Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | StormChaser  | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2020 12:57 | | Subject: | Re: Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, Legolibrarian2 writes:
| | This may be in response to a new law that took effect in California this month.
It has to do with personal information in an online environment. BL headquarters
is in California, so I guess they have to abide by the law.
|
No, from what I can tell by reading a summary of that law it would not be applicable
in this situation.
The following is not directed to you, but to several readers who really don't
seem to get it. I understand getting it and disagreeing, but some people really
aren't getting it.
So: there is a somewhat recent trend in society of erasing people from history.
A number of different reasons are used to justify this. In this instance, privacy
appears to have been the reason. Obviously I disagree with that trend.
BrickLink assigns each person a unique identifying number upon sign-up. This
is necessary for their database of members. Now it has reduced certain users
to that number, even though the vast majority (probably all) of them did not
request it.
I will present a couple of situations that may be somewhat analogous depending
on perspective.
Imagine a graveyard where the company that owns the graveyard has assigned each
gravesite a number. One day the company goes through and erases the name from
every headstone (or most of them) and replaces those names with the numbers they
have assigned to the plots. The reasons why they did so are irrelevant - it
should be obvious that this is not a wise decision on the part of the company.
Here's another: imagine that someone comes up with a numbering system for
authors and assigns every author throughout history a unique identifying number.
Then, one day, they have the power and ability to replace each author's
name with a number in all records kept by humans. So they do it.
And then we have Hamlet by Author_291763. Moby Dick by Author_9182772. 1984
by Author_3177634. I could continue, of course.
mfav makes the point that these contributors didn't contribute much and it
was a long time ago. He's saying that it therefore doesn't matter how
we treat them. Using the analogy above, then, if an author hasn't contributed
much to the collective human store of literature, then it's okay to erase
them. But Shakespeare, much as he desired anonymity, won't get it because
he contributed too much.
Of course, the logical response is that catalog contributions are not works of
art. That is fair, but they are still effort someone put forth with the understanding
and promise that they would receive perpetual credit for the volunteer work they
did. BrickLink has broken that promise and there is no way to justify that.
A username is not (and correct me if I'm wrong) PII.
It amazes me that I'm putting so much effort into explaining the effects
of erasing history. I think I may know the reason: nearly everyone alive today
grew up in cultures where everything is disposable. It is a logical extension
to see humans in the same way. I'm arguing against that way of looking at
the past. I'm arguing for treating people with the respect they deserve
and keeping promises. I'm arguing against erasure.
|
 |
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2020 12:07 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 75022-1 | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, teraith writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 2 Part 64802 Dark Bluish Gray Minifigure, Jet Pack with Nozzles
Comments from Submitter:
The deathwatch command have them as per the instructions.
|
Those items are already included in the inventory of the set. They exist in
the sub-inventories of these figures:
If you click on the Break Minifigs link at the top of the inventory page
the jet packs will be shown in the complete inventory.
The packs, by the way, are pearl dark gray, not dark bluish gray.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2020 03:31 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 70731-1 | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Minifig njo184s Jay (Deepstone Armor) - Possession, Lightning Pack with Yellow Danger Stripes and Gold Lightning Reactor Pattern (Sticker) (Counterpart)
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2020 13:41 | | Subject: | Re: Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, MidwestBrick writes:
| | In the long-run, why does it matter?
|
You make a fine argument. And if we were all to agree with it, then this page
should be removed from BrickLink altogether (which you clearly support):
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogMembers.asp
But to answer your question, I'll give you one way in which it actually does
matter. Catalog and inventory administrators sometimes have to make judgments
about the reliability of information that members submit. Contributors build
a reputation based on the quality of work they've done in the past.
Looking back on past work done to know how reliable it should be considered,
it actually does mean something to be able to identify a user and not just see
that one the blusers did it.
| | This literally sounds like an employee of mine that needs to know for every task they do that we all know they did it. After awhile, it doesn't hold any merit and I really don't care. The task was completed and we can move on.
|
Yeah, but if you truly believed that, then you would refer to all your employees
by a number. You would say things like, "Employee Number 3827, go assist Employees
Number 99234 and 439 with the task they're working on."
