Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | bje  | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 12:40 | | Subject: | Re: About Braille Bricks | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, bje writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | I guess this is more a question to “corporate” admins (aka Russell) than the
member admins but I feel that getting every one (non-admin included)’s opinion
will be healthful.
So, it appears the LEGO Braille bricks are (finally) soon to be released ( https://www.newelementary.com/2020/08/free-lego-braille-bricks-released-by.html
).
They’ll only be made available for free to blind children through the LEGO Foundation.
They won’t be buyable.
Will there be a policy to forbid their sale on BL? (to prevent encouraging collecting
/ second market, IOW, stealing from children¹)
And if so, will the bricks still be in the catalogue or not?
(Will it be possible to enforce a ban if they are?)
——
¹ Nah, I’m strictly objective, no way I’m sneaking my opinion here  
|
It has always been my intention to purchase some of these and donate it myself
as there is no official Braille partner here. This school would most definitely
gain from such a donation: http://www.pioneerschool.org.za/
I sincerely hope that admins will allow these to be sold on BL in order to reach
a wider audience than what TLG is aiming for.
|
I think this is a difficult one. If they are not going to sell them, then it
seems a bit wrong that they allow others to sell them if they are not a commercial
product.
I showed the original story to a partially sighted friend who teaches Braille
and he was quite positive about them but did point out that they are way too
big so probably best for younger kids only, like a sighted kid sounding out a
word letter by letter.
|
I think here we are privileged (?) that the government will not allow something
as a donation unless there is certification all along the transaction's entire
route. So from the sale on BL, the import, the distribution to the school - everything
has to be aboveboard and with a proper paper trail. I think under those circumstances,
the sale as a non-commercial product can be managed with all of the parties including
BL.
My thinking was not also only on the size but also for the fact hat we have 11
official languages and schooling is not available in all 11, the situation is
even worse for Braille books in for example SeSotho. So my thinking was they
could be used as mother tongue teaching aids, even if they are not used by the
children directly.
|
 |
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 12:05 | | Subject: | Re: About Braille Bricks | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | I guess this is more a question to “corporate” admins (aka Russell) than the
member admins but I feel that getting every one (non-admin included)’s opinion
will be healthful.
So, it appears the LEGO Braille bricks are (finally) soon to be released ( https://www.newelementary.com/2020/08/free-lego-braille-bricks-released-by.html
).
They’ll only be made available for free to blind children through the LEGO Foundation.
They won’t be buyable.
Will there be a policy to forbid their sale on BL? (to prevent encouraging collecting
/ second market, IOW, stealing from children¹)
And if so, will the bricks still be in the catalogue or not?
(Will it be possible to enforce a ban if they are?)
——
¹ Nah, I’m strictly objective, no way I’m sneaking my opinion here
|
It has always been my intention to purchase some of these and donate it myself
as there is no official Braille partner here. This school would most definitely
gain from such a donation: http://www.pioneerschool.org.za/
I sincerely hope that admins will allow these to be sold on BL in order to reach
a wider audience than what TLG is aiming for.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 06:02 | | Subject: | Re: Do not default new parts as weight bound | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, paulvdb writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
|
snip
| |
I think it was primarily introduced in the beginning to get IC working for most
parts. Since many don't (or at least didn't) have dimensions it would
be almost impossible to use IC. But in my opinion the goal should have been to
get dimensions for all parts in the catalog and then gid rid of weight bound.
|
If you look at the dimensions you have in your store, you will see there was
a huge bunch of them done right when IC started, and then a trickle afterwards.
You'll probably find that most decorated parts, torso, legs assys and heads
are wither missing or wrong.
| |
Of course that would have required additional programming effort to make it easier
to submit missing dimensions. It's taking a lot of work to post these in
the forum and then wait for someone at BL to manually add them. There really
should have been shipping dimension fields in the add and change item forms so
that we could submit them there like most other changes to the catalog.
|
Yes please. Mooted some months ago already and since then no news.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 05:58 | | Subject: | Re: Do not default new parts as weight bound | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| |
Weights are additive. It doesn't really matter if one part is 1g and another
100g. The order is 101g. And while volumes are (approximately) additive if all
the parts individually fit into a certain box size, individual part dimensions
cannot necessarily be warped. A 5x5x5 cm part is not the same as a 1x5x25 cm
part, even though the volume is the same. If the total parcel size doesn't
matter, the seller need not have a restriction and all parts will pass that size
check. Whereas if the parcel size does matter, then the size check is necessary.
