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?
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
