we connect everything.
|
But Bricklink is not really connected to any other major site in that way. What
other catalogs use the category "plate, modified," or anything similar? Brickowl
(38 top-level categories) does not. Rebrickable (65 categories) does not. Brickset
uses tags based on Lego's own category system, which is very broad and has
no such category. LDraw (84 categories) does not have a similar category.
I disagree that Bricklink's category is a standard. In fact the three major
catalog sites that have appeared after Bricklink have much simpler categories.
Even LDraw, which is the Grandaddy from which Bricklink borrowed heavily in early
days, has many fewer categories.
|
I am thinking about BrickOwl, Brickscout and Rebrickable, which people also use
for buying. Are there any trading sides I'm not aware of that use a fundamentally
different catalog?
|
Brickscout is the only one that maps the BL categories closely. Rebrickable and
Brickowl do not. There is no top level "crane" category on Brickowl or Rebrickable,
for example. One has the crane bucket piece in a subset of the vehicle category
and one groups it with supports and turntables.
| |
| | I would also point out that not everyone knows what a "plate, modified" is. Or
even a "hinge." I think regular Bricklink users imagine they know what
makes a hinge a hinge, for example, but maybe they rarely see these three parts
on the same page:
* | | 4626 Vehicle, Digger Bucket 2 x 3 Curved Bottom, Hollow, with 2 Fingers Hinge
Parts: Vehicle |
* | | 51858 Crane Bucket Lift Basket 2 x 3 x 2 with Locking Hinge Fingers
Parts: Crane |
* | | 30394 Vehicle, Digger Bucket 7 Teeth 3 x 6 with Locking 2 Finger Hinge
Parts: Vehicle |
|
Of course, not in detail. But what I mean is that the general conceptual difference
between plate and hinge is understood.
| | (...) Under such a system, a part like
* | | 4276 Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 2 Fingers on End (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Hinge |
would be a "plate, hinge" not a "hinge plate."
Likewise, all the hinge bricks would move to the brick category.
|
That is exactly what I mean by the general concept, and how it would be lost
in such a system. So in your system, how do category based sellers keep on selling
across platforms? If the catalog similarities with what I am using elsewhere
are lost, I am not sure how I will continue to sell on Bricklink.
|
What is the fundamental difference between a 1x2 plate with a hinge attached
and a 1x2 plate with a clip, or a pin hole, or a bar attached? They are all 1x2
plates with an extra type of attachment. But for some reason, the hinge attachment
has been singled out and given its own category. So some are defined by their
shape (plate), some by their type of attachment (hinge), and some by the theme
(Technic). Instead, they should all be placed in a top level category by the
same criteria. That doesn't have to be shape - it could be attachment type
or dimensions or something else, but it should be something common to all parts
and consistently applied.
As for selling across platforms, I don't see how the categories make any
difference to a seller. They don't match as it is, except for brick scout.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 9, 2019 20:38 | | Subject: | Re: Parts Category Tree | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | I've been pondering the category trees. When you click on Parts from the
main catalog page you get hit with 230 categories. It's hard to justify
adding further categories, even though needed for some existing categories, because
there are already too many.
I've also been thinking about simple fixes that maintain the BrickLink look
and feel and imagined what it might be like with some submenus (the large image
below with the selections shrunk from 230 to only 85). The little plus signs
might not be the best way to do this - they just indicate for the purposes of
discussion that this category can be expanded or leads to another menu.
I've also imagined a Themed Parts menu and a Minifigure Items menu (those
menus happen when you select those options from the main menu) and added those
images.
Of course, I would always want to be able to see the entire category tree by
default if I chose that option.
Good things: you don't have so much to wade through - allows quicker selection
of exactly what you're looking for. Also, the categories within submenus
could be significantly expanded to make finding items even easier without fear
of adding to the existing mess.
Bad thing: you have to click into more menus to get where you're going.
Thoughts?
|
At a certain point - and we may be at that point now - it makes more sense to
start over rather than try to squeeze what has never been a hierarchical system
into a tree.
|
I think this is part of the cycle of this discussion: we spot imperfections,
changing them have implications, we imagine some deeper more principal changes,
realise we might as well start over, and then realise no system is perfect and
things are not all that bad the way they are..
Not saying it's necessarily a bad idea in every way.... but there's one
major drawback to starting over: By now the catalog transcends Bricklink. Some
form of it has been adopted by other websites for trading as well as for collection
organisation. And I think this is really great. People are talking about wanting
to be "independent" and fear that LEGO buying Bricklink will make them "lose
independence"... but I don't think being owned by a random billionare means
"independence" either. To me, independence means that we've created a universal
Lego vocabulary that we can use anywhere and we don't depend on any one site.
Everyone knows what a Brick,Modified or a Wedge or Slope,Curved is, or what
counts as a Hinge and what as a Plate,Modified. Isn't that great? I think
it's worth preserving and strengthening. Starting over will mean Bricklink's
taxonomy will be unique and not compatible with other sites, and one system is
already more than enough to learn. This means people will get stuck with one
site and the exchange between them will be reduced, which I think would be a
shame. We're stronger when we connect everything.
|
But Bricklink is not really connected to any other major site in that way. What
other catalogs use the category "plate, modified," or anything similar? Brickowl
(38 top-level categories) does not. Rebrickable (65 categories) does not. Brickset
uses tags based on Lego's own category system, which is very broad and has
no such category. LDraw (84 categories) does not have a similar category.
