Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | Miro78  | | Posted: | Jul 18, 2020 13:36 | | Subject: | Missing large/high quality images in catalog | | Viewed: | 74 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| A lot of old Lego sets have very small images in the Bricklink catalog. They
look like they were obtained from printed sources from the printed catalogs that
used to be included with those sets back in the 80s/90s. My suggestion is to
see if better quality and higher resolution images can be obtained from The Lego
Group for the Bricklink catalog. After all, Lego owns Bricklink. What does the
admin team think of this? Perhaps I am assuming too much and a convenient archive
of these images for all of these old sets does not readily exist for Bricklinks
use. It's worth checking into it. Are there any objections?
Miro
|
 |
| Author: | Miro78 | | Posted: | Jul 13, 2020 12:51 | | Subject: | Re: Add feature of minimum FB for listings. | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, bje writes:
| | Some of the best buyers I've had the privilege of welcoming in my store have
been zero/low feedback users. So while I understand the rationale for this and
of course it being elective, I personally think that all users have to start
somewhere, so it is maybe not in the best interest of stores to needlessly limit
the buying experience.
Laws are not the same everywhere, so I guess we are fortunate that no order is
legally binding until I as the seller have acknowledged it. If I am really uncomfortable
with the buyer or what he/she is ordering, I reserve the right to cancel the
order, demand the buyer use a shipping method with insurance and tracking or
to demand another form of payment. If the buyer cannot agree, that is a red flag
and it will strengthen my reasons for cancelling.
For fraudulent chargebacks, use the NPB process and negative feedback, else such
buyers just get a free pass to go do the same thing to the next seller. We cannot
prevent fraudsters and scammers anyway. And in my personal opinion, the feedback
system is not a fair guide to good or bad users, which is why I hardly ever look
at it. So for me personally, this would not be a help at all and might just make
some buyers wary of placing orders in the first case. Some users might feel different,
but the idea that the site should limit the buying experience beyond already
having minimum buys, minimum lot averages, NPB and the one-sided right to cancel
for sellers, does not sit well.
|
I have no stake in this as I stopped selling parts and sets long ago, but I don't
see the harm this would cause if it's executed properly (meaning invisibly).
It's no different of a feature than minimum buy, bulk lot price limits, or
restricting countries that can purchase from you, and if it's opt in, than
the sellers that don't want to participate will have less competition from
other sellers. Buyers will be oblivious to it, so they won't know.
It's no different than how Bricklink stores operate now. Bricklink is a marketplace
with thousands of stores with their unique inventories and rules (minimum buys,
lot limits, speed/efficiency of operation, etc). Just another tool. The question
really becomes, is there enough interest from sellers for this feature for Briclink
to be bothered with implementing and what other coding/database issues this would
cause (Price Guide listing and sales data).
Miro
|
|
| Author: | Miro78 | | Posted: | Jul 13, 2020 12:31 | | Subject: | Re: Add feature of minimum FB for listings. | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | Presumably any items that get hidden behind a minimum feedback would also need
to be hidden from anyone not logged in too.
|
Yes, that would have to be case then. Perhaps those wanting this feature would
just need to accept that and live with it.
Miro
|
|
| Author: | Miro78 | | Posted: | Jul 13, 2020 12:18 | | Subject: | Re: Add feature of minimum FB for listings. | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | If they are intent on scamming, won't they just place five cheap orders to
build up enough feedback to scam?
|
I thought about that, but if it's up to the store to set the feedback threshold,
they won't know how many feedbacks they would need. Also if the inventory
does not even show up in listings until said threshold is met, they won't
know to target that particular store with the "hidden" threshold.
I understand the frustration of the seller that gets scammed and PayPal is not
siding on the seller's side. Since Bricklink does not want to get involved
with the monetary transaction or protecting the seller in any way, this is not
a bad idea of a feature as long as it's executed in a way where the buyer
is not made aware of it. If the buyer does not see a listing for that store,
than they can't even get upset. There will always be those stores that will
want to take the risk and sell to 0 feedback or whatever feedback buyer, so there
will always be inventory for them. Ultimately supply/demand comes into play.
