Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | randyf  | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 23:21 | | Subject: | Re: Merging piece varian is a BIG PROBLEM | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | Now, this is a BIG PROBLEM.
|
I don't wish to look arrogant or such - but opinion of a 1 Order Member,
sincerely...
|
Well, having to post a reply to just say this looks arrogant.
|
There is actually good reason to call into question some of these member posts
for reasons I've outlined here:-
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1450285
|
If you have proof that there are duplicate accounts being used by the same person,
please report them. Otherwise, every member has the same right to express their
opinion as anyone else, especially given the fact that BrickLink just notified
the entire userbase yesterday of these impending changes and linked them all
directly to the main thread.
|
The Admins already have the necessary data on all members along with powers to
act on and enforce their own policy, I've simply alerted them with my suspicions!
As for every member having equal right to express their views, of course but
using just the one true account would be nice. Either way it doesn't mean
I or anyone else should take the guy who has been a member for a matter of months,
never sold anything, only placed a couple of orders all that seriously when it
comes to how best to optimize the catalog for buying and selling on Bricklink.
Optimizing the site for viewing/cataloging purposes come secondary to actually
buying and selling and many of those with barely any feedback are not using the
site to buy or sell
|
Although it is certainly true that newer members do not yet have the knowledge
that older members do, belittling the large number of them that make up the site's
userbase is not something that I prescribe to. Rather, I tend to want to educate
others about this hobby that I love so that they may carry on the passion to
the next generation of LEGO enthusiasts. I really couldn't care less how
much someone buys or sells here. The fact that they are here at all is enough
for me to know that they care about this hobby.
As I have stated repeatedly, I am not against most of these changes, but I am
against certain changes that are removing valuable information from the same
catalog that leads to myself and others gaining new knowledge about the hobby
on a constant basis. Yes, the site is a marketplace first, but there is no reason
that it cannot have the best catalog possible with as much granularity that the
catalog volunteers are willing to contribute.
And in that regard, there is a solution that would make everyone happy with no
need to ever have these discussions ever again. It's just that BrickLink
doesn't want to do it. For some reason, there is a sudden rush to do all
of this right now, and none of us know that reason.
Cheers,
Randy
|
 |
| Author: | axaday  | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 23:00 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, icm writes:
| | The inside supports, as on part 32064c, are critical for function. They allow
the part to be used as a jumper and on jumpers. This is not a trivial mold change!
It radically changes the functionality of the part!
|
Can you provide one illustration of an official LEGO model that uses this building
technique with a 32064?
|
Sounds like 32064c is back on the chopping block already.
|
 |
| Author: | randyf  | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 22:57 | | Subject: | Re: Merging piece varian is a BIG PROBLEM | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| | The OP says it right here:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1450425
In Catalog, randyf writes:
| |
If you have proof that there are duplicate accounts being used by the same person,
please report them. Otherwise, every member has the same right to express their
opinion as anyone else, especially given the fact that BrickLink just notified
the entire userbase yesterday of these impending changes and linked them all
directly to the main thread.
|
|
Fantastic sleuthing!
If you can find their original account that is being used in the big thread to
bolster the opinion of this duplicate account, please report it.
My point was that one example case -- that may not even be using the two
accounts right now -- should in no way lead to the generalizations and assumptions
laid out in
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1450285
|
 |
| Author: | randyf  | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 22:47 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Yo_Yo_Flamingo writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, icm writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, icm writes:
| | The inside supports, as on part 32064c, are critical for function. They allow
the part to be used as a jumper and on jumpers. This is not a trivial mold change!
It radically changes the functionality of the part!
|
Can you provide one illustration of an official LEGO model that uses this building
technique with a 32064?
|
My knowledge of set instructions isn't comprehensive for that. I know I've
done it in my own MOCs and I know that configuration of inside supports has been
used on many other parts to enable their use as jumpers.
|
Can you try this experience with some real bricks and take a photo for us?
|
That seems to be the trend of this thread- most folks misunderstand the variants
of these parts, from the 7 teeth to 9 teeth joints to the 1x2 bricks with axles,
and think that there is an actual functional difference.
|
There _is_ a functional difference with
compared to the other variants of the part. That isn't fantasy or conjecture.
That is the truth.
Do exactly what Russell said to do. Try putting a 32064c on top of any 1x2 jumper
plate. Now try it with any of the other variants of the part. Let me know what
you find out.
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
|
 |
| Author: | zorbanj  | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 22:45 | | Subject: | Re: Merging piece varian is a BIG PROBLEM | | Viewed: | 15 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| It's not nearly as bad as it looks once you dig into the list.
I have 2 monitors. I opened the list on the right monitor and searched my inventory
on the left monitor. Did a copy and past from the list and used asterisks for
the searches. For example, for torsos with ribs I searched using "973p*"
and for the hinges I searched using "teeth". Then i just added the text
in each comments box I had ~ 175 lots and it took about 15 minutes. It's
easier if you use brickstore but I don't.