I disagree that Bricklink's category is a standard. In fact the three major
catalog sites that have appeared after Bricklink have much simpler categories.
Even LDraw, which is the Grandaddy from which Bricklink borrowed heavily in early
days, has many fewer categories.
Far from being a standard taxonomy, Bricklink's category system stands like
a clunky behemoth among the rest.
I would also point out that not everyone knows what a "plate, modified" is. Or
even a "hinge." I think regular Bricklink users imagine they know what
makes a hinge a hinge, for example, but maybe they rarely see these three parts
on the same page:
* | | 4626 Vehicle, Digger Bucket 2 x 3 Curved Bottom, Hollow, with 2 Fingers Hinge
Parts: Vehicle |
* | | 51858 Crane Bucket Lift Basket 2 x 3 x 2 with Locking Hinge Fingers
Parts: Crane |
* | | 30394 Vehicle, Digger Bucket 7 Teeth 3 x 6 with Locking 2 Finger Hinge
Parts: Vehicle |
Aside from the dimensions and specific descriptive words, these three parts have
two words in common: "bucket" and "hinge." They should be in the same category.
Why aren't they? Because Bricklink has so many categories that nobody is
clear on what they all mean.
In a better system there would have been a guiding principle that laid what it
is that defines a part. One possibility would be to use the part's shape
as the top defining characteristic, then move on to other characteristics, like
added functional elements. So you would group these items together based on their
shape. And you would include others with a similar shape, like
[p=3493]
Then from there, you could refine the category to define those with hinges. Under
such a system, a part like
* | | 4276 Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 2 Fingers on End (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Hinge |
would be a "plate, hinge" not a "hinge plate."
Likewise, all the hinge bricks would move to the brick category.
This is just one possibility, but basing categories on shapes (rather than half
a dozen unrelated characteristics) would have one simple advantage - every part
has a shape, and shapes truly are universal.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 9, 2019 16:46 | | Subject: | Re: Parts Category Tree | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | I've been pondering the category trees. When you click on Parts from the
main catalog page you get hit with 230 categories. It's hard to justify
adding further categories, even though needed for some existing categories, because
there are already too many.
I've also been thinking about simple fixes that maintain the BrickLink look
and feel and imagined what it might be like with some submenus (the large image
below with the selections shrunk from 230 to only 85). The little plus signs
might not be the best way to do this - they just indicate for the purposes of
discussion that this category can be expanded or leads to another menu.
I've also imagined a Themed Parts menu and a Minifigure Items menu (those
menus happen when you select those options from the main menu) and added those
images.
Of course, I would always want to be able to see the entire category tree by
default if I chose that option.
Good things: you don't have so much to wade through - allows quicker selection
of exactly what you're looking for. Also, the categories within submenus
could be significantly expanded to make finding items even easier without fear
of adding to the existing mess.
Bad thing: you have to click into more menus to get where you're going.
Thoughts?
|
At a certain point - and we may be at that point now - it makes more sense to
start over rather than try to squeeze what has never been a hierarchical system
into a tree. I feel the main issue is the inconsistency in how categories are
defined:
Shape - Brick, Plate, Slope, etc.
Surface appearance - All the decorated categories
Theme - Fabuland, Friends
Material - Cloth, Paper
Usage - Aircraft, Crane, Vehicle
Function - Hinge, Turntable
and so on.
It was never guided by any single, simple, defining characteristic that would
have kept it consistent. Trying to impose order on it now might reduce the "clutter"
but it won't fix the root cause of what has made it so unwieldy in the first
place.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2019 19:00 | | Subject: | Re: BL search with Goatleg fail | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, dcarmine writes:
| | I loved the Goatleg search, when it was not attached to BL.
I go to goatleg.com, pick "legs Assembly" and it takes me to BL with a frame
at the top where I can choose the colors to search. There is no box to type
"other descriptions" to help narrow the field (it used to, and it does for torsos).
This is what I get when I searched Black Hips and Black Legs. One item and it
has blue hips.
The old goatleg was soooooo much better!!!! I don't know what happened with
the integration with BL, but it is not the same. It was originally made by 62bircks.
Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong? Because there are a TON of legs Black/Black.
I blame BL. To 62bricks, I thank you for helping me with your program. I really
loved the way it worked when it was stand alone.
Donna
|
Got it - The results are not actually wrong, it's just a matter of how the
parts are named. The search looks for the hips by color code, and looks for the
legs by the title. So the search is only going to bring up leg assemblies that
have hips in black and that contain "black legs" in the item name.
As it happens, this is the only assembly in the catalog that meets both those
terms. If you look at the result, that assembly does indeed come with black hips
(as well as blue ones, which is the version in the main photo).
I'll look into adding a keyword search back into the leg assembly search,
but in this case it would not have changed the results.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2019 18:54 | | Subject: | Re: BL search with Goatleg fail | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, dcarmine writes:
| | I loved the Goatleg search, when it was not attached to BL.
I go to goatleg.com, pick "legs Assembly" and it takes me to BL with a frame
at the top where I can choose the colors to search. There is no box to type
"other descriptions" to help narrow the field (it used to, and it does for torsos).