I see this as no harm no foul sort of a strategy given the situation with PayPal
siding heavily in buyer's favor.
Miro
|
|
| Author: | Miro78 | | Posted: | Jul 13, 2020 12:11 | | Subject: | Re: Add feature of minimum FB for listings. | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Heartbricker writes:
| | In Suggestions, Miro78 writes:
| | In Suggestions, Heartbricker writes:
| | This will be unpopular with new buyers but may have support from sellers who
have been defrauded.
We instituted a measure to protect from fraud (based on being defrauded in the
past) where we require buyers to have a minimum of 5-10 positive feedbacks in
order to purchase certain high priced sets.
Currently, we can only put that in the item's description and buyers ignore
it and place the orders anyway which creates a sticky situation.
So the suggestion is:
Add a feature to individual listings that will prevent buyers with feedback rating
under X to purchase a certain item.
I can see merit to limiting X to 10 so sellers don't demand a buyer has 10,000
to be able to purchase items.
We allow 0 and low FB rated buyers to buy 99.99% of listings in our shop but
have been burnt a couple of times by 0 FB buyers who bought sealed sets in mint
condition and claimed they were opened and used and returned us boxes with non-LEGO
items in one instance and ransacked set on another purchase- PayPal obviously
sided with the buyers both times.
I'm hoping this will be a measure that would prevent this type of fraud and
will be optional to allow sellers the chance to opt out.
|
I understand your concern and I think the best way to handle this would be to
allow individual stores to choose this as an option as opposed to a site wide
mandate. This way you can choose to set your restrictions to your heart's
content and for your peace of mind and allowing others to take the risk if they
choose to do so. The best way to implement this would be so that your listings
won't even show up to those buyers to begin with should their feedback threshold
not meet your criteria settings. Additionally it would be useful if you could
choose various options for your threshold, not just feedback, but also which
types of sets (perhaps select them invidividualy or broadly based on price point,
popularity, risk, etc).
Miro
|
I completely agree and that is why i specifically said that the seller will have
to opt in on their own discretion.
|
Perhaps I missed that bit of information.
Important part of this feature would need to be where the buyer is not aware
of the inventory in your store that they are not permitted to purchase, otherwise
this will be off-putting to the buyer and could possibly cause buyers to turn
away from this marketplace and/or your store.
Miro
|
|
| Author: | Miro78 | | Posted: | Jul 13, 2020 12:04 | | Subject: | Re: Add feature of minimum FB for listings. | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Heartbricker writes:
| | This will be unpopular with new buyers but may have support from sellers who
have been defrauded.
We instituted a measure to protect from fraud (based on being defrauded in the
past) where we require buyers to have a minimum of 5-10 positive feedbacks in
order to purchase certain high priced sets.
Currently, we can only put that in the item's description and buyers ignore
it and place the orders anyway which creates a sticky situation.
So the suggestion is:
Add a feature to individual listings that will prevent buyers with feedback rating
under X to purchase a certain item.
I can see merit to limiting X to 10 so sellers don't demand a buyer has 10,000
to be able to purchase items.
We allow 0 and low FB rated buyers to buy 99.99% of listings in our shop but
have been burnt a couple of times by 0 FB buyers who bought sealed sets in mint
condition and claimed they were opened and used and returned us boxes with non-LEGO
items in one instance and ransacked set on another purchase- PayPal obviously
sided with the buyers both times.
