Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | bje  | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2020 08:48 | | Subject: | Re: Please give notice before deleting a listing | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, starbeanie writes:
| | Minifigs have different rules than parts. Stickers are classified as parts. When
you remove a sticker from the sheet, you have used it. The Sheet itself is no
longer New.
|
Might be, but the listing policy page was only updated today to reflect that.
Previously of course you could list and state in the comments, exactly as this
seller did and it was not against official published listing policy.
| | This was discussed way back when.
|
That is not the way to make a policy. It is of course understood that a sticker
sheet missing stickers is not complete and hence not new, but there was nothing
in the previously published rules prohibiting a seller from listing as new.
| |
And no I don't agree with how mini-figures are listed.
In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Suggestions, mockingbird writes:
| | Before deleting an item listed for sale, please give a notice to the seller.
That way the seller can change the listing to comply with the rules (instead
of having to enter everything again).
The e-mail does not give the full listing details, so it is not always clear
what is wrong with the listed item. Also the reason given is not clear.
I just recieved an e-mail stating that a few stickers I listed are deleted.
Reason given: "Item is incorrectly defined as New/Used or Complete/Incomplete/Sealed"
It concerns a few incomplete sticker sheets. I have more incomplete sheets listed
and they are not deleted or mentioned in the e-mail.
Is it wrong to list incomplete sticker sheets as 'new' (with a picture
of the actual sheet and clearly stated in the comments that it is incomplete)?
The stickers still on the sheet are new (never used).
Just to be save I changed the remaining incomplete sticker sheets to 'used'.
And I will re-list the deleted items as 'used'. Hopefully I can still
fing the pictures of the deleted items.
|
Sticker sheets missing stickers must be listed as Used.
|
Why can't partial sheets be sold as new, but indicating incomplete? After
all, it happens a lot with minifigures, even though parts are missing and there
is no formal incomplete setting.
|
|
|
 |
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 26, 2020 07:37 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things - Technic | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | Hmm, I agree it's good to move some stuff out of the vanilla Technic category,
but I do think it's best to keep things that are really very much Technic
in Technic categories - especially the turntable.
|
Trouble is some of those turntables are used almost as much in non-Technic sets
than in Technic, making it almost impossible to say that it is more of Technic
part than not.
19/33 for Technic, or
or
* | | 2856c03 (Inv) Technic Turntable 56 Tooth Extended Arms with Light Bluish Gray Top (2856 / 2855)
Parts: Technic |
0/3 for Technic
It is specifically the turntables which led me to think that this category can
do with some changes.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 26, 2020 04:39 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things - Minifigs | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Since we have sub-categories in minifigure categories, please consider moving
all unclassified minifigures to sub-category "other" in each main category
Collectible Minifigures and Ninjago minifigures is classified with an "other"
category included, thus there is no need for the curly brackets next to the name
of the main category to serve as an indicator that there are minifigures that
do not belong to any of the sub-classes, such as these:
Star Wars: 47 unclassified figures out of 1168;
Town: 330 unclassified figures out of 2754;
City: 426 unclassified figures out of 1408;
Classic Town: 570 unclassified figures out of 755;
Space: 3 unclassified figures out of 207;
Racers: 12 unclassified figures out of 83;
Alpha Team: 9 unclassified figures out of 31;
Castle: 92 unclassified figures out of 551;
Duplo: 341 unclassified figures out of 866.
Furthermore, Superheroes minifigures have a sub-category "Super Heroes Other",
which should ideally be renamed just "Other"; and
Star Wars have unclassified minifigures (47) and a sub-category "Star Wars Other"(30)
which should ideally be renamed just "Other" after including all those presently
not classified.
