Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | SylvainLS  | | Posted: | Jun 20, 2020 15:06 | | Subject: | Re: Terminology - DB to organize my 100,000+ pcs | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mjah5 writes:
| | Hi all.
BACKGROUND: Let my start by saying that unlike my grandchildren, Marcus and
Soren, I am not a "Master Builder". I am a "Master Collector." My brick hobby
is to purchase long forgotten brick collections from parents of teen + former
brick fan that have been collecting dust in the basement or attic for years.
Once in my possession, I discard the fake pieces, wash the real ones then sort
them out looking for the special pieces that will tell me which sets the original
owner possessed.Then I try to re-assemble those sets.
PROBLEM: Currently, I have about 330 sets that I have identified as previously
owned. Those are my SIPs, "sets-in-progress." Each SIP has a container where
I store the parts that I've located. Together those 330 SIPs consist of
approximately 56,000 pieces. Of those, I have located about 23,000 pieces and
I am still looking for the other 23,000 pieces. I would guess my personal brick
collection consists of 100,000+ pieces that are not currently assigned to a SIP.
They are sorted and stored in other many other containers. When I need to locate
a piece for a SIP I look in about 5 "likely" containers then give up. Do I not
have the piece or is just in one of the many many "unlikely" containers?
SOLUTION: I'm building a MySQL Database to keep track of my collection.
Using BL's category system, there exist many bricks, slopes, arches etc.,
based more or less on shape. Within the sub-category bricks there are 1x1,
2x2, 2x4 etc., more or less based on size.
QUESTIONS: Q1;What are these sub-categories called? I would call them an ELEMENT.
is that correct? is there a better name for the sub-categories? Further, the
sub-categories such as 1x1 bricks of course come in many colours. Q2: What are
these sub-sub-categories called, or what are these ELEMENTs with a particular
colour called? I would call them a PART. Correct? Any other better name?
Q3; Lastly, if I hold in my hand, one blue 1x1 brick, what should that be called?
I would suggest that is a PIECE. Correct? Any better answer?
CATEGORY :: ELEMENT :: PART :: PIECE ??
|
First, that you have trouble finding names for your entities is a big clue they
are the wrong entities.
Vocabulary-wise, “element,” ”part” and “piece” are mostly the same thing.
LEGO uses “design” for the mould (and decor  ) and “element” for design + colour.
LEGO’s “DesignID” is the number most often used by BL, LDraw and others as a
“part ID” or “name” (the text explaining the part is then a “description”).
And LEGO’s “ElementID,” the 6-digit number that appears in their instructions,
is what BL calls a PCC / Part-Colour-Code.
So, you found out that BL’s categories are “more or less based on shape.” That
means they aren’t.
Then you thought about colours. “Everybody knows” you don’t sort LEGO by colour
 
Then you found that many pieces share the same shape and are distinguished by
their size. Not all are.
So, what are you trying to do with this? Are you are trying to categorize your
parts to fit them in containers?
Then what you found out is that parts have attributes: general shape, size, colour,
and you “more or less” ordered them: shape first, then colour, then size.
Okay, that’s some sort of sieve system to define containers.
But why do you need to put that in you DB?
You have a list of parts of one side, your inventory, and lists of parts on the
other side, the wanted parts for the sets.
How will the database be used? You need to know first if the exact part (ID
+ colour) is in your inventory and, second, where it’s stored if it is.
Where do this categorization of yours is used in the DB?
Nowhere that I see.
Or do you want to have an algorithm that takes a BL part (ID + description +
colour) and turns out a container number?
But does it have to be in the DB? Not that I see.
So I don’t see a need to complicate your DB. You just need to have four main
tables: parts (BL id + description), colours, inventories (list of parts in a
given colour and in a given quantity), and containers (association between a
location and parts).
Besides, you’ll quickly find all “shapes” don’t divise regularly (or at all)
into “colours” or “sizes” (most of the heads are yellow; slopes first divise
by angle, not size; Technic connectors don’t come in many colours nor sizes; etc.).
Especially if you use BL categories as “shapes.”
On this note, here’s a rough categorization that some sellers (who sort many
parts) use as a first sieve:
Bricks & Arches
Brick Modified & Round
Plate
Plate Modified & Round
Slope
Technic
Tile & Panel
Minifig
Other
They are about the same size in a “standard” collection. This might help you
devise your containers’ organization.
|
 |
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jun 19, 2020 14:18 | | Subject: | Re: part 2494pb08 variants | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, crepundi writes:
| | I noticed there are two versions of the 1 x 4 x 5 glass with 9 stripes,
one has more wider and the other one more narrow stripes.
Looking at the sticker sheets of the two sets this part comes from I believe
the narrow one is from set 6386 and the wider from set 6540
Maybe there should be a remark about this.
Besides: how can I show a sticker sheet in a message?
|
Stickers are parts.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jun 17, 2020 13:39 | | Subject: | Re: Minifigure, Vest with Black Chevron Pattern | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, anathema writes:
| | […]
The sticker with the five stripes comes from the sticker-sheet for Ideas Book
6000.
|
Yes but there’s no official minifigure or part with this sticker applied, so
it should only be in the catalogue as a sticker on a sticker sheet.
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jun 17, 2020 12:43 | | Subject: | Re: Apply order on multiple wish lists | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
… but it would still be better if it were directly on BL.
|
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jun 15, 2020 12:01 | | Subject: | Re: Tan Knit Sweater Minifig Torso (76382) | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, DianeGronas writes:
| | Tan Knit Sweater Minifig Torso (76382)
|
As your first post was about PartDesigner, I’m guessing you’re asking for this
part to be added to Studio.
If that’s the case, the dedicated forum for Studio is https://forum.bricklink.com/
(red Studio icon on every page, “Builder Forum”).
But as you didn’t answer any of the other answers, I’m also guessing you won’t
read this answer either….
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jun 15, 2020 12:01 | | Subject: | Re: Sea Captain's White Hat (13553 / 31841) | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, DianeGronas writes:
| | Sea Captain's White Hat (13553 / 31841)
|
As your first post was about PartDesigner, I’m guessing you’re asking for this
part to be added to Studio.
If that’s the case, the dedicated forum for Studio is https://forum.bricklink.com/
(red Studio icon on every page, “Builder Forum”).
But as you didn’t answer any of the other answers, I’m also guessing you won’t
read this answer either….
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jun 15, 2020 12:00 | | Subject: | Re: Sea Captain Torso (973 / 88585) | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, DianeGronas writes:
| | Sea Captain Torso (973 / 88585)
|
As your first post was about PartDesigner, I’m guessing you’re asking for this
part to be added to Studio.
If that’s the case, the dedicated forum for Studio is https://forum.bricklink.com/
(red Studio icon on every page, “Builder Forum”).
But as you didn’t answer any of the other answers, I’m also guessing you won’t
read this answer either….
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jun 15, 2020 12:00 | | Subject: | Re: Captain Jones Minifig Torso (76382) | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, DianeGronas writes:
| | Captain Jones Minifig Torso (76382)
|
As your first post was about PartDesigner, I’m guessing you’re asking for this
part to be added to Studio.
If that’s the case, the dedicated forum for Studio is https://forum.bricklink.com/
(red Studio icon on every page, “Builder Forum”).
But as you didn’t answer any of the other answers, I’m also guessing you won’t
read this answer either….
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jun 15, 2020 12:00 | | Subject: | Re: Obi-Wan Kenobi Large Figure Head (21939) | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, DianeGronas writes:
| | Obi-Wan Kenobi Large Figure Head (21939)
|
As your first post was about PartDesigner, I’m guessing you’re asking for this
part to be added to Studio.
If that’s the case, the dedicated forum for Studio is https://forum.bricklink.com/
(red Studio icon on every page, “Builder Forum”).
But as you didn’t answer any of the other answers, I’m also guessing you won’t
read this answer either….
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jun 14, 2020 14:48 | | Subject: | Re: Minifigures being given incorrect codes? | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | I don't know if its just me but with regards to the ideas and dimensions
themes would'nt it make sense to only give minifigures the 'idea'
and 'dim' codes if they don't already belong to an established and
existing theme? For instance all the Ideas Pirates of Barracuda Bay minifigs
should perhaps be given 'pi' numbers instead of 'idea' numbers?
Likewise dimensions Gimli, Gandalf, Legolas should maybe have a 'lor'
number instead of 'dim' same goes for Slimer and Stay Puft Marshmallow
man which also have 'dim' numbers instead of 'gb'
With the original ghostbusters minifigs from Ecto-1 it looks like they were already
changed from 'idea' numbers to 'gb' numbers with an i on the
end which might be a good way to keep some continuity on the site?
|
No thoughts on this from anyone? It really must be just me then? 
|
I guess no one sort by ID….
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jun 12, 2020 15:28 | | Subject: | Re: Consistent Zamor Sphere Inventory Listings | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, WoutR writes:
The first thing that came to my mind: Dragibus® (sweets).
Mmmhh.
|
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jun 11, 2020 15:12 | | Subject: | Re: Inverted wanted list in shops | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, jeslego writes:
| | […]
An Easter Egg in Bricklink!!
|
Easter eggs are generally not as useful as this
| | I kept following links until I reached your 2014 survey. Hopefully, my "Yes"
vote will put it over the top.
|
It was in 2017, 2014 is when I joined 
But still, 3 years and I still give this explanation too often (already 3 times
this week).
| | thanks for making my day educational.
|
Glad it helped
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jun 11, 2020 15:05 | | Subject: | Re: Inverted wanted list in shops | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yvesson writes:
| | Hej,
Thanks, that helped, but could have been more handy and user-friendly if it was
possible while you're in the store.
|
I think it would be confusing to be in a store and see parts that are not in
the store.
Besides, what would you do with that list while in the store? You need to go
to another store or to the Buy page to find said other store anyway.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jun 11, 2020 14:45 | | Subject: | Re: Inverted wanted list in shops | | Viewed: | 17 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, yvesson writes:
| | Hej,
Would it be possible to show a quick list of items that the shop doesn't
have in a given wanted list ?
Say I have 100 items in any wanted list. While in a shop it says there are 90
available but it's not easy to know which arn't. Plus some duplicate
items and in reality it's just 80/100. So I'd like some option to show
me what's missing.
|
Use the Buy page, find the store in the list (if it has many parts you want,
it will be on top),
|
If the shop is “favorited,” it will be on top too if you check the corresponding
store filter.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jun 11, 2020 14:44 | | Subject: | Re: Inverted wanted list in shops | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yvesson writes:
| | Hej,
Would it be possible to show a quick list of items that the shop doesn't
have in a given wanted list ?
Say I have 100 items in any wanted list. While in a shop it says there are 90
available but it's not easy to know which arn't. Plus some duplicate
items and in reality it's just 80/100. So I'd like some option to show
me what's missing.
|
Use the Buy page, find the store in the list (if it has many parts you want,
it will be on top), and use the Wanted Item tab as explained here: https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1202227
(In short: click near the store name but not on the store name.)
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jun 9, 2020 13:36 | | Subject: | Re: Clikits colors | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
| In Colors, axaday writes:
| | Sometimes I forget some things.
|
Patient: “Doctor, I have a problem with my memory.”
Doctor: ”Since when?”
Patient: “Since when what?”
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jun 7, 2020 19:36 | | Subject: | Re: 88072 in Light Gray | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | […]
Ah, I remember having trouble identifying the variants I had when I got out of
my Dark Ages. I thought I was holding them wrong and trusted the catalogue(s)
As with all my old parts, the “Antiques” (pre-Dark Ages) are stored separately.
So, I have 3 Black and 1 LG SHORT 4623 (and 3 Black and 2 White long ones).