Are there situations where weight bound is important?
|
When IC was launched we sent a message to BL development asking why they had
not included weight/volume as a packaging method and were told that did not fit
the design. That is because they used the US postal system as their focus., and
this is why we have always suggested that a regional based system would have
been better - taken longer for sure, and more complicated, of course, but much
better for those that want to automate their checkout.
|
We recently went from no volume restrictions for postage to freight restrictions
with additional restrictions on top of that. Freight has always used the volume
restrictions with those 5 000 factors, so for domestic, we've never had a
purely weight bound system. The USA changed over to a volume system last year.
So personally, I do not see any reason for any shipping method with only a weight
restriction.
As a buyer, I do have a forwarder which use a weight only system, but of course
it still has to be shipped in the country of origin, so again, even where the
extraordinary circumstance exists, it is negated by the fact that the regional
setting would need to be applied first and foremost.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 05:49 | | Subject: | Re: Do not default new parts as weight bound | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, bje writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, bje writes:
|
|
|
snip
| |
Thanks, I didn't check that non IC search function before, it's quite
well hidden. I've got a poster that's got packing dimensions as if it's
unfolded. Hope that's not true for all posters in the catalog.
|
I think some posters get their dimensions off the catalogue dimensions, which
I believe are generally measured to open, not as it is when you receive it in
the box. The catalogue dimensions being something different to how you would
pack it of course.
| |
As for the warning, it could show up in the to-do items in the My Store menu.
I already have that green dot showing there permanently because it keeps telling
me to send notifications for parts which I simply don't want to do. It would
be good if those to-do items could be dismissed and the warning was clearer,
because now the green dot is just a fixed part of the interface for me that I
don't even pay attention to. If that function would work better and items
without dimensions would show up in the to do list, it may motivate people to
submit them.
|
I think it has to happen when you list or part out, but then the system of updating
them must also be a lot simpler. The current shortcut of just having something
to make another thing work in some manner is sort of weird.
| |
I've submitted 2 packing dimensions a while ago and neither seems to have
been implemented so far. I guess if they will, I'll have motivation to measure
a couple more.
|
THAT is a very very sore point - I picked up some from May this morning not done
yet. I don't think the issue is that members are not motivated, it is that
is so difficult to pick up on errors that most sellers just probably pad their
costs or restrictions or simply pay in and worry about it next time.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 05:05 | | Subject: | Re: Do not default new parts as weight bound | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, bje writes:
|
snip
| |
Hmm, I never really understood these "volume bound" and "weight bound" concepts
very well,
|
Weight bound - measures for IC by weight only so if you have a volume/size restriction,
it gets ignored on checkout.
Volume bound: first checks for weight then for your volume/size restrictions.
If no packing dimensions, no IC, if packing dimensions are set, weight is ignored
at checkout insofar as the restrictions go, but not total package weight.
At issue is if the item is default to weight, it will ignore all of your volume
and size restrictions if you do not enter packing dimensions yourself. You have,
however, no way of knowing this, unless you manually check each listing in your
store.
| | so I'm not an expert, but I feel like parts that don't have
packing measurements entered should just have some kind of default large size.
|
Then you get to the issue again with instructions which are mostly just set to
be 1 cm high. Imagine your cart has 10 collectable minifig instructions in set
to a height of 10cm which is probably packet size... No good.
| | If parts are going to disqualify IC entirely, it means they cannot be bought
in my store, and that's not a good user experience either. Someone pointed
out a set to me that IC didn't accept and it has been taking up space for
several years because it was impossible to buy it, and all that time I had no
idea.
|
That is why you have the report on your inventory page which shows you the items
not qualifying for IC - you should run that once in awhile, it is an eye-opener.
Or maybe what you suggest is OK but then there should at least be
| | a warning for the seller or something like that.
|
Flagging an item on listing, how would that work, an error message perhaps? Or
actually showing the current dimensions and weight on the listing page with big
red letters if there is nothing. That might be achievable. But I think they also
have to fix the reporting so items with errors actually show up.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 04:26 | | Subject: | Do not default new parts as weight bound | | Viewed: | 96 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
| When new parts are added to the catalogue and these parts have only a catalogue
weight, please do not default the item to weight bound for packaging type. Just
as IC is not possible if the item does not have a weight entered for the catalogue,
it should be just as impossible for IC if the volume is patently a problem.