This is of course not necessary if admins and members are comfortable knowing
that the curly brackets next to main categories names for minifigures refer to
an inconsistent treatment of unclassified items for some categories of minifigures.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 26, 2020 03:45 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things - Sundries | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Please consider:
* | | 2650 Hook Slider, Arm Base with Hinge with 3 Fingers
Parts: Hook |
to hinge
* | | 6040pb01 Propeller Housing with Red and White Danger Stripes Pattern (Stickers) - Sets 1782 / 6441 / 6442 / 6557 / 6559 / 6560 / 6599
Parts: Propeller |
to "aircraft" as these are probably not so much a component part of a propeller
or can better be used on the vehicle rather than to accessorise the propeller
* | | 2566 Bar 1.2L with Top Stud and 4 Bar Arms Up (Palm Tree Top)
Parts: Bar |
to "bar"
* | | 4022c02 (Inv) Train Buffer Beam with Black Train Coupling and Black Magnet Cylindrical (4022 / 2920 / 73092)
Parts: Train |
* | | 4022c01 (Inv) Train Buffer Beam with Black Train Coupling with Pin and Black Magnet Cylindrical (4022 / 4023 / 73092)
Parts: Train |
* | | 29085c01 Train Buffer Beam with Sealed Magnets - Type 3 (flat closed bottom)
Parts: Train |
[p=clikits108]
* | | 74188c01 Magnet Brick, Modified 2 x 4 Sealed Base with Extension Plate with 2 Studs and Hole
Parts: Magnet |
all to "magnet" by definition;
to "baseplate, raised" or "baseplate, road"
Please consider amending the definition of "string" to include "strands joined
to form a net", to avoid a new category for "net" only and consider renaming
the category to "string and net" and then consider:
to "string and net"
to "crane" by definition;
and deorated variants to "Baseplate, Road" or "Baseplate, Raised"
And possibly all the sports filed sections to "Baseplate, Raised"
Sports mask, helmet, chest protector, hockey player body, promo body and promo
parts, should these not be large figure parts by definition rather sports items?
All of "Vehicle, Mudguard Fast Food Racer" such as and to
"vehicle, base"
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 26, 2020 02:44 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things - Windows etc | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Window, Glass, Door, Door Frame, Windscreen
Consider please:
Window sashes and the like and shutters and the like do not
meet the definition of a window.
Consider making a new category "window, sashes and shutters" containing the 13
items that are sashes and shutters, or alternatively, combine these with glass
and rename glass to "glass, shutter and sashes" with a minor adjustment to the
definition of "glass" to include these items.
Also, consider combing "Window" and "Door Frame" into one category for all frames
and assemblies featuring doors, glass, shutters and sashes.
Please consider:
to windscreen, by definition
Please consider:
part 2352*
and assemblies;
and assemblies;
to window (or new combined category "window and door frames") by definition;
Roll cages:
These are not windscreens by definition. Also not windows or glass. Consider
please:
to category "vehicle"
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 26, 2020 02:12 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things - Technic | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Main "Technic" parts category:
Please consider cleaning this parts category up and moving items belonging to
underlying categories, such as:
Turntables from "technic" to "turntable" eg:
Tipper drums, bumper, digger buckets, air scoops, froklift forks from "technic"
to "vehicle"
Slopes from "technic" to "slope" or "slope, decorated" as the case may be eg:
* | | 2744pb021 Technic Slope 6 x 1 x 1 2/3 with Gauges, Red Rectangles and Olive Green Buttons Pattern (Sticker) - Set 79121
Parts: Technic |
Hooks from from "technic" to "hook" eg:
Propeller and propeller parts from "technic" to "propeller" eg:
* | | 99012pb03 Technic Rotor Blade Small with Axle and Pin Connector End with White Stripe on Dark Azure Background Pattern on Top (Sticker) - Set 70129
Parts: Technic |
Please move regardless:
Seats from "technic" to "technic, figure accessory", by definition:
and all decorated items of same;
and
[p=x136] to "Technic, Shock Absorber" by definition
Other considerations:
Saw Blades could possibly move to "Technic, Disk", by definition
* | | 37495 Technic Circular Saw Blade 9 x 9 with Frictionless Axle Hole and Teeth in Alternating Directions
Parts: Technic |
* | | 61403 Technic Circular Saw Blade 9 x 9 with Pin Hole and Teeth in Same Direction
Parts: Technic |
* | | 41125 Technic Circular Saw Blade with Pin Hole and Six Teeth (Large Shuriken Throwing Star)
Parts: Technic |
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 26, 2020 01:21 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Please consider:
-Moving watch parts currently under gear item "watch" such as :
[g=bb1051b]
from gear to parts under a category "watch" such that the completed and built
watch item is the human accessory, which will then have an inventory consisting
of parts, not gear. By my count this would require a category consisting of 66
parts;
-Adjusting the definition of a item type "part" to include parts used to build
gear items;
-Moving all items under gear item "sticker sheet" to parts "sticker sheet";
-Moving the speech bubbles and decorated speech bubbles such as from
gear "office supplies" to parts "minifigure, bodywear".