They come from
Yes, one Black is missing, I have to hunt it down.
|
Found it. And he’s a shorty.
So, 4 short, 3 long in Black. That may mean 6011 was a long. Or it might not.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jun 7, 2020 19:09 | | Subject: | Re: 88072 in Light Gray | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, normann1974 writes:
| | The catalog for this part is now officially a mess, and an admin need to work
on fixing this.
|
Honestly, I'm tempted to merge them. There is little reason for this part
to be split over an excessively confusing difference that requires no less than
three comparison images.
|
But but but, they are functionnaly different! 
| | And, of course, a fairly snarky additional note that is clearly the result of
frustration over sellers just not getting the difference (and blaming them for
the problem that BrickLink created).
|
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jun 7, 2020 19:08 | | Subject: | Re: 88072 in Light Gray | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, normann1974 writes:
| | | | I have several light gray with the shorter arm. They are light gray, not yellowed
LBG, and they are marked 4623.
|
Ouch, I just checked all 5mm versions that I currently have for sale. I found
one blue and about half of my black ones (13) bearing mold number 4623. I can
therefore conclude that mold number 4623 was used for both versions of this part
(I have checked the 6mm versions also, they also bear this number).
I ought to have seen this already this a month ago when I was double-checking
the contents of my childhood sets. Those sets have been mixed together, but for
my mid-80's castle sets, I was wondering why all of them had 5 mm versions
when the inventories stated they had to be 6 mm. Not a single 6 mm found among
those sets. So I replaced the parts with 6 mm versions believing this was the
right thing to do. But now I know why I didn't find the 6 mm art in them.
The 5 mm version was apparently already in use during the 80's with the same
mold number.
The catalog for this part is now officially a mess, and an admin need to work
on fixing this. Sorry to be the messenger.
|
Ah, I remember having trouble identifying the variants I had when I got out of
my Dark Ages. I thought I was holding them wrong and trusted the catalogue(s)
As with all my old parts, the “Antiques” (pre-Dark Ages) are stored separately.
So, I have 3 Black and 1 LG SHORT 4623 (and 3 Black and 2 White long ones).
They come from
Yes, one Black is missing, I have to hunt it down.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jun 7, 2020 16:55 | | Subject: | Re: Did horizontal become vertical & vice versa? | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Legoboy_II writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| |
When and why did you stop beating your wife?
|
I think you owe the Community a sincere apology for
such a personal and unwarranted attack against my
deceased wife, whom you didn't even know and had
absolutely no reason to drag into your argument.
|
|
I’m not sure this is serious due to the way it’s worded but if I owe an apology,
I’d sincerely apologize to you, your wife’s memory, and her family and friends
for having mentioned an hypothetical wife of yours in a rhetorical argument and
triggered painful memories of a dearly departed.
| | I believe that was a rhetorical question meant as an example to show that the
questions that were being asked were not really relevant when there is an even
bigger underlying problem that is not being addressed.
|
It’s also a trap question that can’t be answered without verifying (making true)
the tacit premise (asking about circumstances of something stopping implies the
something existed).
Did you stop eating snails?
— Yes ≫ Yuck! You ate snails.
— No ≫ Yuck! You’re still eating snails.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jun 7, 2020 12:13 | | Subject: | Re: Did horizontal become vertical & vice versa? | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:
| | […]
| | | | I did notice that very recently the names were changed again. And for the better,
they have included the word 'grip'in the description.
|
No, “grip” isn’t in the description.
|
|
I mean, “grip” wasn’t in the descriptions as of a few days ago, when you started
this thread. So it’s not part of the change you think occured, it’s a consequence
of this thread.
| | […]
Regardless of the history of the nomenclature, it is confusing and is not based
on describing the shape of the part itself. It is based on one attribute of a
part it may attach to.
|
Yes. The only clip-like part for which “vertical/horizontal” as used here could
make sense is the minifig hand (because of the already established meaning of
“vertical/horizontal” for human hands). And that part isn’t described as a clip
nor has “clip” nor any orientation in its description….
| | […]
It was a short-sighted initial decision and it has unfortunately been perpetuated.
|
Yes.
And it’s a difficult decision to correct now, as there isn’t any other pair than
vertical/horizontal (that I know of) to describe the difference between the clips.
The only way would be to swap the meanings of vertical and horizontal, creating
confusion.
(Hence the latest change from “clip vertical” to “clip (vertical grip).”)
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jun 7, 2020 10:14 | | Subject: | Re: Did horizontal become vertical & vice versa? | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Northwinds writes:
| |
Which are both irrelevant questions because the names didn’t change.
With al due respect but how can you be so sure?
I've been selling here since 2000.
My inventory boxes carry the stickers with the old names since that date,
|
[P=30241b]
That part appeared in 2008/2009.
| | these
names were changed sometime in the past 20 years, I only did not notice
this until just a few months ago.
|
Peeron’s name (60475): Brick 1 x 1 with Clip Vertical
Peeron hasn’t been updated since 2011. (They have only one variant. 30241 is
just appearing in notes in 60475’s list of sets.)
LDraw’s names:
(60475a): Brick 1 x 1 with Clip Vertical (Thick C-Clip) and Solid Stud
(60475b): Brick 1 x 1 with Clip Vertical (Thick C-Clip) and Hollow Stud
Rebrickable:
(60475a): Brick Special 1 x 1 with Clip Vertical [Thick U Clip, Solid Stud]
(60475b): Brick Special 1 x 1 with Clip Vertical [Open O Clip, Hollow Stud]
Same motive, same punition with BrickOwl.
They all agree on what “vertical” means for this part.
They all agree on what “vertical” means for all the parts with clips.
As the part is “recent” (2008/2009), it’s not on lugnet (which died in 2002),
but lugnet agrees with everybody else on what “vertical” means for parts with
clips.
There’s no traces whatsoever of a change of names.
Those are facts, not memories.
On your side, you’re saying they all changed their names together, without leaving
any trace but your labels, twice!
What are the chances you made a mistake with your labels instead?
| | I did notice that very recently the names were changed again. And for the better,
they have included the word 'grip'in the description.
|
No, “grip” isn’t in the description.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jun 4, 2020 12:42 | | Subject: | Re: We have a new Catalog Administrator! | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Congrats!
In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | […]
He really needs to put in some Inventory Change Requests.
|
Maybe he should make errors on purpose, so that he can correct them just after.
Doubling the contributions!
And the work….
Okay, so maybe not
| | Keep up the good work, Marek!
|
+1
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jun 2, 2020 12:50 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 75055-1 | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, btroup1950 writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 2 Part 4081b Dark Bluish Gray Plate, Modified 1 x 1 with Clip Light - Thick Ring
* Add 4 Part 4073 Black Plate, Round 1 x 1
* Add 2 Part 54200 Black Slope 30 1 x 1 x 2/3
* Add 1 Part 47905 Black Brick, Modified 1 x 1 with Studs on 2 Sides, Opposite
Comments from Submitter:
These parts are listed on the inventory pages at back of instruction book.
|
They are already there, in
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jun 1, 2020 20:23 | | Subject: | Re: Did horizontal become vertical & vice versa? | | Viewed: | 84 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Legoboy_II writes:
| | […]
However, the original question was when did the names change, and the
answers were attempts to explain why the names changed.
|
No, the answers were why the names were this way.
| | The objective
was to address both.
|
Which are both irrelevant questions because the names didn’t change.
When and why did you stop beating your wife?
| | The when, of course, being years ago when BL decided they didn't like the
manufacturer's nomenclatures, perhaps even day one (though the point is well
taken that the manufacturer saw no need to publicly name their elements and should
be considered as to why BL moved in this direction, you might know better as
to when the manufacturer disclosed their internal names).
|
How do you decide not to like something you don’t know?
| | […]
Then finally, to use other platforms, one will need a translator. For example,
feces = excréments = ontlasting = heces = kot = fezes and so forth... yes? […]
|
To be precise, E. feces = F. fèces.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jun 1, 2020 20:10 | | Subject: | Re: Torso: Misprint or Variant? | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | […]
As far as I can tell the Lego part number is 4275491 and so if Lego uses this
same part code for all its set appearances then it must be a misprint. I guess
the only way to be sure would be to try using Legos Broken/missing parts service
and then painstakingly check all the sets it appears in and check the toros part
number is the same for all. […]
|
LEGO uses the same element ID for different variants and prints.
E.g. according to BL,
* | | 3626bpb0203 Minifigure, Head Dark Bluish Gray Moustache and Bushy Eyebrows, Black Cheek Lines, White Pupils Pattern - Blocked Open Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
share the PCC 4524911.
(Happy example with both colour and variant differences. Grey/brown is not a
misprint.)
So you wouldn’t know whether it’s a misprint or a new “revised” print.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jun 1, 2020 06:46 | | Subject: | Re: Did horizontal become vertical & vice versa? | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Legoboy_II writes:
| | […]
I find it humorous that grammar errors
are carried through. It may be laziness, or total respect for the manufacturer,
I don't know... however, I lean toward the former.
|
It’s not “carried through” by “laziness.” It’s simply because Brickset’s database
IS (a copy of) LEGO’s database.
They get their data directly from LEGO and don’t change anything because their
purpose is showing LEGO’s data verbatim.
That’s not BL’s catalogue’s purpose.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jun 1, 2020 04:42 | | Subject: | Re: Did horizontal become vertical & vice versa? | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Leftoverbricks writes:
| | | | The orientation is
that of a bar attached to the clip, not that of the clip itself.
I can't find any name change logs of this part.
|
Great, I never realized that. This is making it easier to remember!
|
You can also think about it as a hand.
A minifig hand is a clip and it’s clearer / more natural to apply “horizontal”
or “vertical” to it.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 29, 2020 09:13 | | Subject: | Re: post001 vs post001new | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Dimi_DBB writes:
| | […]
Ok, that makes sense.
But still, if the inventory is exactly the same, does it need a separate entry?
Imho, there should be at least a note saying what the difference is. And wouldn't
that note be sufficient?
For this one, there's only a note to explain the difference, no separate
entry.
|
I think the older one should have a plain-studed head too.
But inventories don’t always show these differences.
So it’s more that we know they use different variants but it doesn’t show in
the inventories (yet?).
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 28, 2020 19:20 | | Subject: | Re: Even More Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
“This part has variants with and without two holes on one side (on each side
of the penultimate rung from the end without clips).”
Er, first, isn’t the “penultimate rung from the end without clips” the “second
rung from the end with clips” too?
I believe “second” is more widely understood than “penultimate.”
Then, you’re holding it wrong: it’s the “second rung from the end without clips”
or the “penultimate rung from the end without clips.”
“From” = where I start counting, “penultimate” = the one before last, where I
stop counting.
So if I start counting “from the end without clips,” it’s the second rung that
has holes.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 28, 2020 11:52 | | Subject: | Re: Why are these Hinges? | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | […]
As far as I can see I have understood everything you said but it seems that you
honestly misunderstand what I try to say.
|
What I understand is that you’re sometimes conceding there are problems and then
you go harping on again about how their identified¹ causes are only theoritical,
logical or conceptual considerations that doubtfully cause real problems.
“Oh yes, those are problems. But causes are not problems. And these causes
are only conceptual. So there’s no real problem.”
Guh.
Inconsistency is a no-no in categorization theory. It doesn’t mean the problems
caused by inconsistencies are theoretical.
¹ Yes, the causes are identified:
If the problem is “I can’t identify this part” (which is only one example of
the problems we have), it’s because “I” (the “I” who has the problem, not necessarily
me) looked in categories (plural, “I” is not obtuse and knows they can be wrong
or confused) “I” thought the part would be. And “I” think a part would be in
maybe this or that category because of the names of this and that category and
because the part “I”’m trying to identify looks like the parts that are in this
and that categoriy, or because the part is used like (*brr, shivers*) the parts
that are in this and that category.