In Catalog, KACL writes:
| |
Unfortunately I have not been able to keep up on all of this as much as I would
have liked. I agree that variants are important to some buyers and I definitely
want to update my listings as I don’t want complaints against my shop. Maybe
to most people a slight difference in a part won’t matter but to some it definitely
will. I printed the list today and was amazed at how long it is.If the change
must occur, can we please get an extension on when it will go into effect?
Karen
|
|
 |
| Author: | zorbanj  | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 22:34 | | Subject: | Re: Merging piece varian is a BIG PROBLEM | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| The OP says it right here:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1450425
In Catalog, randyf writes:
| |
If you have proof that there are duplicate accounts being used by the same person,
please report them. Otherwise, every member has the same right to express their
opinion as anyone else, especially given the fact that BrickLink just notified
the entire userbase yesterday of these impending changes and linked them all
directly to the main thread.
|
|
 |
| Author: | Yo_Yo_Flamingo  | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 21:51 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, icm writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, icm writes:
| | The inside supports, as on part 32064c, are critical for function. They allow
the part to be used as a jumper and on jumpers. This is not a trivial mold change!
It radically changes the functionality of the part!
|
Can you provide one illustration of an official LEGO model that uses this building
technique with a 32064?
|
My knowledge of set instructions isn't comprehensive for that. I know I've
done it in my own MOCs and I know that configuration of inside supports has been
used on many other parts to enable their use as jumpers.
|
Can you try this experience with some real bricks and take a photo for us?
|
That seems to be the trend of this thread- most folks misunderstand the variants
of these parts, from the 7 teeth to 9 teeth joints to the 1x2 bricks with axles,
and think that there is an actual functional difference.
|
 |
| Author: | mego2k3  | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 21:35 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Hi
please don't delete such precious information about our beloved bricks forever!
Regardless of being a buyer or seller, Bricklink is not just a marketplace, it
is the place where history, memory and legacy reside.
Beyond the memory of us all... it was built with effort by the Founders, the
amazing teams and the users, all together to build "The Everything" about
Lego.
We will never know for sure again what pieces made up that set! For those who
love Lego this is not acceptable...
It will not streamline the buying and selling process, but on the contrary it
will clog it up with canceled orders, refunds and disputes between members, it
will be another Babylon like the rest of our world, the oasis of peace it represents
may no longer exist...
I always thank you for the work you do and the opportunity you give us, but please
don't do it!
The details are Lego, the little things are Lego and they make the difference
in our fantastic world.
Thank you
Regards
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
As a platform, we have decided to take a hard look at some of the mold variants
that we are currently asking you to recognize. For sellers, more variants means
extra sorting and extra work while pulling orders, plus the issues that arise
from variant misunderstandings.
For buyers, excess variants mean that it's harder to assemble a wanted list,
find stores, and ultimately obtain the parts you are looking for.
I have put together a quick Help page to outline these proposed changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
Notice the date on this is coming up quickly (Feb 1), so I'm not giving a
lot of time for discussion. I'm aiming for about 1 week of discussion and
then we'll give sellers 2 weeks to adjust the descriptions on affected items
if they wish to retain the distinctions.
I plan to construct a full FAQ page with answers to all your questions. This
will serve to inform users about what was done here in February 2024, and also
help point the catalog in the right direction in the future.
To get started, I'll list a few here:
1. This sounds like you're dumbing down the BrickLink catalog to make
it easier for new users. Is that what is going on?
Not really. There are many, many other variants we expect people to sort and
care about. These ones don't really seem to matter much, and some of them
(e.g., the minifigure heads) actually cause problems for the catalog that cannot
be corrected otherwise.
2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
3. How do I know which exact variants will be merged? I only see one example
in each category.
Please ask in this thread and I can be very specific. Usually we are talking
about a handful of parts and the printed versions.
4. Has a merge like this ever been done before?
Yes, there was a precedent - the Headlight Brick with Slot:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
It was marked for deletion a few years ago and was finally merged last August.
5. Are these the only parts up for consideration, or are there other variants
that will be merged as well?
This is all for now. Based on how well this goes, we may elect to remove other
entries later. However, we will keep all functional variants and important cosmetic
variants.
|
|
 |
| Author: | infinibrix  | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 21:23 | | Subject: | Re: Merging piece varian is a BIG PROBLEM | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | Now, this is a BIG PROBLEM.
|
I don't wish to look arrogant or such - but opinion of a 1 Order Member,
sincerely...
|
Well, having to post a reply to just say this looks arrogant.
|
There is actually good reason to call into question some of these member posts
for reasons I've outlined here:-
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1450285
|
If you have proof that there are duplicate accounts being used by the same person,
please report them. Otherwise, every member has the same right to express their
opinion as anyone else, especially given the fact that BrickLink just notified
the entire userbase yesterday of these impending changes and linked them all
directly to the main thread.
|
The Admins already have the necessary data on all members along with powers to
act on and enforce their own policy, I've simply alerted them with my suspicions!