This is what I get when I searched Black Hips and Black Legs. One item and it
has blue hips.
The old goatleg was soooooo much better!!!! I don't know what happened with
the integration with BL, but it is not the same. It was originally made by 62bircks.
Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong? Because there are a TON of legs Black/Black.
I blame BL. To 62bricks, I thank you for helping me with your program. I really
loved the way it worked when it was stand alone.
Donna
|
Hi - Goatleg is not attached or affiliated with BL at all.
I'm not sure why the results for this are not right. But I'll look into
it!
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Nov 4, 2019 17:24 | | Subject: | Re: Lego Samsonite 704-3 (1962) Canister | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Inventories, steelant writes:
| | I am looking for a brick inventory list for the 1962 Lego Samsonite set 704-3.
I know it should contain 165 pieces, but that is all I know. I looked everywhere....
Can anyone help?
|
Short of someone finding one that is still sealed, we may never know.
Basic Samsonite sets of this era usually included a generic instruction book
that had "ideas" but no part list or indication of the parts included. This set
would just have had mostly red and white bricks (1x2, 2x2 and 2x4), possibly
some trans-clear bricks, and some red windows and doors. It was introduced in
1962, when the bricks and windows would have been made out of cellulose acetate
plastic, but beginning in 1963 they may have been mixed with ABS parts. It would
not have had any wheels or wheel holders, as these were sold in a separate set.
This particular set was sold only through department store catalogs (like Sears).
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2019 17:05 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6370-1 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 2 Part 4073 Trans-Yellow Plate, Round 1 x 1
* Delete 1 Part 4073 Trans-Yellow Plate, Round 1 x 1 (Extra)
* Add 1 Part 4073c01 Trans-Yellow Plate, Round 1 x 1, 2 on Sprue
|
The owner of this set confirmed that his set comes with only one sprue but we
can see on one of the alternate models three 1*1 round bricks. See photos attached.
|
Interestingly, in the main model photo on the front of the box it appears only
one plate is used - the one on the bicycle seems to be missing.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2019 07:53 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig cas090 | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, maesehn writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 4523 Brown Minifigure, Container D-Basket
|
I think you could make a case for this. I don't believe the set it is from
had typical instructions, just photos on the box. This figure is pictured assembled
with the basket.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Sep 8, 2019 21:13 | | Subject: | Re: new tile category - with stickers only | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, TeeBoxLu writes:
| | I would love to see tiles with stickers as a separate category from printed tiles.
I have seen this topic discussed on a few Lego Facebook Groups as well.
|
You can isolate parts with stickers from the search results by adding sticker*
to your search terms (to find only parts with stickers) or -sticker* (to filter
out parts with stickers)
You can also use goatleg.com as a shortcut
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Sep 7, 2019 11:55 | | Subject: | Re: found wrong category | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | In Catalog, FloathBricks writes:
| | Hello everybody,
Hope the post is right here. I found an article that is listed in the wrong category:
3626cpb2423 is listed under "Mini Doll, Head". Should actually under "Minifigure,
Head"
Greetings
Florian
|
Interesting. Why can printed versions of parts even have different categories
than their parent part? Is there even a case where that is needed? I can think
of one case: 2 x 2 x 2 Slopes with dress prints could go under Minifig,Bodypart
(or better: change the "legs assembly" category in "lower body" and move all
short legs, mermaid tails and ghost lower bodies there too). But even in this
case, those parts are simply "slope".
So if printed parts never even have a different category than their parent part,
why is it apparently needed that these parts are assigned a category manually?
It's just extra work and extra risk of error. In my own webshop's catalog,
the data of the non printed parent part is used as much as possible. That saved
me a whole lot of work.
|
This is why goatleg exists - the flatness of the Bricklink catalog makes it difficult
to find decorated parts because they are all thrown into one jumbled category
at the same level as undecorated parts. If the Bricklink catalog were arranged
with true categories and subcategories that move from the general to the specific,
then decorated parts would be subcategories of their undecorated versions and
would be much easier to find.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Aug 26, 2019 18:10 | | Subject: | Re: Do part numbers change? | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | I'm working on my own webshop and want it to synchronise well with my Bricklink
store. My software seems to work pretty well, but now I'm wondering, does
it happen that names/numbers of parts change on Bricklink, and if so, how often
does that occur? I want to gauge how necessary it is to do some extra coding
to accommodate for this.
|
Possibly you should be made aware that Bricklink considers its part names and
numbers to be its own proprietary information, and that using them on your own
commerce site might draw unneeded problems. They have taken action at least once
in the past to require another site to stop using the Bricklink part numbers.
As a result, other sites choose to come up with their own part numbering system,
or they use the LDraw names and numbers, which can be used freely with the proper
attribution.
Of course many BL numbers are the numbers actually molded on the parts by LEGO,
and these are probably safe to use. Also, many BL part names and numbers are
from LDraw. These should also be safe to use.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Jul 9, 2019 10:21 | | Subject: | Re: Benny's torso 973pb1652c02 | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | It is what lego supplied. It has two arms, just no robot arm / claw extension.
I don't know if there is a market for it, as it cannot be sold that way.
|
Isn't what Lego supplies what is in the picture, just not all put together?