So “I” was misguided and confused by the category names and the parts that are
in the categories, by what “I” thought the parts shared.
Same (or worse) with browsing by category: “I” look for parts like such other
parts in the categories these other parts are in, if the parts “I” should see
aren’t in these categories, it’s because “I” didn’t get what the categories “meant”
(what their names meant, what features the parts that are in them share).
Causes: names don’t mean what “I” think they mean, parts don’t share what “I”
think they share.
And what the current project is doing is only addressing the names of the categories,
and then, only by tweaking their definitions, not by changing their names (or
maybe just a little, eventually, if really necessary) and certainly not by regrouping
parts and identifying why people are looking in the wrong categories.
IOW, they are writing down the exceptions to the definitions so that parts will
only be in one category. But if “I” don’t learn these definitions by heart,
“I”’ll still look for them in the wrong places because the names will be the
same and the parts will be in the same place.
Changes to the categories and parts is always on a case by case basis. Sometimes,
one person proposes to split a category or move a couple parts. And then people
discuss this little bit of the catalogue and, maybe, the consequences on another
little bit.
No global view.
“Rearranging chairs” as mfav once put it (well, more than once actually).
| | […]
And it seems the story is inconsistent on categories like hinges and boat will
or will not change - right now it's a bit of eating the cake and having
it too, because on the one hand everything will be logically restrucutured but
on the other hand it will not result in major mismatches in jargon or catalogs
across platforms.
|
It’s simply because we don’t know: we haven’t listed the attributes, we haven’t
prioritized them, we haven’t defined the categories.
| | You didn't say it would cost nothing, but still, don't assume you oversee
everything. There are a lot of implications for a lot of people. These need to
be assessed.
|
But we can’t know. The only question we can ask now is “would you be favourable
to a change in the categories.” But we can’t say how important the change.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 28, 2020 08:53 | | Subject: | Re: Why are these Hinges? | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | […]
| | I still don’t get the original sentence in any other way than temporal. I don’t
see it applying to something placed further (and later) in the message.
|
Aw man really? Here we go:
Saying "the problem is that categories are inconsistent" to me isn't good
enough, because it is not in and of itself a problem yet. Having multiple options
for categories
to put a part in, is not a problem yet. Things like people searching endlessly
or giving yup, yeah, those are problems.
|
Well, that’s a strange way to use “yet.”
(See, languages do prove problematic….)
| | You're a smart guy so you must see the point I keep trying to make..... that
things are not problems just because they violate how we imagine things..
|
And you keep dismissing and belittling examples that are not imagined.
| | | | Something that upsets people is a problem.
|
[…]
Surely we are changing the catalog to improve its practical usefulness, and not
because its intrinsic properties are upsetting?
|
What is upsetting is all the problems I have explained time and time again.
I won’t explain them again.
| | […]
OK, you're right, here is a problem. If you have difficulties, then
that is certainly important.
|
There you go again, mocking the reality of problems with the categories because
I avoided repeating (again) the list of troubles people have by summing them
up as “difficulties.”
| | (I assumed you were one of those veterans who knew the catalog by heart.)
|
I’m not. I already said I used LDraw or LDD to find part numbers to then look
them up in the catalogue.
The only way I use the categories is to reduce the number of parts I look at
in a store, but I still go over (almost) all of them one by one because there
are always interesting parts hidden there somewhere.
| | […]
If this plaster on the wooden leg is cause for reduced ease of use (which is
plausible, I just want to know how if it is a small or a big problem), then it
is a problem. If it does the job, then all of what you mention above is fine.
|
I (and others) already explained in length which problems it won’t/can’t solve
and why.
| | […]
| | There’s always a cost.
For the ones who’ll do the job.
For the ones who know the old tricks and will need to learn new ones.
|
You're a really thoughtful and meticulous guy. But this is almost going over
things quick and carelessly. Seems the story is the catalog is all bad,
|
I never said that.
I said the catalogue had flaws (again, recognized by many) but I also said most
of it wouldn’t change (therefore it’s good too).
But continue strawmaning it to absolutes.
| | it needs to be rewritten because well, using logic you can see it without needing a survey,
|
I never said that.
I’ve given you real, pratical examples but you always go back to that strawman
“it’s only in your head.”
| | and it doesn't really cost anything,
|
I never said that.
Au contraire, I said (and you didn’t even snip it) it would have costs.
I never said that either.
| | [… blah …]
- We move further away from a universal or at least mutually intelligible language
for Lego parts.
|
No, we do not.
Because, first, which universal language?
LEGO’s is different, LDraw’s is different, Rebrickable’s is different, Studio’s
is different….
None of those use the same categories.
As for “mutually intelligible,” we never proposed to rename “Plates” to “Thin
bricks” or “Baseplates” to “No-bottom very thin bricks.” Au contraire, we propose
to regroup “plates” together IF it’s better (when we prioritize the attributes,
after we have found them).
But no, you are still strawmaning to “everything will totally change and just
because of fake problems that are only in your head!”
| | With all platforms having fundamentally their very own way of
classifying things, we're going to have islands rather than 1 strong community.
|
It’s in your head.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 27, 2020 18:14 | | Subject: | Re: Why are these Hinges? | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | […]
| | “Yet” 
|
Not in a temporal meaning
|
|
Come on, adverbs can refer to either time or space, you're a language guy,
you must've figured this "yet" referred to something a bit further on in
the context and not to "now" vs "another time"
|
I still don’t get the original sentence in any other way than temporal. I don’t
see it applying to something placed further (and later) in the message.
| | […]
No, really. It is too quick to immediately label things as problems without us
knowing anything about the effects.
|
Something that upsets people is a problem.
| | If a part could be two categories and it's
up to randomness in which category it belongs, then that in and of itself is
not the problem. The potential problem is difficulty shopping, but so far we
don't know anything how big that is. The catalog is for humans, not for robots.
|
Indeed. Robots can do tedious, repetitive tasks without being bored. Humans
can’t.
Trying all the categories one by one to find parts is a tedious repetitive task
humans prefer not to do.
| | You could look at a human language and spot tons of "problems" in it, yet they
don't prove problematic.
|
Languages do prove problematic. They need further communications to precise,
explain, and clarify.
| | Inconsistency in and of itself is not a problem,
we're surrounded by it. If the solution is possible and free, then sure.
If the solution is not free, then we need to be able to weigh the problem's
magnitude vs the sacrifice.
| | […]
Then there’s no way to measure the extent of the problem to your satisfaction.
|
My satisfaction... wish it was everyone's satisfaction. I would expect
anyone interested in this topic would be interested in finding out if, well,
they're problems. Not liking it from a logical perspective isn't a problem..
unless we were gonna print the catalog and hang it on a wall to enjoy it. I think
we really need to research this. Bricklink could easily create a survey about
this and then we would know a lot more. I don't really care about how many
things we could think of that "don't make sense if you think about it". I
just care about the shopping experience.
|
You always go back to the supposedly unproven existence of a real problem.
Do I have a problem with the categories as they are?
Yes.
Proof: I say so
Do other people have a problem?
Yes.
Proof: they say so in forum posts, either directly saying so or having difficulties
with the categories.
Do admins see a problem with the categories?
Yes.
Proof: https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1117709
and in https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1190847
“””
Do the definitions do their job?
Imagine a part you'd like to see placed into another category. Do the definitions
of the existing category for the part and the category where you'd like to
see the part moved fully explain the necessity for the move?
”””
Their solution is to make a very, very long dictionary (that no one will ever
read and even less learn but them¹) with lots of convoluted phrasing and exceptions
because they don’t want to touch the categories themselves, yet (in the temporal
sense ).
(¹ It’s okay, it’s their main goal: guidelines for the catalogue to make it less
person-dependant. But it can’t really serve as a guideline for simple users.)
The approach for now has been cautious: move parts on a case by case basis, try
to empty the (Other) category, create a few new categories.
Patches, patches, patches.
Plaster on a wooden leg.
But I get it, that’s not enough people, you want a “survey.”
So, how about the work BL did (and botched) for XP, a work that has partly been
used in Studio?
They tried to make hierarchical categories (“Shapes” in Studio aren’t hierarchical).
They totally missed it for the sets (which should stay theme- and time-oriented),
and there are a inconsistencies and too-big categories for parts, and the way
they are presented isn’t the best.
And, of course, they did it without any user input and without any communication.
But they did it for a reason: they did surveys.
| | […]
| | You had and have no problems but you made your own categorization for your shop….
|
No, I follow Bricklink's. My 2 Boat bins and my 4 Hinge bins are right here
behind me.
|
“I've already built my own catalog for my own shop which I can apply to my
Bricklink
shop by automatically assigning my categories to the remark fields.”
— https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1200018
| | […]
I just need to see that either A. the solution comes
at no cost,
|
There’s always a cost.
For the ones who’ll do the job.
For the ones who know the old tricks and will need to learn new ones.
| | or B. that its cost weighs up against the magnitude of the problem
- for which we need a survey.
I really hope Bricklink can make this happen. Not because I want to prove any
particular point, I am just genuinely interested in the catalog user experience.
If that would turn up a great degree of dissatisfaction then drastic changes
will probably receive wide support, also from me.
|
Provided there’s communication about it
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 27, 2020 15:51 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Legoboy_II writes:
| | […]
That certainly holds some truth, but what I have observed, more often than not,
is that stores sell a product for $X, then advertise it in multiples and simply
multiply the selling price, giving the illusion of a savings - it's
a psychological marketing strategy. In fact, if you go to most bulk discount
stores, it is likely that buying singles is actually cheaper because we have
conditioned the majority of the buying public to believe, without question, that
more is cheaper - extremely deceptive, but not illegal; caveat emptor.
I'm more altruistic and prefer transparency, hence why I recommend showing
both prices.
|
Of course.
But transparency isn’t the silver bullet.
In France, showing prices is an obligation (and “TTC” all taxes included, too,
so the 20% VAT is invisible), and price per volume or weight too.
That doesn’t prevent stores (or brands or whoever defines the prices) to sell
“more for more”: some “family” packs are more expensive than singles or smaller
packs.
So I always check the price/qty.
Some people have trouble understanding prices are free, that’s why I often quote
a pair of “mock commercials” from (very) old French comedians (they ran a parodic
newspaper and a radio show):
“A metallized corkscrew, 3 Francs 20” and then, “The same but more expensive,
5 F 30.”
People sometimes laugh but without getting that it actually works that way IRL.
You can easily find this type of things: a “premium” version that has everything
the “basic” version has and nothing more! and there’s still people to
buy it, and be happy with it
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 27, 2020 12:40 | | Subject: | Re: Why are these Hinges? | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | […]
| | “Yet”
|
Not in a temporal meaning
|
Indeed not. It’s an introductory sentence for the following sentences that explain
the problem. 
| | […]
| | Parts are put into categories (and sometimes moved from one category to another)
arbitrarily (on whims) now.
|
This is not the problem. The problem is the implicitly assumed result: Difficulty
finding things. And that I just want to know more about the problem, not by reasoning
about what logically are problems, but by measuring the actual
problem.
|
No, it’s also a problem on its own. It’s even actually a multi-fold problem.
First, it’s a problem to know where to put a new piece.
Then, it’s a problem because a different catmin could have put the piece in another
category.
Then, as you said, it’s a problem to know where to find a new piece once it has
been added.
And finally, it’s also a problem that the appearance of some new pieces make
us see the need to rethink the categories because of the difficulties of the
first problems.
| | The supermarket example is not just an analogy, it's an example of another
business where categorising is an issue.
|
You have a different definition than mine for analogy, because “an example of
something that is comparable is some ways” is exactly what an anology is.
