BrickLink Discussion Forum

In Help, Gandalf68 writes:

Is the grey circular part a LEGO one ?

Should be https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=2489&name=Container,%20Barrel%202%20x%202%20x%202&category=%5BContainer%5D#T=C

Author:

aftepes

Posted:

Nov 30, 2015 14:15

Subject:

Re: BrickLink needs Admin support 24/7

Viewed:

51 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, WoutR writes:

Suggestion: Provide Admin support 24/7.

I think it is pretty clear to many users that BrickLink needs Admin support 24/7.
I even suspect that most users (both buyers and sellers) already expect service
24/7. We just had stores being closed automatically after an error due to maintenance,
we have seen hackers and scammers, and there are many other (major and minor)
problems being reported. For the major issue today, it took several hours (a
full working day in my timezone!) for the first initial Admin response.

In my opinion, the current Admin team is doing a good job, but we cannot expect
a few people to be available full time for all of us. There are many ways to
solve this problem, but we do not know if they are being considered by the people
who are actually in charge. Also, there is no way to ask for more support by
other methods than complaining to the current Admins.

Maybe a public discussion or a gathering of votes for this suggestion can demonstrate
that this is a serious problem that urgently needs a solution.

BrickLink is an international commerce site, so from one perspective, this suggestion
makes perfect sense. Someone, somewhere is always awake and ready to use the
site.

On the flip side, what is the cost for 24 hour, seven day a week administrative
service? That is at least four full time positions, if there is one person covering
each shift. To cover those costs, fees will go up.

What is more desirable?

Author:

aftepes

Posted:

Aug 20, 2014 17:05

Subject:

Re: BL Development Team: Test before rollout!

Viewed:

59 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, QCBricks writes:

True, but that is different than steering 90% of the threads into "Well BO does
it..." or whatever. I have never said that there should be no discussion. My
issue with the handful of people that clearly have an agenda.

Something like the currency issue was a real, easily understood issue. The whole
"the MOC shop team can just work on the main site" argument is just conjecture.
(as an example)

As I have said, it is not just the major issues, it is every single little issue
that gets turned into "OMG!!!11!!!1!1 BL is on the decline" from the same
handful of users. That is not the same thing as constructive discussion that
happened on some of the issues you mention.

Scott

I'd love to see this list of individuals who have the agenda and your opinion
on what their agenda consists of.

Author:

aftepes

Posted:

Aug 20, 2014 17:02

Subject:

Re: BL Development Team: Test before rollout!

Viewed:

56 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, QCBricks writes:

You haven't done that by now?

What does the 100th message saying the same thing accomplish?

Scott

It says that my frustration is building, but I haven't reached the breaking
point that I actually act on a viable option. It says that you still haven't
addressed my concerns. It says a lot actually. It might also say that while I'm
looking elsewhere, I still want this to succeed.

Author:

aftepes

Posted:

Aug 20, 2014 15:05

Subject:

Re: BL Development Team: Test before rollout!

Viewed:

50 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, WoutR writes:

In Suggestions, QCBricks writes:

The problems may be systemic, but the incessant complaining by a vocal minority
on a forum will not be what changes that.

What other option is there?

There are four options:

1) Migrate the stores to Amazon/eBay and utilize their interfaces to move your
product

2) Migrate the stores to Brick Owl which attempts to implement a similar model
as compared to BrickLink

3) Develop your own version of this type of marketplace meeting the unique needs
of the LEGO community

4) Do nothing

Author:

aftepes

Posted:

Aug 20, 2014 14:40

Subject:

Re: BL Development Team: Test before rollout!

Viewed:

66 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, QCBricks writes:

In Suggestions, Cyberclark writes:

In Suggestions, QCBricks writes:

Fortunately for the complainers, they will have a whole new host of minor issues
to blow up over on Friday when the MOC shop opens.

Scott

That is the funniest thing I have read all day Scott, you actually think the
MOC shop will be open on Friday

But come on you have to admit there were bugs in this last release that could
have easily been avoided with some proper QA and testing.

I said "Friday", not this Friday.

Here is the thing...this issue might be the one that deserves the ire
of the crowds, but the incessant complaining and criticism over the past few
months about every little thing that BL has or has not done by a small group
of individuals make this issue just blend in with all the others.

Scott

The issues that I have seen are all systemic in nature. One or two issues are
slip ups. We all have them. Implement some process improvement and move on.

