Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | jodawill  | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2019 15:04 | | Subject: | Re: A Smidgen of Lego History | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Today we added a somewhat historic entry to the BrickLink catalog:
At first it looks like a normal Duplo plate, but it's not:
The first Duplo plates and tiles were based on the regular Lego plate/brick ratio
of 3:1 (that is, it takes 3 plates stacked on each other to reach the height
of a single Lego brick).
Somewhere around 1992, these "thin" plates and tiles were abandoned for the "thick"
type, which have a 2:1 ratio. These are what we find in modern Duplo sets.
What prompted the change? It could have been the advent of the 6309 printed tile:
Here are some other early "thin" Duplo parts:
* |  | 3808 Duplo Tile, Modified 2 x 4 x 1/3 (Thin) Half Circle with 2 Studs
Parts: DUPLO |
* | | 4121 Duplo Tile, Modified 2 x 4 x 1/3 (Thin) with 4 Center Studs
Parts: DUPLO |
and maybe even this:
|
That's really interesting. I've never seen a thin one. Any idea what
sets it came in?
|
|
| Author: | jodawill | | Posted: | Jan 18, 2019 13:16 | | Subject: | Re: Identical minifigs? | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, DadsAFOL writes:
| | The paint details on the torsos are different and there should be 2 different
entries for the torso, one belonging to the original and one belonging to the
reissue.
In Catalog, jodawill writes:
| | The inventory for these two minifigures is the exact same. Is there a reason
to have two different catalog items for it? I don't doubt there may be some
differences between the reissue and the original, but the inventory is listed
as them being identical.
|
|
Yeah, I see it now. Very subtle. Good eye!
There's also that policeman one. It looks like the torso is a different mold,
but I'm not sure whether there's a separate catalog entry for the different
shoulder shapes on the torsos.
|
|
| Author: | jodawill | | Posted: | Jan 18, 2019 12:30 | | Subject: | Re: Identical minifigs? | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, jodawill writes:
| | The inventory for these two minifigures is the exact same. Is there a reason
to have two different catalog items for it? I don't doubt there may be some
differences between the reissue and the original, but the inventory is listed
as them being identical.
|
Also true for:
|
|
| Author: | jodawill | | Posted: | Jan 18, 2019 12:28 | | Subject: | Identical minifigs? | | Viewed: | 94 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| The inventory for these two minifigures is the exact same. Is there a reason
to have two different catalog items for it? I don't doubt there may be some
differences between the reissue and the original, but the inventory is listed
as them being identical.
|
|
| Author: | jodawill | | Posted: | Jul 20, 2018 09:44 | | Subject: | Re: Does 3062b come in flat silver? | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
| In Colors, Geniac writes:
| | Hello!
I'm working on adding a lot of used Lego and I'm trying to identify a
color.
The part is a round brick 1x1 (3062b), and it appears to be flat silver. I've
compared it to new parts already in my inventory, and it really looks like that
color. It's definitely not metallic silver, at least compared to other metallic
silver parts in my new inventory.
My issue is that this does not appear to be a known color for this part. The
part certainly appears to be actual Lego, so I don't think that's the
issue. I just don't want to add something to my inventory incorrectly.
Opinions? I'm tempted to just chuck those ones in the donation box rather
than mess with it, since it's only a couple of pieces. But I'm intrigued
as well.
Thanks!
Ann
Drop Bear Bricks
|
FWIW: https://store.bricklink.com/mwlchow?itemID=73486053#/shop?o={%22invID%22:%2273486053%22}
|
|
| Author: | jodawill | | Posted: | Dec 11, 2017 10:00 | | Subject: | Re: For Your Consideration: A Suggestion | | Viewed: | 82 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, StormChaser writes:
| | After careful thought, I believe I have come up with a suggestion which will
resolve a couple of issues.
My suggestion is that BrickLink take one of the two following courses of action:
(A) Convert all of your official volunteer positions to paid positions (as full
or part-time employment, whether on-site or telecommuting from across the world).
Pay all those who contribute catalog items/inventories/approved changes to your
website, whether in cash or some other benefit. Keep the BrickLink catalog as
your property.
(B) Continue operating off volunteer labor to expand and maintain the catalog
and perform other site functions like forum moderation and language translations.
Return the BrickLink catalog to the community as an open source database or
some other form of community-owned property. Consult with the community regarding
changes to their catalog and take their input seriously.
In the case of (A), it doesn’t matter what brands you add to the website. It’s
your website and you’re paying people to work here. If I don’t like your decisions,
then I can shop elsewhere. I’d probably be okay with adding other brands, though,
because, after all, BrickLink is your property to do with as you see fit. And,
honestly, the BrickArms product integration into the catalog was actually handled
well if these things must be added.