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 25, 2020 14:48 | | Subject: | Re: Was a decision made about smooth slopes? | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | Back at the beginning of July there was a thread about removing 5 entries for
"smooth slopes," and the consensus seemed to be strongly in favor of removing
them.
|
| | I'm curious if a decision was made about those entries
|
Site management put the brakes on. We were therefore unable to address the issue.
|
I've parked those I thought should be redone in a stockroom. Are the brakes
on permanently, ie a screeching halt, or is it a temporary issue which will
be addressed later? Eventually I would like to drive again.
I think the only issue site management should have is with programming resources
since those seem forever to be taxed by overwork when something does not suit
them them and freely available when it does. I do not particularly see that this
can be a programming issue.
Or do we go for the unwritten rule thingie again when we consider it inconsistent
to have some variants allowed for textures and others not?
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 21, 2020 03:31 | | Subject: | Re: Make neutral feedback actually NEUTRAL | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, bje writes:
| | […]
Scene at Bricklink office: Some user made a new suggestion!!! Lets see the votes:
200 Yes votes;
10 No votes;
700 000 Abstains
% wanting the suggestion: 200/700210 = 0.02%
Obviously members do like this suggestion, so we can ignore it. Yes!! Less work
on a Friday!!
|
A “not” missing? “members do not like”
|
Friday typo, my normal curve got distributed to the weekend
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 21, 2020 02:37 | | Subject: | Re: Make neutral feedback actually NEUTRAL | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, CanadaFirst writes:
|
snip
| |
Yep, voted yes. Pretty simply equation really: If there are 3 options, and one
of them accounts of 98% of the cases and the other two options are left for the
other 2%, that is just bad design. That means these are not meaningful options.
|
When I read this, I had the disturbing thought that BL do not understand statistics.
Scene at Bricklink office: Some user made a new suggestion!!! Lets see the votes:
200 Yes votes;
10 No votes;
700 000 Abstains
% wanting the suggestion: 200/700210 = 0.02%
Obviously members do like this suggestion, so we can ignore it. Yes!! Less work
on a Friday!!
|
|
| 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.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jul 13, 2020 12:22 | | Subject: | Re: Add feature of minimum FB for listings. | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| Some of the best buyers I've had the privilege of welcoming in my store have
been zero/low feedback users. So while I understand the rationale for this and
of course it being elective, I personally think that all users have to start
somewhere, so it is maybe not in the best interest of stores to needlessly limit
the buying experience.
Laws are not the same everywhere, so I guess we are fortunate that no order is
legally binding until I as the seller have acknowledged it. If I am really uncomfortable
with the buyer or what he/she is ordering, I reserve the right to cancel the
order, demand the buyer use a shipping method with insurance and tracking or
to demand another form of payment. If the buyer cannot agree, that is a red flag
and it will strengthen my reasons for cancelling.