This seems to be the only workaround at this time to make the inventory search
function for "Instant Checkout Unavailable" useful.
Case in point this part, which do not appear on that list even though all of
the information to determine whether or not IC should be applied, is not provided:
* | | 67138 Aircraft Fuselage Forward Bottom Curved 6 x 24 x 1 1/3 with 4 x 21 Recessed Center and 12 x 6 Wings, 20 Holes
Parts: Aircraft |
This part qualifies for IC, will fit my requirements for medium letter by weight,
but is in fact a small packet due to its height, the cost difference is 250%.
The argument that IC is useful enough without being too precise is not valid
if BL do not give sellers the reporting tools required. Setting defaults with
the potential of causing sellers financial loss, without giving sellers the opportunity
to address the issue on listing the item, is not useful.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 11, 2020 10:20 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Tile Round | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
snip
| | | | | |
Hmm, on the one hand I understand the proposed moves from Tile to Plate, on the
other hand Plate,Modified is already quite big and Tile,Modified isn't.
|
Not requesting a consideration for Plate, Modified, but Plate, Round, so the
size of Plate Modified is not really at issue.
|
Well the same is true for Plate,Round, but it was more a general comment on the
trend to move things with some studs missing from the smaller Tile categories
to the bigger Plate categories. Tile, Round is quite small.
|
My idea is that such a part with a few studs missing is a plate and not a tile.
Moving a thing from a category because it is in the wrong category, is in my
head not the same as worrying about the size of a category.
| |
| |
| | Therefore
not really in favour of the idea, but fair enough I guess, if many people want
it.
|
| |
| |
and to Tile Modified (so a category for Tile, Round, Modified is not required)
|
Nah, Tile,Round is correct, because Round has priority over Modified
|
When was that priority set?
|
|
snip
| |
But you're advocating Modified should take priority over Round in the case
of that Tile
|
I'm not advocating anything, I am requesting a consideration for something,
as opposed to your statement that one thing takes precedence over another.
| | but at the same time you're suggesting those Round+Modified
Tiles to be moved to Plate,Round - which should, by the same logic, then be Plate,Modified.
|
Ive not dealt with plate, round yet, only tile round. If it needs to move or
if I think another is change is to be requested inside the entire category, I'll
do so. I'm also trying to keep my comments grouped in categories to avoid
jumping all over the place. One thing at a time and one place at a time.
Of course that tile is modified, it is how we deal with the modification. If
you look closely at what remains after stripping put plates and bars, then this
is the only part in the entire tile round category with some attachment. Catmins
must consider if it is worth it to have a definition made such that its verbosity
includes one part only or if that part is better suited somewhere else to make
an easier category and easier definition.
| |
I guess we could change things around to make Modified take priority over Round,
to solve the issue you describe, although then the Modified categories will become
even bigger. It will also mean that anything in Brick,Round that isn't standard,
such as domes, rocket fins, bricks with holes, all end up in Brick,Modified.
|
Again, it is dependent on how catmins stress test the definitions. It can only
mean something if the definition fits. Those definitions are not tested or experimented
on yet, so we cannot know if what is being done here is correct. This is why
it is under consideration - for catmins to decide if the definition needs fine
tuning or if the part needs to move.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 11, 2020 09:55 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Animal Air | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| I'm going to try my hand at the figure definitions.
I don't think animals with two uses, one as a part and one as a figure, should
get defined based on the manner in which it is used in a set. Thus, I do not
think:
should be a figure in some sets and a part in others, but if the figure
definition takes precedence over the part definition, then of course some would
have dual functions.
I'm still not happy with that sentient idea and how it should be applied,
but lets see:
https://marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/Ant-thony
https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Smaug
* | | buckbeakc02 (Inv) Hippogriff with Dark Bluish Gray Wings, with Beak, Dark Bluish Gray and White Feathers, and Bright Light Orange Eyes Pattern (HP Buckbeak)
Parts: Animal, Air |
https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki
Minecraft animals
All of these to figures.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 11, 2020 08:12 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Tile Round | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | In Catalog, bje writes:
| | Please consider to Plate Round:
|
Hmm, on the one hand I understand the proposed moves from Tile to Plate, on the
other hand Plate,Modified is already quite big and Tile,Modified isn't.
