BrickLink Discussion Forum

In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:

In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, normann1974 writes:

I have found this part in Light Gray, and I'll be supplying an image to the
catalog. Here is some comparison images. The car base is also Light Gray.

Gots to be honest with you, I'm still wondering. Can you post an image of
the two parts attached side by side on a 1 x 4 plate (any color)?

Just want to be certain since this part was released (according to our timeline)
five years after the LBG colour change.

In my opinion, the additional notes are not best used to admonish sellers in
a patronizing and condescending tone.

More criticism for the catalog admin team, I see.

An admin appears to agree that the additional notes are "fairly snarky" out of
"frustration over sellers just not getting the difference."

https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1202493

In my opinion, since users aiming their frustration at admins is discouraged,
admins using the catalog to aim their frustrations at sellers should also be
discouraged.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Jun 7, 2020 19:25

Subject:

Re: 88072 in Light Gray

Viewed:

49 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, normann1974 writes:

The catalog for this part is now officially a mess, and an admin need to work
on fixing this.

Honestly, I'm tempted to merge them. There is little reason for this part
to be split over an excessively confusing difference that requires no less than
three comparison images.

But but but, they are functionnaly different!

Merging the entries will of course rid the admins of any more problems, but only
by handing them off to the users.

The parts are not always interchangeable. The assembly below from set 6398, for
example, requires the 6mm version. Elsewhere in the set, a white one is used
as a hook for a helmet. It is possible to use the 5mm version for that one, but
the helmet has to be pushed into place and it stresses the parts.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Jun 7, 2020 16:45

Subject:

Re: 88072 in Light Gray

Viewed:

69 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, normann1974 writes:

I have found this part in Light Gray, and I'll be supplying an image to the
catalog. Here is some comparison images. The car base is also Light Gray.

In my opinion, the additional notes are not best used to admonish sellers in
a patronizing and condescending tone.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Jun 7, 2020 16:38

Subject:

Re: 88072 in Light Gray

Viewed:

73 times

Topic:

In Catalog, normann1974 writes:

I can see a bit of light bluish gray around the base of one of the studs on the
part you are saying is light gray. I believe you have a damaged light bluish
gray part that has been yellowed. I find it *very* hard to believe that this
mold would have been used to make parts in a color that had been retired for
*years* before the mold was ever even manufactured.

I am not convinced that there is any LBG on this part. I have checked under magnifyning
glass, it has to be some lighting issue. The color is the same on all sides,
even inside. What's even stranger: I've just seen (in the magnifying
glass), that the mold number says 4623, but it's not a 6 mm arm, it's
5 mm (see another attached image).

Could this be a prototype of the upcoming 5 mm change back in the days?

/Jan

I have several light gray with the shorter arm. They are light gray, not yellowed
LBG, and they are marked 4623.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Jun 7, 2020 11:39

Subject:

Re: Did horizontal become vertical & vice versa?

Viewed:

43 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

In Catalog, Northwinds writes:

Which are both irrelevant questions because the names didn’t change.

With al due respect but how can you be so sure?

I've been selling here since 2000.
My inventory boxes carry the stickers with the old names since that date,

[P=30241b]

That part appeared in 2008/2009.

these
names were changed sometime in the past 20 years, I only did not notice
this until just a few months ago.

Peeron’s name (60475): Brick 1 x 1 with Clip Vertical
Peeron hasn’t been updated since 2011. (They have only one variant. 30241 is
just appearing in notes in 60475’s list of sets.)

LDraw’s names:
  (60475a): Brick 1 x 1 with Clip Vertical (Thick C-Clip) and Solid Stud
  (60475b): Brick 1 x 1 with Clip Vertical (Thick C-Clip) and Hollow Stud

Rebrickable:
  (60475a): Brick Special 1 x 1 with Clip Vertical [Thick U Clip, Solid Stud]
  (60475b): Brick Special 1 x 1 with Clip Vertical [Open O Clip, Hollow Stud]

Same motive, same punition with BrickOwl.

They all agree on what “vertical” means for this part.
They all agree on what “vertical” means for all the parts with clips.

As the part is “recent” (2008/2009), it’s not on lugnet (which died in 2002),
but lugnet agrees with everybody else on what “vertical” means for parts with
clips.

There’s no traces whatsoever of a change of names.

Those are facts, not memories.

On your side, you’re saying they all changed their names together, without leaving
any trace but your labels, twice!
What are the chances you made a mistake with your labels instead?

I did notice that very recently the names were changed again. And for the better,
they have included the word 'grip'in the description.

No, “grip” isn’t in the description.

Perhaps the OP simply set up their labels in a way that makes sense by describing
the part itself rather than how it is sometimes used, and his error is that he
assumed the rest of the Lego community would also follow common sense.

The way Lego describes these parts is more accurate and does not rely on defining
it by a particular usage. It is the "describe it by its use and not its shape"
philosophy that created the widely inconsistent Bricklink categories. Clips are
not always used as clips. Sometimes they are used merely as decoration. And when
they are used as clips, the parts held by them are not necessarily oriented in
a certain way. The clips are designed to allow for movement and are often used
as hinge parts, allowing the attached part to move from horizontal to vertical
around the attachment point.

Regardless of the history of the nomenclature, it is confusing and is not based
on describing the shape of the part itself. It is based on one attribute of a
part it may attach to. The bar on the other part may be oriented horizontally
or vertically relative to the part, so the full part with the bar may be oriented
opposite to the name of the clip.