For fraudulent chargebacks, use the NPB process and negative feedback, else such
buyers just get a free pass to go do the same thing to the next seller. We cannot
prevent fraudsters and scammers anyway. And in my personal opinion, the feedback
system is not a fair guide to good or bad users, which is why I hardly ever look
at it. So for me personally, this would not be a help at all and might just make
some buyers wary of placing orders in the first case. Some users might feel different,
but the idea that the site should limit the buying experience beyond already
having minimum buys, minimum lot averages, NPB and the one-sided right to cancel
for sellers, does not sit well.
In Suggestions, Heartbricker writes:
| | This will be unpopular with new buyers but may have support from sellers who
have been defrauded.
We instituted a measure to protect from fraud (based on being defrauded in the
past) where we require buyers to have a minimum of 5-10 positive feedbacks in
order to purchase certain high priced sets.
Currently, we can only put that in the item's description and buyers ignore
it and place the orders anyway which creates a sticky situation.
So the suggestion is:
Add a feature to individual listings that will prevent buyers with feedback rating
under X to purchase a certain item.
I can see merit to limiting X to 10 so sellers don't demand a buyer has 10,000
to be able to purchase items.
We allow 0 and low FB rated buyers to buy 99.99% of listings in our shop but
have been burnt a couple of times by 0 FB buyers who bought sealed sets in mint
condition and claimed they were opened and used and returned us boxes with non-LEGO
items in one instance and ransacked set on another purchase- PayPal obviously
sided with the buyers both times.
I'm hoping this will be a measure that would prevent this type of fraud and
will be optional to allow sellers the chance to opt out.
|
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jul 6, 2020 07:40 | | Subject: | Please stop pre-selecting shipping methods | | Viewed: | 177 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
| On checkout from my store, please stop:
Pre-selecting a shipping method in my store for any buyer to use.
I cannot and do not set those defaults. BL cannot assume for itself the right
to pick and choose defaults for any contractually determined matter between myself
and the buyer, on my behalf. The shipping method to use is the one the buyer
actively chooses.
I had an order this morning where the buyer told me in prior negotiation what
he wanted. He was then able to place an order using a different shipping method.
This because that experienced buyer did not think to change what was pre-selected
by BL during checkout.
I also had an order last week from a new user who did exactly the same thing.
It is not for BL to choose what shipping method is applicable for any buyer.
|
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jul 6, 2020 07:04 | | Subject: | Re: Stop showing estimated shipping charges | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | | | How is BL supposed to update the shipping tables that you use?
As far as I know BL will only show the estimate from your own shipping settings
and only when you set the setting to show the estimate on checkout:
Show estimated fees on:
Checkout page
Estimated fees will be shown to the buyer. You may override them on the Order
Received page before invoicing orders.
|
Interesting, so this is seller input data and they are choosing to display it?
This functionality allows a seller to show a low estimated S+H then hit buyers
with a much higher charge once they place a "legally binding" order.
In that case, I'm glad I least favourited the seller.
This is nothing more than a way to con buyers into thinking shipping and handling
is a low price to get them to place an order.
|
BL only shows the estimated S&H for the first available shipping option in your
terms. I have multiple shipping options for domestic users, but because the "other"
shipping options have no rates, there is no estimate shown, other than "TBD"
(first image)
If I disable that method, then the next one is shown, which is not the cheapest
either, apart from the rate being inaccurate because I've not adjusted the
exchange rate for it. (second image)
I have never had a setting that lets me determine what must be shown to the buyer.
|
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jul 6, 2020 04:41 | | Subject: | Re: Stop showing estimated shipping charges | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | BL should stop showing estimated shipping and handling charges, as this gives
a false impression of what they are. For example, I almost placed an order at
this store. But reading through the terms, there are extra handling fees, extra
paypal fees and different shipping costs to those estimated and shown here.
|
Thank you, yes.