You just said it has two arms, but it doesn't unless you are counting the
unattached robot arm and claw. The catalog picture for a minifigure shows the
minifigure assembled. Most catalog pictures for sets show the set assembled.
But your customers are not expecting you to take what Lego supplied and assemble
it for them like the picture.
| | And there are plenty of listings for torsos without arms, whether there is a
market for them or not. They all get catalogued even though this is not how lego
supply them. Yet these pieces don't get listed as they are supplied - but
do get catalogued if you either add another part or remove some parts.
|
Yes, there are listings for EVERY torso with arms. While Lego never supplied
them with no arms and the market for unattached torsos varies greaty among them,
the point of having every torso in the catalog is that every torso is a discrete
Lego element. The catalog tries to contain every discrete Lego element, but
has always been cautious about having listings for combinations of pieces. A
full minifig, yes. Some big figs and brickbuilt animals now, yes. Combined
turntables that sometimes came assembled in sets, yes. Some combinations that
are hard to take back apart without damage, yes. But some minifig parts in an
obviously incomplete assembly because Lego supplied them? I don't see the
point and it opens a giant can of worms. Did you know that through the 80s and
90s, minifig torsos usually came with their heads attached? Should we have a
listing for each of those head/torso combinations because Lego supplied them
that way? Does anyone really want a head and torso with no hat or legs? Or
a torso with 1 arm and 1 hand? I doubt it unless the price is very low.
|
I think the "can of worms" is when BL makes exceptions based on precedent in
one case, but ignores precedent in other cases. The squishy definition of what
merits a separate entry in the catalog is part of what has led to issues like
this.
There may indeed be people who want to buy the torso/head assemblies from the
older sets, and there would be no harm in adding them to the catalog and including
them in inventories. But an exception has been made. We are told that some assemblies
need to be deleted from the catalog because they were never packaged that way,
yet some assemblies that were issued as new are not? Why is that?
Well, it isn't based on what people want, obviously. The market for 1x1 round
plates on the sprue is tiny compared to that for the individual plates, yet that
is the part inventoried in sets where it appeared. The market for the 1x4 hinge
assembly is many times larger than the market for the individual pieces, yet
the assembly is marked for deletion.
Consistent application of a set of simple guidelines would eliminate a lot of
these issues. In the past - and even now - it seems when faced with conflicts
like this the admins have chosen to add complexity rather than opt for simplicity.
Either way is going to result in apparent inconsistencies, but the way that requires
the least amount of waffling and explanation is preferable, in my opinion.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Jul 9, 2019 07:41 | | Subject: | Re: Benny's torso 973pb1652c02 | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | Precedence.
All of the other torsos that use
are handled the same way.
|
OK, so it's historical. Will this ever be changed to reflect what is actually
received in a set rather than what is needed for a set, like the debate about
the sprued parts now being the whole sprue rather than the required parts only?
If parting these out it is necessary to assemble them, and I don't want to
assemble them if they later become the individual parts.
|
Please don't assemble ANY of the minifig parts if you are selling it to me.
Why would this imply that anyone wanted you to do that?
|
Because at Bricklink you cannot sell the torso assembly as it is supplied by
LEGO. There is not a catalogue entry for the torso, arm and hand and robot arm
without the claw, as supplied by LEGO. To match the catalogue entry, you need
to add the robot arm.
It implies you have to either add the arm to the torso, or bag them separately
to keep them together, or store them unattached but need to remember to add the
robot arm, and hope the buyer finds the robot arm before complaining that it
is missing the arm.
|
Another illustrative example of why the "consistency" approach doesn't work.
In cases like this, the admins have to choose which practice to be "consistent"
with, which creates inconsistency.
The way to avoid it is to have guidelines that are as simple as possible. "Define
parts based on how they are found in a sealed set" is one simple guideline. If
we always follow that guideline, then the set inventories take care of themselves
and parting out new sets works. If we make an exception, then make more exceptions
because of that first exception, then ultimately ignore the guideline because
"That's they way we've always done it," the guideline has lost its meaning.
When faced with a dilemma like this partly-assembled torso, the decision should
be made in favor of the more basic principle, not later exceptions.
I think it is clear that many of the inconsistencies in the catalog are the result
of implementing ever-more complicated "rules" that are put in place to handle
exceptions rather than basing decisions on a few simple guidelines.
It should surprise nobody that people attracted to Lego are also really into
elaborate systems, but the secret to Lego's success as a system is that it
is not elaborate. Just a few rules create a very flexible system.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Jul 4, 2019 13:28 | | Subject: | Re: 10205 : Parts to be removed from Inventory | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Inventories, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Inventories, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:
| | If you want to base the inventories on the consistent contents of the box, that
makes sense from a part-out viewpoint. But this policy does not guarantee that
will happen. It is determining what goes "inside" the box based on what's
printed on the outside of the box, and not what is actually included.
|
This set consistently had 234 parts that were included inside the box regardless
of where the set was produced and what was printed on the outside of the box
since it was just an amalgam of three other sets that had been repackaged. Therefore,
your argument is moot, and the inventory will stand as is.
|
No, this example does not invalidate what I am saying. It demonstrates how the
rule applied here, if applied consistently, could lead to inconsistencies in
the inventories. It gives you "accurate" results in this case, but this is only
one case. Had this set only been produced in Europe and had no part count on
the box, it would lead to a different inventory - IF the rule was consistently
applied.