I'm hoping this will be a measure that would prevent this type of fraud and
will be optional to allow sellers the chance to opt out.
|
I understand your concern and I think the best way to handle this would be to
allow individual stores to choose this as an option as opposed to a site wide
mandate. This way you can choose to set your restrictions to your heart's
content and for your peace of mind and allowing others to take the risk if they
choose to do so. The best way to implement this would be so that your listings
won't even show up to those buyers to begin with should their feedback threshold
not meet your criteria settings. Additionally it would be useful if you could
choose various options for your threshold, not just feedback, but also which
types of sets (perhaps select them invidividualy or broadly based on price point,
popularity, risk, etc).
Miro
|
|
| Author: | Miro78 | | Posted: | Jul 11, 2020 10:57 | | Subject: | Re: Dark Green - who's going to crack first? | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
| In Colors, WoutR writes:
| | In Colors, 1974 writes:
| | In Colors, Miro78 writes:
| | Danish language has no word for pink, so all pinks are purples, which makes
it very confusing
|
Yes we do, it's called "lyserød" (light red), but we now use the word "pink"
like everybody else
|
|
My apologies for mistake. I was going off on what I heard from someone say in
the past. Probably this rumor started because the meaning means light red, as
you say.
| | | | Also "purple" is "lilla" in danish, we do not use the word "purple" at all
Cheers
Ole
|
The Dutch do not use pink. We use "rose" (which is NOT a flower). The "pink"
is Dutch for your little finger. I do not want to suggest any color for that
finger, we should not repeat any flesh/nougat discussions 
|
In my first native language (Slovak) the word for pink (ružová) also comes from
the flower rose (ruže), and it literally translates to rosy. Also the word for
green (zelená) is derived from the word for (zeleň) greenery as in plants and
word zelenina means vegetables.
Miro
|
|
| Author: | Miro78 | | Posted: | Jul 10, 2020 11:29 | | Subject: | Re: Dark Green - who's going to crack first? | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
| In Colors, misbi writes:
| | In Colors, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Colors, yorbrick writes:
| | In Colors, misbi writes:
| | Now that TLG has acquired BL, isn't it about time that we set about resolving
conflicting colour names? The flesh/nougat adjustment shows that it's possible,
so when are we going to rename BL Dark Green to Earth Green?
Obviously there are many others which need aligned over time, but currently Dark
Green should be an immediate priority.
|
I'd keep it as it is. The flesh -- nougat at least had a reason, even
if not everyone agreed with the reason.
|
This. Also, what is "earth green" supposed to be? At least, "dark green" is very
obvious - I don't think any non-afol would have an issue identifying which
is the dark green brick in a line-up of colored bricks.
Niek.
|
Earth Green is something that's not identical to TLG's name for 'standard'
Green. Non-afols coming here after shopping at LEGO's website will be accustomed
to TLG's colour names. Also, Earth Green is no worse than Sand Green!
|
Take a look at the list here with the names
http://ryanhowerter.net/colors.php
Lego's colors for all the pinks are just crazy
dark pink (BL 47) is bright purple (Lego 221)
bright pink (BL 104) is light purple (Lego 222)
magenta (BL 71) is bright reddish violet (Lego 124)
Danish language has no word for pink, so all pinks are purples, which makes
it very confusing
blue (BL 7) is bright blue (Lego 23)
medium blue (BL 42) is medium blue (Lego 102)
*bright blue sounds lighter in color than medium blue
dark turquoise (BL 39) is bright bluish green (Lego 107)
Lego name is less obvious than BL name
You can compare the names for the rest, but the Lego names are very wordy often
times and quite confusing.
Miro
|
|
| Author: | Miro78 | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 10:56 | | Subject: | Re: Sprues | | Viewed: | 42 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 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
|
|
| Author: | Miro78 | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 10:51 | | Subject: | Re: Coral part should not be in the Plant Section | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, alcedoatthis writes:
| | Hello Bricklinkers,
Some minutes ago, I found out that the "Coral" part (49577) is included in the
Plant Section of Bricklink, which is scientifically wrong. Coral is an Animal!