And all I said was “comparison isn’t reason.” (I don’t if it’s a saying in English
or Dutch but it is in French.)
| | Is it an issue? Yes, because there too
people are searching,
|
Which, as I noted, can be a goal and not an issue.
| | and there too people are asking. It's just within reasonable
limits. Is the BL situation within reasonable limits? We would need to test it.
If first time findability is a huge problem, then yeah, we need to put
all efforts in designing a new catalog and give that 100% importance. If it is
a small problem, then we can afford to balance it with attention to categories
that are nice sets of parts that are relevant to browse.
|
Then there’s no way to measure the extent of the problem to your satisfaction.
We only have anecdotal evidence: each our own experience of using the catalogue
and each our own impression of what transpires on the forum.
How miscontent you are and how miscontent the others are is all feelings.
Even if you do a poll, you’ll only have feelings, and only of those who’d answer
the poll (the vocal ones, the “animated” ones).
So you’ll reject that as being not “huge” enough or too “small.”
| | […]
| | You’ve never been able to find or browse for all the “boat stuff” in one category.
|
I know, just saying it worked very conveniently for me. Sure, you're right,
a lot of those parts can very well be in other categories. But I had no problems.
|
You had and have no problems but you made your own categorization for your shop….
| | If others do, then sure. It's just that in my work I have encountered so
many people saying "well I don't have a problem, but probably other people
do" and then it turned out those people never existed. That is why I am this
kind of skeptical and want to hear it from the people who have the problem. The
signals I'm picking up are limited, but they're more "just take a moment
to learn it" than "omg the BL catalog is so difficult".
|
Except here it’s not “well I don’t have a problem but others may” it’s “I’ve
this problem, and others too.”
And “just a moment to learn it” isn’t a solution, it’s “I’ve a rock in my shoe
but it’s okay, I learned to limp around it.”
| | […]
| | At least, it shouldn’t prevent that anymore than the current unprincipled system
does
|
It would if it would be something too technical like based on dimensions
only.
|
That’s a strawman. We have already given examples of what could be good candidates
for attributes and we have already shown many are already in the current categories
(just not consistently organized yet).
| | […]
As long as whoever fleshes out the improvements says that they keep a balance
of those two perspectives in mind, then I really am fine with any outcome. […]
|
Then you’re fine because we’ve said it from the beginning.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 27, 2020 10:58 | | Subject: | Re: Why are these Hinges? | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | […]
I won't deny there are these problems, but I would really like to have some
kind of data, say a survey, so that we have something to talk about. Saying "the
problem is that categories are inconsistent" to me isn't good enough, because
it is not in and of itself a problem yet. Having multiple options for categories
to put a part in, is not a problem yet.
|
“Yet”
Those are problems now.
People can’t find parts without looking everywhere now.
Parts are put into categories (and sometimes moved from one category to another)
arbitrarily (on whims) now.
| | […]
I'm responding based on my buying experience, which was the very first years
of me being a (casual) member (pretty soon I realised it was a too expensive
hobby for me ). I would look around thinking "so what kind of boat stuff does
this shop have?" and it would not have been convenient for me if that whole category
was broken down into a too technical approach to part attributes - but yeah,
that is going to depend on what precisely the proposed catalog would look like.
|
But LEGO is all about using parts for anything and everything.
“Boat stuff”? Parts for a boat? What’s that? All the parts you can use to
build a boat (bricks, plates, etc.)? They are all in different categories now.
The giant boat hulls? The sails? The oars? The windscreens? The porthole
windows? The hatches? The rigging? They are all in different categories now.
You’ve never been able to find or browse for all the “boat stuff” in one category.
Worse, you have the illusion you can because there’s a “Boat” category (which
is mainly boat hulls, with masts, a couple anchors, a couple wheels, and one
oar (but not the four other oars) sprinkled within), and so you miss on a lot
of parts.
And a more reasoned system won’t be more technical, it’ll be more consistent.
And it won’t necessarily separate the parts that are together now for a wrong
reason, it will give a reason to put them together and it will give consistency
in the choices made to put them together.
E.g, if we remove the functionnal “Boat” category, we can still have a “Boat
Hull” category (that would keep together most of the 230 parts that are now together)
and regroup things that should be together and are now in three categories (like
oars that are now in “Boat”, “Minifigure, Utensil” and “Fabuland”).
(Note that we never talked about the theme-oriented categories, like “Fabuland.”
Yes, Fabuland parts have a style, they are almost like small Duplo, but it’s
not always easy to recognize it. Besides, some of the Fabuland parts have migrated
to other categories, mostly because they have been reused.)
| | I just want
a buyer-friendly catalog that takes into account but not overfocusses on first-time
identification of a part, but also on producing relevant categories that are
pleasant and supporting to browse around. If a more principal system could still
do that, then that's alright.
|
At least, it shouldn’t prevent that anymore than the current unprincipled system
does
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 27, 2020 09:22 | | Subject: | Re: Why are these Hinges? | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | […]
Supermarkets are highly professional and adapted businesses where everything
down to what exact songs are being played is laid out to get the most out of
everything. If even they struggle with these issues, […]
|
But do they struggle?
I think they just make choices.
They also sometimes put the products in two places. (They can, we can’t.)
They aren’t struggling to know where the products should be. They choose where
to put them for reasons you don’t necessarily know (but generally do): it’s the
season, it’s for promotions, it’s for novelty / make the store alive, it’s to
cater to some new or newly recognized needs, etc.
Sometimes, the even simply move things around to make you look for them and browse
the shelves and find something else to buy.
Here, they are making attractive stands.
Maybe there’s a lot of people who come in that particular store every day at
lunchtime to get sandwich products. Three blocks away, another store doesn’t
have (or hasn’t yet recognized they have) the same kind of client, so they don’t
have a sandwich stand.
| | , I think we are doing really well here.
|
Analogies are always imperfect and limited. One shouldn’t try to see more into
them than what there is.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 27, 2020 08:39 | | Subject: | Re: Why are these Hinges? | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | […]
| | What other aspects? You still haven’t given examples.
|
Well here's what comes to my mind right now.
Meaningful categories: You could sort a supermarket based on size of the products
of based on alphabet, and it would be extremely easy to find a cauliflower. But
the aisles would not have meaningful categories. The result is that it is easy
to find a single product while at the same time browsing the store is very inconvenient.
|
As you define “meaningful,” shape is meaningful and function isn’t, or is less
meaningful.
Function is like alphabetical order: you need prior knowledge, arbitrary prior
knowledge, prior knowledge that you can’t guess by looking at a part.
| | Navigability: You can know where a part is, but if it would take many clicks
or staring at the screen, it is still inconvenient to use. For example if the
system would have many subcategories, which we don't at this point, or if
the category would be so large that it has many pages, which we do have.
[…]
So what I'm saying is that these are separate interests, that can sometimes
can conflict. […]
|
That’s what the prioritization of the attributes does.
You first find the attributes, then you prioritize them to have categories of
reasonable sizes while keeping simpler, more basic, attributes first (because
they simpler, more direct, to see in a part), and avoid conflicts.
It’s still arbitrary but systematic, needing less arbritrary / specialized prior
knowledge.
The problem with the catalogue now is that it’s inconsistent: there’s no system,
or rather, there are several conflicting systems. Some categories are shape-oriented,
others are function-oriented. Some categories are almost empty, others are full
to the gills.
When a new part arrives or when you’re searching for a part, there often are
several categories in which it can fall, because they are orthogonal categories
(one is shape, one is function) or because there’s no priority (the part mixes
two shapes with the same priority (is 43093 a pin with an axle or an axle with
a pin?)).
What the current project is trying to do is to first refine the categories’ definitions,
but not the categories themselves, hoping it will allow to define clear boundaries.
It might solve the Plate vs. Tile problem but it won’t solve the problem that
a hinged-plate is both a plate and a hinge, it will just put a lot of exceptions
in the definitions and the need of prior knowledge to prevent putting it and
looking for it in the Plate, Modified category.
We already know most of the attributes because they are already used in the category
names: brick, plate, round, hose, decorated, etc. There even is a prioritization
(brick ≫ round ≫ decorated).
What should be done is determine which attributes conflict and need prioritization
or deletion. That means the attributes need to be defined (what’s “hinge”?
it’s a function, it’s orthogonal with primary shape-attributes like brick and
plate, how do we prioritize them?) not the categories (what parts are in “Hinge”?
oh, they could also be elsewhere, let’s massage all the definitions to keep
(most of) them there).
| | By the way, I also think we mustn't forget which problem we are trying to
solve. Is it about solving practical problems with its use, or is it about solving
our feeling of dissatisfaction on some intellectual level? I feel a bit of both
are involved.
|
True.
| | So how big are the practical problems with the catalog really?
I'm honestly curious. I wonder what info we have that suggests dramatic overhauls
are needed. You'd have to watch people use Bricklink in order to find out
I guess. But if I had to go by the number of ID topics, the people who ask are
vastly outnumbered by the people who answer.
|
Not true. It’s always the same people who answer.
(Old timers who know the parts, and how they are arranged in the catalogue, or
have developped tricks to circumvent its inconsistencies, or have simply memorized
those inconsistencies.)
| | But of course, that doesn't count the times someone had to search for too long.
|
Or abandoned and didn’t come to the forum to ask, putting the part in their “what’s
that?” bin for later (a.k.a. never).
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 27, 2020 07:03 | | Subject: | Re: Why are these Hinges? | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
I'm not a catmin.
|
Not even a cat?
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 27, 2020 07:01 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Legoboy_II writes:
| | […]
2. Regarding when there aren't enough items to meet a tier limit, I always
recommend to my clients that they advertise their scheme, and allow aggregation
of orders or backorders, IF they intend to replenish their stock in a timely
manner, though I discourage aggregation of future orders. Elsewise, remove the
advert;
|
Backorders are forbidden by BL ToS.
| | […]
4. Lastly, regarding the buns analogy, I generally recommend that the client
"market" their products accordingly, and concurrently advertise, on the signage,
"X for $Y or $Z each".
|
Isn’t it a legal obligation to show all prices in the USA?
| | This tells the customer they can get fewer, how much they
will be, and discloses any "inflated" price scheme, which I strongly discourage,
though a small savings is certainly appropriate, similar to the tiered system.
|
The problem in the bun example is not that the clients don’t know they can buy
only one, it’s that they don’t want to buy at the higher price because there’s
a lower price, so the last bun stays on the shelf.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 26, 2020 18:42 | | Subject: | Re: Why are these Hinges? | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | The catalog is always a compromise. Findability of parts, usefulness of the categories,
a balanced size of the subcategories, other aspects probably...
|
Define “usefulness of the categories.”
I note that you have dfficulties finding the “other aspects” a categorisation
would have that could serve better (or at all).
| | It seems from your preference that you've assigned findability utter and
utmost importance and all choices are made based on that aspect. OK, but personally
I think findability is less important than meaningful categories that you can
browse to look for related parts or alternatives. For example, when I was building
and I was looking for some hinges to make a sloping roof, I could look at the
part I had in mind but also browse around other types of hinges that might work.
|
Sorry to say, but that “meaningfulness” of categories you describe is actually
also findability.
You want a “Hinges” category so you can find hinges more easily.
You can do that by looking for the term “hinge” in descriptions.
It’s not different from looking for “3 x 3” because you need a “3 x 3” piece
and they are all over the categories.
