Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | jim35  | | Posted: | Jan 7, 2020 09:41 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Policy Issues | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In General, mfav writes:
Love the "expert" one.  
|
 |
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Jan 7, 2020 07:53 | | Subject: | Re: Remove image | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, mfav writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Why shouldn't rust be considered a verified color for this part?
|
I know it's daft of me to think this, but can't you just call up the
mothership and get an answer? Then definitively tell us what it is? I mean instead
of questioning us. Like we know.
You know. As in sincerely, can't you do that?
|
Regarding this color Rust, BrickLink's definition (and usage) don't line
up with the internal official palette, as you can see here:
http://ryanhowerter.net/colors.html
BrickLink sellers tend to list colors exactly as they see them, not what the
catalog says they are supposed to be. That is why there are 86 lots listed under
Rust, yet no inventory lists Rust as a "known" color. And the image "verifies"
the existence of this part in Rust - that's why I am hesitant to remove it.
As far as access to the "mothership" goes, it's still very early in the transition.
Yes, I could contact someone who could put me in touch with someone else who
has access to internal color info. But right now there are other much more important
issues to deal with, so I will be reserving my lifelines for those. 
|
"Rust" is just red in certain non-ABS parts. If it is considered a legitimate
color, then we should also have the "medium old gray" of certain old 1x1 clips
and airtanks and maybe "translucent light yellow" for old minifig hands and airtanks.
|
According to Ryan's sheet, 216 Rust is an official LEGO color. And 13 Red
Orange falls into that category too:
|
Ryan's sheet also points out that there is a "rust" that is "Really 21 Bright
Red in softer plastics."
That is the case with the boat mast in question here. I don't think it is
a deliberate color by Lego in this part. It is considered red by Lego, but appears
dull because of the material. If we are going to use our own color definitions,
which I have no problem with, then we should allow them in similar situations
like I mention where the appearance does not match the official Lego color because
of the part material. .
|
|
| Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Jan 7, 2020 04:17 | | Subject: | Re: Remove image | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, normann1974 writes:
| | For part
* | | 476 Bar 12L with Open Stud, Tow Ball, and Slit (Boat Mast)
Parts: Bar |
the image for Rust color should be removed. This part doesn't
exist in this color (but may appear rust colored as written in the note).
/Jan
|
I'm not sure I follow this. This part does appear in a rust variant - we
have one here in the office. It's not exactly like other rust colors, but
it's not red either.
Why shouldn't rust be considered a verified color for this part?
|
If you have one there, could you make a better picture and upload to the catalogue?
The current one is small and blur...
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 22:02 | | Subject: | Re: Remove image | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, mfav writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Why shouldn't rust be considered a verified color for this part?
|
I know it's daft of me to think this, but can't you just call up the
mothership and get an answer? Then definitively tell us what it is? I mean instead
of questioning us. Like we know.
You know. As in sincerely, can't you do that?
|
Regarding this color Rust, BrickLink's definition (and usage) don't line
up with the internal official palette, as you can see here:
http://ryanhowerter.net/colors.html
BrickLink sellers tend to list colors exactly as they see them, not what the
catalog says they are supposed to be. That is why there are 86 lots listed under
Rust, yet no inventory lists Rust as a "known" color. And the image "verifies"
the existence of this part in Rust - that's why I am hesitant to remove it.
As far as access to the "mothership" goes, it's still very early in the transition.
Yes, I could contact someone who could put me in touch with someone else who
has access to internal color info. But right now there are other much more important
issues to deal with, so I will be reserving my lifelines for those.
|
"Rust" is just red in certain non-ABS parts. If it is considered a legitimate
color, then we should also have the "medium old gray" of certain old 1x1 clips
and airtanks and maybe "translucent light yellow" for old minifig hands and airtanks.
|
According to Ryan's sheet, 216 Rust is an official LEGO color. And 13 Red
Orange falls into that category too:
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 21:10 | | Subject: | Re: Remove image | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, mfav writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Why shouldn't rust be considered a verified color for this part?
|
I know it's daft of me to think this, but can't you just call up the
mothership and get an answer? Then definitively tell us what it is? I mean instead
of questioning us. Like we know.