On the other hand, if the extra part designation were eliminated completely,
and the foolish reliance on the imaginary "official" part count was also eliminated,
then it would have the same inventory whether or not there was a part count printed
on the box.
I'm just extending what we are being told is the sole intent of the inventories
on Bricklink - to document the contents of the box so that sellers can more efficiently
part them out. I don't agree this should be the sole intent, but it is what
it is. That being the case, why is there a need to build up ever-more complicated
policies which introduce apparent inconsistencies and rely on the whim of Lego
continuing a practice it has already shown it is willing to change?
|
You sure do like to flog a life-challenged equine. The set inventory will stand
as is. That is the final decision of the entire admin team.
|
It is telling that you think I'm calling for the inventory to be changed.
I'm not. The only change I've called for is the elimination of the extra
parts designation, since the admins have to dance around with sets like this
to explain why it is an apparent exception.
If that change were made, this set would stand exactly as it is. So really, I'm
calling for all other set inventories to follow what this one does - put everything
known to be in the box in the regular section.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Jul 4, 2019 13:10 | | Subject: | Re: 10205 : Parts to be removed from Inventory | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Inventories, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:
| | The foolish policy to which I refer is the one that uses the "official parts
count" as the primary guide for what goes in the regular section when there is
no part list.
|
Regular Items - Parts required to build the main model and any secondary models
plus any other parts on the official parts list. In the absence of an official
parts list, the official parts count, the instructions, and/or images on the
packaging are used to determine as closely as possible the contents of this section.
Where does it say anything about the official parts count being the primary guide?
It is listed first because it is the easiest and most useful thing to check.
There are cases where the instructions have the final say, e.g. in a situation
where the instructions call for a greater number of parts than the official parts
count.
|
It doesn't say it. This is my point. In this set, since there is no part
list, we are told that the regular items may be determined by the part count,
the instructions, etc.
In this set, using the instructions would give you one set of results that includes
extra parts, but using the part count gives you a different set of results that
does not include extra parts. There is a conflict. A choice has to be made on
which method to use. According to Randy, the part count trumps the instructions,
so that is the method that was used: https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1147636
| |
| | That policy does not serve sellers who want to part out sets, because
there is no consistent way Lego has counted parts in the past, and part counts
are not included on all sets now.
|
LEGO part counts are exceptionally reliable. There are a few cases where things
don't line up, but for 99.9% of the cases they are spot on. We know that
some sets don't have them, but that is nothing new. Sets produced for the
European market in the 1970's never had them.
|
You are not accounting for the fact that Lego has changed what it calls a "part."
When trying to reconcile the "official" count with the number of individual items
in the box, you sometimes have to consider a minifig torso and head as one piece,
as Lego sometimes did. Or you have to leave out the flowers, because they are
not "interlocking" pieces and therefore not included in the total. Or you may
have to count individual stickers (which is the only way I can even get close
to 779 parts in the Yellow Castle).
So we ignore the part count in some instances, but use it to define the complete
set in others. Any rule that relies on exceptions for it to work is not a good
rule. It would be simpler to get rid of the extra parts section and obviate the
need for any such rule at all.
| |
| | That policy is not spelled out anywhere in the help pages. It is listed among
the possible sources in the absence of a part list, but it is not explained that
it is considered more important than the instructions.
|
It is spelled out as much as it needs to be. Any further details about how part
lists were counted slightly differently over the years or limitations of their
usefulness are matters of discussion among collectors. Please read these as examples:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1027168
https://www.bricklink.com/aboutMe.asp?u=viejos&pageID=16500
We're not going to put that level of detail in the Help Pages. Our Inv Admins
have access to this kind of information to help them make informed decisions,
but it's too much for the general BrickLink public.
|
It is noted that the official stance is that we just don't need to know how
these decisions are made.
| |
| | This case illustrates the foolishness of this policy. The criterion for including
these leftover parts in the regular section - and thereby including them in any
part-out and in requiring them to be present to sell the set as "complete" -
is a number printed on the package. If this set had been released just in Europe
with no part count on the box, those parts would be extras, could be excluded
from a part-out, and would not be required in a "complete" set.
|
Maybe, but probably not. We have other ways to determine what parts should be
considered regular, and one of them is related sets.
| | If you want to base the inventories on the consistent contents of the box, that
makes sense from a part-out viewpoint. But this policy does not guarantee that
will happen. It is determining what goes "inside" the box based on what's
printed on the outside of the box, and not what is actually included.
|
The parts count is just one tool out of many that we use. It is not used to remove
actual contents from a set, or to add things that were never there. BrickLink's
standard is a sealed set, and that's where we start from when building an
inventory.
|
I put "inside" in quotes, because I mean the theoretical set made up of regular
parts. This is what a "complete" used set is made up of. Parts are indeed moved
in and out of this "complete" set based on the arcane rules we are not to be
made aware of.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Jul 4, 2019 12:33 | | Subject: | Re: 10205 : Parts to be removed from Inventory | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Inventories, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:
| | If you want to base the inventories on the consistent contents of the box, that
makes sense from a part-out viewpoint. But this policy does not guarantee that
will happen. It is determining what goes "inside" the box based on what's
printed on the outside of the box, and not what is actually included.
|
This set consistently had 234 parts that were included inside the box regardless
of where the set was produced and what was printed on the outside of the box
since it was just an amalgam of three other sets that had been repackaged. Therefore,
your argument is moot, and the inventory will stand as is.
|
No, this example does not invalidate what I am saying. It demonstrates how the
rule applied here, if applied consistently, could lead to inconsistencies in
the inventories. It gives you "accurate" results in this case, but this is only
one case. Had this set only been produced in Europe and had no part count on
the box, it would lead to a different inventory - IF the rule was consistently
applied.