(And I won’t even go into the problem that the “Hinges” category doesn’t include
many related and alternative pieces, like clips & handles or towballs & their
sockets. So neither looking for “hinge” nor looking into a “hinge” category
gives you all the related parts or alternatives. Indeed, both should give you
the same results.)
| | I think findability is something that is useful but only as long as you don't
yet know the catalog. After that - which is going to be the longest time - other
aspects become more important. Or at least, in my opinion.
|
What other aspects? You still haven’t given examples.
What are categories for if not to ease the process of finding parts by reducing
their number?
Furthermore, you’re saying once one knows the catalogue, they don’t need to find
parts anymore.
Well, first, you still need to find parts, it’s just that you know where many
of them are or should/would be.
Second, even very experienced BLers have problems finding parts (see the forum
requests, they don’t all come from newbies). Even the catmins don’t know all
the parts ( https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1199626 ).
Third, the “longest time” is for those who have been here the longest (obviously),
and that’s the very thin tail of the curve. Having no prior knowledge is the
lot of many many more people. And those people are new buyers who should interest
you the most (you seller!). (All the other ones may be return-buyers but they
are very old (having been there the longest) and won’t be there much longer.)
| | I am willing to believe that your catalog would be the champion in findability.
I just don't agree it's the most important thing.
|
But the only usage you gave was another example of findability….
| | I think this will always be a personal preferences thing..
|
Preference in how you find things. On one side, for anyone with no prior knowledge,
on the other side, for you, who have some knowledge and ingrained habits.
So, whom should the catalogue serve? Those who don’t need it or those who do?
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 26, 2020 14:40 | | Subject: | Re: Why are these Hinges? | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:
| | […]
You can already see what it looks like, because the catalog already follows it
up to a point. It is where the catalog departs from it that we run into issues. […]
|
You can also look at how LDraw describes the parts, they (try to) follow a shape
approach.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 25, 2020 12:16 | | Subject: | Re: Why are these Hinges? | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | […]
Well yes, I get how the distinction is "problematic"... but I don't think
there's a need to over-problematize this or make it too much of an intellectual
exercise. That is not a popular remark but I'll just be controversial here
and say the sooner we come to terms with this reality, the sooner we'll reach
solutions - which are not perfect, but good enough. If we don't accept it,
one change is going to lead to the next, which leads to uprooting the entire
system that has been laid out, putting it all back into place in a different
configuration, which tomorrow will seem arbitrary to someone else.
|
The French term is “révolution” and we make one from time to time.
New boss, same as old boss. But it gets the steam out
| | […]
In short, I'd say: Embrace the imperfection, it's gonna be here to stay
|
But the categories definitions are already changing. So as it’s already changing,
we can discuss where it’s heading.
| | When I think about catalog improvement, instead of moving stuff, I'm thinking
about interface improvement, navigability, good search functions (tags), and
something that encourages users to learn.
|
Yes, but that’s not happening.
| | It's a hobby and people are willing
to learn. Whenever people are posting ID topics, their response is usually pretty
positive rather than something like "omg seriously? why on earth is it in that
category?"
|
Newcomers don’t challenge the established situation.
Older members are used to the categories being weird, they know it’s (was) useless
to discuss it.
| | In my opinion, that is a compliment to the catmins and the community.
Don't wanna kill the discussion (which is always necessary!) but just want
to add that the catalog really is very good
|
I sort my parts by shape, affinity, and size (and room ). It might be said
to somewhat look like the catalogue categories but only if you look at “bricks,
slopes, plates.” As soon as it gets more precise, it’s less and less like the
catalogue.
When I search for a part number, I look in LDraw or LDD. It’s quicker.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 25, 2020 11:56 | | Subject: | Re: 1 x 1 bricks old/new how to comment ? | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, Alfred1971 writes:
| | Hi Everybody
I am sorting some older sets, now i saw that for example 1 x 1 bricks have different
mold marks. The newer bricks have it on Top, the old have it on one the side
so that they look like they have a toothmark. How can i sell the old bricks ?
What should i write in the Commentary ??
|
I believe the common usage is “side pip” (opposed to “top pip” or “logo pip”).
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 25, 2020 11:32 | | Subject: | Re: Why are these Hinges? | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | I say “Off with purpose-defined categories!”
|
How would you define those and what categories do you consider to be purpose-defined?
I think these probably are, but beyond that I'm not sure which specific
ones you'd consider purpose-defined.
Bracket
|
Bracket is a shape.
Hinge is a function.
Shape.
Function.
Function.
If I encounter a part whose function “obviously” is to launch things (and there’s
no “projectile launcher” category and I know there’s no such category because
that would be a function category), I’ll search in a category matching its shape,
or try to search for the term “launcher” or “cannon” in its description.
It isn’t obvious to me that
is a projectile launcher. It’s a 1 x 4 brick with some sort of slot.
Obviously,
is NOT a projectile launcher. It’s not even obvious it’s a projectile.
But all the shapes aren’t equal. Hook is a shape but when you need to add parts
that are obviously not hook-shaped and barely manage 20 parts, then the category’s
existence is debatable.
(You’re looking for a hook? Search “hook” in the description.)
Isn’t a hook, it’s a slope with struts to attach a hook.
But then, there’s all the minifig utensils, weapons, tools….
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 25, 2020 11:04 | | Subject: | Re: Why are these Hinges? | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | […]
The Hinge category should probably be defined as those parts that had no purpose
other than being a hinge. And even then it's still a problematic category.
I don't know that it would be eliminated completely, but there seems little
need for it when parts with a hinge can be located by typing "hinge" in the search
box.
|
Exactly.
Because defining a category by “purpose” (or “function”) is The Problem.
First, how can you know what’s the purpose of a piece you’ve never encountered?
Then, as the usual examples show, parts all have multiple functions. What’s
the main one? The first one? The most frequent one?
You need too much previous knowledge to even try to answer that.
If you already need to know which parts are in a category to know what’s in the
category, the category is useless.
Categories should help find the parts, not the other way around.
When you’re looking for a part, say a plate with appendices, you shouldn’t end
up in “Hinges” because you failed to find it in “Plate, Modified.”
Hinges, turntables, small fingers, locking fingers are all features that are
or should be present in the descriptions.
| | The one thing I can say for sure is that it could definitely be expanded or pared
down.
|
Expanding it means removing parts from other categories. But (most of) these
parts are in those categories for a reason, a supposedly good reason.
I say “Off with purpose-defined categories!”
|
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 21, 2020 21:11 | | Subject: | Re: Have Quantity in Wanted List | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, clohr writes:
| | Hi!
I have uploaded a parts inventory to "Wanted List" using the "Have Quantity"
field, I want to export this information, but it is not possible because downloading
does not rescue the information in that field.
How can I export this information??
|
It’s in the “QTYFILLED” element in the XML.
(“Want” is in “MINQTY”.)
It works both for download and upload.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 21, 2020 18:08 | | Subject: | Re: Stickers: Space Shuttle Discovery (7470) | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
In Suggestions, Bricksonbricks7 writes:
| | I was wondering, how can I go about finding the parts with the stickers? it looks
like some of the stickers are placed over multiple parts
|
They are in the inventory in the Counterparts section, no?
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 21, 2020 14:16 | | Subject: | Re: Is dual color mold really decorated? | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | […]
I’ll try to make a comparison picture….
|
Dang. I can’t: I only have the surface paint in black.
I have both versions of the chrome ones but there already is a comparison picture.
I note exists in both versions: there’s a comparison picture but
only one part in the catalogue….
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 21, 2020 14:03 | | Subject: | Re: Is dual color mold really decorated? | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | […]
Which makes me wonder what the catalog means when it uses the word "embossed:"
|
If you actually are wondering about this part, the pattern is both embossed and
painted, while on
it’s only painted.
I’ll try to make a comparison picture….
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 20, 2020 16:16 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6980-1 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, anathema writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, anathema writes:
| | The hose in my copy of the set is 77mm (slightly under 10 studs) in length.
There is no way to know if it's been cut down at some point, of course.
|
I've done some more investigation.
My hose is a different colour to the other 'classic hose' parts I have;
it also has a slightly smaller inner diameter, although it is still larger than
that of a genuine pneumatic hose.
So either there have been different types of hose used over the years (possible)
or else what I have is an aftermarket replacement.
Whichever it is, I'm inclined to believe that this set most likely only ever
shipped with a 12L hose.
|
Is it slightly transparent?
When I checked mine, there was a ~10L black one near them but only one and slightly
translucent. I compared it with the pneumatic hose from the same period I had
in another drawer and they match (so in the pneumatic drawer it went).
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 19, 2020 11:37 | | Subject: | Re: More Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | […]
Fair point. But the same sets packaged in different factories or even at different
times in the same factory, or perhaps even at the same time in the same factory,
may contain different variants.
|
That other sets came out differently from the same (or not) factory at the same
time (or not) doesn’t change the fact that one set is as it was when it came
out of the factory.
All the sesterces are different, it doesn’t change the fact some of them can
be certified as being real antique coins from a certified time-period.
| | I stand by my opinion that period-specificity is at least somewhat delusional.
|
If you’re “bricklinking” the set.
And it also depends on your value of “good enough”: Do you trace all the parts,
asserting they came from boxes the siblings of the set you’re bricklinking?
Or are you content with “we know these variants were made around that time”?
| | | | So even if BL’s catalogue didn’t exist, one could still be proud of owning a
period-specific set.
|
True. But what does that even mean?
|
Well, you are the one who used the term
| | […]
Because of the aforementioned variability in packaging for a given set, what
real meaning do the words "historically accurate" or "period-specific" even have?
|
There’s the same thing with cars: there are the “only original parts,” the “we
replaced some parts with others from the same manufacturer and period,” and the
“we used some 3D-printed parts” and so on. And some parts (chassis, engine…)
are more important than others (belts) and even on some important parts, some
modifications are allowed without removing value (remove rusted parts of the
body, weld some new bits).
There’s the same thing with all collectible items.
And the “meaning” of “historically accurate” or “period-specific” is not binary
(is / isn’t), it’s, like about every word, a gradation of what people agree it
is.
It can be discussed precisely, generally between a seller and a buyer, to translate
it in monetary value, but it’ll still be generally fuzzy.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 19, 2020 10:22 | | Subject: | Re: More Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | […]
Only if every single variant was thoroughly documented and also documented to
have appeared in that set could you say that your copy of a set is historically
accurate.
|
Er, not exactly.
One’s owning the set since it was bought sealed and never having mixed its parts
allows one to say one’s copy is historically accurate.
Or any certified track of the set and its parts from the time it was bought sealed
allows the latest owner to say their copy is historically accurate.
So even if BL’s catalogue didn’t exist, one could still be proud of owning a
period-specific set.
| | And considering that many (if not most or all) parts have variants,
chasing those phantoms might become rather nonsensical at some point.
|
And the one who discovers a variant can’t even have the ego-boost of the variant
being named after them.
No “3961 stormchaserus” for you
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 18, 2020 06:20 | | Subject: | Re: Part 4345a vs 4345 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, normann1974 writes:
| | […]
| | | | | | | | seem to appear in sets up to 1992.
|
|
|
That would “1982”
|
What "would" 1982? I don't understand. The part appears in set 1896 from
1992 according to BL.
|
Sorry, I was a bit tired and the second time I read it, I thought it was “from”
(as I was correcting one typo, my mind was looking for “typos”).
Case in point: I didnt’t type “be.”
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 17, 2020 20:09 | | Subject: | Re: Parts Tracker | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, kkronk writes:
| | […]
Personally, I have never used the "upload" feature for Lego Digital Designer,
so I cannot say if this feature already exists or not.
|
It does: Want | Upload accepts LDD, LDraw, Studio, or BrickStock formats (file
upload), or BL’s XML format (paste).
| | Given that I am trying
to keep my build a secret, to a point, I did not use the "upload" feature, thinking
it may reveal my design.[…]
|
‘Want | Upload’ only uploads to a Wanted List.