|
Not requesting a consideration for Plate, Modified, but Plate, Round, so the
size of Plate Modified is not really at issue.
| | Therefore
not really in favour of the idea, but fair enough I guess, if many people want
it.
|
| |
| |
and to Tile Modified (so a category for Tile, Round, Modified is not required)
|
Nah, Tile,Round is correct, because Round has priority over Modified
|
When was that priority set?
| | - if this
would be a Tile,Modified instead of a Tile,Round, then there are many Plate,Rounds
tha should be Plate,Modifieds as well. In fact, there are some of them right
there in your suggestion to move to Plate,Round.
|
I don't understand what you mean here. The plate round fits as those are
all have studs (a stud being a stud whether it is hollow, solid, blocked...).
The tile modified is suggested to make the tile round category smaller and to
get away from the definition where you have a modified category for some items
and for other items it is modified only once you get to the definition, it is
not apparent from the name of the category. Plate, round suffers the same indignity.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 11, 2020 06:58 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Tile Round | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Please consider to Plate Round:
and to Bar:
and to Tile Modified (so a category for Tile, Round, Modified is not required)
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 11, 2020 06:50 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Tile Modified | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Please consider to category Bar:
* | | 98549 Support 2 x 2 x 5 Bar on Tile Base with Hollow Stud and Stop Ring
Parts: Support |
* | | 30256 Support 2 x 2 x 5 Bar on Tile Base with Solid Stud and Stop Ring
Parts: Support |
and
To category plate, round or plate, modified
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 11, 2020 06:44 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, novabrick writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Okay, I won't promise anything will happen.
Thanks to everyone for the input you're about to provide. I don't know
how this will go, but I expect it to be interesting. 
|
could this part be moved to tile modified as well?
Just for consistency
Regards
Christian
novabrick-team
|
That whole class needs cleaning up, so that all plates / tiles with missing /
extra studs are in the same place ...
Plus all the jumpers and so on.
|
I thought they were all going to plate, modified.
|
+1
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 3, 2020 08:31 | | Subject: | Add no of orders to quote detail page please | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
| Please add a line for "Orders in this store" to the quote page. I cannot remember
the user name of every buyer so I will miss return buyers and quote incorrectly,
leading to acceptance and costly financial transactions to refund discount monies
which should never have been paid. Sometimes buyers forget they have coupons
or to ask for the coupon or coupons expire in which case I have to add those
discounts manually on quote. It is a bit difficult to quote correctly if not
all of the information is available.
TIA
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 2, 2020 17:09 | | Subject: | Re: Moving Things - Animal Accessories | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| From: https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1213913
Please consider the following:
Category: Animal Accessories:
Move to cloth:
* | | 58321 Belville Horse Blanket, Cloth Non-Opening, with White Glitter Stars Pattern
Parts: Belville |
Move to Cone
Move to Minifigure, Headgear
Move to Vehicle, Base:
33202pb*
Leashes:
Not sure if must move to Belville or if and
must move to Animal, Accessory.
Bridles:
Move to Animal, Accessory so as to have all bridles under one
category, also because is already in category Animal, Accessory
Change the definition of Animal Accessory to exclude blankets.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 2, 2020 16:23 | | Subject: | Re: Moving Things - Responses | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| |
Wing and Tail - move all to Aircraft
Response: Agree. There are only 35 parts in the two combined categories
and they are nearly all aircraft parts. BUT, we have the Tail, Decorated category
containing 327 parts. These would all need to be moved to Aircraft, Decorated
and that's a lot of movement. Not sure on this many changes.
|
Alternative is to move all of the parts with fins to tail:
Change the definition of Tail to:
For bricks, tiles and wedges modified by a fin/fins that are the rear section
of aircraft, including rockets.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 2, 2020 04:23 | | Subject: | Re: Moving Things - Help Animals & Accessories ??? | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| A few questions please.
The cloth and foam parts are problematic. Can you state what the catalogue preference
is please: Does a part get categorised by its function first or what it is made
of first? And publish the rule in the help page as it would be of some help (try
to get away from those unwritten rules while you are at it. Actually make a help
page with all the unwritten rules as well (that's easy for you - it is blank))
in avoiding confusion. We might even get away from categories such as foam and
cloth altogether if it can be done consistently or if there is a stated catalogue
preference.
Figures.
Are you looking to move figures as well, where they meet the definition?