On the other hand, if the extra part designation were eliminated completely,
and the foolish reliance on the imaginary "official" part count was also eliminated,
then it would have the same inventory whether or not there was a part count printed
on the box.
I'm just extending what we are being told is the sole intent of the inventories
on Bricklink - to document the contents of the box so that sellers can more efficiently
part them out. I don't agree this should be the sole intent, but it is what
it is. That being the case, why is there a need to build up ever-more complicated
policies which introduce apparent inconsistencies and rely on the whim of Lego
continuing a practice it has already shown it is willing to change?
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Jul 4, 2019 10:01 | | Subject: | Re: 10205 : Parts to be removed from Inventory | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Inventories, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:
| | | | If there is nothing that can be done to stop this misguided inventory policy,
it would at least be useful to have it explained in the help pages. I hear a
lot of lip service being paid to consistency, but these policies are still opaque
and arcane to anyone trying to understand them from what is written, and as such
their application appears very inconsistent.
|
As this set demonstrates, the designation of "extra" items is essentially meaningless,
since the policy now is to document the contents of the box and not the parts
needed to build the models. The simplest thing to do to avoid confusion and the
appearance of inconsistency is to eliminate the extra parts designation entirely.
Of course that might mean apparent conflicts with what you are calling "official"
part counts, but you can't have it both ways. It appears that items are just
being moved from extra to regular or vice versa simply to make the BL inventory
count match the number that sometimes appears on some boxes in some parts of
the world.
|
| | That is a foolish policy because history has shown us that Lego has changed how
they count parts in the past. If they do it again in the future, we will be faced
with a dilemma.
The previous method of designating extra parts was unique to BL and would still
work no matter what Lego did. That method has been abandoned, and it was a shortsighted
mistake.
|
These policies are grounded in a thorough and correct understanding of LEGO history
in addition to the practical considerations of running a site that sells parts.
When you examine the change log of this inventory, you will see that as far as
extra parts goes, it has remained exactly the same as it was on the day it was
approved in July 2005. That was 14 years ago. Meaning that the extras policy
the admins are defending today is the same one used to create this inventory
all those years ago.
There was no “previous method”. There were some people who (after Dan passed
away) tried to change the way things were done, and for a short while it may
have seemed like there was some sort of new policy. But there was simply no easy
way to change everything the site had done up until that point to accommodate
a new way of defining extra pieces, so this idea of a new extras policy was confined
to a small subset of parts and an even smaller subset of sets that happened to
get inventoried at that time.
BrickLink has always preferred to document the contents of the box vs the parts
necessary to build the set. This is because BrickLink was from the a beginning
a site primarily designed to sell parts, and the inventory system was designed
primarily to part out sets. Sellers parting out sets don’t necessarily care whether
or not parts are used in the instructions. They want a list of parts that they
can upload efficiently to their store inventory and sell.
Initially there was no Extras section, and everything was placed in the regular
section. There is reams of evidence in the change logs to prove this. The Extras
section was designed to handle parts with variable presence so that sellers could
either exclude them categorically or treat them with special care during the
partout process. Parts that invariably came in a set were deemed regular parts.
Those that may or may not have been included were called extras.
Fast forward to several years ago when I was grappling with the task of more
firmly defining the rules for inventories (mainly so that conversations like
this wouldn’t have to take place). The site needed a standard to align itself
with, and it needed to be one that both sellers and collectors could live with.
A very small adjustment consisting of some rubber band holders and a few stacking
pins was all that was necessary to align the traditional partout-focused policy
with the historical practices of the LEGO Group.
So that’s where we are today, and it doesn’t seem shortsighted at all, at least
to me. I actually tried to envision what an instructions-based policy would look
like and where it would lead us. But we’ve got so many sets where there are no
instructions or the instructions only use a certain percentage of the pieces.
And when something is listed in a published parts list, it’s really not in the
site’s best interests to encourage sellers to leave those parts out of what is
considered a “complete” set. It’s just asking for problems.
|
The foolish policy to which I refer is the one that uses the "official parts
count" as the primary guide for what goes in the regular section when there is
no part list. That policy does not serve sellers who want to part out sets, because
there is no consistent way Lego has counted parts in the past, and part counts
are not included on all sets now.
That policy is not spelled out anywhere in the help pages. It is listed among
the possible sources in the absence of a part list, but it is not explained that
it is considered more important than the instructions.
This case illustrates the foolishness of this policy. The criterion for including
these leftover parts in the regular section - and thereby including them in any
part-out and in requiring them to be present to sell the set as "complete" -
is a number printed on the package. If this set had been released just in Europe
with no part count on the box, those parts would be extras, could be excluded
from a part-out, and would not be required in a "complete" set.