Please check additional information here:
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coral.html
I wrote to customer service of Bricklink explaining this mistake. I hope they
change this part to the Animal Water section!
Best,
Rita
|
As it represented seaweed first, it is a plant. To me, I'd identify it as
seaweed, but if people also recognize it as coral, then maybe that should be
added to the name for search purposes. I wonder how many people pick one of these
up and the first word that comes to mind when searching for it is thallus.
Interesting this case is vice versa, a part that has been used extensively as
plants
* | | 55236 Plant Vine Seaweed / Appendage Spiked / Bionicle Spine
Parts: Plant |
but is listed as an animal part, as that was its original use. Although at least
it had its name changed to include seaweed and plant vine, as that it was it
is also recognizable as.
|
That is the great thing about Lego, a part that was initially designed as a seaweed
can also be repurposed as a coral. This makes it difficult for categorizing especially
when a part takes on a latter role such as this spike piece (55236) that originally
was used in Bionicle sets but now is used more as a plant vine thingy piece.
That is the beauty of Lego elements, they can take on a different role. I would
not get too hung up on the classification of the seaweed/coral piece. Just keep
it in the plants category as most people would expect to find it there. I am
a biologist and I know that early biologists felt to compelled to classify everything
in biology by bucketing them into distinct groups, but life and nature could
care less how we humans classify things.
I'll leave this thread with my example of the lipstick element (93094). The
way I used it, it's a bird's beak, so it could be classified as an animal
body part in the BL catalogue if Lego chose to use it as such had it's first
appearance been this case. It can also be a chalk writing element to write on
chalkboards.
I enjoyed reading this thread's discussion. I was curious if The New Elementary
blog web page had this same conundrum, and they did, but they did not go
into any lengths in pursuing the discussion and instead focused on the usage
of the part. Article: https://www.newelementary.com/2019/07/plant-or-animal-closer-look-at-plant.html
Miro
|
|
|
| Author: | Miro78 | | Posted: | May 25, 2020 11:40 | | Subject: | Need of Plate/Tile Round Modified categories | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| If this is on the Catalog roadmap, my apologies, but I am noticing some logic
discrepancies on how some of these parts are allocated to their current categories.
Fo obvious reasons, part 25269 (Tile, Round 1 x 1 Quarter) is in the Tile Round
category, because 4 of these makes a nice circle shape.
Therefore I am assuming Part 24246 (Tile, Modified 1 x 1 Half Circle Extended
(Stadium)) is in the Tile Modified category because it's irregular and makes
no circle shape, despite one side being round.
Yet part 39739 (Tile, Round 1 x 1 Heart) is in the Tile Round category, despite
the fact that it makes no circular shape (clover leaf shape at best). To me,
they should either be in the Tile Round or Tile Modified as it's confusing
things.
There are other parts in the Tile Round category which are clearly modified like
This is also true for Plate Round category items. Perhaps it's time to create
Plate Round Modified and Tile Round Modified categories. There may be reason
for not doing this now, but things like this really bug me when searching for
parts where my logic fails to find them, usually parts falling into 2 or 3 categories
due to vague nature of classification.
Miro
|
|
| Author: | Miro78 | | Posted: | May 22, 2020 13:40 | | Subject: | Re: Is dual color mold really decorated? | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, Miro78 writes:
| | This should had been addressed when these parts started to appear first back
in 2014. Problem with many images is that it's hard to tell if they are MCM
or SCM, especially with the digital images replacing actual images. That being
said, this needs to happen sooner than later. It's an important classification
that affects those that need to know or care.
|
I've added this to the roadmap because there is more involved here than just
identifying and retitling MCM parts. It's the most recent project added
(end of the list):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476
Our goal is to get through one project every month. This is not an overly complicated
project, so hopefully it will happen relatively soon. I would suggest this to
anyone reading: begin working on compiling a list of MCM parts so that when we
begin the project we can breeze through it quickly.