For example Piggy bank accessories and Hamm figures:
Name, face, can apparently speak, which other normal piggy banks cannot do so
it must be aware that it is different somehow. So then it becomes a figure and
the accessory parts moves to minifig accessories and cones?
Do you want to test each item against the definition of character first and then
go to parts classification or vice versa? See for instance:
which: have a name, a face, and probably display some form of
sentient behaviour beyond that of a normal flying animal type thingie. Does all
three of the qualifiers (name, face, sentient behaviour) have to be equally met
in deciding if Hamm is an animal,land with accessories or is the qualifier more
weighted to having name for instance? Having clearer guidelines might make it
easier and avoid long discussions on single parts or single figures.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 2, 2020 03:26 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | | | In Catalog, bje writes:
| | In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
* | | 3957pb01 Antenna 4H with Flag with Blue, Red and Green Balloons Pattern (Sticker) - Set 3108
Parts: Antenna |
* | | 3957pb02 Antenna 4H with Flag with Yellow, Pink and Blue Balloons Pattern (Sticker) - Set 3159
Parts: Antenna |
|
|
|
| | The first two parts are antennas with stickers attached. That's it.
|
Eek, should have checked the flag is a sticker and not a modification of the
antenna with a sticker attached. Ignore for those two parts please.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 2, 2020 02:50 | | Subject: | Re: Avoid orders from buyers with 0 fedback | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, fobya71 writes:
snip
| |
I think it would be great to have a function to avoid orders from people with
0feedback
|
You can do one of two things:
1. Send them to me; or
2.Set yourself up for Instant Checkout, then go here
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/mystore/management.page
Tick on that seller protection button there - it will prevent all those pesky
new buyers irritating you. In fact, they all have to irritate 5 other sellers
first. Seller number 6 apparently gets buyers, not irritation.
| | or at least having the possibility to approve or deny the order before
it became a registered order.
|
Its called acknowledging an order - this is why you can cancel orders without
the buyer's permission. You just say I do not want this order and you cancel
it, easy.
| | It is quite frustrating to cancel orders after
some days and then restock everythink...
|
You want to blame the buyer for a thing you are doing. The buyer does not tell
you to pick the LEGO, or worse still, pack and ship it already, the buyer just
tells you he wants some LEGO goodies subject to your:
1. Accepting the order; and
2. Providing an affordable shipping option
and subject to the buyer paying or making some acceptable payment arrangement
for you. What are you doing picking and packing LEGO when you do not have an
order with no strings attached yet?
And there is another nifty solution - enable quotes, those work nice. I suppose
it will irritate you to complete those as well, but at least then you can ignore
them.
I would still help them if you don't want to, so voted no.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 1, 2020 13:57 | | Subject: | Re: Moving Things - Aircraft, Tail and Wing | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
Please combine under Aircraft, Tail and Wing under one entry for Aircraft;
Please delete the definition for Wing (since it already an "item used on a flying
vehicle");
Please delete the definition for Tail (since not everything with a fin is under
tail anyway and need not be there either);
Please keep the current definition of Aircraft.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 1, 2020 12:51 | | Subject: | Re: Category Defs suggestions, Pt 1, Antenna, Ball | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | Regarding: https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1200979
Hello all!
I have spent a fair bit of time going over the currently published category definitions
in order to clarify the text and create consistency within the contents of each
category. This is just the start, and I welcome help in refining or trouble-shooting
any new language.
I am hoping very much that this can be a free and open discussion. I am not advocating
for any particular changes, and I won’t be the person who decides what happens.
(So please don’t yell at me!) I would simply like to support the volunteer admins
work towards improving our excellent catalog.
I reviewed only some common Part categories. I have not looked far into minifigs,
Bionicle, Duplo, or technic as of yet. Where I have indicated a ‘larger discussion
needed’ I will post an individual thread later with my ideas.
Thanks,
Jen
|
Hi Jen
I hope you do not mind me piggybacking on your posts as you've done a better
job than me; mine was written telegram style, so I've canned them and will
add to yours and will add a few more as time allows. I'm hoping the catmins
will sort these somehow for easier reference.
Personally, I think the Duplo categories are a right royal mess as they are not
consistent with the main catalogue, but I would prefer a Duplo expert to try
and make head or tail of sorting those categories and the individual parts in
them. I'm not a Duplo expert so I'll try not to interfere with Duplo
at all.