In the case of (B), I wouldn’t like adding other brands and would say so. However,
I would accept the additions because I knew that you cared about and had done
right by the community and just wanted more profit. And, honestly, some people
do want a BrickLink-style website for Playmobil and other similar products –
this has been expressed in the forum several times. I don’t mind sharing the
catalog if I can ignore what I don’t want to see (and I would ignore anything
not LEGO).
For me the BrickArms discussion has revealed a deeper dissatisfaction that I’ve
had with BrickLink for years, but never could properly articulate. For me, I
have only recently realized, it’s not fully even about other brands. For me
it’s this: it is not morally right to expect people to work unpaid for something
they do not own.
The fact that some of us (or even one of us, but for some contributing to BrickLink
is a part-time job and I am one of them) have worked unpaid for years is something
we should be ashamed of.
When one guy owned the website he needed help, but times have changed. BrickLink
is a large business now. Act like one. BrickLink has had the best of both worlds
for years, but enough is enough.
|
I agree with B completely. The catalog was built by the community. It would be
impossible to compensate all the people who've put their time into it over
the years. The entire catalog should be released under the GFDL.
|
|
| Author: | jodawill | | Posted: | Sep 9, 2015 14:58 | | Subject: | Re: Limit on how many post you can make a day | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, Biglesdug writes:
| | You act like a little kid.
Get over yourself.
|
This thread:
|
|
| Author: | jodawill | | Posted: | Sep 9, 2015 14:42 | | Subject: | Re: Limit on how many post you can make a day | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, Biglesdug writes:
| | I'm tired of the childish back and forth threads clogging up the feed. I
think there should be a 10 post per day cap for members. Maybe this will discourage
members from going back and forth will person attacks and keep the forum to only
useful posts.
People can take their person dislikes of each into other internet realms, go
start a twitter beef, just stop clogging up the forum!
|
I think a better solution would be:
a) Add the ability to ignore threads
b) Enable the new post notifications when ignoring something
|
|
| Author: | jodawill | | Posted: | Jul 20, 2015 10:13 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog - listing don't open in new Tab | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, jbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, jodawill writes:
| | In Suggestions, PurpleDave writes:
| | In Suggestions, Brickwilbo writes:
| | Hello,
Is it a new feature or me that clicking listings the VIEW-button doesn't
open a new Tab. (in Chrome).
|
I've never had a new tab open when just clicking any link on BL, whether
using Explorer or Safari. I suspect this is something that may be specific to
Chrome, or maybe even a setting within your copy. I know Explorer and Safari
both have a setting that opens any clicked link in a new window/tab, but I've
never turned that option on. I know that if I really want it in a new tab, I
can force it to open a new tab. The only sites that do it automatically for
me are Hotmail (all links in e-mail, including BL want list notifications, always
open in a new tab) and Brickforge (clicking "Shop" from their home page always
forces a new tab, which is why I finally revised my bookmark to skip the homepage
and go straight to the store).
|
The problem is that with the new site, these links specifically won't allow
the user to open them in a new tab.
When I'm browsing items for sale, I'll open several stores in new tabs
so they all load at once and I don't lose my place on the items for sale
page. Then I look through each of those stores to see which store I want to buy
the part from.
This is another example of the HTML5 "progress" I mentioned in another thread.
Websites are constantly giving users less control over their own computers. 
|
rightclick the storename instead of the ''view''
|
Awesome. Thanks! Now we just need that for "Small Images," "Price Guide," etc.
In the meantime, duplicating the tab (in Chrome at least) is a decent workaround.
|
|
| Author: | jodawill | | Posted: | Jul 19, 2015 20:10 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog - listing don't open in new Tab | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, jodawill writes:
| | In Suggestions, Brickwilbo writes:
| | Hello,
Is it a new feature or me that clicking listings the VIEW-button doesn't
open a new Tab. (in Chrome).
Clicking on the item under Description and in VIEW opens the item in the same
Tab.
Clicking on the Store name opens the item in a new Tab, while expecting the Stores
Splash/Terms start-page.
Seems obvious that VIEW should open items in new tabs like the old button used
to do.
|
Also, I think they should do away with the multiple items on the same page thing.
Now we can't link to things like the price guide (except for the link to
the old version). These things should all be separate pages.
|
It looks like I'm wrong about this one. The URL does change when you click
on something. So the only problem is that they're using buttons instead of
links. You can't copy the target URL or open in a new tab.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
)
)
)
)
)