If you want to base the inventories on the consistent contents of the box, that
makes sense from a part-out viewpoint. But this policy does not guarantee that
will happen. It is determining what goes "inside" the box based on what's
printed on the outside of the box, and not what is actually included.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Jul 3, 2019 22:18 | | Subject: | Re: 10205 : Parts to be removed from Inventory | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Inventories, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Inventories, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Inventories, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Inventories, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories, paulvdb writes:
| | In Inventories, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories, Sango85 writes:
| | Hello,
I check my locomotive 10205 with Bricklink Inventory and I found differences...
I bought a new loco, and found the same differences...
I think there are errors into the Bricklink Inventory.
Please find the list of the issues.
Best regards,
Julien
|
To confirm the inventory, you can find an unboxing there:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=168313
If I remember correctly, the reason for "extra" parts is because the set
is the same as which is composed of
Some black parts are sort of 'extra' (from 3745-1) because this set is
used to build other locomotives
For example:
-Fred
|
Thanks for the explanation. This could probably use an inventory note to explain
the reason for these extra parts. But I'll leave that until Randy is back
from holiday because he seems to be a bit more familiar with this set than I
am.
|
Hey Paul -
I am now back and have access to writing on an actual keyboard instead of my
phone! Fortunately for me, Fred already laid out exactly why the inventory is
the way it is.
As he stated, this set was a repackaging of three earlier kits and some of the
parts were not used in the build for the repackaged set. However, the official
part count on this set included all of the parts from the original three kits
and were included in every set. Because of this, they are treated as Regular
Items. I will go ahead and add an inventory note to this set.
Cheers,
Randy
|
The rules that define regular and extra parts do not mention the "official" part
count in the criteria. Why is an exception made for this set? Those leftover
parts should be extra parts. They are not in the build and there is no parts
list for this set in the instructions or box.
Parts counts primarily only appear on North American sets. They are not determined
in a consistent way by Lego.
|
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1562
Regular Items - Parts required to build the main model and any secondary
models plus any other parts on the official parts list. In the absence of
an official parts list, the official parts count, the instructions, and/or images
on the packaging are used to determine as closely as possible the contents of
this section.
|
OK, so the parts count trumps the instructions in determining a regular part?
|
Yes.
|
If there is nothing that can be done to stop this misguided inventory policy,
it would at least be useful to have it explained in the help pages. I hear a
lot of lip service being paid to consistency, but these policies are still opaque
and arcane to anyone trying to understand them from what is written, and as such
their application appears very inconsistent.
|
It is explained right there in the text above. This policy has also been applied
consistently since it was rewritten and agreed upon by the admin team. All inventories
are being adjusted towards it as change requests for inventories come in. The
admins have also taken it upon themselves to adjust inventories as we have time.
Lastly, we have quite a few people that are helping to adjust inventories and
we thank them very much for their contributions. You know who you are.
|
I disagree that it is spelled out. In this instance there is no parts list, but
there are instructions and there is a part count. Those two sources of information
conflict. It is not spelled out in the policy that in this instance the part
count is what prevails. It may be written down in your own procedures but it
is not at all clear in the public information.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Jul 3, 2019 22:13 | | Subject: | Re: 10205 : Parts to be removed from Inventory | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Inventories, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Inventories, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Inventories, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories, paulvdb writes:
| | In Inventories, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories, Sango85 writes:
| | Hello,
I check my locomotive 10205 with Bricklink Inventory and I found differences...
I bought a new loco, and found the same differences...
I think there are errors into the Bricklink Inventory.
Please find the list of the issues.
Best regards,
Julien
|
To confirm the inventory, you can find an unboxing there:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=168313
If I remember correctly, the reason for "extra" parts is because the set
is the same as which is composed of
Some black parts are sort of 'extra' (from 3745-1) because this set is
used to build other locomotives
For example:
-Fred
|
Thanks for the explanation. This could probably use an inventory note to explain
the reason for these extra parts. But I'll leave that until Randy is back
from holiday because he seems to be a bit more familiar with this set than I
am.
|
Hey Paul -
I am now back and have access to writing on an actual keyboard instead of my
phone! Fortunately for me, Fred already laid out exactly why the inventory is
the way it is.
As he stated, this set was a repackaging of three earlier kits and some of the
parts were not used in the build for the repackaged set. However, the official
part count on this set included all of the parts from the original three kits
and were included in every set. Because of this, they are treated as Regular
Items. I will go ahead and add an inventory note to this set.
Cheers,
Randy
|
The rules that define regular and extra parts do not mention the "official" part
count in the criteria. Why is an exception made for this set? Those leftover
parts should be extra parts. They are not in the build and there is no parts
list for this set in the instructions or box.