|
Thank you for adding this to the roadmap. It will be a great asset in the catalogue
and sounds the like MCM acronym is sticking. As some of the parts get identified,
I imagine some entries will need to be changed to "a" and "b" during the transition
that happened in 2014, like the Friends legs that I identified. I also see the
dark blue legs with tan and dark shoes has probably more to do with the original
intent being tan, which looks tan with MCM, but look dark tan when tan color
is applied to dark blue mold, as you can see in my photo here: https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=851619
with printed color
with MCM
Miro
|
|
| Author: | Miro78 | | Posted: | May 22, 2020 11:42 | | Subject: | Re: Is dual color mold really decorated? | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, BricksThatStick writes:
| | In Catalog, Miro78 writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | I would like to see dual-molded parts differentiated too, maybe a new suffix
needs to be created... Maybe Stormchaser has already thought about some options?
|
I would say it needs to be something in the titles, not in the part number.
We would need something very short because torso assemblies where some parts
occur already have crammed titles. So a code, of sorts, like BAM. It will need
to be something not used in any other part titles or numbers.
Having all that in mind, what do you think about adding the letters DMO
(standing for Dual MOlded) to the titles of dual-molded parts?
This would include those parts that come in similar printed/molded patterns
that are not currently distinguished with separate catalog entries.
This will allow two things: finding all dual molded parts in the catalog by search
and excluding dual molded parts from searches.
|
Anything to distinguish the Dual MOlded (DMO) from Non-Dual Molded would help.
Although I am not sure people would know what DMO stands for outside of this
thread. I understand the need for a unique acronym.
DCM could be another acronym for Dual Color Mold if you want a 3 letter acronym,
since the O in DMO is not that fitting. This way if they ever do a Triple Color
Mold (TCM) you could distinguish it easily.
Miro
|
or MCM for Multi Color Mould to cover any future eventuality.
I changed them when I changed the legs and torsos around based on the theory
Robert mentioned up the thread but I'm glad it was brought up and is being
discussed 
|
I like the MCM (Multi Color Mould) acronym. It future proofs things and certainly
distinguishes from SCM (Single Color Mould) parts. Thanks for the suggestion.
This should had been addressed when these parts started to appear first back
in 2014. Problem with many images is that it's hard to tell if they are MCM
or SCM, especially with the digital images replacing actual images. That being
said, this needs to happen sooner than later. It's an important classification
that affects those that need to know or care.
Miro
|
|
| Author: | Miro78 | | Posted: | May 21, 2020 17:37 | | Subject: | Re: Is dual color mold really decorated? | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | I would like to see dual-molded parts differentiated too, maybe a new suffix
needs to be created... Maybe Stormchaser has already thought about some options?
|
I would say it needs to be something in the titles, not in the part number.
We would need something very short because torso assemblies where some parts
occur already have crammed titles. So a code, of sorts, like BAM. It will need
to be something not used in any other part titles or numbers.
Having all that in mind, what do you think about adding the letters DMO
(standing for Dual MOlded) to the titles of dual-molded parts?
This would include those parts that come in similar printed/molded patterns
that are not currently distinguished with separate catalog entries.
This will allow two things: finding all dual molded parts in the catalog by search
and excluding dual molded parts from searches.
|
Anything to distinguish the Dual MOlded (DMO) from Non-Dual Molded would help.
Although I am not sure people would know what DMO stands for outside of this
thread. I understand the need for a unique acronym.
DCM could be another acronym for Dual Color Mold if you want a 3 letter acronym,
since the O in DMO is not that fitting. This way if they ever do a Triple Color
Mold (TCM) you could distinguish it easily.
Miro
|
|
| Author: | Miro78 | | Posted: | May 21, 2020 16:20 | | Subject: | Re: Is dual color mold really decorated? | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Miro78 writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, Miro78 writes:
| | I feel like there is no real definition for the term decorated that should be
defined. As far I am concerned, dual color molding is not really decorating.
|
There are no real definitions for a number of things and we're working right
now to change that.