You know. As in sincerely, can't you do that?
|
Regarding this color Rust, BrickLink's definition (and usage) don't line
up with the internal official palette, as you can see here:
http://ryanhowerter.net/colors.html
BrickLink sellers tend to list colors exactly as they see them, not what the
catalog says they are supposed to be. That is why there are 86 lots listed under
Rust, yet no inventory lists Rust as a "known" color. And the image "verifies"
the existence of this part in Rust - that's why I am hesitant to remove it.
As far as access to the "mothership" goes, it's still very early in the transition.
Yes, I could contact someone who could put me in touch with someone else who
has access to internal color info. But right now there are other much more important
issues to deal with, so I will be reserving my lifelines for those.
|
"Rust" is just red in certain non-ABS parts. If it is considered a legitimate
color, then we should also have the "medium old gray" of certain old 1x1 clips
and airtanks and maybe "translucent light yellow" for old minifig hands and airtanks.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 20:52 | | Subject: | Re: Remove image | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Requests, mfav writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Why shouldn't rust be considered a verified color for this part?
|
I know it's daft of me to think this, but can't you just call up the
mothership and get an answer? Then definitively tell us what it is? I mean instead
of questioning us. Like we know.
You know. As in sincerely, can't you do that?
|
Regarding this color Rust, BrickLink's definition (and usage) don't line
up with the internal official palette, as you can see here:
http://ryanhowerter.net/colors.html
BrickLink sellers tend to list colors exactly as they see them, not what the
catalog says they are supposed to be. That is why there are 86 lots listed under
Rust, yet no inventory lists Rust as a "known" color. And the image "verifies"
the existence of this part in Rust - that's why I am hesitant to remove it.
As far as access to the "mothership" goes, it's still very early in the transition.
Yes, I could contact someone who could put me in touch with someone else who
has access to internal color info. But right now there are other much more important
issues to deal with, so I will be reserving my lifelines for those.
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 20:00 | | Subject: | Re: Remove image | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Why shouldn't rust be considered a verified color for this part?
|
I know it's daft of me to think this, but can't you just call up the
mothership and get an answer? Then definitively tell us what it is? I mean instead
of questioning us. Like we know.
You know. As in sincerely, can't you do that?
|
|
| Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 19:51 | | Subject: | Re: Instructions Dimensions -- way off? | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | In Catalog, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
| | On My Inventory the dimensions for set are 582mm x 378mm. Which is
the size of the Box itself (!)
How were these dimensions populated and what can I do to remove them altogether
(not just one by one)?
(Or better yet to mass-set the dimensions correctly.)
Thanhk you again.
|
LOL me again, and thank you for alerting me to this as well as I went back and
checked mine saw some of them had a base thickness of 1cm - this is wrong. Research
cap on and lo behold - I think there are still a few of these floating about:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1063022
So that gets to the how it is populated. How to mass change it is another matter
altogether. Would you just want to change the thickness or do you want actual
dimensions? For actual dimensions you are going to have to measure each and every
one which still has the z dimension set to 10mm or 0mm. There is no way to simply
check this you have to check your entire inventory manually as there is no tool
to search the packing dimensions of items in your inventory. I'm not quite
sure if you can mass change the dimensions for your inventory - are they not
all different? Setting them all to manual for the time being, would be the same
method as in that other thread, except now you go M for Manual.
To mass change the dimensions:
For an item which you want to change the dimensions to say dim X, dim Y, dim
Z to 180 x 38 x 28 mm
Use the find and replace method in this message:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1166531
You make the file as you would upload it and add the lines as follows: (put angle
brackets where I have now got square brackets)
[INVDIMX]180[/INVDIMX]
[INVDIMY]38[/INVDIMY]
[INVDIMZ]28[/INVDIMZ]
As I noted - you anyway have to punch in values for each one. It might be easier
to set them all to manual, have some unfortunae soul sit with a caliper for a
day and ask for mass update on this topic:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1059042
then reset your invetory again. It normally takes about a day for these to be
fixed, but since Russell is the only doing all of this now, I would suggest giving
a bit of extra time.