But you don't. Because people have names and you treat them like people,
not cogs in your machine.
At least I hope you do.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2020 13:28 | | Subject: | Re: Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, Andrsv writes:
| | It is probably related to privacy laws. If someone deletes their account it is
for a reason, and many want their info removed. This is a guess based on related
issues on other places.
|
This was done wholesale for a large number of users at the same time and thus
was likely NOT based on privacy laws. The likelihood that hundreds of thousands
of users simultaneously requested that their information be removed is remarkably
low.
The Help Center states:
If you have done any of the following, then that information and your user
profile cannot be deleted but all other information attached to your user profile
will be deleted:
•Placed or received at least 1 order
•Changed your username or a profile was merged into your username
•Added at least 1 item to the catalog
•Added at least 1 image small or large to the catalog
•Added at least 1 inventory of an item to the catalog
•Added at least 1 relationship to the catalog
•Added at least 1 link to the links section
•Added at least 1 inventory change request to the catalog
•Added weight, dimensions or color code for at least 1 item in the catalog
•Are an inventories verifier and verified at least 1 inventory
•Sent any messages to other members through the contact form
•Posted a message in our discussion forum and it is still there
•Moved a discussion forum post and the message is still there
•Are currently or have been before banned from Chat
I assume BrickLink decided that sentence in bold meant that the username was
part of the information that should be removed.
I get privacy laws and removing information attached to profiles, but taking
the username is what I have a problem with. I don't see any reason whatsoever
why it was necessary to go that far.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2020 13:20 | | Subject: | Re: Question about flags (parts 4495a and 4495b) | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, WilliamRaine writes:
| | would it be correct to submit a change request for the flags . . . since it appears that way in the instructions
|
No, part variant change requests should be based on actual sets contents and
not set instructions. Ideally, of course.
Set instructions don't always match set contents and inventories are intended
to represent actual set contents. A change request would need to be made based
on what was found in a brand new set.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2020 13:06 | | Subject: | Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 276 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| I can't help myself from returning to this topic.
It is not right to erase people who have contributed to the catalog and turn
them into a meaningless number (and a username that rhymes with "loser.").
The first attached image shows people who have contributed a set inventory to
the catalog. For each person it was only one inventory, but it was time they
took out of their day or week to make a contribution.
The second image shows people who have added items to the catalog. One person
added 113 items. Another added 97 items. Yet another added 87 items. And so
on down the list.
Some of these unregistered users are no doubt dead. Some have moved on to new
pursuits. Some may be in a coma or in prison. Who knows why any one person
hasn't logged on or may never log on again?
BrickLink wants contributions. BrickLink wants an involved community. But when
BrickLink treats former contributors so dismissively, by erasing them into meaninglessness,
it makes me think they have no respect for contributors.
BrickLink contributors deserve better treatment than this. Anonymizing people
who have contributed to the catalog was a poor decision. It was a careless and
heartless decision.
I urge the site to reconsider the decision to anonymize any former catalog and
inventory contributors.
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2020 11:49 | | Subject: | Re: Question about flags (parts 4495a and 4495b) | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, WilliamRaine writes:
| | I am replacing a few parts on set 7038-1 Troll Assault Wagon and noticed the
two flags included are listed as different variants....the dark blue is lefted
as "wave left" and the pearl gold as "wave right"
My set has the opposite style flags, and the instructions clearly show both flags
as the "wave left" variant.
|
If you scroll all the way to the bottom of the inventory page:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemInv.asp?S=7038-1
you will see the following sentence:
View a log of completed changes made to this inventory.
Clicking there will display the history of changes made to this set's inventory.
| | Is this a mistake in the inventory, or did the set
really come with both flags pointing in different directions?
|
According to BrickLink's timeline the flag change happened roughly around
2008, which is the year this set was released. So it's quite possible that
some 7038-1 sets came with left flags, some came with right flags, and some came
with both.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 23, 2020 00:12 | | Subject: | Re: Attack of the Blusers | | Viewed: | 90 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Many historic accounts, such as major contributors or Dan's own personal
account were intentionally untouched by the process.
|
Thank you for sharing.
