Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | Rick_S.  | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 12:53 | | Subject: | Re: Sprues | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | In Catalog, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Catalog, Leftoverbricks writes:
| | Are sprues like the one from
[p=x8] in the catalog?
If yes: how to find?
If no: why not?
|
The sprue is just a piece that held this part, it has no other function outside
of that.
|
https://youtu.be/PjZHVRKSjyc?t=76
|
and i've seen people use non-LEGO pieces in LEGO construction, should we
add those in too ?
|
 |
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 11:22 | | Subject: | Re: Coral part should not be in the Plant Section | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, superchicken77 writes:
| | This is an interesting topic. One one hand I'm reading that people want
the catalog to be accurate. However, nobody has considered what most people (not
BL experts) will identify that part as or how they will search for it.
In coral colour, I would be searching for coral. In dark turquoise, I would
be searching for seaweed. As it stands now, I wouldn't find that part in
coral. Perhaps an extended description or additional tag to include coral?
|
Agreed! I have submitted a name change for the catmins to review.
Jen
|
I disagree since LEGO calls this part plant, so if people are looking for this
part based on what LEGO has and has sold I'd be looking for plant, this is
called part continuation between sites, there is also the fact LEGO owns this
place and if they are gonna call it plant there, they can call it plant here.
|
That is ridiculous. Do you have any idea how many things we classify here according
to our names or names that are in common usage? The point is that people will
be able to search for and find this part when they need to. LEGO parts can all
be used in a vast variety of ways, but now we need to restrict classification
for just this one part because LEGO said so?? It should be called Plant and Seaweed
and Coral and whatever else is practical for sellers and buyers to find it when
needed.
Jen
|
no my point is we need to keep the plant name in.
|
My apologies for speaking harshly. Not a good day for me today. 
The change I submitted was simply to change it to
Plant Thallus, Seaweed, Coral
Jen
|
well then the error was on my behalf since I thought you meant to change it from
plant to coral.
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 10:58 | | Subject: | Re: Sprues | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Miro78 writes:
| | In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | In Catalog, Leftoverbricks writes:
| | Are sprues like the one from
[p=x8] in the catalog?
If yes: how to find?
If no: why not?
|
I would have been interested in buying them when I first discovered their use
in MOCs. I had to buy new leaves instead, in the hope they would include the
sprues.
This might be one of those cases where it would be good to make an exception
and include it in the catalogue. You could try to add it and see what the catmins
think of it. Whether the sprue alone stands a chance, I don't think so, but
the 'leaves on sprue' part has precedents in the flowers, coins and keys.
|
I save my sprues from this plant element. I have used them here and there, but
not in great quantity. If I was still selling parts, I would have sold them.
On the flip side, the PAB cups and the BAM plastic cases are sold here. They
are in a sense a conduit in getting the part to your home, much like the sprue
on this plant piece.
Miro
|
yes and no, the cups are not sold as parts (that I know of), just like this site
sells boxes, but are not sold as parts.
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 10:54 | | Subject: | Re: Coral part should not be in the Plant Section | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, superchicken77 writes:
| | This is an interesting topic. One one hand I'm reading that people want
the catalog to be accurate. However, nobody has considered what most people (not
BL experts) will identify that part as or how they will search for it.
In coral colour, I would be searching for coral. In dark turquoise, I would
be searching for seaweed. As it stands now, I wouldn't find that part in
coral. Perhaps an extended description or additional tag to include coral?
|
Agreed! I have submitted a name change for the catmins to review.
Jen
|
I disagree since LEGO calls this part plant, so if people are looking for this
part based on what LEGO has and has sold I'd be looking for plant, this is
called part continuation between sites, there is also the fact LEGO owns this
place and if they are gonna call it plant there, they can call it plant here.
|
That is ridiculous. Do you have any idea how many things we classify here according
to our names or names that are in common usage? The point is that people will
be able to search for and find this part when they need to. LEGO parts can all
be used in a vast variety of ways, but now we need to restrict classification
for just this one part because LEGO said so?? It should be called Plant and Seaweed
and Coral and whatever else is practical for sellers and buyers to find it when
needed.