I'm also going to apologise here, I've never thought of checking those
dmension when I submit items for the catalogue. My bad. I will make a big fat
note to fix this oversight on my part, thank you again for pointing me in the
right direction.
HTH
|
Wonderful, Jean!
Between BrickStock and Notepad, it worked.
I changed every Instructions to Weight Bound and the Dimensions to 300x200x10mm
(A4 size). It works here because as long as it is under the 90cm linear measure,
only the weight counts for shipping rates.
(Will have to adjust the bigger ones A3 size manually, but they're only a
few.)
Thank you again for your detailed explanation!
I will be uploading many Instructions this year, hopefully I can enter the correct
dimensions to the Catalog whenever Catalog Changes are working again.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 19:33 | | Subject: | Re: Remove image | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Requests, normann1974 writes:
| | For part
* | | 476 Bar 12L with Open Stud, Tow Ball, and Slit (Boat Mast)
Parts: Bar |
the image for Rust color should be removed. This part doesn't
exist in this color (but may appear rust colored as written in the note).
/Jan
|
I'm not sure I follow this. This part does appear in a rust variant - we
have one here in the office. It's not exactly like other rust colors, but
it's not red either.
Why shouldn't rust be considered a verified color for this part?
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 19:14 | | Subject: | Re: New 2020 Colors | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
Thank you!
*makes note to add these to my wanted list*
|
| Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 18:48 | | Subject: | Remove image | | Viewed: | 115 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| For part
* | | 476 Bar 12L with Open Stud, Tow Ball, and Slit (Boat Mast)
Parts: Bar |
the image for Rust color should be removed. This part doesn't
exist in this color (but may appear rust colored as written in the note).
/Jan
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 18:25 | | Subject: | Re: Official Lego Part Codes vs Bricklink Codes? | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | Incidentally since most minifig hair and headgear are listed by Legos Design
I.D I noticed that there are some parts which aren’t listed by this as the primary
reference. For instance hair 6093 is listed as ‘x104’ and you have bandanas listed
as ‘x70’ instead of ‘2543’ I know this reference is still displayed as an alternative
number but it would be nice if all parts were listed as Legos official design
I.D as the primary reference it’s just when I sold some of the bandanas the other
day all I could see when picking my order was reference ‘x70’ which doesn’t mean
much to me compared with Legos Design I.D 2543
Does anyone share a similar view or am I alone here?
|
I think the same, as I wrote here: https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1165039
|
Yes it would make sense if some of those old numbers were phased out and replaced
with either Legos official Design I.D’s and/or Element I.D’s (I guess easier
said than done for all the parts) but do people still rely on those other BL/Peeron
references? The only reason I might use them is because they are sometimes the
only reference I have to hand whilst I'm using bricklink
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 16:11 | | Subject: | Re: Instructions Dimensions -- way off? | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
| | On My Inventory the dimensions for set are 582mm x 378mm. Which is
the size of the Box itself (!)
How were these dimensions populated and what can I do to remove them altogether
(not just one by one)?
(Or better yet to mass-set the dimensions correctly.)
Thanhk you again.
|
LOL me again, and thank you for alerting me to this as well as I went back and
checked mine saw some of them had a base thickness of 1cm - this is wrong. Research
cap on and lo behold - I think there are still a few of these floating about:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1063022
So that gets to the how it is populated. How to mass change it is another matter
altogether. Would you just want to change the thickness or do you want actual
dimensions? For actual dimensions you are going to have to measure each and every
one which still has the z dimension set to 10mm or 0mm. There is no way to simply
check this you have to check your entire inventory manually as there is no tool
to search the packing dimensions of items in your inventory. I'm not quite
sure if you can mass change the dimensions for your inventory - are they not
all different? Setting them all to manual for the time being, would be the same
method as in that other thread, except now you go M for Manual.
To mass change the dimensions:
For an item which you want to change the dimensions to say dim X, dim Y, dim
Z to 180 x 38 x 28 mm
Use the find and replace method in this message:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1166531
You make the file as you would upload it and add the lines as follows: (put angle
brackets where I have now got square brackets)
[INVDIMX]180[/INVDIMX]
[INVDIMY]38[/INVDIMY]
[INVDIMZ]28[/INVDIMZ]
As I noted - you anyway have to punch in values for each one. It might be easier
to set them all to manual, have some unfortunae soul sit with a caliper for a
day and ask for mass update on this topic:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1059042
then reset your invetory again. It normally takes about a day for these to be
fixed, but since Russell is the only doing all of this now, I would suggest giving
a bit of extra time.
