| Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | StormChaser  | | Posted: | Jan 21, 2024 17:22 | | Subject: | Re: Part Identification Help Needed | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog Identification | |
| In Catalog Identification, Uxbridgeite2 writes:
| | Can someone tell what part # this is? Thanks
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 19, 2024 17:18 | | Subject: | Re: 1905-Vizir | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Requests, david28 writes:
| | can you tell me the time for a admin decision ?
|
The catalog experts will give you an answer for your specific item, but the general
answer to your question is anywhere from a few minutes to more than 2.5 years!
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogPend.asp
Good luck.
|
 |
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 19, 2024 09:58 | | Subject: | Anonymizing Members | | Viewed: | 221 times | | Topic: | General | |
| As many of you know, I strongly disagreed with the significant disservice done
to the people who built this website's catalog with the haphazard and poorly-handled
anonymizing of catalog contributors around the time of the sale to the LEGO Group.
Yes, this is the Bluser issue. Yep, I'm speaking about it again . . . probably
because the site has repeatedly shown its contempt and disregard for the catalog
and its contributors (most recently with its poor handling of the variant issue).
So anyway, the anonymizing was so poorly handled that by performing a couple
of basic and simple Google searches I can tell you the full name of this member
and his home address:
https://www.bricklink.com/feedback.asp?u=bb257520
There are numerous other "anonymized" members on BrickLink for whom information
can be quite easily discovered, including full name, age, home address, telephone
number, relatives, etc., etc.
Screenshot this post if you want to keep it, because the site will probably delete
the post and ban me from the forum again for expressing myself. 
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 17, 2024 22:32 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Variants - SURVEY RESULTS | | Viewed: | 169 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| As we all know, the decision was already made before members were ever consulted.
Still, as an exercise in sharing meaningless facts, here is how BrickLink members
feel.
A total of 75 people shared thoughts (including OP).
13.4% approved of the decision.
16% had no opinion.
24% had mixed feelings.
46.6% disapproved.
Result: over 70% of respondents did not approve of these changes or had
mixed feelings. But . . . the "platform" approves, so I suppose we're
all good.
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 15, 2024 11:37 | | Subject: | Re: Suggestion: Mustard, Pizza or Cheese Macaroni | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Off Topic | |
| In Suggestions, wildchicken13 writes:
| | I and a few like-minded BrickLink members force people to wade through our garbage to use the discussion forum. Our behavior became tiresome and unfunny long ago, yet we do not accept this fact due to our collective lack of insight.
|
This is not a serious site suggestion and I request that discussion moderators
move it to Off Topic as soon as possible.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 00:59 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 101 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
BrickLink could serve all users if the database was designed correctly. I agree
the site has added too many variants which are pointless and annoying for the
average user, but I've also argued for years that this is only an issue because
of inadequate site design.
If you truly want to move the site forward, then do it the right way. BrickLink
users who don't care about variants should never have to worry about them,
while those who do care should have access to all variants.
This proposal to consolidate variants is the easy way out of a difficult situation.
Instead of the easy way, choose the right way. Redesign the catalog system.
It has needed an overhaul for the last 24 years.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 3, 2023 16:39 | | Subject: | Re: Games | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
| In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | games were moved from Sets to Gear
|
Oops. Games moved from Gear to Sets.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 3, 2023 16:31 | | Subject: | Games | | Viewed: | 86 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | | For: | Catalog Associate | | Status: | Discarded | |
| One catalog expert disagrees with me on this issue, but I am requesting that
the entire catalog team discuss this and present a unified opinion on the matter.
I also hope to hear input from other BrickLink members. Such input should definitely
have been considered in this decision (so please share your thoughts).
My opinion is that games should all be located together. When games were moved
from Sets to Gear, some were scattered throughout the catalog instead of being
categorized as games:
The rationale given to me was that only sets branded as Games would be in the
Games category. Yet even those clearly branded on the box as the Games theme
were sometimes not categorized as games:
Sets: LEGO Brand: LEGO Employee Gift: Holiday & Event: Christmas: Games
Currently, only 42 games are correctly categorized as games:
There are, by the way, other instances of set box branding ignored for the purpose
of making things easy to find. For example, these sets are all categorized as
Advent even though not all are branded that way (and, really, there is technically
no Advent branding anyway):
Why are all the advent calendars in one place? Because common sense says that
people looking for advent calendars want to see them all in one place. The same
common sense says that people looking for games want to see them all in one place.
In addition, BrickLink does not even have written guidelines governing how sets
are categorized - so it's all just the whim of the person deciding. In this
case, scattering games was simply a bad decision.
Here's another example. These sets are absolutely not Train sets. They
are City sets. Look at the pictures of the set boxes.
Notice the distinct difference in box appearance from a true train set:
But we categorize them as trains. Why were they not categorized as City:
Train: RC Train instead? Because common sense says they are trains and people
want to find all the trains together in one place.
There is more to categorization than just the box and that is why I have made
this request for a well-considered group decision. The games should have stayed
together and they should be together.
It just makes sense.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 3, 2023 15:43 | | Subject: | Re: Use Image | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
| In Catalog Requests, BricksThatStick writes:
Awesome! Thank you. Down to just 26 sets now.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 3, 2023 14:14 | | Subject: | Use Image | | Viewed: | 85 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | | For: | Catalog Associate | | Status: | Completed | |
| Thanks to plenty of work over the years, your catalog has only 27 sets out of
19,134 that are missing an image.
One of those 27 sets is this one:
A member has one for sale with an image. I am requesting that a catalog expert
check to see if the member has photo sharing turned on. If so, the image can
be used.
If not, I am requesting that the member be contacted for use of the image.
Although there's no image uploaded, this member could be contacted also:
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
|
)
)