Ta
Jean
| |
Here is the list of categories where I see inconsistencies related to their current
definitions. I have indicated solutions when one seemed obvious to me.
-------------------------------------------------
Antenna - For items resembling masts or structures used to receive or broadcast
radio and television signals.
Issue: There are currently flags in this category
|
* | | 3957pb01 Antenna 4H with Flag with Blue, Red and Green Balloons Pattern (Sticker) - Set 3108
Parts: Antenna |
* | | 3957pb02 Antenna 4H with Flag with Yellow, Pink and Blue Balloons Pattern (Sticker) - Set 3159
Parts: Antenna |
Parts 30322pb*
(this is not a packing dimension adjustment, don't expect macro tags on everything )
Those parts should all be moved to flags, as they fit the definition of a flag:
"For cloths intended for attachment to a pole and molded flag and pole assemblies.
" the antenna performing the function of a pole. It can of course be said that
flag is incidental to the antenna part and that the antenna is the actual part
under consideration. I've tried to find fixed flag assemblies for ham radio's
and other broadcasting services, but they all appear to be used as a flag pole
once the flag is attached. In South Africa, no matter what pole you use for the
flag, it can only be hoisted in daylight hours and you must use a flag pole only
as a flag pole (the flag being this holy thing apparently). My preference would
be for the flag parts to move to flags and to keep the definition as is.
| |
---------------------------------------------------------
Ball - For freely-rolling spherical objects without modifications.
Issue: Part x12 does not fit definition
|
I'm not clear on the retention of the Belville, Hero Factory, Scala, etc
specific categories for parts. The feeling I got was that these types of series
specific parts will be retained under the category name, so this part should
move to Belville or Scala.
But:
x45pb*
54821pb*
would probably be better served under ball, except maybe for
to stay under the Foam category.
snip
More later
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 1, 2020 12:02 | | Subject: | Re: Make A List | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Can we get a forum topic for this please, so replies are sorted together for
reference purposes?
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | As announced in mid-April, today the item type and category definitions were
updated.
Two months from now, on August 1st, we'd like to (which doesn't mean
for a certainty that we will) simultaneously launch a couple of projects from
the roadmap as follows:
1. Clarification of Item Types and Moving Items - A project to clearly define
what constitutes sets, parts, minifigures, books, gear, and catalogs. Once clear
definitions exist, some (and potentially many) items may need to be changed from
one type to another to comply with definitions.
7. Part Reclassifications - A project to revisit certain difficult-to-define
parts and determine if they would fit better in different categories.
During the coming two months, please make a list of the items you feel are miscategorized,
whether by item type or by category. As you make your list or lists, refer to
the new definitions to see where they support or fail to support your position
and be prepared to offer suggestions for improvements to the definitions.
I've no doubt that the discussion that occurs will also involve categories
themselves, so be prepared with a list of specific categories that you feel should
be removed altogether, categories that should be renamed, and new categories
that are needed.
In the interim, there is no need to reply to this message.
|
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jul 23, 2020 00:25 | | Subject: | Re: POLL: New Variant for 6641 | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | There is a new variant for
that was just released that has a completely new type of axle hole.
It has Design ID 51149: https://brickset.com/parts/design-51149
The catalog team is considering whether to add this as a new part to the catalog
or just add an alternate item number to 6641.
POLL:
What would you like to see done?
|
I would prefer separate entries to be able to buy the old variant if I would
need it to complete an older set. The axle holes also remind me of
and
and these parts have their own entries. And the difference is clearly visible
so it should not bee too difficult to separate them.
|
+1
In addition, I do not like mixing variants with a visual difference, so I would
prefer to buy them separate.
| |
----------------
+1 for the idea to ask the community about this.
|
Yes +1
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jul 15, 2020 03:13 | | Subject: | Re: Approve Set 75317-1 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, bje writes:
| | | | Items Pending Official Release:
Items may not be listed prior to their official LEGO release date, either
as custom lots or under related catalog entries.
|
Then the policy wording is incorrect.
Those retailers did not get their inventory off the back of a truck;
TLG officially sold the stock to those retailers;
TLG made it available for general release, not the retailers;
TLG is not taking any steps to prevent those items from being sold to consumers;
Those retailers are not selling fake goods;
Those retailers are selling the goods with the blessing of TLG;
TLG most probably added a preview for such sets long before, and officially made
images, set numbers and descriptions available for the broader consumer market
some time before the retailers had them for sale.