I was wondering why Swanberg's account retained the name. Since major contributors
will not be turned into blusers at some point, then I feel much better about
the whole thing.
I don't want to be a bluser. 
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 22, 2020 16:31 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6524-1 | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, Redrobboe writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 3705 Black Technic, Axle 4
* Add 2 Part 3749 Black Technic, Axle Pin without Friction Ridges Lengthwise
Comments from Submitter:
change gives a more stable axle arrangement for rear wheels, Not clear on instructions as to what item to use for an axle.
|
What source are you using to request these changes?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 22, 2020 14:22 | | Subject: | Re: Attack of the Blusers | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | Yes, it’s just part of the anonymisation of unregistered users. (GDPR)
|
I should have read this first. This is the likely explanation of what has occurred.
Now I'm wondering if there is a way I can prevent my account from being
made anonymous in the event that I am unable to temporarily or permanently log
into my account.
And I think it is unfortunate that a good thing (the fight for privacy) has resulted
in a bad thing (erasing people if they're absent long enough).
Have I mentioned that it would be nice if BrickLink communicated with us?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 22, 2020 14:08 | | Subject: | Re: Attack of the Blusers | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | Can you remove the underscore instead?
|
Yes.
Now I am who BrickLink sees me as.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 22, 2020 14:02 | | Subject: | Re: Attack of the Blusers | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, StormChaser writes:
| | I'd rather be remembered as StormChaser, not BLUSER_13161.
|
Well, I thought I'd get a head start on them and exercise some choice in
the matter. Unfortunately, they were smarter than I thought and have prohibited
me from changing my username.
It will be changed someday, but only when I have no say-so in the matter. Ah,
they think of everything. Except some of the things that matter.
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 22, 2020 13:53 | | Subject: | Re: Attack of the Blusers | | Viewed: | 84 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | bluser numbers assigned already
but just happen to be known by our chosen usernames instead.
|
Yes, your bluser number can be seen by going to your Account Info page. The
second bit of information there is titled User ID. That's your bluser number.
Someday in the distant future, when we're all dead, they'll eject us
from the system and make us blusers, too. Not too fond of the idea, as I'd
rather be remembered as StormChaser, not BLUSER_13161.
Doesn't matter what I want, though.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 22, 2020 13:50 | | Subject: | Re: Attack of the Blusers | | Viewed: | 81 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, dcarmine writes:
| | I noticed this user name a few weeks ago. I wondered what is going on because
the users have some feedback but is no longer registered.
Can you share what you learned?
|
Recently there was a secret clearing-out of old BrickLink accounts, presumably
related to the site sale to TLG. No information was released, but members noticed
that the number of registered users suddenly dropped dramatically.
The criteria for removing accounts was not shared, but I assume it was based
on the last time a member logged into the site. So perhaps if a member had not
logged in for five years, for example, their account was deleted (or, if not
deleted, somehow removed from the list of registered users).
Around the same time I noticed these Bluser accounts as contributors. I didn't
connect the two events until today when I looked at the contributions page for
inventories and figured out what was going on. The site needed to maintain credit
for catalog work completed, but with accounts deleted/disabled there was no username
to credit.
Note that this page, last updated in 2010, claims that accounts cannot be deleted
if certain conditions have been met. Some of those conditions are contributing
to the catalog:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=129
So certain accounts were renamed, although it doesn't look like they were
deleted. Not sure why they needed to be renamed, since this was all done (as
usual) in secret.
Here's what the Bluser accounts mean:
BLUSER_40105 = BrickLink USER ID 40105
All of the above is pure speculation, but it is based on reasonably solid logic.