As for dual-molded parts, I would say that the appearance of the part
is what is important. If a part appears to have a pattern, then BrickLink should
probably treat it as a patterned part regardless of the production method.
This is because when anyone is looking for an item, I imagine they would want
a clean distinction between plain parts and multicolored or patterned parts.
That's not to say we couldn't distinguish dual-molded parts in some
way, either with titles or item numbers. For example, we already distinguish
patterned parts that have stickers using the part title.
Oddly enough, at least for some patterned parts where the production is with
molding, we don't identify the part as a patterned part:
But sometimes we do:
Which makes me wonder what the catalog means when it uses the word "embossed:"
Anyway, there's still a lot to clean up all across the catalog. The first
step is enacting solid guidelines. Right now we're working on these two
pages and would greatly appreciate input before they become official in 11 (or
fewer) days:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2479
The dual-molding issue will have to wait until we get to a catalog page that
would address it.
|
I would certainly like dual-molded differentiated from printed or stickered.
The additional wrinkle is there is no way of knowing when a part is dual-molded
or not.
For example these legs
come in dual molded and printed version of the shoes, but BL did not implement
the differentiation even though I brought it up in the past. The quality is vastly
different and hence why Lego decided to start doing dual molding of minifig/minidoll
parts
Miro
|
Hey look at that. I found my post about this from 70 months ago.
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=851619
Miro
|
|
| Author: | Miro78 | | Posted: | May 21, 2020 15:35 | | Subject: | Re: Is dual color mold really decorated? | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | As for dual-molded parts, I would say that the appearance of the part
is what is important. If a part appears to have a pattern, then BrickLink should
probably treat it as a patterned part regardless of the production method.
This is because when anyone is looking for an item, I imagine they would want
a clean distinction between plain parts and multicolored or patterned parts.
That's not to say we couldn't distinguish dual-molded parts in some
way, either with titles or item numbers. For example, we already distinguish
patterned parts that have stickers using the part title.
|
| | The dual-molding issue will have to wait until we get to a catalog page that
would address it.
|
I don't care either way, but it would be very useful to know which legs are
dual molded (and so have the correct colours on the back of the legs) vs those
that are printed (and so have a single colour on the backs).
|
I agree. Not to mention those that want to remove the decoration for their customization
or whatever purpose will not be able to do so with the dual-molded version.
Miro
|
|
| Author: | Miro78 | | Posted: | May 21, 2020 15:33 | | Subject: | Re: Is dual color mold really decorated? | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, Miro78 writes:
| | I feel like there is no real definition for the term decorated that should be
defined. As far I am concerned, dual color molding is not really decorating.
|
There are no real definitions for a number of things and we're working right
now to change that.
As for dual-molded parts, I would say that the appearance of the part
is what is important. If a part appears to have a pattern, then BrickLink should
probably treat it as a patterned part regardless of the production method.
This is because when anyone is looking for an item, I imagine they would want
a clean distinction between plain parts and multicolored or patterned parts.
That's not to say we couldn't distinguish dual-molded parts in some
way, either with titles or item numbers. For example, we already distinguish
patterned parts that have stickers using the part title.
Oddly enough, at least for some patterned parts where the production is with
molding, we don't identify the part as a patterned part:
But sometimes we do:
Which makes me wonder what the catalog means when it uses the word "embossed:"
Anyway, there's still a lot to clean up all across the catalog. The first
step is enacting solid guidelines. Right now we're working on these two
pages and would greatly appreciate input before they become official in 11 (or
fewer) days:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2479
The dual-molding issue will have to wait until we get to a catalog page that
would address it.
|
I would certainly like dual-molded differentiated from printed or stickered.
The additional wrinkle is there is no way of knowing when a part is dual-molded
or not.