But what I'm seeing now are indicative of projects that fail:
-Poor testing and QA. Poor communication.
-Constant shifting of (SELF-IMPOSED) deadlines.
-Split development teams.
-Suspect prioritization of requirement implementation.
-Constant changing of personnel.

Software development is not some mystical art that this community doesn't
understand. A fair number of us are in this field and can see issues all over
the place.

Author:

aftepes

Posted:

Aug 20, 2014 13:06

Subject:

Re: BL Development Team: Test before rollout!

Viewed:

82 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, lovaquero writes:

Bricklink World Class Programming & Customer Serivce team -

Test before release. This concept is not hard. Perhaps in your eagerness to
pacify the crowd with pitchforks and torches you have forgotten it. Perhaps you
may just not know. Here is how you do it:

For EACH (individual) change to Bricklink:
-----------------------------------------
#1 - Scope your change to know its impact
#2 - Write your test plan to match the requirements for the change
#3 - Recognize that there are at least three (3) internet browsers to support:
Chrome, Firefox & Internet Explorer (IE)
#4 - Make sure that the test plan fails before any change is made
#5 - Implement the change, and only that change, in a development environment
#6 - Execute the test plan (in an isolated environement that matches the live
environment) for Chrome, Firefox and IE
#7 - Repeat steps 5-6 until the test plan passes for all three (3) browsers
#8* - Run the full test plan on the ENTIRE site to ensure everything still works
#9 - If anything fails, return to step #1 and repeat
#10 - Release the change to the live site.

(* Bricklink is written with ancient software that has so many dependencies,
querks, gotchas and 'hidden' features that it is impossible to know what
a change will do to seemingly unrelated features. That is why the software used
to run Bricklink is no longer used nor even supported, not even by the company
that originally created the software...)

Your new mantra must be: "test! Test! TEST! And then test it again!"

Any modern development team worth being paid - especially one that performs
web development - knows this.

Regards,
Rodney
Software Systems Engineer
Solution Infrastructure - Guidance & Machine Automation
John Deere Intelligent Solution Group

It's really sad that basic software development mantras need to be brought
up in the Forum by the site's users. It's one of the reasons my level
of concern for this site raises day by day.

There was an announcement of new changes to "BrickLink 1.0" yesterday and yet
no mention of the Chinese translation. The implementation is lacking and seems
to be inconsistent with industry standards. I would also question the need for
implementation of Chinese translations when so many other users of this site
have been forced to operate outside of their native languages for years. Why
not implement the translation features for those languages first?

I also have concern that with constant delays of the MOC Shop/"BrickLink 2.0"
why the splitting of the development teams? If you can't make schedule on
promises, why implement other changes? The effort would be better used to meet
expectations that the site itself has set! The MOC Shop was BrickLink's idea!
The release dates were set by BrickLink! And now, we have no MOC Shop AND we
have untested features being rolled out onto the production system!

In addition to testing IE, Firefox, Chrome, and Safari, make sure you are also
testing all of the SUPPORTED versions of those browsers.

World-class...

Author:

aftepes

Posted:

Aug 6, 2014 18:37

Subject:

Re: Forum block goes both ways.

Viewed:

54 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, Lonely_Brick_OH writes:

I would like to suggest for Brick Link 2.0 that the forum block goes both ways.

Not only can you not see what the other person is posting, but they cannot see
your posts either.

I believe that will solve a lot of disputes.

Thank you.

I believe that a LEGO site comprised of adults should be able to act like adults
and not need to implement nanny filters since it's members can't exercise
restraint.

Author:

aftepes

Posted:

Apr 24, 2014 06:34

Subject:

Re: Remove MSRP tag once an item is retired

Viewed:

51 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, astrothedog writes:

A pretty straight forward suggestion that would remove the MSRP label from sets
once they are retired by LEGO.

This is really an optics issue, I believe most buyers would have a hard time
justifying the price paid for a retired set with the presumably lower MSRP staring
them in the face.

Joe

I would much rather see the MSRP for a retired set, then for active sets. MSRP
for a retired set is neat historical information. I've personally paid $150+
for a MIB set from the mid-80's that was only two or three bucks when it
was released. It didn't stop me from dropping the money on the set.

Author:

aftepes

Posted:

Mar 24, 2014 06:18

Subject:

Re: Sellers forum. Let's Keep it in the Family

Viewed:

136 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, JETTY writes:

Hi
Just to clarify my opinion.
I do not want, and has not argued, to cut of anybody from reading the forum.
The forum i important to us all.
The idea was to have a small forum for sellers discussing seller related issues
only.
Any one interested could register as seller and join..