I've also seen a few that were way off the other way - when the estimate
is very much higher than what the actual is going to be. Fortunately I could
use quote requests in some of those instances or at least check the rates and
request a different shipping method myself. I do fear however that some buyers
might rather just empty their carts.
| |
Showing an estimated value gives a false impression, and may lead to a (supposedly
legally binding) order being placed only to find out the actual costs are significantly
higher than those estimated.
|
Also, no store actually knows which shipping method, currency or payment method
the buyer will choose. BL cannot be picking defaults or preferences for sellers
when sellers have not actually set those up as defaults or preferences.
| |
Of course, this could be completely removed by making the orders non-binding
until the seller has disclosed all costs and the buyer has a chance to agree
to them. But in the meantime, stop misleading buyers with incorrect estimated
values.
|
Agreed, both parties should actually agree on the entire order prior to it being
binding. No point in BL making compliance with country laws mandatory and then
doing everything in a manner designed to avoid doing just that. And there are
some things buyers should also adhere to in terms of consumer laws, electronic
transaction laws and privacy laws here, those are not just for sellers.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jul 1, 2020 14:53 | | Subject: | Re: Sets Members Want Project | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, bje writes:
| | Maybe this is not so complete as catmins would like to believe it is as it appears
that none of those sets are in the catalogue at this time.
|
There are several sets already in the catalog and here are a few, with the first
on the list having been added in 2002:
The technical issue involved changing building instructions from Gear to Sets,
but we're open for submissions of additional sets. So the project is complete.
|
So you want items like
submitted as a set together with a request to delete the gear entry
and moving the sticker entry from gear to the set once approved? Can't associates
just add the sets anyway as the information is mostly there already? I'm
sure users will not mind doing the work, it just seems a bit like double work
for the same reward since some of the changes can only be made by associates
anyway.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jun 30, 2020 07:52 | | Subject: | Re: Sets Members Want Project | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
snip
I'm still waiting to add an inventory for Batman and Robin and a few others.
My instructuons for that Batman and Robin model has unfortunatly gotten a bit
damaged, but the parts are still sealed in the container, thank goodness.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jun 30, 2020 07:05 | | Subject: | Sets Members Want Project | | Viewed: | 132 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| From the to-do list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476
Add Sets Members Want - A project to discuss and possibly add pickable
models, in-store builds, and other similar sets to the catalog...
Project Review: This project traveled directly from under consideration to completed.
There were no existing guidelines discussing these kinds of sets, so no policy
changes were required. Instead, after administrative discussion, the majority
were in agreement to rescind the unwritten rule that prohibited addition of these
sets.
Date first added: December 6th, 2018
Date work began: June 13th, 2020
Goal for completion: July 1st, 2020
Date actually completed: June 17th, 2020
Suggested by: Many members
Maybe this is not so complete as catmins would like to believe it is as it appears
that none of those sets are in the catalogue at this time.
Also:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1204676
seems to be voided now.
So perhaps this project should be set to under consideration again just so the
ball is not dropped and the technical issues, whatever those may be, can be addressed
before the goal date. I would dearly like to believe that BL will eventually
give members what they want.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jun 25, 2020 00:55 | | Subject: | Re: Parts in new colors by set history | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, TtOoWwAa writes:
| | Hi,
Can we get a feature that tells us what year a part comes out in a new or previoustly
discontinued color for that part, or a previoustly discontinued color in general
(eg dark turqoise) and also the set that it comes in.
I say this because right now I have to wait for a new set to be on the web, look
closley at photos of it and see if there are any new part recolors, then I will
put it in a table with the part number, the color, the part name, the set it
comes in first, and the quandity.
Luckily Im only doing this with technic / sami-technic parts but as you might
imagine it is quite tedious.
I am aware that there is the NEW keyword bedide a part that has been released
in a new color however this does not tell us what set it comes in right away
because you can have a bricklink part catalog entry but the section "part appears
in" can be blank for a while,
I know that a load of people are interested in part recolors so I think this
feature would make the bricklink catalog a more powerful tool for lego fans!.