For example these legs
come in dual molded and printed version of the shoes, but BL did not implement
the differentiation even though I brought it up in the past. The quality is vastly
different and hence why Lego decided to start doing dual molding of minifig/minidoll
parts
Miro
|
|
| Author: | Miro78 | | Posted: | May 21, 2020 13:06 | | Subject: | Is dual color mold really decorated? | | Viewed: | 132 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Should dual molded legs or arms in their respective assemblies really be considered
as decorated?
To me BL considered the decorated as by means of printing or applying decoration
using stickers.
example
the reasoning is, how is that any different from legs assembly with single color
legs but different color hips or mismatched leg colors?
I feel the same way about dual molded arms
There are reasons for not separating them, mainly for new buyers not knowing
or caring about the difference or just the general way of looking at it, but
I feel like there is no real definition for the term decorated that should be
defined. As far I am concerned, dual color molding is not really decorating.
Any thoughts?
Miro
|
|
| Author: | Miro78 | | Posted: | May 14, 2020 10:19 | | Subject: | Re: Pink, light pink and paradisa pink | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
| In Colors, StormChaser writes:
| | In Colors, WoutR writes:
| | I don't know what the current status is of the planned catalog color project,
|
Still planned.
It would probably be best to update all the existing catalog guidelines before
doing much of anything else major and that's what we're working on.
I've attached a photo showing where we are on this.
No highlighting = not updated, but should be relatively easy updates
Yellow highlighting = not updated and will be controversial/difficult updates
Pink highlighting = expected completion by June 1st
Green highlighting = completed updates
|
Will Colors (#10) and/or Colors Additional Notes (#11) include having both BL
and Official Lego naming & lego color ID on this list? https://www.bricklink.com/catalogColors.asp?utm_content=subnav
It would be beneficial if it contained real image examples in some sort of grid
format perhaps on a separate page as a visual aide of what the colors look like,
for those that are new or unsure on some of these. I know Ryan Howerter has done
excellent job at this already.
Miro
|
|
| Author: | Miro78 | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2020 13:41 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | I don't see the definition of Plate, Modified and Tile, Modified helping
to choose between them for parts like .
|
|
I agree. The distinction between Plate, Modified and Tile, Modified is quite
confusing as are some parts that blur between the 2 categories of Brick, Modified
and Slope, Curved such as
which have no studs and are less like a brick and more like a slope much like
yet
have studs and curved surface much like
These all fall in the gray zone in my opinion and it's hard for admins trying
to classify them. I believe some time ago it was defined as if the base is brick
with curved surface or a curved slope.
There will be many more considerations for other part categories and a daunting
task it will be.
| | | | Coincidentally, earlier today I noted the category Mini Dolls Hair - Is there
any physical distinction between hair originally used for mini dolls and hair
used for minifigures? If not, why would this be a separate category?
|
Some are worn by both minidolls and minifigures, such as:
* | | 92254pb01 Mini Doll, Hair Combo, Hair with Hat, Long Ponytail, Side Bangs, Hole in Back with Molded Black Horse Riding Helmet Pattern
Parts: Mini Doll, Hair |
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemIn.asp?P=92254pb01&in=M
|
This was already answered, but it appears that there is no distinction, except
that some of the minidoll hair pieces appeared first with minidolls. Otherwise,
they fit both heads for the most part. I am not sure if any of the ponytails/overhangs
cause any issues for one type of figure over other.
Miro
|
|
| Author: | Miro78 | | Posted: | Mar 20, 2020 11:53 | | Subject: | Re: Just a little something to BRIGHTEN your day | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
| In Colors, WoutR writes:
| | In Colors, mfav writes:
| | I know it doesn't count for much, but, yeah. I agree. Opal.
Anything to lessen the color naming confusion is good.
|
I agree. Opal.