And I still think that some forum threads can harm the site, like the "BL2.0
General Timeline Update" going on right now, so far 111 messages in this Thread
and growing..
I dont think that, washing your dirty laundry in public, does any good.

Regards Jes

As a buyer, why shouldn't I understand or have a say with my pleasure
or displeasure with how this site is progressing? I've been a member of BrickLink
for over a decade, only buying here, and why should I lose my ability to participate
because unlike John P, I only buy, I never sell??

Author:

aftepes

Posted:

Jan 21, 2014 11:25

Subject:

Re: Verification of new seller for possible fraud

Viewed:

52 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, Locutis writes:

Back in the fall of 2010, I was a victim of a scam among a list of 25+ people
who were also scammed:

http://www.bricklink.com/feedback.asp?u=champdebataille

I was persistent in bringing this to the attention of others, and trying to get
our items/money out of the scammer. I maintained a spreadsheet and contact with
each person that was scammed by the seller, and the total value was over $10,000
USD.

At the time, when others and myself placed orders with this seller, he did NOT
have any negative feedback. I was posting in the forums and sending reports
to admin to have him suspended and investigated, and people and admins were so
nonchalant about it I began to wonder about Bricklink in general. They weren't
concerned.

It wasn't until I compiled a huge list, and presented it to admin, that his
account was suspended. By then it was much too late. I discovered at the time
that scam sellers were actually quite common on Bricklink. I pointed out several
potential scam sellers on the forums and to admin and on the forums, only to
be shot down as being too "trigger happy". Turns out I was right in several
cases.

Back then I was attempting to spearhead a campaign to have more rigid requirements
to selling on Bricklink besides just an email address. I was shot down from
so many sellers, for so many "reasons", I just gave up. Turns out Bricklink
doesn't exist for the buyers, it exists for the sellers. Anything to make
it easy for people to sell and Bricklink to make money. Buyers? They are a
dime-a-dozen.

I lost over $500 of my sons allowance, Christmas, and birthday money that fall.
All people cared about was "you shouldn't have sent money to someone with
negative feedback as a seller - you were stupid". Some even sent me emails saying
I was in on the scam. Seriously??? The seller at the time had 5 feedback, which
to me was an acceptable start. Turns out they were just to make them look okay,
before the scamming began. When I was shopping the Bricklink website, I was
a new user and thought that Bricklink must somehow verify sellers and that this
community wouldn't have the scams like eBay. Boy was I wrong. After our
incident I decided to setup my own store to see how easy it was, and boy was
it easy. Too easy.

One scammer, over 25 people scammed, over $10,000 USD, in one month. I'm
pretty confident this happens ALL THE TIME. If you look at the feedback of the
seller, some of the people never bought from Bricklink again. Those were lost
customers, lost revenue for sellers. Lost confidence in Bricklink. Some were
parents, who lost money for their children, too. How many of these kids have/will
grow up with the knowledge they were scammed on Bricklink, and avoid it? How
many will talk to others and tell them to be very careful or even avoid Bricklink?
I have told many people over the years, if you find something on Bricklink,
unless they have a significant feedback over many years, DON'T BUY THERE.
I've probably helped out in the downturn of some sales, because I was responsible
for people not buying here. So be it.

The argument that requiring some sort of verification in order to sell would
scare away sellers is offset with the argument that new users come here, get
scammed, and never buy here again. However, would you rather have an environment
where the scammers are the ones who get away with it, or one where all of the
sellers are reviewed prior to selling?

Here is and was my proposal at the time:

- require a credit card or PayPal account for new sellers, have Bricklink charge
the card/PayPal $5 to verify the account is good, and do a name/address verification
on the account. If the account doesn't work, or the name and address doesn't
match the account, close the store
- with some of the proceeds of the $5 charge, send a card in the mail, with a
code on it which is required to complete store setup. Once the seller receives
the code in the mail, they can authenticate themselves, and start selling.
- hold $3 of the $5 charged as an advance payment for sellers' fees, so they
get the fee back when they sell an item here, essentially.