Any questions, leave a reply.
Thanks, SNIPE
|
Try:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogColors.asp
For dark turqoise you mentioned, scroll down to that colour, click on the sets
link and sort by year:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?v=5&pg=1&colorInSet=39&catType=S
For parts, click on the parts link on that colours page, then sort by year again:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?v=5&pg=1&colorPart=39&catType=P
You can also just view of all of the technic parts by going to:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogSearch.asp
Selecting "parts" for item type, "technic" for the Category and the colour you
want from the drop down list. I'm afraid though I do not know how to select
multiple categories, so I have to do it for axles, pins, links, panels etc as
a search each time. Probably why I prefer to just use the colour page and sort
by category if that is what is needed:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?v=3&pg=1&colorPart=39&catType=P
then click on the specific categories I need. There might be an easier method
lurking somewhere.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jun 17, 2020 13:00 | | Subject: | Re: Pickable Models and In-Store Builds | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Looks like things are changing around here. Behold what we approved today:
|
Whoot! Can I resubmit my pickable models from 2012 or are you just going to change
the instruction entries to sets?
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jun 15, 2020 06:35 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 41904-1 | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FCBricks writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Gear 901956 Trans-Clear Sorting Tray Lid, Dots 7 Compartment (Fits 901957)
* Add 1 Gear 901957 Medium Azure Sorting Tray Dots, 7 Compartment, Bottom (Fits 901956)
|
These requests will not be accepted since these gear items are considered the
original box for this set and are therefore not added to the inventory. They
are basically the same as the plastic tub for a set such as
Cheers,
Randy
|
With respect, having one of these DOTS sets in hand now, I have not seen TLG
make mention of the handy storage trays for those tubs. Also, by that argument,
set does not have a lid or that inventory should be changed for
part to be removed from inventories and made gear items.
TLG mentions very specifically that the DOTS sets set includes these trays. See
also for instance the MBA series of sets which specifically also mentioned the
storage tray and those trays are included in the set inventories.
If it really is seen as part of the box, at least add an inventory note and state
that the trays are separate gear items and deemed not to be part of the set.
There should then at least also be a note for the original box entry in the catalogue
on these sets which should mention that the box consists of three items: the
carton, the tray and the lid, and that a original box listing is incomplete if
it does not include all three items (this since there is no listing policy for
what consitutes a complete original box in cases where such boxes include gear
items). Simply disconnecting these items from the set and not making it clear
that it is deemed to the actual box and not a storage tray included in the set
as mentioned by TLG, might lead to confusion.
Just so you know, I was ready to add this to the catalogue (again) because I
really did not think that it was part of the packaging or the set box which can
be thrown out. To be honest, I would have great difficulty seeing a listing for
the box to refer to the storage trays as it is currently handled.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jun 6, 2020 07:31 | | Subject: | Re: Set 41376 extremely erroneous | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Inventories, LegoLars writes:
| | I'm currently parting out some 41376 sets. And I've discovered that it's
heavily erroneous. Many parts not even listed. Some parts only listed in Extra
parts section.
How can I request a complete re-check on that set inventory? Inventory change
requests would be quite tedious on this.
Best regards,
Lars
|
Are you sure you are not including the parts for the minifigure in
your part out? Break the minifigures when you part out as that should then give
you all of the parts.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jun 5, 2020 14:45 | | Subject: | Re: Could Dark Pink be another Brittle Blue | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
| In Colors, Pippyblocks writes:
| | This is mainly for the colour fanatics here.
