| Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | JATB  | | Posted: | Jun 7, 2017 20:29 | | Subject: | Re: Classic Wanted List Unavailable on June 5th | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| I am not a fan of the new wanted list. To much effort for such a simple task
of adding a part. I love the classic version and will continue to use it as long
it is available. Don't see why we can't have both or why the new one
exists in the first place. If it ain't broke don't break it.
In Administrative, Admin_Jaclyn writes:
| | Hello Everyone,
In June of last year, we introduced a new Wanted List upgrade. This upgrade came
with a newly-designed buying experience which focused on the necessity to compare
and plan out multiple carts at once, as well as make it easier to manage multiple
lists.
Since BrickLink's Wanted List is a core feature for most users, we currently
provide the classic version for members to use as a backup in case there are
glitches with the new version. This is intended to be a temporary solution.
The classic version of the Wanted List feature will become unavailable on
June 5, 2017. At this point, we have ensured that the new version of the
Wanted List covers all desired functionality (plus more) from the classic version.
If you have any issues with the new version, please let us know as soon as possible.
Thank you for the continued support, bug reports, and helpful feedback as we
continue to roll out important changes.
Sincerely,
Jaclyn
BrickLink Customer Support
|
|
 |
| Author: | doc.moose | | Posted: | Jun 7, 2017 10:40 | | Subject: | Re: Classic Wanted List Unavailable on June 5th | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| the new design sucks. stay by the classic version. it is so much better to handle.
PLEASE.
|
| Author: | r_and_kharrison | | Posted: | Jun 7, 2017 07:48 | | Subject: | Include On Hand field in Wanted List Search | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
| The wanted list search page here https://www.bricklink.com/v2/wanted/search.page
does not provide an option to use the "on hand" values in that search.
Scenarios:
Show me all items on all wanted lists where I have a value in the on hand field
Show me all the items of a particular nature where I have a value in the on hand
field
Show me all items where I do not have a value on hand
Show me all items where the value on hand is equal to the qty wanted
|
|
| Author: | r_and_kharrison | | Posted: | Jun 7, 2017 00:36 | | Subject: | Option to save search settings for Wanted Lis | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
| The wanted list view at this page https://www.bricklink.com/v2/wanted/list.page?utm_content=subnav
does not remember my search settings and keeps reverting back.
Scenario:
Change the search to by "Completion" and "Down" sort order.
Open a wanted list to review
Hit browser back arrow to return to the page
Reverts to default search settings
Can you please add the ability to save your default search criteria?
Additionally, a filter to only show those with items on hand / not on hand /
not completed / partially completed would be useful
|
|
| Author: | r_and_kharrison | | Posted: | Jun 7, 2017 00:24 | | Subject: | Option to exclude On-Hand from Auto-fill Min | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
| Consider allowing a user preference to exclude the On-Hand quantity of an item
when searching a store for items on the wanted list.
Scenario:
I have multiple wanted lists with a total of 6 of 1x6 white plates on them
I have previously marked two of these plates on one wanted list as "have"
Search a store and locate that item in the store
Bricklink on that item line tells me I have a total of 6 on my wanted list with
2 "on hand"
When I click the Auto-fill min option bricklink places a quantity of 6 as the
minimum on the item.
I would like the option to exclude the on-hand quantity thus placing a quantity
of 4 on the item line.
Logic is that I have 2 on hand, so why would I want 6 more (only need 4 more)
|
|
|