There’s absolutely no reasons for BL to keep the temporarily uploaded design.
If you’re really frightened for your Super Duper model, you can always dismantle
your design (move all its parts haphazardly) before uploading it.
‘Want | Upload’’s totally unrelated to Studio’s “Gallery.”
Besides, even in Studio, there’s a Wanted List upload that doesn’t upload the
whole design, only the parts.
As for the rest, what you want is an inventory system for buyers.
There are many suggestions for this already….
Have been for years….
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 17, 2020 18:48 | | Subject: | Re: Part 4345a vs 4345 | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Inventories, normann1974 writes:
| | | | Part starts to consistently appear in sets from 1990, while
seem to appear in sets up to 1992.
|
|
|
That would “1982”
| | | | | | Is it not strange then, that the latter is
not found in these sets:
from 1985
from 1984
from 1985
|
As a side note, Peeron claims that the solid studs are in those three sets.
/Jan
|
The only blue ones I have have solid studs.
They come from
Old my old (letter)boxes have solid studs.
|
That would be “All.”
Request filed.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 17, 2020 18:44 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 6882-1 | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 2 Part 4345a Blue Container, Box 2 x 2 x 2 - Solid Studs (Alternate) (match ID 2)
* Change 2 Part Blue 4345 Container, Box 2 x 2 x 2 {match ID 0 to 2}
Comments from Submitter:
From my old collection.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 17, 2020 18:37 | | Subject: | Re: Part 4345a vs 4345 | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, normann1974 writes:
| | | | Part starts to consistently appear in sets from 1990, while
seem to appear in sets up to 1992. Is it not strange then, that the latter is
not found in these sets:
from 1985
from 1984
from 1985
|
As a side note, Peeron claims that the solid studs are in those three sets.
/Jan
|
The only blue ones I have have solid studs.
They come from
Old my old (letter)boxes have solid studs.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 15, 2020 18:20 | | Subject: | Re: Proper way to tag extra parts in XML | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Inventories, randyf writes:
| | […]
It sure does, doesn't it. Unfortunately, I can't edit that page.
|
’twas worth a try
|
Russell worked some magic, and I now have access to it. I will be looking into
it.
Cheers,
|
Cheers indeed. It really was worth a try
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 15, 2020 16:42 | | Subject: | Re: Studio Import/Export to BrickLink | | Viewed: | 14 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, AFOLBlds4Rlxn writes:
| | Hello,
I took a close look at the export file coming out of Studio 2.0, just space delimited.
My first round with exporting a BL WishList was XML. These are not compatible.
I saw one post where someone suggested to export the Studio Design file, import
to Lego Digital Designer, then use that properly formatted file to import into
a BL shopping list. Kludgy, but a temporary solution.
What about going the other way? From a design posting, to BL WishList to a Studio
parts import so you can try the model virtually?
Thanks in advance!
|
Maybe you could start reading the answers to your previous questions?
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1197306
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 15, 2020 16:40 | | Subject: | Re: Studio Import from Official Set | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, AFOLBlds4Rlxn writes:
| | Hello,
Where can I read up on piece geometries and how to fix the parts inventory in
Studio? I have a couple of train sets to merge together and the noses and a
few other pieces I like the look of did not import correctly.
|
The dedicated forum for Studio is https://forum.bricklink.com/ (red Studio icon
on every page, “Builder Forum”).
After having visited that forum, learn about LDraw.
You may also give a try to PartDesigner but it’s more for decorating and simple
parts.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 15, 2020 16:37 | | Subject: | Re: Proper way to tag extra parts in XML | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, randyf writes:
| | […]
It sure does, doesn't it. Unfortunately, I can't edit that page.
|
’twas worth a try
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 15, 2020 14:43 | | Subject: | Re: Proper way to tag extra parts in XML | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, randyf writes:
| | […]
And that should be "You're" for all you English speakers. Grrrr...
|
For non-English speakers too
| | […]
| | Thanks for bringing that help page to my attention. The site is stripping the
characters out. I will get that page fixed.
|
|
The reverse problem is encountered on https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=207
“Use & instead of &” isn’t very clear
(Also the “Field Explanation” link doesn’t lead to any explanation….)
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 15, 2020 11:49 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6980-1 | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, paulvdb writes:
| | […]
I checked my set and I also have a hose that ca. 10 cm.
|
Only sets 6881-1 and 6980-1 here too.
Mine are 9.6cm, 9.7cm and 10.1cm long.
| | It's possible that
the person who added the 10L hose thought that 10L meant 10 cm. The hose was
added to this inventory before the length in cm was added to the name of the
hose.
|
To avoid any confusion, the Yellow ones in
are 10L / 8cm (as precisely as I can measure them).
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 14, 2020 20:10 | | Subject: | Re: Some interface improvement proposals | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Legoboy_II writes:
| | […]
I'm not clear what you're suggesting here? I have my WL's broken
down by projects, and when I shop, I pull up the WL's that I'm working
on. Then on the "Buy Wanted Lists" page, I check or uncheck the other lists when
I need to meet minimums or want to offset S&H.
This is a form of prioritizing?
|
Another form: in the Wanted Items tab, you can click on the little lock icon
on each part to make it a required part and only show the stores that have it.
| | […]
Asked for many times. I have been told these settings exist, but I either haven't
found them (even when given directions) or they're reset after the page refreshes.
|
A lot of things are refreshed spuriously.
Like “keep me logged in”….
| | […]
The fact that system goes down, every day, strongly suggests
the severs are not redundant, or if they are,
are not properly configured.
|
A number of things are computed off-line during the downtime.
It’s more a problem of code written when it was very costly and not useful to
do them on the fly than non-redundant servers (which there weren’t anyway, I
think).
| | […]
Also, having an action extend across multiple pages, that aren't in view,
could have serious unintended consequences, I'm not sure I agree on that
point.
|
+1
| | […]
Okay, I need to research "mosaic". I've seen the term in a few places, but
have no context of what that actually looks like.
|
OP actually meant “grid view.”
A mosaic is an ancient pixelated stone or faience artwork.
By extension 1 (maybe only in French?): the blurred zone in an image or film
by over-pixelization (generally faces or naughty bits).
By extension 2: an image made of other images.
By abuse (in France French): a special channel where all the channels are shown
in a grid of thumbnails.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 13, 2020 14:28 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Parts V- | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
not 30633
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 13, 2020 14:26 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Parts V- | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | […]
Wheel - For items that is a solid disk or a rigid circular ring connected
by spokes to a hub, designed to turn, which may or may not fit tire and tread.
|
Hmm, those are wheels:
and fit your description but I’m not sure we’d want them in the Wheel category
| | | | | | […]
2. A vehicle is by definition only something with wheels for land transport.
Consider rather moving the aircraft section out.
|
By which definition?
A vehicle is a means of transporting, carrying, something or someone. I don’t
see anything preventing vehicle to be used for aircrafts or boats.
Indeed, this is from WP ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle ):
“A vehicle (from Latin: vehiculum[1]) is a machine that transports people or
cargo. Vehicles include wagons, bicycles, motor vehicles (motorcycles, cars,
trucks, buses), railed vehicles (trains, trams), watercraft (ships, boats), amphibious
vehicles (screw-propelled vehicle, hovercraft), aircraft (airplanes, helicopters)
and spacecraft.[2]”
The references are [1] OED and [2] MacMillan Contemporary Dictionary.
|
Vehicle noun (MACHINE)
B1 [ C ] formal
a machine, usually with wheels and an engine, used for transporting people or
goods on land, especially on roads
Cambridge English Dictionary set to US English specifically
|
Dang. No one ever agree with anyone, not even lexicologists.
(French “véhicule” (the etymon) admits the “extended” usages.)
| | Also, we have aircraft and boat sections, which presumably should exclude those
from being in another section.
|
Okay.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 13, 2020 13:44 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Parts V- | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | […]
Wheel - For items that is a solid disk or a rigid circular ring connected
by spokes to a hub, designed to turn around an axle passed through the centre,
which may or may not fit tire and tread. Note 6
|
Potential problem with “axle”: it could be understood as “Technic axle.”
Maybe it should be amended with examples, like “(Technic axle, Technic pin, or
wheel pin).”
| | […]
2. A vehicle is by definition only something with wheels for land transport.
Consider rather moving the aircraft section out.
|
By which definition?
A vehicle is a means of transporting, carrying, something or someone. I don’t
see anything preventing vehicle to be used for aircrafts or boats.
Indeed, this is from WP ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle ):
“A vehicle (from Latin: vehiculum[1]) is a machine that transports people or
cargo. Vehicles include wagons, bicycles, motor vehicles (motorcycles, cars,
trucks, buses), railed vehicles (trains, trams), watercraft (ships, boats), amphibious
vehicles (screw-propelled vehicle, hovercraft), aircraft (airplanes, helicopters)
and spacecraft.[2]”
The references are [1] OED and [2] MacMillan Contemporary Dictionary.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 7, 2020 03:50 | | Subject: | Re: Ants | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | […]
I would be willing to bet that somewhere on those two parts there is a tiny difference.
I can't think of any instance at the moment where a new item number was
assigned by TLG without there being some kind of difference. Here it may just
be the marbling, though. […]
|
Two injection points instead of one?
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 6, 2020 10:34 | | Subject: | Re: Dual molded arms | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| |
[…]
The choice is of course arbitrary, but during this catalog project, would it
be wise to adapt to LDraw's (and thus Studio's) choice?
|
+1
IIRC, LDraw’s rationale was that the upper part is a sleeve, so the main colour
is the one used on the lower part: the arm (and hand) is yellow with a blue/red/white/…
(short) sleeve.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 5, 2020 13:54 | | Subject: | Re: Junior Accounts? | | Viewed: | 69 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, WoutR writes:
| | […]
Before LEGO bought BrickLink I would have said no...
But I can see a point in using Studio (especially now LDD is not supported),
and linking that to a wanted list...
|
Danger, danger.
If you let kids upload their digital work in the gallery¹, it will soon be even
messier than it is (or than it was at the beginning or the LDD gallery or any
gallery kids can upload their 3-stacked-bricks creations (yes, that’s condescending
but let’s face it, most kids aren’t Mozart)).
¹ If you want to share a WL, you might want to add a picture of the model with
it, and that’s exactly the same thing as uploading to the gallery.
Besides, what’s the purpose of a WL if it’s not to buy it?
So, your kid uploads a WL (or a MOC) on their teen-account, and you download
/ transfer / share it so that you can buy it from your account.
It’s quicker to let them directly upload a WL in your BL account from Studio.
If they are savvy enough to manage what is proposed, they can understand not
to touch your WLs and to name theirs intelligently.
(Studio can upload a WL directly to your BL account in one click.
What it can’t do is make a XML file of the WL so that you wouldn’t need to let
your kid have your BL credentials. It can do a useless CSV though….)
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 5, 2020 03:55 | | Subject: | Re: Wanted List Sort By Default | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Legoboy_II writes:
| | In Suggestions, Kenopolis writes:
| | Currently the wanted list "SORT BY" defaults to "Newest."
Could there be a way to remember the last choice?
Or change the default setting for the user?
I prefer to see it in alphabetical order, because it makes it faster to find
what I'm looking for. Currently I have to change it every time, and wait
for the page to reload.
Thanks!
|
Always been like that since I became a member last year, it is very annoying.
I've been told you can change that behaviour in "Preferences", can't
find it.
|
I believe the one who told you that didn’t understand what you were talking about.