Had a largish haul of parts with a lot of Dark Pink bricks. Whilst sorting I
found quite a few sun damaged so just binned as I found them. But just had another
look at one and I don't think it is sun damage after all. It has totally
changed colour and completely consistent throughout. I would say this is the
same as the 'brittle blue' thing. Attached an image so show different
(photo doesn't quite capture it perfectly). Another one I'll add to
my ever-growing collection of weird Lego colours.
|
In time they will go almost dark orange and not uniformly so. Noticed it in 2018
on my dark pinks I got in bulk ca 2010
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1092132
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jun 4, 2020 05:20 | | Subject: | Re: Implement an enforced grading scale | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| As a long time buyer and importer on here, No. I do not want to plough
through a million listings in every sellers' store and sit an pick through
a thousand parts to make sure a seller has sent me the correct grade of an item
or receive a million ziplocks for every order. Also, I do not want to purchase
new and used VCG in one lot. New vs used is a factual statement, lots are split
that way and sellers can be held accountable for lots that do not meet that factual
split. I cannot conceive of holding a seller accountable for a subjective split.
As a seller, equally No. I am not going to sit around checking for scratches
with a magnifying glass and for purchases on here intended for reselling, I am
not going to regrade sellers' listings for my own inventory. I just spent
2 months counting and sorting 90000 pieces into 5700+ lots. I have no wish at
all to make that 25000+ lots after grading the contents of every lot 1 through
5. I am also not going to invest in more storage bins and racks or for that matter
space.
If you need a damage report on every part a seller sends you, request it from
them prior to ordering. Every single tile from every new set had faint scratches
on. I am not going to grade scratches and little marks in plastic so I can end
up with listings like near mint when I can see "very feint scratches visable
when held at a certain angle outdoors on a cloudy day. Might appear different
indoors, in sunlight, moonlight or under artificial light". No thank you.
In Suggestions, revfds writes:
| | the thing I dislike most about ordering from this site, in how hard it is to
control the quality of the pieces that I get.
And I don't think loose pieces should be categorized between "new" and "used",
because all loose pieces are used (Yes I know you can order them individually
from Lego at times, but functionally when you buy lego it comes in a set, outside
of that set they are used).
|
The functionality of the set does not enter into it. If I buy a set to part out,
the function I am paying for is for the parts, not the set - the set is merely
a convenient method of packaging. If I were to buy for the purposes of building
it, then once built the parts are used. The function of my buying patterns have
nothing at all to do with the factual statement of new v used and is not a measure
of grading either.
And I suppose all cars are new when they leave the factory but when driven onto
the showroom floor they then become used as functionally the car was driven,
so that no dealer has ever sold a new car? I think not.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jun 2, 2020 08:18 | | Subject: | Re: Torso: Misprint or Variant? | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | […]
As far as I can tell the Lego part number is 4275491 and so if Lego uses this
same part code for all its set appearances then it must be a misprint. I guess
the only way to be sure would be to try using Legos Broken/missing parts service
and then painstakingly check all the sets it appears in and check the toros part
number is the same for all. […]
|
LEGO uses the same element ID for different variants and prints.
E.g. according to BL,
* | | 3626bpb0203 Minifigure, Head Dark Bluish Gray Moustache and Bushy Eyebrows, Black Cheek Lines, White Pupils Pattern - Blocked Open Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
share the PCC 4524911.
(Happy example with both colour and variant differences. Grey/brown is not a
misprint.)
So you wouldn’t know whether it’s a misprint or a new “revised” print.
|
I’m sure there will be some anomalies but in your example whilst you are correct
that the brown and grey are intentional print differences and not misprints I
don’t think they actually share the same part number it’s just bricklink has
made it seem that way and for understandable reasons...
|
So all of the decorated parts (with their own TLG numbers) must be renumbered
because for sure TLG does not number all of the decorated 1 x 2 tiles the same
number with an pb extension - they give each one a different number as best I
know. And then only keep the number available for a little while and do not supply
it for parts from collectible minifigs etc etc.
| |
The problem is Lego did some weird stuff back in that era where they merged some
head and torsos together using one single part number!? See Brickset link which
shows the combined part (Grey + Torso) as 4227735 and not 4524911
https://brickset.com/parts/4227735/mini-upper-part-no-970
So we are definitely looking at a different part in that instance but if you
search for 4227735 on Bricklink it doesn’t appear probably because a merger of
parts like this wouldn’t have fit in with the way BL do things hence why they
probably just used the same code as the brown version?