Now, you don't need to necessarily do this for EVERY seller. Set a threshold.
Make a formula that identifies potential scammers and allow the site to enforce
them through software. It's NOT hard. I've done it myself at the company
I work for. We were being scammed almost every week for $700+ orders for a period
a few years ago, so I examined the similarities, and wrote a software algorithm
to analyze each internet order and determine it's possibility for fraud.
Since then, we have been scammed 0 times. Sure, maybe we lost 1 or 2 legitimate
orders since, but the money we didn't lose to fraud far outweighs that.

I know I'm unpopular in the forums because of my view on this, but I still
believe Bricklink should do more than they currently do. Maybe enough time has
passed that this should be looked at again?

Locutis
Resistance is futile.

So after 500 successful purchases, am I to undergo the same scrutiny as someone
with no feedback? If I am, I'm not going to bother. If I'm not where's
the line and why are we not applying rules consistently across the board?

I've seen established sellers here go rogue after being successful for quite
some time. We even have established sellers who don't treat buyers with the
respect they deserve, so I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish here.
Setting a barrier to entry like this is not something that's likely to be
set up.

Author:

aftepes

Posted:

May 9, 2013 12:57

Subject:

Re: Not having Google search is killing our sales

Viewed:

50 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, BRICKS_R_KIDS writes:

I know this topic has been discusses and discussed, but its really a big problem
that we are missing out of Google searches.

I've ran several very large discussion forums and I relied on Google search
to grow the sites. Without Google search, how do people find this site? Friends,
LEGO, clubs?

The admin's need to really make this a priority. There are ways of limiting
the search spiders, so turn them loose and let them find our stores! PLEASE!

Bill

Assume that things were configured to allow Google to identify stores that sold
a certain product on BL. Don't we then deal with the issues of "But why is
Johnny always listed first?" Stores should determine what advertising they want
and secure that advertising on an individual basis so that BrickLink isn't
accused of tipping the scales in the favor of any one store.

If BrickLink wants to advertise it's own business as a site, then that is
fine, but to advertise down to a particular listing, or worse, a particular store,
that would lead to so many more issues.

Author:

aftepes

Posted:

Feb 4, 2013 10:24

Subject:

Re: Separate Minimum for International Orders

Viewed:

58 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, Rbobo writes:

Spurred by the recent USPS rate increase for international orders it no longer
makes sense (for either buyer or seller) to allow inexpensive international orders
in my store. I am tired of canceling every international order after the buyer
balks at the shipping cost but I don't feel as though I should have to limit
my domestic buyers. Having a separate minimum for international orders would
meet this need. For now, I'm probably going to have to disable international
orders entirely.

This may impact your US orders more than it helps your international ones, but
couldn't you raise your overall minimum order, with a password to bypass for
US-only orders that meet a certain threshold?

Otherwise, I don't know what the last implemented suggestion was, but it seems
that suggestions are being stockpiled for BL 2.0 while most of the effort is
going into getting the site repaired from the hack.

In the short term, you may have to do what I suggested or what you did by cutting
off all international orders.

Author:

aftepes

Posted:

Dec 17, 2012 15:08

Subject:

Re: Hidden fees

Viewed:

74 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, Legopeter writes:

I KNOW the fee is in his terms. And I am willing to fulfil my part of the deal.
That's not the point. I don't want this (hidden or not) fees to be allowed.
I want to be able to use the price guide to compare prices. I'm aware shipping
is different from/to different parts of the world but that's one factor you might
never get rid of. Put everything you want to get out of your work picking orders
into the price of the items you are selling instead!

You cannot use the price guide to compare prices. If a part is available in your
country for $5 and it's in another country for $1, you need to get shipping costs
to determine the total cost of the part. It could be, that the lowest total cost
for the part is the $5 order from your own country.

Then what about minimum orders? To place an order in the $1 store, it may require
a $10 minimum order. Now your $1 is $10 plus shipping, if there was nothing else
in the store you needed.

Fees for orders are also part of the process. You need to read the terms and
accept them. Not reading them or not understanding them, is not a cause for complaint,
nor is it a valid reason to file non-positive feedback. The only time that is
warranted is if the fees were not disclosed prior to submitting the order.

I said it before and I'll say it again, I don't like fees. But sometimes it's
the nature of the beast.