Jen
|
no my point is we need to keep the plant name in.
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 10:53 | | Subject: | Re: Sprues | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | In Catalog, Leftoverbricks writes:
| | Are sprues like the one from
[p=x8] in the catalog?
If yes: how to find?
If no: why not?
|
I would have been interested in buying them when I first discovered their use
in MOCs. I had to buy new leaves instead, in the hope they would include the
sprues.
This might be one of those cases where it would be good to make an exception
and include it in the catalogue. You could try to add it and see what the catmins
think of it. Whether the sprue alone stands a chance, I don't think so, but
the 'leaves on sprue' part has precedents in the flowers, coins and keys.
|
If that one is allowed, then all the others should be allowed too. Some of them
have uses, or may have uses in the future.
|
yeah I always used the sprue from the gold coins to build up my gold horde in
my customs and such.
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 10:41 | | Subject: | Re: Sprues | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | In Catalog, Leftoverbricks writes:
| | Are sprues like the one from
[p=x8] in the catalog?
If yes: how to find?
If no: why not?
|
I would have been interested in buying them when I first discovered their use
in MOCs. I had to buy new leaves instead, in the hope they would include the
sprues.
This might be one of those cases where it would be good to make an exception
and include it in the catalogue. You could try to add it and see what the catmins
think of it. Whether the sprue alone stands a chance, I don't think so, but
the 'leaves on sprue' part has precedents in the flowers, coins and keys.
|
I think this exact thing was argued over before, and was denied since it is not
an official LEGO part or such thing, but not sure?
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 10:32 | | Subject: | Re: Coral part should not be in the Plant Section | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | The part in question just reminds me a lot of the fire corals and elkhorn corals
I use to snorkel around when I was younger.
|
yes and on first impression i'd say it is a coral, but LEGO calls it a plant
and considering LEGO owns this site and to keep part name continuation between
sites I think we should also call it a plant 
|
Torso and other printed part searches are going to be horrendous if you stick
to the line that LEGO owns the site and their terminology should be used.
|
yeah but my insinuation is to not remove the plant name part.
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 10:27 | | Subject: | Re: Sprues | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Leftoverbricks writes:
| | Are sprues like the one from
[p=x8] in the catalog?
If yes: how to find?
If no: why not?
|
The sprue is just a piece that held this part, it has no other function outside
of that.
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 10:26 | | Subject: | Re: Coral part should not be in the Plant Section | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | The part in question just reminds me a lot of the fire corals and elkhorn corals
I use to snorkel around when I was younger.
|
yes and on first impression i'd say it is a coral, but LEGO calls it a plant
and considering LEGO owns this site and to keep part name continuation between
sites I think we should also call it a plant
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 10:05 | | Subject: | Re: Coral part should not be in the Plant Section | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, superchicken77 writes:
| | This is an interesting topic. One one hand I'm reading that people want
the catalog to be accurate. However, nobody has considered what most people (not
BL experts) will identify that part as or how they will search for it.
In coral colour, I would be searching for coral. In dark turquoise, I would
be searching for seaweed. As it stands now, I wouldn't find that part in
coral. Perhaps an extended description or additional tag to include coral?
|
Agreed! I have submitted a name change for the catmins to review.
Jen
|
I disagree since LEGO calls this part plant, so if people are looking for this
part based on what LEGO has and has sold I'd be looking for plant, this is
called part continuation between sites, there is also the fact LEGO owns this
place and if they are gonna call it plant there, they can call it plant here.
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 10:03 | | Subject: | Re: Coral part should not be in the Plant Section | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
On the other hand, it also comes in the Coral colour (⅓ Coral, ⅔ Dark Turquoise).
On the other other hand, plants can be orangish.