As for every member having equal right to express their views, of course but
using just the one true account would be nice. Either way it doesn't mean
I or anyone else should take the guy who has been a member for a matter of months,
never sold anything, only placed a couple of orders all that seriously when it
comes to how best to optimize the catalog for buying and selling on Bricklink.
Optimizing the site for viewing/cataloging purposes come secondary to actually
buying and selling and many of those with barely any feedback are not using the
site to buy or sell
|
 |
| Author: | KACL  | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 21:20 | | Subject: | Re: Merging piece varian is a BIG PROBLEM | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, rickcraine writes:
| | Hey, I just am trying to draw to everyone's attention the update Bricklink
is rolling out on February first that will cause several types of pieces to be
merged together under specific listings. For example, slopes that have smooth
and rough sides will no longer be considered different pieces. Now, this is
a BIG PROBLEM. When you are MOCing and you need a specific texture for a, lets
say, roof, and you use the wrong texture, it stands out A LOT. I hope everyone
sees what I am getting to here. If sellers are allowed to combine those two VERY
DIFFERENT variants of pieces, I may need to do several orders to get the actual
pieces I want, and it won't be the sellers fault if they send me a mix of
TWO DISTINCT TYPES OF PIECES. I am new to Bricklink, so maybe this has happened
before, but right now, this seems like it could pose a huge problem. I am sure
the Bricklink Devs had good intentions in mind when they decided to merge these
piece variants, but what they said in their letter to the Sellers, quote, "We
consider them (the piece variants) to be relatively unimportant and cumbersome
from the viewpoint of the Bricklink Marketplace" IS NOT TRUE. Specific things
like the textured variants of pieces DO MATTER. Please spread the word and hopefully
the Bricklink Devs will listen to the community.
|
Unfortunately I have not been able to keep up on all of this as much as I would
have liked. I agree that variants are important to some buyers and I definitely
want to update my listings as I don’t want complaints against my shop. Maybe
to most people a slight difference in a part won’t matter but to some it definitely
will. I printed the list today and was amazed at how long it is.If the change
must occur, can we please get an extension on when it will go into effect?
Karen
|
 |
| Author: | TheBrickGuys  | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 20:30 | | Subject: | Re: Merging piece varian is a BIG PROBLEM | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | For one, I will be definitely buying from stores who sort their pieces, because
if I want to buy a variant of a piece I should receive that specific piece, once
I pay. I just hope Bricklink stores won't use this as an excuse to jack up
prices if they do list their pieces properly.
|
How will you define the variants you want if they are no longer defined here?
|
Exactly! Shoppers will be getting what they ordered and paid for, they just wont
be able to easily shop for different variants of a particular piece unless they
shop at stores that specify that they actually sorting out different variants
and selling them separately, thus, shoppers will still get what they pay for.
I say this only because shoppers stating that they want what they pay for is
just not an accurate analogy for this topic.
Jim.
|
 |
| Author: | BaldriksBricks  | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 20:18 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, minithings4life writes:
| | I totally agree with hpoort. The database needs to be kept as is, and changes
made to the interface so buyers and sellers who do not care so much for some
variants have a way of filtering their searches and auto-buys.
Removing variants will eventually lead to sellers not bothering to describe the
variant in their product descriptions and buyers who are looking for a specific
variant will start to look at other marketplaces.
In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | As a database engineer, this is the worst idea ever. To dumb down your core database
rather than solving it on the usage side.
As suggested many times before, why don't you allow sellers to indicate which
variants may have been mixed in a lot and allow buyers to specify which variants
they care about.
|
|
I sell on another platform and I have a check box that I can select to not differentiate
mold variants. This could be a valid way of separating the stores that do or
dont want to acknowledge the variants. The store will then be able to serve the
customer in such a way.
|
 |
| Author: | Brickspert_AU  | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 20:15 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, nuukee writes:
| | Ok found the answers in the thread somewhere.
Which is not so easy
|
I'd love to know what the answer(s) was/are, I'm struggling to find them
|
| Author: | Nubs_Select  | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 19:53 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | Just start coding a database with umbrella options and WAIT. There is no urgency
to this project.
|
+1 that option would make 100% of users happy instead of making some happy and
really annoying others.
|
 |
| Author: | Nubs_Select  | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 19:52 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | | | The difference is actually more significant than that.
cannot clutch a 1x2 jumper plate or any other hollow stud for that matter attached
to the center tube underneath.
clutches them with ease.