There’s no default sorting option for the WL.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 3, 2020 06:27 | | Subject: | Re: Please add new Forum Topic | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | To save the almost constant threads that come up in the forum for things like
dealing with shipping to , as well as sales history as well as .... Please add
a new topic to the forum for Knowledgebase items.
That way Brickwilbo and others can refer people to the knowledgebase area for
their answers - it will save a lot of time and effort on everyone's part.
|
I’d say most of the answers should be in the help pages….
(Brickwilbo points to them when they are. The rest of the time, we copy-paste….)
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 04:43 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | […]
I had already questioned this in the admin forums yesterday. None of us even
knew this was happening, and we are as surprised as anyone else. We pretty much
got the rug pulled out from under us, and I honestly have no idea where we go
from here.
|
Change the buying process, don’t ask anything to experienced buyers.
Change the selling process, don’t ask anything to experienced sellers.
Change the catalogue, don’t ask anything to catalogue admins BL appointed!
“Hobby project” indeed.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 10:32 | | Subject: | Re: 3626cpb2463 Fright knight head | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Whoever submitted it obvious thought the ghostly wisps around the eyes were eyelashes.
|
Or because it looks like their mother in law?
(Yes, I’m ashamed to encourage that non-PC stereotype.)
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 27, 2020 14:49 | | Subject: | Re: Set 6891 Gamma V Laser Craft | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
|
In Inventories, javh writes:
| | Part number 4895 shows as black in Bricklink inventory yet at the bottom of the
inventory it indicates - 1 sp074 (Inv)Classic Space Droid - Dish Base, Blue with
Trans-Red Eyes and Black Antenna in which the blue version is used. In an inventory
on another site (Peeron) it indicates blue. Which is correctÉ
|
Both.
The black one is used in the ship.
The blue one is used in the droid, whose parts are in its inventory, not in the
set’s inventory, unless you “Break Minifigs” (link or View option on top of the
inventory).
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 14:54 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | […]
I'm just bored. I've been on BrickLink for a while, but I haven't
been active on the forum until very recently. You don't have to listen to
my answers if you don't want to.
|
I, for one, welcome any new participant to the forum
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 01:41 | | Subject: | Re: Own database of parts? | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, Legoboy_II writes:
| | In Inventories, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Inventories, Legoboy_II writes:
| | […]
I have read the forums, looking for a solution, and all of the suggestions, including
the one above, are for cloud based solutions. While that is not necessarily
a bad thing, I am weary that if something happens beyond the confines of my local
computer, I would lose everything - and we all know that managing our respective
inventories, whether we're sellers or not, is not an easy task.
|
Note though that you can download your inventories from Rebrickable for back-up.
The format is simple and you can download them in other formats (like BL WL).
So the main problem is that you need to be connected to manage your inventory
and you need to back up frequently if you work on it frequently
|
SylvainLS, I do appreciate that you responded to my reply, but here's my
issue:
|
I understand you have problems with connecting BrickStock and BL. More later
on that.
But first, to be clear, I was just answering your remark about being wary (careful)
about cloud-based solutions because you fear losing your data if the site goes
down.
As you can easily export your Rebrickable inventory to (and import from):
1. their CSV format,
2. BrickStock BSX format,
3. BrickLink XML inventory format,
…and as those formats are open and any tool can read them,
…and as Rebrickable also provides a back-up feature for the Pro version (I’m
no Pro),
…then you should not fear losing your inventory: if you back it up locally, you
can upload it back afterwards.
(Of course, all the items and colours are coded by their IDs, so you need to
have access to their meaning. But you can download Rebrickable’s catalogue to
understand their CSV, BrickLink’s catalogue to understand BL XML or BrickStock
BSX. You just need to do that before the site goes down.)
| | […]
Nonetheless, we can manually manage our inventory, using the program in full
standalone mode, we simply cannot access our member records. Which equates to
giving a baby candy, then snatching it back because they didn't say thank
you fast enough, then slapping the child for crying in protest.
|
I don’t know anything about the connection between BL and BS. I only tried BS
a bit and never to connect to BL.
What I know is that you can download your BL orders (as files) and import them
in BS, without having to connect to BL from BS.
| | Ultimately, the idea is to work smarter, not harder, and having to manage multiple
databases, just to manage one, when they all essentially desire to do the same
thing, and the one did and still could do it without the unnecessary running
around, but now you need the intermediates (so you allude),
|
Nope. I didn’t allude that you need Rebrickable AND BrickStock to manage your
inventory.
Just that if you choose Rebrickable (or another cloud-based solution with similar
features), you don’t need to fear losing all your data.
| | just to manage the
one. This capricious attitude would make my hero Prof. Wm. Deming, roll over
in his grave. However, you raise another question: are you suggesting that
the site you mentioned can access our member records, do a conversion, and then
import into the broken software? I've not seen that option, in the software,
nor elsewhere...
|
No, I’m not suggesting that whole chain of conversions.
But, for the record, that’s possible:
— Rebrickable can import your orders (and WLs) from BL (or BO) (automatic connection,
especially if you use the same username on both sites).
— Rebrickable can export in BSX (or BL XML) for BrickStock to import.
Or you can manually download your BL orders, import them into Rebrickable, then
export them to BS format, then import them in BS.
But I’m not advocating that.
I’m not advocating anything. I’m just explaning options:
You can choose to use BrickStock. And if you can’t connect to BL from BS, you
can still download your orders from BL to import them in BS.
You can choose to use Rebrickable. And you can import from BL or BS (or BO),
export to BL or BS, and connect to BL (or BO).
You can choose another solution, cloud-based or not, with similar features.
Or you can choose to use many tools at once and waste your energy by constantly
correcting conversion errors.
You can even choose to do all that in Excel or Brainfuck (@moderators: this is
not a curse!), they are both Turing complete.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 20:09 | | Subject: | Re: Own database of parts? | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, Legoboy_II writes:
| | […]
I have read the forums, looking for a solution, and all of the suggestions, including
the one above, are for cloud based solutions. While that is not necessarily
a bad thing, I am weary that if something happens beyond the confines of my local
computer, I would lose everything - and we all know that managing our respective
inventories, whether we're sellers or not, is not an easy task.
|
Note though that you can download your inventories from Rebrickable for back-up.
The format is simple and you can download them in other formats (like BL WL).
So the main problem is that you need to be connected to manage your inventory
and you need to back up frequently if you work on it frequently.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 12:52 | | Subject: | Re: Select All option to add parts to wanted | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, zombiereign writes:
| | I'm trying to replace a large number of missing parts from a single set.
I think it would be helpful if - from the set list - I could select multiple
pieces and add to my wanted for ordering. If there is a way - I must be overlooking
it
|
The shortest if you have many parts missing: https://www.bricklink.com/v2/wanted/partout.page
(There’s a “Part out” link on the set’s page.)
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 23, 2020 16:49 | | Subject: | Re: Images/Renders Part 4447 | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | […]
So, as Studio uses LDraw 3D models and already did use LDraw 3D models in 2017
and the LDraw 3D model for 4447 doesn’t have hollow studs and never had hollows
studs (at least there are no traces of such change and the 3D model didn’t change
since 2010), the renders should show plain studs.
|
So, I stand corrected: the 3D model did have hollow stud, until February 2009,
which is still way older than Studio.
But I still don’t get how the Studio renders used such an obsolete 3D model.
Did BL use a Studio version that is not the same as the released one?
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 23, 2020 16:11 | | Subject: | Re: Images/Renders Part 4447 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
[…]
| | Those are not LEGO renders.
|
|
That was just a guess. They sure are renders and they sure don’t look like usual
LDraw renders.
| | | | They are renders from something else. And the images
definitely show hollow studs.
|
|
I beg to differ.
| | | | I don't know how they could be interpreted
as anything else. If the part really has solid studs, all of the images need
to be replaced.
|
|
The part has solid studs.
| | Those are Studio renders from the 2017 image project.
|
So, as Studio uses LDraw 3D models and already did use LDraw 3D models in 2017
and the LDraw 3D model for 4447 doesn’t have hollow studs and never had hollows
studs (at least there are no traces of such change and the 3D model didn’t change
since 2010), the renders should show plain studs.
(The other parts Studio uses are LDD parts converted to LDraw when the part isn’t
in the official LDraw library, and 1. 4447 has been there for ages, 2. 4447 in
LDD doesn’t have hollow studs either.)
| | We retained all photographs
in that project and only replaced render with render. In this case there were
no official LEGO renders available and our only guideline for accuracy was the
lo-rez LDraw render that was just deleted.
|
But Studio never changed plain studs for hollow studs.
| | I agree, if the actual part only ever had solid studs all of these images need
to be replaced.
|
Yes, at least to show the studs with a better angle.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 23, 2020 15:27 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Parts B sect | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | […]
This is a difficult area to contend with. My personal opinion is that themed
parts really don't need to exist if we create appropriate generic part categories
that combine like items. I honestly believe it is possible.
[… example for Large Figures parts …]
|
+1
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 23, 2020 11:52 | | Subject: | Re: Images/Renders Part 4447 | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| |
I have one of these from but mine have all 4 studs as solid studs
and no hollow studs. Are the renders for this part correct or is mine an undocumented
variant?
|
All the colour images look like LEGO renders and if you look closely, the studs
aren’t hollow, it’s the angle and the logo that make a shadow that may look like
they are.
Only the bad yellow render (second image, not the one you see when you select
Yellow or look at the “User image”) shows more as if the studs were hollow but
it is a very very bad LDraw render.
If you look at the (also LDraw-based) 3D image and the 3D view, they show plain
studs.
I don’t know why they kept that awful render.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 20, 2020 12:44 | | Subject: | Re: Move Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | […]
How much work was put into this non-functional, non-appearance-affecting part
split by everyone involved? And this is just one part. There are more.
|
I beg to differ for these parts. The difference is appearance-affecting
and is even more functional: you can’t put a bar in a square hole.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 20, 2020 12:40 | | Subject: | Re: More Variants Discovered - Update | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | […]
The catalogue has been following hypothesis 1. Thus you cannot effectively
have new variants until you cannot prove the existence of the variant in a set,
irrespective of its production by TLG or its release onto the market by sellers.
[…]
Probably we should move to theory 2 at some stage. This might prevent the “is
it genuine or fake” question from popping up more frequently or, worse, exposing
sellers to more risk after June when PayPal will be hitting sellers for damages
when selling fakes and clones. In this regard, variants must be documented, they
must be shown to exist and they must have comparatives.[…]
|
I believe you missed two contributing practises / rules (of thumb):
1. “not a functional difference,”
2. “everybody knows that.”
Plates exist with full and hollow underside pins? Everybody knows that, not
a functional difference, no new entry and no need for pics or notes.
There are lots of different 3001? Everybody knows that, not a functional difference,
we won’t have 45 entries, we won’t document them all. There, here’s a 3001old
entry for you to put some of them, we won’t define which are to be put in 3001
and which are to be put in 3001old.
These variants do have been found in sets. So, if the cataloguing were really/scrupulously
following theory 1, they would have been added or documented. It’s the above
two rules that prevented that.
Rule 1 is a good rule of thumb to decide whether a variant deserves an entry.
It shouldn’t be applied to decide whether a note or a pic should be added.
Rule 2 is rather stupid (and totally human).
Would changing to theory 2 have included these variants?
I think it depends on whether the two above rules were applied or not.
Theory 2 only says a variant shouldn’t be added if you don’t have proof, it doesn’t
say a variant (entry or note) should be added even if you have proof, because
one can still apply the above two rules and decide not to.
Look at 4070: for a time, there were the slot/no-slot variants (well, still are
but one is marked for deletion), until it was finally decided that the slot was
unimportant, “of little or consequence to most users.” It has been discussed
ad nauseam whether it was intended or not, whether it was a bit of plastic that
should be there and fell or a bit of plastic that shouldn’t be there. This isn’t
important now, what is is that a line has been drawn because a line has to be
drawn.