So should the policy not read as follows:
Items may not be listed for sale by BrickLink stores prior to the first date
that such items are being offered for sale on lego.com and/or certified LEGO
stores.
|
Not everything is sold through official LEGO outlets. There are many exclusive
items that do not have a public release date. We are working on aligning the
catalog with official release data, but we're not quite there yet.
However, that does not mean there is not an official release date for every LEGO
item. And we are not the only site that abides by these rules. All registered
fan media, including sites that get sets early to do reviews, are under strict
embargo agreements, and they may lose their registered status if they break an
agreement. So BrickLink, as the LEGO Group's own fan site, needs to set the
example with this. Don't compare us with Amazon, Walmart, or any other major
retailer. We have a leadership role to play within the context of the AFOL community.
|
I'm not comparing BrickLink to those retailers.
What I am trying to get across to BrickLink is that those retailers have released
the sets for sale to the general public with the official blessing of TLG, else
it would not be for sale at all. TLG is the largest toy maker in the world, they
can and do control the market for their own product. There is not a single retailer
in the world that can get inventory of a LEGO product from a wholesaler for resale
to the general public without TLG's blessing.
If the embargo BL is operating under precludes a listing in the BL catalogue
and a for sale listing by a seller registered on the BL platform (supposedly
independent of control by TLG) until such time as TLG approves of it, then the
rules should say so. The current policy merely states that LEGO must have released
the item. My point is they did, else it would not be for sale at all anywhere.
| |
| | There should also be a definite catalogue policy as follows:
TLG might make set descriptions, set numbers, images, set contents and box
images available some time prior to offering such items for sale on lego.com
or at certified LEGO stores. Catalogue entries will not be accepted until the
first day such items actually become for sale to the general public on those
platforms.
|
Actually, it is stricter than that. If information about a set has not been released
by the LEGO Group for publication, such information may not be entered into a
publicly viewable pending entry until the information is officially released.
Such pending entries are subject to immediate removal.
|
As I suggested - TLG makes it available...
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jul 15, 2020 02:31 | | Subject: | Re: Approve Set 75317-1 | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, waltzking writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, waltzking writes:
| | Have this item in hand. Any chance we can get it approved for the catalog now?
Thanks!
Jonathan
|
It will be approved to the catalog on its official release date of August 1.
|
This seems quite backwards given it is on Amazon, Walmart, and eBay...BrickLink
is only shooting the site visibility in the foot to not follow major retails
early release on this kit.
Jonathan
|
BrickLink has always followed the official release dates of The LEGO Group for
adding new sets, new minifigures, and new parts to the catalog regardless of
what is happening anywhere else. Before the site was owned by TLG, this was done
out of a sign of respect for the company and helped to solidify a solid relationship
between BrickLink and TLG. Now that the site *is* owned by TLG, I am quite sure
that this process will not change.
|
You are correct, Randy. We are currently working on a way, in fact, to make sure
that every item is released exactly on time, not early, not late. In fact, we
now have a rule about this in the Seller Terms of Service:
Items Pending Official Release:
Items may not be listed prior to their official LEGO release date, either
as custom lots or under related catalog entries.
|
Then the policy wording is incorrect.
Those retailers did not get their inventory off the back of a truck;
TLG officially sold the stock to those retailers;
TLG made it available for general release, not the retailers;
TLG is not taking any steps to prevent those items from being sold to consumers;
Those retailers are not selling fake goods;
Those retailers are selling the goods with the blessing of TLG;
TLG most probably added a preview for such sets long before, and officially made
images, set numbers and descriptions available for the broader consumer market
some time before the retailers had them for sale.
So should the policy not read as follows:
Items may not be listed for sale by BrickLink stores prior to the first date
that such items are being offered for sale on lego.com and/or certified LEGO
stores.
There should also be a definite catalogue policy as follows:
TLG might make set descriptions, set numbers, images, set contents and box
images available some time prior to offering such items for sale on lego.com
or at certified LEGO stores. Catalogue entries will not be accepted until the
first day such items actually become for sale to the general public on those
platforms.
And yes, I've had a few of these so-called pre-release items in my time and
I've had some of them approved for catalogue entries and inventory purposes
in the past by a simple request for approval. I was never aware of this rule
until 2018 when I had a request rejected after having a set in hand specifically
purchased to add the inventory of the set for the BL catalogue.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