I did not protest, but the Satin never made sense to me.
|
I would prefer Opal over Satin. That being said, it is the iridescence that is
giving this color the effect. So Iridescent is a better adjective to the color
effect. Satin makes even less sense, as wikipedia describes it as glossy with
a dull back.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridescence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satin
Miro
|
|
| Author: | Miro78 | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2020 11:27 | | Subject: | Inventory Backup/Restore/Deletion Prevention | | Viewed: | 119 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| To prevent accidental deletion of inventory or restore of store's inventory
for various reasons like accidental deletions, price changes, etc. Currently
changes cannot be undone and a self administered restore function would be beneficial.
Requiring administrative assistance in restoring one's inventory is inconvenient
on both the seller and the BL team.
Remedy Option 1
To prevent strain on the infrastructure of constant periodic backups of everyone's
inventory, the backup would only initiate when a user enters their store's
inventory page, and limited to certain time intervals (once a day, once per hour,
or whatever the system can handle). The seller would have the option of self
initiate backup as needed.
Remedy Option 2
If the infrastructure cannot handle backups on their own system, perhaps Bricklink
can prompt user with an option to download inventory prior to deletion or major
changes being done to it, and self administer restore function.
Remedy Option 3
At the least, the system should require a re-login to the account when inventory
deletion function is selected to prevent accidental deletion of the store's
inventory.
The above options are no mutually exclusive and can be implemented in tandem
depending on what Bricklink system/team can implement.
|
|
| Author: | Miro78 | | Posted: | Dec 17, 2019 09:02 | | Subject: | Re: 75192-1: Millennium Falcon inventory by bags | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, slovdahl writes:
| | May sound like a strange request, but has anyone broken down the inventory for
this set by bag numbers? I don't keep my sets built for long. In building
this set, i kept imagining how difficult it will be to build it again without
the pieces broken down by bag steps. I know it would be a task to divide it
back up by bag numbers, but would love to have the inventory broken down that
way just in case.
|
Have you tried contacting Lego customer service? I am sure Lego knows what's
in each bag.
Miro
|
|
| Author: | Miro78 | | Posted: | Dec 12, 2019 08:51 | | Subject: | Re: Red eyebrows for cty0164 | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, normann1974 writes:
| | I have found from with red eyebrows. Should I change the
minifig or create a new minifigure with red eyebrows? It's possible that
this set and minifig never came with brown eyebrows. The set was inventoried
before the red eyebrow version was identified (by me) a couple of years ago.
Please advise.
/Jan
|
I found a Youtube review, below is a screenshot and also a link queued to the
part shown below.
https://youtu.be/vt76JSneCOo?t=134 at 2:14.
It's hard to tell if they are red or light brown. The eyebrows definitely
have a reddish hue to them. My kids have this set, but the minifigure is mixed
in somewhere in the minifigure bin.
Miro
|
|
|
| Author: | Miro78 | | Posted: | Aug 12, 2019 08:44 | | Subject: | Re: 4460 a/b: wrong height | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WrefordBrown writes:
| | In Catalog, JusTiCe8 writes:
| | Hi,
Looks like this parts:
is taller than described as it is 4 studs high instead of 3 unless there is a
way to measure height I don't know.
Fortunately, there is no 3 studs high slope and I believe any MOCers using the
part just call it by its name and there would be no issue when building.
Strangely, part and all its variants looks like to be also 4 studs
high and not 3 (last pic clearly shows the same aspect ratio as 4460).
By the way 3684 is not marked for deletion yet.
Where was the issue ? "It's not you it's us" or just me ?
Thanks.
|
I used to think this until I found Tom Alphin's lego ruler and sorting tool:
http://tomalphin.com/2014/02/lego-ruler-and-sorting-tool.html
One stud is 8mm wide but a plate is 3.2mm high, therefore the size of a 1x1 brick
is 8mm x 8mm x 9.8mm. I have Tom's guide printed and laminated and reckon
that it has saved me a load of time while sorting!
|
Very handy. Thanks for sharing.
Miro
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
USA, California