Hope it helps.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 22, 2020 11:52 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6543-1 | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, Turez writes:
| | your "extra" cap should be a regular part.
|
I agree. This extra cap should be removed and the count of the existing cap
should be changed from 1 to 2.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 22, 2020 11:35 | | Subject: | Re: Overview of sets wiating for approval -- ?? | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, dearlydeparted writes:
| | Wow, that is a long list - folks who invested on definitely losing out on orders.
|
And yet, strangely, I still don't see your username anywhere on this list:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogMembers.asp?viewAll=S
I don't say that to be rude. But if work is not getting done at the speed
you'd prefer, then perhaps it may be time to pitch in and give a hand to
those of us who do perform the work.
I've only inventoried one 2020 set:
but I have another 2020 inventory completed and pending approval.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 22, 2020 11:10 | | Subject: | Re: Overview of sets wiating for approval -- ?? | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, Leftoverbricks writes:
| | However, is there is also a page that contains information about sets that are
reserved?
|
Yes:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?invRes=Y
You can find this from the main catalog page by clicking on Set Inventories
under Helpful Guides on the right side of the page. Then look under the
How Can I Contribute column on the left to find the page linked to above.
| | @Admin_Russell: can you help / clearify?
And please un-reserve the above mentioned set for me.
|
To save him the trouble of mentioning it, I'll tell you that the set you
reserved will automatically be unreserved after three days if you do nothing.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 21, 2020 00:48 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Gear 5005237 | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory: [G=5005237]
* Delete 1 Gear 36970 Dark Purple Ring (undetermined Inside Diameter)
* Delete 1 Gear 36970 Medium Azure Ring (undetermined Inside Diameter)
* Add 1 Gear 36970a Medium Azure Ring, 14mm Inside Diameter
* Add 1 Gear 36970b Dark Purple Ring, 16mm Inside Diameter
Comments from Submitter:
From sealed set contents. Rings measured.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 20, 2020 14:57 | | Subject: | Re: Keyword Exclusions | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | If you search for those keywords with "all items", then all words are used. If
you search in "catalog items", most get excluded. There is some difference there.
I still don't know what the two searches actually do that is different. Except
find the no pants guy.
Of course if you know he is called that then a search for "where are my pants"
in quotes finds him as a single keyword.
|
In Catalog, Cob writes:
| | If you use the search at the top of the page the results are correct.
|
Thank you both for your assistance. You would have thought I'd have understood
searching better after being around so long. 
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 20, 2020 14:37 | | Subject: | Keyword Exclusions | | Viewed: | 89 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| I feel like Bill in that I find myself making observations and then posting them
in the forum whilst saying, "Hmmmm." This is my Bill moment.
I just searched for the Where Are My Pants person from The LEGO Movie. The system
excluded 75% of my keywords. So . . . what's the point of titling this character
this way if 75% of the title is useless?
Wouldn't it be better to simply title him "Pants Guy" and leave it at that?
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 19, 2020 17:26 | | Subject: | Re: bb0007 Differences | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | So then perhaps my original surmise was correct and this should not be in the
catalog:
|
Correction: this is the one that should not be in the catalog and should be merged
with the part above:
[P=bb0007pb01]
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 19, 2020 17:21 | | Subject: | Re: bb0007 Differences | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, FreeStorm writes:
| | Yes it look like the picture blue motor is missing the glued 2.4 part.
We can see the 2x4 glued plate on the set picture
The inventory of this set do not have black 2x4 plate.
|
So then perhaps my original surmise was correct and this should not be in the
catalog:
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 19, 2020 16:49 | | Subject: | Re: bb0007 Differences | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, FreeStorm writes:
| | If we have a mistake, it need to be for the black version of motors that should
be moved from one to the other.
|
Ah, I see what you're saying. The photo of bb0007pb01 in black should be
moved to bb0007c01pb02. Yes, that would make sense. I see that the blue photo
of bb0007pb01 does not show the 2 x 4 plate.
Part bb0007pb01 is unquestionably an assembly, BTW, and should be numbered bb0007c**pb01.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 19, 2020 16:23 | | Subject: | Re: 31023 Dimensions | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | So the part just needs a title change.
|
Correction: after checking measurements it needed a dimensions change. So I
submitted that instead.
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
USA, Oklahoma
)
)