That same “of little or no consequence” rule, the same “it’s just a moulding
artefact” remark, can be used with theory 2.
Another example:
Everybody knows the moulding can cause bubbles in (trans) 4L bars.
Everybody knows the moulding can cause lines on 4L bars.
But bubbles deserve a note (because there were many questions about it on the
forum?).
Moulding lines apparently don’t (but there were questions about their proving
fakeness on the forum).
Would using theory 2 change that? I don’t think so.
Some variants don’t have a logo, or ©, or ID. Does that deserve an entry? A
note?
Applying theory 2 doesn’t change that.
What we need is to decide what is important and what is not, and to document
that.
A “what everybody should know” page? But who would read that?
Or a note on each every and every part (“can have bubbles” “may not have a logo”…)?
No more unwritten rules. No more rules of thumb. No more whims.
That won’t prevent discussions or the need for case by case decisions but it
would be clearer and more consistent.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 17, 2020 14:40 | | Subject: | Re: Condition(s) for Used Items | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, tonnic writes:
| | […]
Therefore I guess a lot of sellers have different ideas regarding the condition
of the Lego they sell.
|
Are we talking about the sellers who class Incomplete sets as Complete or Used
minifigs as New (“because I never played with them, I only built them and exposed
them in the sun and dust for 20 years”)?
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2020 10:02 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
1. You’re confusing the whole European continent and Continental Europe.
From the very link you gave: “‘European continent’ redirects here. For the whole
of the European continent including its islands, see Europe.”
“Continent” has two meanings: a large landmass, and one of eleven¹ recognized
parts of the world.
So “European continent” is more commonly the large landmass, the “not-islands”
part, of the continent “Europe” but some islands, including the British islands,
are parts of “Europe.”
(¹ Europe, Asia, Australia², North America, South America, Africa, Antartica,
Eurasia (Europe & Asia), Oceania, America (both North and South), or Afro-Eurasia
(Eurasia & Africa).
² The continent Australia, not the country….)
2. ”Was never” is too strong a phrase: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland
| | Was the whole point not that you must become your own thingie?
|
Geography shapes politics, not the other way around
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 13, 2020 10:32 | | Subject: | Re: Just an idea about Neutral Feedback! | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, infinibrix writes:
| | […]
You make it sound like I have a problem with people disagreeing or criticizing
an idea I’ve put forward....
|
That’s what saying “people don’t like change” make it seem to me.
| | I really don’t but then if people criticize and
question why I even put forward such a half-baked idea in the first place then
that’s a different thing. Half-baked ideas can become fully baked ideas when
other minds and suggestion are brought together! […]
|
Agreed.
| | Either way whether it’s a bad idea or not some will disagree anyway simply
because it means they will have to raise their standards or simply because they
like to shoot down ideas and disagree for the sake of disagreeing!
|
Yes, but by repeating “people don’t like change”, you make genuine questions
and critics sound like epidermic reactions or even trolling.
| | I could even
question your own motives? You don’t sell, you rarely buy, but you seem to have
a very strong opinion on most matters when it comes to ideas or suggestions in
the forum even though they don't directly affect you?... Just saying!
Even though you are of course as entitled as anyone to voice an opinion!
|
My motives for answering on the forum are simple:
If it’s a question, I try to give an answer. Either because I know it, or because
no one has given one yet and I think I can find it or help find it (and am in
the mood to search for it ).
If it’s a debate (that includes suggestions), as the saying goes, opinions are
like …, everyone has one, the matter affecting them directly or not.
More, I think the PoV of someone who has no horse (or only a tiny pony) in the
race is as interesting as the PoVs of those who have a bone to defend.
| | Again its not my prefered option but I'm just looking at ways to help improve
sellers standards. I'd rather see sellers unable to leave retaliatory feedback
for buyers but that does'nt seem to go down well with many people either,
or is that simply because those that voice their opinion against the idea don't
want to lose the hold they currently have over their customers? Whatever suggestions
are put forward those that strongly oppose an idea are more likely to reply in
the forum than those that don't!
|
As you remarked, I have no real bone in this race (no horse to defend?), so what
I did in my first answer is what I explained in the second: I put on my critic
hat. That generally means I find flaws and questions more easily than praises.
I believe people work like that, even unconsciously. Their first reaction is
“what could go wrong” (or “what will go wrong” for the more pessimistic ).
It often is “what could go wrong FOR ME” because, of course, “me” is important
to them but also because it’s their PoV, what they know.
I don’t believe it’s the “I don’t like change” cliché.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 12, 2020 18:47 | | Subject: | Re: Just an idea about Neutral Feedback! | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, infinibrix writes:
| | […]
Like I say it’s just an idea to spark some debate
|
And debate there was.
| | I don’t necessarily have all
the answers that would be up to Bricklink themselves but it’s unlikely to change
anyway and even less so now people have responded to it like a Lead balloon
|
Sure you don’t have all the answers, we don’t either. But that doesn’t prevent
us from finding the questions.
Because I believe ideas thrown around without trying to dig a bit deeper make
poor suggestions.
And I believe you believe that too because you just said you wanted to spark
some debate.
A debate isn’t “yeah, let’s go for it.” It’s trying to find pros and cons and
questions.
Sure, cons are always a bit more vocal or blunt.
And questions often appear to be cons (which they are not necessarily, unless
they are sarcastic).
But that’s the purpose of the debate: finding what other people think, what’s
their point of view, using their own vision to criticize your idea, because your
own PoV isn’t sufficient.
| | but
hey ebay made a similar change where you only now see a year’s worth of transactions,
I’m sure that upset many people at the time especially those with flawless track
records but it didn’t stop ebay from doing it anyway because I think they recognised
the long term benefits!
|
BL also changed a bit, at least in the way the stats are presented to buyers
in stores.
| | The thing is when all said and done a lot of people just don’t like change either
because they prefer the existing method or they prefer to hold onto the comfort
of what they’ve always known and trust? However when change finally comes a lot
of people complain at first but then when they get used to it they actually prefer
things not to go back to the way they were before!
|
And that’s always the answer when people try to discuss an idea, “people don’t
like change.”
Guh.
You make a suggestion, we discuss it, pros AND cons AND questions.
That’s not “not liking change.” That’s how creation works: you throw an idea,
you criticize it, you throw other ideas to answer the questions, alleviate the
cons or further the pros, you criticize again, and so on.
And BL is certainly not going to consider it if it’s just a half-baked idea.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 12, 2020 10:27 | | Subject: | Re: Just an idea about Neutral Feedback! | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, infinibrix writes:
| | […]
A seller could say why should I have to accept receiving Neutrals just because
a buyer couldn’t be bothered to leave feedback but firstly you have to remember
that the same situation will occur for everyone so that shouldn’t matter too
much […]
|
Except that, and that the everpresent flaw / unanswered problem with propositions
to change the feedback system, there’s the historical feeeback to consider.
Would you want all previous transactions with no FB to become neutrals? Or would
it only apply to future transactions?
Is that fair for new members? Or to older members?
Those FB were left (or rather, not left¹) when the system was that they would
stay this way, not when they would become neutrals after a while.
The current (Saussurean) system is not “Good, Neutral, Bad,” it’s “Good, None,
Neutral, Bad.”
If you want to remove “None,” you’re losing information.
¹ Is a “not left” feedback a “right” feedback? (Hmm, isn’t that why PurpleDave
never leave FB?)
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 11, 2020 07:30 | | Subject: | Re: 3830c01 Hinge Brick 1 x 4 marked for deletion | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | […]
When they set everyone's default to ignore superlots, they killed the superlot.
Perhaps another function could be made just for paired parts.
|
Yes, some kind of superlot but limited to some approved parts.
Whitelisted superlots.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 11, 2020 07:25 | | Subject: | Re: 3830c01 Hinge Brick 1 x 4 marked for deletion | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | […]
- whether inventories of MOC's will state both halves separately (like Studio
does) or together.
|
Let’s be careful with Studio’s inventories: (if the model doesn’t use them in
a fixed position) they also separate hands and arms and torsos, legs and hips,
2430 and 2429, and so on.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 10, 2020 14:59 | | Subject: | Re: Wanted List Color Choices Wording vs Catalog | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, GregoryDPark writes:
| | I meant Any Color in the wanted list instead of not applicable.. This is a fun
site. Thank You for your input and saying something under my comment. It makes
me feel apart of something. I don't need all colours. But I have not used
the auto buy function. I have used very little of the functions but I have spent
a lot of money here... Fun.
|
The tools help you spend less for more fun (bricks!)
And by the way, “N/A” doesn’t mean “unknown” in the catalogue, it means “we can’t
put a colour on this item.”
For instance, stickers are N/A (some would want them Trans-Clear or White), and,
in an inventory, a complete minifig is N/A (its parts have colours but as a whole
it has no colour). And a few times, it means “the colour is random is the set,
it’s you and your luck” (or at least it did, I’m not sure the admins didn’t change
that).
“N/A” is versatile
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 10, 2020 14:57 | | Subject: | Re: Automatic feedback | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | | | But I do agree that automatic feedback as an optional feature would be welcomed
|
I guess also why not also have automatic feedback for buyers too, as their time
is also better spent than saying how good a seller is. The seller can automatically
leave +ve after the buyer leaves it, and the buyer can automatically leave +ve
after the seller leaves it. Or both get positive after six months when the order
is purged.
Another interesting statistic would be to show also the percentage of +ve feedback
left by a buyer/seller. That might make more sellers leave (+ve) feedback when
warranted, otherwise their ratio of +ve feedback left would be very low.
|
And how do you intentionally not leave feedback?
Lots of people don’t leave feedback for fear of retalation or because Neutral
is actually a (mild) Negative.
Is there a need for a “I don’t want to leave a feedback for this transaction”
button?
IOW, a 4th type of feedback….
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 10, 2020 14:06 | | Subject: | Re: Wanted List Color Choices Wording vs Catalog | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, GregoryDPark writes:
| | When you look an item up it has a choice of color: "not applicable". This defines
a item of unknown color. When you chose "not applicable" in the wanted list
it looks like it shows all colors. Instead of using the wording "not applicable"
in the wanted list use the wording of all colors??? But then how would you chose
all colors for the wanted list? Thank You. How can you easily chose more than
1 color instead of what is now an separate entry on the wanted list.
|
As it’s a matter of wording, “N/A” in a WL does not exactly get you “All Colours,”
it gets you “Any Colour”.
The difference is minimal in a shop: you get to see all the lots that match “any
colour,” so you could say it’s all colours _the shop has_.
But it’s important for EasyBuy or Auto-select: they stop with one lot, they don’t
try to buy all the available colours.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 1, 2020 14:19 | | Subject: | Re: Please add currencies | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, uvt203 writes:
| | […]
We might also want to have HCA as currency (hand cleaning alcohol).
Here in Denmark we have a whisky distillery which has changed production from
the finest peated whisky to HCA as this is a shortage here too. Maybe that is
no good idea anyway as you now may want to lick your hands.......
|
Here it’s LVMH who put their perfume factories to the task, not their wineries
and distilleries.
They’re giving it to hospitals (they can afford it ) so I don’t know how it
smells
| | Still Wednesday here for some more hours.
|
CEST
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Mar 31, 2020 18:27 | | Subject: | Re: Please add currencies | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Stuart9 writes:
| |
I'd suggest paracetamol too but that would make them a drug dealer.
|
Oops, I forgot that.
Maybe I should buy some
(APAP / acetaminophen for those who don’t use the name paracetamol.)
Yeah France! Always ahead! At least by one hour…
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