And if you put it flat, it looks like lichen….
|
Oh, and if it’s coral, is it the microscopic animal or its mineral exo-skeletton?
 
|
It's definitely the mineral exoskeleton of coral polyps. I don't see
how it can possibly be seaweed.
|
haven't seen much seaweed before have you?
|
Actually, I saw quite a bit of both growing up along the south-eastern coast
of Florida. So, yeah, I've seen seaweed, and it is usually a bit more "leafier"
than that part.
|
so only seen seaweed in one general location then ?
|
Nope. I have seen seaweed in other places, also.
| | let us take one example shall
we, how about this type of red seaweed which a picture of it is enclosed, now
tell me does that look like the seaweed you know? or? seaweed comes in all shapes
and colors and designs and what not. the leafy stuff is just the most commonly
known stuff.
|
Reread what I wrote. I said seaweed is "usually a bit more 'leafier'".
I didn't say seaweed is *always* a bit more leafier.
The part in question just reminds me a lot of the fire corals and elkhorn corals
I use to snorkel around when I was younger.
Interesting thing though... I just learned that fire corals aren't true corals,
but are hydrocorals. Neat!
|
yeah but several things to consider, 1: LEGO calls this a plant, and whoever
put the description plant thallus would have been more correct in the plant family
since it does appear to display what a thallus would look like, also you have
to take into consideration some of LEGO's examples of tree branches and such
are not what I would call spot on or leafy
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 02:35 | | Subject: | Re: Coral part should not be in the Plant Section | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
On the other hand, it also comes in the Coral colour (⅓ Coral, ⅔ Dark Turquoise).
On the other other hand, plants can be orangish.
And if you put it flat, it looks like lichen….
|
Oh, and if it’s coral, is it the microscopic animal or its mineral exo-skeletton?
|
It's definitely the mineral exoskeleton of coral polyps. I don't see
how it can possibly be seaweed.
|
haven't seen much seaweed before have you?
|
Actually, I saw quite a bit of both growing up along the south-eastern coast
of Florida. So, yeah, I've seen seaweed, and it is usually a bit more "leafier"
than that part.
|
so only seen seaweed in one general location then ? let us take one example shall
we, how about this type of red seaweed which a picture of it is enclosed, now
tell me does that look like the seaweed you know? or? seaweed comes in all shapes
and colors and designs and what not. the leafy stuff is just the most commonly
known stuff.
|
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jul 1, 2020 21:57 | | Subject: | Re: Coral part should not be in the Plant Section | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
On the other hand, it also comes in the Coral colour (⅓ Coral, ⅔ Dark Turquoise).
On the other other hand, plants can be orangish.
And if you put it flat, it looks like lichen….
|
Oh, and if it’s coral, is it the microscopic animal or its mineral exo-skeletton?
|
It's definitely the mineral exoskeleton of coral polyps. I don't see
how it can possibly be seaweed.
|
haven't seen much seaweed before have you?
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jun 25, 2020 14:21 | | Subject: | Re: Darth Vader Head Mold Variance | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, M.Boss writes:
| |
When comparing two Darth Vader figures I had, I discovered a mold variance between
two helmets. The "old" type came likey was made from 1999-2014, while The "new"
type appeared in the 2019 20th Anniversary Clone Scout Walker I think
this new mold was created because in order to create the anniversary figure lego
wanted to use a 1 piece Vader helmet, as opposed to the 2 piece helmets they
switched to a couple of years ago. This mold variation deserves a note in the
catalog entry for the helmet,, or a variant added to the catalog, but I'm
not sure which. If someone wants to take the appropriate action from here, please
go ahead. See the attached image for the differences between the two.
|
think one on right is a chinese knock off.
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 20:29 | | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, tEoS writes:
| | Recheck the facts, then reread your full report of the incident. Then maybe
you will see the error.