I'm also going to apologise here, I've never thought of checking those
dmension when I submit items for the catalogue. My bad. I will make a big fat
note to fix this oversight on my part, thank you again for pointing me in the
right direction.
HTH
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 15:58 | | Subject: | Re: Analysts Ruin Everything | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Problem, calsbricks writes:
| | interesting they are pundits over here.
|
Yep. Equally despised and, you know, exactly the same people. But new and improved
with a fresh name! To make us think they're not pundits. Or analysts. Or
abjectly stoopid.
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 15:41 | | Subject: | Re: Analysts Ruin Everything | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Problem, mfav writes:
| | In Problem, calsbricks writes:
| | I'll stick with analyst I cannot, for the life of me, understand why there
is such open hostility towards that.
|
Pretty much every pro football/TV/media talking head "analyst" in the US is an
example of why there's open hostility towards that term. Less accurate than
weathermen and infinitely more obnoxious.
|
interesting they are pundits over here.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 15:38 | | Subject: | Re: Analysts Ruin Everything | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Problem, yorbrick writes:
| | | | I'll stick with analyst I cannot, for the life of me,understand why there
is such open hostility towards that. it's as if what everyone wants - improvement
is just going to happen. we have had 6 years of very little, if any real improvements
(blamed on spaghetti code) and tangent developments like mosaick and the afol
design program which certainly helped the cash situation for BL but did little
for the stores.
|
If it was the AFOL design program that got LEGO interested in the purchase of
BL then it might have done a huge amount for the stores here, at least in the
long term if not the short.
|
somehow I doubt it but the early press we have seen has reflect Ted a keenest
on it and stud.io
how that is going help existing stores is still very much up in the air
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 15:36 | | Subject: | Re: Analysts Ruin Everything | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Problem, calsbricks writes:
| | I'll stick with analyst I cannot, for the life of me, understand why there
is such open hostility towards that.
|
Pretty much every pro football/TV/media talking head "analyst" in the US is an
example of why there's open hostility towards that term. Less accurate than
weathermen and infinitely more obnoxious.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 15:18 | | Subject: | Re: Analysts Ruin Everything | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| | | I'll stick with analyst I cannot, for the life of me,understand why there
is such open hostility towards that. it's as if what everyone wants - improvement
is just going to happen. we have had 6 years of very little, if any real improvements
(blamed on spaghetti code) and tangent developments like mosaick and the afol
design program which certainly helped the cash situation for BL but did little
for the stores.
|
If it was the AFOL design program that got LEGO interested in the purchase of
BL then it might have done a huge amount for the stores here, at least in the
long term if not the short.
|
|
| Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 15:14 | | Subject: | Re: Official Lego Part Codes vs Bricklink Codes? | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | Incidentally since most minifig hair and headgear are listed by Legos Design
I.D I noticed that there are some parts which aren’t listed by this as the primary
reference. For instance hair 6093 is listed as ‘x104’ and you have bandanas listed
as ‘x70’ instead of ‘2543’ I know this reference is still displayed as an alternative
number but it would be nice if all parts were listed as Legos official design
I.D as the primary reference it’s just when I sold some of the bandanas the other
day all I could see when picking my order was reference ‘x70’ which doesn’t mean
much to me compared with Legos Design I.D 2543
Does anyone share a similar view or am I alone here?
|
I think the same, as I wrote here: https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1165039
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 15:04 | | Subject: | Re: Analysts Are People, Too | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Problem, mfav writes:
Fair enough. You're most likely right.
In an ideal world the catalog would be rebuilt as necessary and the database
would be relational in the ways you've advocated. The catalog and its inventories
would then be managed by people with education in an appropriate field (such
as information science).
And all of this is moot anyway, because none of us have any idea what TLG's
plans for the site are. I rather doubt we'll be consulted about or informed
of any major decisions that are made regarding the site.