Author:

aftepes

Posted:

Dec 17, 2012 14:39

Subject:

Re: Hidden fees

Viewed:

90 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, Legopeter writes:

Hey,
We really need to do something about all the hidden fees and fines on BrickLink.
And by "hidden" I also mean fees that are mentioned in store terms but are, to
the common sense at least, abnormal. I for one am very bad at reading store terms
but have managed to buy from over 600 different sellers without being really
upset over fees until today.
I shopped with a big German seller with the following rule:

Lot Maximum:
Your order should have an average lot value of at least €2.00. You derive the
number by dividing your order total by the number of positions you have. (100
black 1 x 1 bricks are merely one lot).
Otherwise you still place the order for free!
If not, a small fee of €0.59 per surplus lot is added. Example 1: an order with
an order total of €20 and 10 lots does not include ANY FEE. Example 2: an order
with an order total of 20€ and 20 lots effects an additional fee of €5.90. Thank
you very much for your appreciation.

I ended up with a lot maximum fee of EUR 28.59 for an order of EUR 37.08. That's
78% surcharge, almost as much as the order itself. How do you feel about this?
Do we really want this to be allowed? I think we should go the same way as we
did a couple of years ago when we abolished fake exchange courses, remember them?
They were very popular amongst European, especially German, sellers. Who wants
them back?

Peter

Unfortunately, the terms are very clear. To earn a fee of that extreme, you must
have had 65 to 70 lots in that order. You shouldn't be surprised that the seller
then charged you what they said they were going to charge.

While I'm not a fan of fees in general, a buyer can't complain about fees that
are clearly stated in the seller's terms.

Author:

aftepes

Posted:

Dec 5, 2012 11:17

Subject:

Re: Because I have a suggestion !!

Viewed:

44 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, Thunor writes:

I think this would be fairly easy to implement, with many benefits.

Please add to location at the top of store landing page (where the flags are)

Either or both. Town/City and/or post/zip code.

It would be nice to know where - in (my case) England - you are, and you me!

For example if it was urgent and you knew I was in Worthing, you being in Brighton
(15miles) - you could likely get parts the same day.
Or if it was a set it would save on shipping

I can't see any reason why not - PLEASE consider

Thank You
Graham

In a town of a million people, there are no concerns with providing such information.
If you live in a town of 50 people, there becomes an issue of privacy.

Author:

aftepes

Posted:

Sep 19, 2012 11:28

Subject:

Re: NPB/NSS process is too complex

Viewed:

37 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, paulorenato writes:

No. But it is not quiet the same, is it?

How much time does other venues like S@H, Amazon, TRU, hold up for your Credit
Card to be cleared? I know BrickLink is different, friendly and all, but there's
always something to be learned. (S@H cancels the order almost immediately while
Amazon does it in 6 days, I think. And none of them reserve the items
for you in the time being of non-cleared payment!)

Cheers,
Paulo-Renato

S@H, Amazon, and the like are different animals than BrickLink. Those other venues
demand immediate checkout without any delays between order submission and payment.
At BrickLink, there is a period of time between the order submission and the
invoice for payment. So it's a completely different set of circumstances. If
the buyer's and seller's schedules don't align correctly, there may be some delays
in payment.

Author:

aftepes

Posted:

Sep 18, 2012 16:15

Subject:

Re: Inconsistencies between NPB and NRS/NSS

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, lmeyer writes:

I believe the primary reason an NSS takes longer is because of potential shipping
delays. Especially international shipping.

I received a private message stating the same thing. I have no problems conceding
that issues with shipping may be due to the actual physical act of the postal
service delivering the product. And maybe two weeks to complete an NSS isn't
fair to the seller. However, I still stand by the concern that the processes
for an NPB and an NRS need to be the same.

Author:

aftepes

Posted:

Sep 18, 2012 09:04

Subject:

Re: Inconsistencies between NPB and NRS/NSS

Viewed:

37 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, mabccc writes:

Payment is instant with PayPal. Whereas sending items takes time.

Isn't that why there is a difference in the timings?

Payment is not always instantaneous. Some sellers accept check and money orders.

But that still doesn't explain why an NRS takes two weeks to complete, only why
some extra consideration is provided for NSS's. Still, why should two weeks go
by without a single word about an invoice after an NRS is filed? It takes one
week after the order is filed to file the NRS. So we are tying buyer's money
up for three weeks to go from order submission and earmarking funding to relieving
the buyer's burden of completing the order. Whereas the seller's inventory is
only held for two weeks during a "silent" NPB process.

Author:

aftepes

Posted:

Sep 18, 2012 08:50

Subject:

Inconsistencies between NPB and NRS/NSS

Viewed:

147 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Vote:

[Yes|No]