In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, tEoS writes:
| | Buyer left neutral feedback = error in what you wrote
| | Actually there is no error, the synopsis is based on available data. but that
is just one incident it still brings up the issue that retaliatory feedback cannot
be removed and in that, it can cause more issues down the road. and it also prevents
buyers from leaving honest feedback in fear they will receive retaliatory feedback
in response.
|
|
Wrong again: it was negative, you notice the negative feedback they left for
Sludgemonster?
https://www.bricklink.com/feedback.asp?fdbType=2&p=mjsheller
and it seems this seller is pretty notorious in not being a great seller and
leaving retaliatory feedback too.
|
|
Yes buyer left neutral, but still does not excuse the negative left by the seller.
and the way the rules are written the seller could do nothing about it. since
the rules were very specific on what reasons feedback could be removed. and that
is what I want changed since they are not the only reasons, since retaliatory
feedback has been removed before and so forth. (in fact he has already contacted
the admins about getting the feedback removed)
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 17:53 | | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | […]
ShakeyShuffle was a character.
|
But that doesn’t prevent a member using “ShackyShuffle” (with or without the
‘e’) for their ID here.
Are you Ricky Stratton from Silver Spoons?
|
Nope
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 16:35 | | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, tEoS writes:
| | Was ShackyShuffle also HoL? I recall them having similar issues.
|
I don’t remember that name.
And, of course, the forum history has been long purged.
Not long ago, HouseOfLogos was still listed as a member (I’m not sure if they
were still registred but their name was searchable: I did search because I never
remember if it was Logo or Logos).
But now these members must have become BLUSERs: can’t buy, can’t sell, no reasons
to log in to accept the new ToS.
“Dust: this is carpet; carpet, this is dust. You’ll spend a long time together.”
|
ShakeyShuffle was a character.
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 16:34 | | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, infinibrix writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| |
problem is it is not just bad buyers but bad sellers, my suggestion here was
made because of a seller who left retaliatory feedback for a deserved negative
they had received from a buyer.
|
But that’s just my point with the ebays feedback system Sellers can’t leave negative
feedback for buyers which means they can’t leave retaliatory feedback in any
shape or form! Meaning the buyer is able to give their honest opinion without
fear of retaliatory feedback!
It’s a change I’ve been calling for some time:-
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1168664
I feel its only important that we understand how a seller performs(Feedback wise!)
because it goes without saying that there will always be a few difficult customers
and its how sellers deal with those tricky customers that’s important and for
those customers that are impossibly unreasonable they can be reported and dealt
with by Bricklink!
|
While I do agree such a system would be useful it could also have drawbacks too.
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 16:31 | | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, tEoS writes:
| | Buyer left neutral feedback = error in what you wrote
| | Actually there is no error, the synopsis is based on available data. but that
is just one incident it still brings up the issue that retaliatory feedback cannot
be removed and in that, it can cause more issues down the road. and it also prevents
buyers from leaving honest feedback in fear they will receive retaliatory feedback
in response.
|
|
Wrong again: it was negative, you notice the negative feedback they left for
Sludgemonster?
https://www.bricklink.com/feedback.asp?fdbType=2&p=mjsheller
and it seems this seller is pretty notorious in not being a great seller and
leaving retaliatory feedback too.
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 16:03 | | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, tEoS writes:
| | Get your facts straight. You even have an error in the incident.
You come back to the forum after all these years and pretend like no one is aware
of what is going on. I read the suggestion and do not see its merits.
The problem is not retaliatory feedback, it is with certain members.
| | didn't read the suggestion did ya? the suggestion is to have the opportunity
to have what is known as retaliatory feedback removed, this was brought about
because of an incident that happened which went like this:
|
|
Actually there is no error, the synopsis is based on available data. but that
is just one incident it still brings up the issue that retaliatory feedback cannot
be removed and in that, it can cause more issues down the road. and it also prevents
buyers from leaving honest feedback in fear they will receive retaliatory feedback
in response.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