The only thing about this one is that I do not have the time to look through
all 555 sets that use 10247 to see if it ever "officially" mattered.
However, the question I keep coming back to is why redesign the part in the first
place if not to use that additional functionality? And I believe the answer is
somewhere in those 555 sets.
|
So in theory, if we can find 1 set that has a 1x2 jumper under the modern base
of 1 it should then mean it cant be merged if I'm understanding correctly?
|
Yes.
| | but then even if we dont find it and then a year later lego does do that it would
be something that has to be split again if I understand correctly?
|
Yes, again. This is one of the main reasons losing information that is already
here is not a good plan.
|
mhm. a functional difference like this is not a good idea to merge. I just tested
it out, out of curiosity with the parts on hand and it truly has no grip. it
just falls off as there was no stud. Thankyou for clarifying
|
 |
| Author: | axaday  | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 19:49 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Just start coding a database with umbrella options and WAIT. There is no urgency
to this project.
|
 |
| Author: | randyf  | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 19:43 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | | | The difference is actually more significant than that.
cannot clutch a 1x2 jumper plate or any other hollow stud for that matter attached
to the center tube underneath.
clutches them with ease.
The only thing about this one is that I do not have the time to look through
all 555 sets that use 10247 to see if it ever "officially" mattered.
However, the question I keep coming back to is why redesign the part in the first
place if not to use that additional functionality? And I believe the answer is
somewhere in those 555 sets.
|
So in theory, if we can find 1 set that has a 1x2 jumper under the modern base
of 1 it should then mean it cant be merged if I'm understanding correctly?
|
Yes.
| | but then even if we dont find it and then a year later lego does do that it would
be something that has to be split again if I understand correctly?
|
Yes, again. This is one of the main reasons losing information that is already
here is not a good plan.
|
 |
| Author: | Nubs_Select  | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 19:40 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| | | The difference is actually more significant than that.
cannot clutch a 1x2 jumper plate or any other hollow stud for that matter attached
to the center tube underneath.
clutches them with ease.
The only thing about this one is that I do not have the time to look through
all 555 sets that use 10247 to see if it ever "officially" mattered.
However, the question I keep coming back to is why redesign the part in the first
place if not to use that additional functionality? And I believe the answer is
somewhere in those 555 sets.
|
So in theory, if we can find 1 set that has a 1x2 jumper under the modern base
of 1 it should then mean it cant be merged if I'm understanding correctly?
but then even if we dont find it and then a year later lego does do that it would
be something that has to be split again if I understand correctly?
|
 |
| Author: | randyf  | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 19:32 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | […]
| | | | With the cross supports,
you can put 10247 as a jumper on solid studs; without the cross supports, you
can put 10247 as a jumper on open studs. That makes a difference in the build
too!
|
Wrong examples again, you really should check the parts before imagining functional
differences that don’t exist.
10247: the difference with 2444 is shown on a secondary pic on the parts’ pages.
It has absolutely no relation to what you’re saying. The center support prevents
putting some parts inside the pin hole… but it’s not clear why one would want
to do that.
|
The difference is actually more significant than that.
cannot clutch a 1x2 jumper plate or any other hollow stud for that matter attached
to the center tube underneath.
clutches them with ease.
|
Hmm, okay. I’d have thought the underside pin would be enough to grip a hollow
stud but I don’t have any 2444.
(Anyway, that’s not the use case argumented by icm.)
|
The underside pin on 2444 is not the same size as a 3.18mm bar. It's smaller.
| |
| | The only thing about this one is that I do not have the time to look through
all 555 sets that use 10247 to see if it ever "officially" mattered.
However, the question I keep coming back to is why redesign the part in the first
place if not to use that additional functionality? And I believe the answer is
somewhere in those 555 sets.
|
Well, I still think the redesign is about blocking the pin hole in order to not
manage to stuck 2780 the wrong way
|
|
 |
| Author: | Nubs_Select  | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 19:26 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, misbi writes:
| | If tiles 3068b, 3069b and 3070b are to be renumbered with the 'b' suffix
removed, how will this affect decorated versions of those tiles? Are all of
the decorated tiles also going to be renumbered with the corresponding 'b'
removed?
Hopefully not 🙄
|
We could do a half-way job and just leave the part numbers to posterity, but
I believe we will complete the task and make the changes. Not all at once, though.
These will likely be changed over a period of 2 weeks between Feb 1 and Feb 15.
|
the email says
"On February 15, 2024, the BrickLink catalog will start making some changes"
but now you are saying starting on feb 1 so which is it?
|
I will post about this later at the start of a new thread, but the 11th part
of this project involving the tiles will be commenced on February 1 because it
doesn't involve sellers adding notes. We could do it today, actually, but
there are plenty of other things to do in the meantime, including making an XML
list for sellers.
|
thankyou for the clarification
|
 |
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|