Therefore, all of us would be wise to take your advice and not get involved in
these kinds of discussions until we see what is to come.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 14:49 | | Subject: | Re: Analysts Ruin Everything | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Problem, mfav writes:
| | In Problem, StormChaser writes:
| | It's difficult to offend me, so do not trouble yourself in that regard.
|
Well, first this: http://v4ei.com/mini-fig-ure-outer/comics/index.php
Second:
Oh, good grief. You can't solve this problem alone, Robert. You can't.
You don't have the requisite tool set.
Bill suggests we get some help from people with the proper tool set to augment
the knowledge you have and you see fit to throw him under the bus.
Tell me the site has worked out all the problems you point out over the past
10 years. Has it? Those problems persist, don't they? Those problems do exist,
continue to not be resolved, and clearly you, we, the community, cannot solve
the problems by ourselves. If they could be resolved by us, then certainly they
would have been over a period of 20 years of community involvement.
Hell, in the thread about what's a tile and what's a plate and so on
you can't come to consensus. So let's have some rules. Because rules
fix everything. F--- all that. Redesign the database properly (this probably
does warrant the involvement of somebody other than you or the community) and
that argument of what something is and what something isn't becomes moot.
Really really wish you'd expend all this good energy you have in investigating
information studies instead of beating the dead horse. Again. Maybe you'd
feel better if Bill stopped using the word "analysts" and started using "information
design specialists".
Anyway, you keep beating your drum, and Bill keep beating his drum, and I'll
keep doing whatever the hell it is that I do.
|
hi mark
fancy titles like that usually cost more money
I'll stick with analyst I cannot, for the life of me,understand why there
is such open hostility towards that. it's as if what everyone wants - improvement
is just going to happen. we have had 6 years of very little, if any real improvements
(blamed on spaghetti code) and tangent developments like mosaick and the afol
design program which certainly helped the cash situation for BL but did little
for the stores.
I believe it is time to take this seriously now - back to the drawing board -
redesign, program, test, reprogram, test, etc. then document properly then launch.
in the interim period keep the existing site running, fix the bugs and grow the
site via Tlg marketing muscle
|
|
| Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 14:18 | | Subject: | Instructions Dimensions -- way off? | | Viewed: | 69 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| On My Inventory the dimensions for set are 582mm x 378mm. Which is
the size of the Box itself (!)
How were these dimensions populated and what can I do to remove them altogether
(not just one by one)?
(Or better yet to mass-set the dimensions correctly.)
Thanhk you again.
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 14:03 | | Subject: | Re: Analysts Ruin Everything | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Problem, StormChaser writes:
| | It's difficult to offend me, so do not trouble yourself in that regard.
|
Well, first this: http://v4ei.com/mini-fig-ure-outer/comics/index.php
Second:
Oh, good grief. You can't solve this problem alone, Robert. You can't.
You don't have the requisite tool set.
Bill suggests we get some help from people with the proper tool set to augment
the knowledge you have and you see fit to throw him under the bus.
Tell me the site has worked out all the problems you point out over the past
10 years. Has it? Those problems persist, don't they? Those problems do exist,
continue to not be resolved, and clearly you, we, the community, cannot solve
the problems by ourselves. If they could be resolved by us, then certainly they
would have been over a period of 20 years of community involvement.
Hell, in the thread about what's a tile and what's a plate and so on
you can't come to consensus. So let's have some rules. Because rules
fix everything. F--- all that. Redesign the database properly (this probably
does warrant the involvement of somebody other than you or the community) and
that argument of what something is and what something isn't becomes moot.
Really really wish you'd expend all this good energy you have in investigating
information studies instead of beating the dead horse. Again. Maybe you'd
feel better if Bill stopped using the word "analysts" and started using "information
design specialists".
Anyway, you keep beating your drum, and Bill keep beating his drum, and I'll
keep doing whatever the hell it is that I do.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 13:21 | | Subject: | Re: Official Lego Part Codes vs Bricklink Codes? | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | Does anyone share a similar view or am I alone here?
|
I share a similar view. We need to get rid of those old part numbers carried
over years ago from other sites.
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