As for Lego using the same part number for mold variants this is another example
of where Lego themselves never intended anyone to take those differences so literally
|
Hmm, no, the example of jumper studs was given already. It is not a matter of
being anal to recognise mold differences. You can try it yourself with this part:
Newer parts clutches, older ones fall off. I would like to think that TLG intended
that improvement, that they stopped making the old part becasue it was not doing
the job it was supposed to do and that the new part should be sold with new sets.
However, the old part came in older sets and what will you do if a buyer tells
you the old part you sent him is a fake becasue there is no way for him to know
otherwise?
| | because in Legos eyes whatever stud type was used it’s still the same part number
and it’s the all-important and relevant print decal that warrants a different
part code so in my view it’s just unfortunate the BL community has gone to such
lengths to essentially separate the same parts when most people just want the
correct print decal and don’t really care which mold was used!
|
I have no idea what TLG's intentions are with mold changes and mold variants.
My question was posted in catalogue, not selling. You sell lots, not catalogue
entries. You can refer to the catalogue entry in your listing, you could also
use the catalogue image and you might even end up in the price guide for your
listing, but that all has nothing to do with the catalogue entry as reference
source, which is where my question was posted.
The only requirement BL has for you to list a lot with a refrence to the catalogue
entry, is that you must not mix new and used in the same lot. It is a general
selling offence to sell used as new in a lot, but generally not to mix variants.
So I do not think it unfortunate the catalogue can serve as a reference guide
but also as a sales tool. To do both qually well, will always be a challenge.
If every car manufacturer only makes white cars, there will be no other colours.
This does not mean that all consumers by default mostly want a white car, it
just means that car manufacturers are all the same and treat their customers
all the same, no matter what their customers might say or think.
What does happen in the BL listings though is that you frequenlty get a seller
who tells you that it is too much effort to list properly in variants, but price
their non-specific and incorrect unsorted parts at the high price for the scarcer
out of production part. In essence it is not too much work to look up the part
in priceguide, but it is too much work to list it properly. Strange - doing half
a job for the full gain.
| |
As for the Black Torso in question, this is still quite a current part and the
OP should still be able to determine whether it’s a misprint or intended difference
from using brickset and/or Lego site as a reference source!
|
Nope, the differences in question arised in a certain time period, continued
for awhile and then stopped, as I have them from three different sets from three
different years, as I mentioned from 2008 - 2010. I also have the current catalogue
entry for that torso assembly from prior to that period and after that period.
I would agree that for reference purposes it would not even be important if it
occured in only one set at one time. I've had some misprints on tiles like
that and do not bother with it. This however, stood out for the reasons I gave
above.
The LEGO site does not keep its information nor keep a snapshot of the situation
as it was 10 years ago. The information you refer to is either:
1. kept current with current part numbers and current designs; or
2. Not a historical record of what happened.
The LEGO site is not a reference source by any stretch of the imaginaition as
it is designed as a site to sell current replacement parts, not serve as a reference
work (which is what a catalogue does).
And for reference purposes, the part in question was submitted as new entry.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jun 1, 2020 05:25 | | Subject: | Re: Torso: Misprint or Variant? | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
snip
| |
Is this down to print density? The part name does not mention the shade of the
colour grey. I wonder if a thin coat of grey appears dark (bluish) grey whereas
a thicker coat appears lighter.
|
Under a magnifying glass, they both look equally dotty (or pixelated). I hope
the image at the original resolution can show that. Also the tie on the black
knot, seems to have some shading whereas the tie with the white knot looks to
be more of a solid colour. I cannot tell if there is a difference in printing
apart from the fact that they look different.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
)
)