Parts counts primarily only appear on North American sets. They are not determined
in a consistent way by Lego.
|
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1562
Regular Items - Parts required to build the main model and any secondary
models plus any other parts on the official parts list. In the absence of
an official parts list, the official parts count, the instructions, and/or images
on the packaging are used to determine as closely as possible the contents of
this section.
|
OK, so the parts count trumps the instructions in determining a regular part?
|
Yes.
|
If there is nothing that can be done to stop this misguided inventory policy,
it would at least be useful to have it explained in the help pages. I hear a
lot of lip service being paid to consistency, but these policies are still opaque
and arcane to anyone trying to understand them from what is written, and as such
their application appears very inconsistent.
|
As this set demonstrates, the designation of "extra" items is essentially meaningless,
since the policy now is to document the contents of the box and not the parts
needed to build the models. The simplest thing to do to avoid confusion and the
appearance of inconsistency is to eliminate the extra parts designation entirely.
Of course that might mean apparent conflicts with what you are calling "official"
part counts, but you can't have it both ways. It appears that items are just
being moved from extra to regular or vice versa simply to make the BL inventory
count match the number that sometimes appears on some boxes in some parts of
the world.
That is a foolish policy because history has shown us that Lego has changed how
they count parts in the past. If they do it again in the future, we will be faced
with a dilemma.
The previous method of designating extra parts was unique to BL and would still
work no matter what Lego did. That method has been abandoned, and it was a shortsighted
mistake.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Jul 3, 2019 21:37 | | Subject: | Re: 10205 : Parts to be removed from Inventory | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Inventories, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Inventories, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Inventories, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories, paulvdb writes:
| | In Inventories, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories, Sango85 writes:
| | Hello,
I check my locomotive 10205 with Bricklink Inventory and I found differences...
I bought a new loco, and found the same differences...
I think there are errors into the Bricklink Inventory.
Please find the list of the issues.
Best regards,
Julien
|
To confirm the inventory, you can find an unboxing there:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=168313
If I remember correctly, the reason for "extra" parts is because the set
is the same as which is composed of
Some black parts are sort of 'extra' (from 3745-1) because this set is
used to build other locomotives
For example:
-Fred
|
Thanks for the explanation. This could probably use an inventory note to explain
the reason for these extra parts. But I'll leave that until Randy is back
from holiday because he seems to be a bit more familiar with this set than I
am.
|
Hey Paul -
I am now back and have access to writing on an actual keyboard instead of my
phone! Fortunately for me, Fred already laid out exactly why the inventory is
the way it is.
As he stated, this set was a repackaging of three earlier kits and some of the
parts were not used in the build for the repackaged set. However, the official
part count on this set included all of the parts from the original three kits
and were included in every set. Because of this, they are treated as Regular
Items. I will go ahead and add an inventory note to this set.
Cheers,
Randy
|
The rules that define regular and extra parts do not mention the "official" part
count in the criteria. Why is an exception made for this set? Those leftover
parts should be extra parts. They are not in the build and there is no parts
list for this set in the instructions or box.
Parts counts primarily only appear on North American sets. They are not determined
in a consistent way by Lego.
|
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1562
Regular Items - Parts required to build the main model and any secondary
models plus any other parts on the official parts list. In the absence of
an official parts list, the official parts count, the instructions, and/or images
on the packaging are used to determine as closely as possible the contents of
this section.
|
OK, so the parts count trumps the instructions in determining a regular part?
|
Yes.
|
If there is nothing that can be done to stop this misguided inventory policy,
it would at least be useful to have it explained in the help pages. I hear a
lot of lip service being paid to consistency, but these policies are still opaque
and arcane to anyone trying to understand them from what is written, and as such
their application appears very inconsistent.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Jul 3, 2019 21:23 | | Subject: | Re: 10205 : Parts to be removed from Inventory | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Inventories, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Inventories, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories, paulvdb writes:
| | In Inventories, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories, Sango85 writes:
| | Hello,
I check my locomotive 10205 with Bricklink Inventory and I found differences...
I bought a new loco, and found the same differences...
I think there are errors into the Bricklink Inventory.
Please find the list of the issues.
Best regards,
Julien
|
To confirm the inventory, you can find an unboxing there:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=168313
If I remember correctly, the reason for "extra" parts is because the set
is the same as which is composed of
Some black parts are sort of 'extra' (from 3745-1) because this set is
used to build other locomotives
For example:
-Fred
|
Thanks for the explanation. This could probably use an inventory note to explain
the reason for these extra parts. But I'll leave that until Randy is back
from holiday because he seems to be a bit more familiar with this set than I
am.
|
Hey Paul -
I am now back and have access to writing on an actual keyboard instead of my
phone! Fortunately for me, Fred already laid out exactly why the inventory is
the way it is.
As he stated, this set was a repackaging of three earlier kits and some of the
parts were not used in the build for the repackaged set. However, the official
part count on this set included all of the parts from the original three kits
and were included in every set. Because of this, they are treated as Regular
Items. I will go ahead and add an inventory note to this set.
Cheers,
Randy
|
The rules that define regular and extra parts do not mention the "official" part
count in the criteria. Why is an exception made for this set? Those leftover
parts should be extra parts. They are not in the build and there is no parts
list for this set in the instructions or box.
Parts counts primarily only appear on North American sets. They are not determined
in a consistent way by Lego.
|
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1562
Regular Items - Parts required to build the main model and any secondary
models plus any other parts on the official parts list. In the absence of
an official parts list, the official parts count, the instructions, and/or images
on the packaging are used to determine as closely as possible the contents of
this section.
|
OK, so the parts count trumps the instructions in determining a regular part?
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