Attach

30236 Brick, Modified 1 x 2 with Bar Handle on Side
Parts: Brick, Modified

to a "vertical" clip and it will be oriented horizontally. Sideways.

It was a short-sighted initial decision and it has unfortunately been perpetuated.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

May 27, 2020 08:33

Subject:

Re: Why are these Hinges?

Viewed:

40 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

Well here's what comes to my mind right now.

Meaningful categories: You could sort a supermarket based on size of the products
of based on alphabet, and it would be extremely easy to find a cauliflower. But
the aisles would not have meaningful categories. The result is that it is easy
to find a single product while at the same time browsing the store is very inconvenient.

That is an extreme example, but it is a good point. So the conclusion might be
that "First letter of the common English name" is not a suitable attribute for
grouping items. It tells you nothing about the item itself and so leads to categories
that are not meaningful.

And while size is a physical attribute of the item itself, it is not meaningful,
because people do not generally select food by size. It is in the selecting of
the attributes that the final groups are shaped.

What a supermarket actually does is a good real-life example of what a part catalog
could do. It uses meaningful attributes and the end result is meaningful organization.

Usually, the most general attribute is whether the item is fresh or packaged.
Produce, meat, flowers, fresh-baked goods all have their own sections separate
from the packaged goods.

The next level of attribute you find applied in, say, the produce section is
"Fruit or vegetable?" Fruits are grouped with fruits, vegetables with vegetables.
That is based on some foreknowledge on the part of the shopper of the difference
between the two, but it is common knowledge, not specialized knowledge.

Finally, an attribute based on how the item grows is used - roots, bulbs, vines,
leafy plants, trees, etc.

And so running everything through those levels you find the apples, pears and
oranges near each other. You find the turnips and potatoes together. Onions,
garlic and shallots are usually close by. Tomatoes and peppers are together.
You'll find the cauliflower by the broccoli, celery and greens, usually.
By choosing meaningful attributes you get useful and meaningful categories.

But now imagine the supermarket added a category called "Ingredients for pizza."
Now the top-level attribute is no longer a general one like whether it is fresh
or packaged, it is based on a specific usage: whether it can be used to make
pizza. Now the tomato sauce, cheese, flour, yeast and salt are pulled out of
their respective aisles, where they were previously grouped with like items based
on the general-to-specific model, and put together in a separate part of the
store.

Is that a meaningful category? It is for someone who wants to make pizza. Is
it meaningful for someone who wants to make pasta sauce?

That person might reasonably go the aisle that has all the canned tomato products
expecting to find tomato sauce. But it won't be there. To track it down he
has to know two things - this supermarket has a "pizza ingredient" section, and
tomato sauce is a pizza ingredient. That it is also an ingredient in countless
other dishes makes no difference, this supermarket has determined that "pizza"
is its primary purpose and so has stuck it away in a different spot.

He might ask the manager, "Why is your supermarket organized in such a strange
way?"

"Good point," the manager might reply. "Here let's fix that - we've re-written
our definition of 'canned tomato goods' so now it reads 'canned tomato
goods that are not also pizza ingredients.' We'll be posting this on
the bulletin board at the back of the store by the restrooms so everyone will
know where to find the tomato sauce."

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

May 26, 2020 18:38

Subject:

Re: Why are these Hinges?

Viewed:

47 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

Well, maybe if you would put together a catalog according to your philosophy
and show it and then it'd convince me that it makes sense, then I will agree
with you.

I would also like to see a reasonably comprehensive organizing of the catalog
using 62Bricks' vision. I'm confident he has good ideas, but I would
like to see an actual category tree with a decent selection of parts assigned
to categories (along with an explanation of how categorizing decisions are made).

You can already see what it looks like, because the catalog already follows it
up to a point. It is where the catalog departs from it that we run into issues.

Categories like Tile, Round, Decorated are based on three independently observable
attributes of a part, placed in a ranked hierarchy from general to specific.

1. Primary shape/type (tile)
2. Secondary shape/attribute (round)
3. Decoration (yes)

using the title and info from inventories, it is possible to add more specific
information like mold variants, descriptions of the decoration, and the color.
General to specific.

None of these key attributes describe the part's usage. Each of them describes
something that can be observed by any user with no special knowledge of the part's
usage. That is how categories should be determined. If part usage is considered
important, it can be added in the title, at the "specific" end of the hierarchy.
Putting usage at the "general" end of the hierarchy means we lose all that general
information that is most useful in finding the part.

Look at the parts. Think about the attributes of the parts themselves that best
distinguish them and that can be determined by someone with no special knowledge,
then rank them in order from the most general to the most specific.

Then run each part down that list of attributes and classify it accordingly.
You don't have to imagine how it would work. It is already working in many
categories. We just need to take those categories that short-circuit this process
by putting the specific information at the wrong end - like "Hinge" - and put
their component parts back through the list of attributes above to see where
they end up. Then, if it appears that there is another level of attributes that
should be added based on the parts, a new category may form based on that.

It works.

I'm sorry but it still just looks like a personal preference to me... not
a bad one, but I don't yet see how this elimiates all problems.

The catalog is always a compromise. Findability of parts, usefulness of the categories,
a balanced size of the subcategories, other aspects probably...

It seems from your preference that you've assigned findability utter and
utmost importance and all choices are made based on that aspect. OK, but personally
I think findability is less important than meaningful categories that you can
browse to look for related parts or alternatives. For example, when I was building
and I was looking for some hinges to make a sloping roof, I could look at the
part I had in mind but also browse around other types of hinges that might work.

I think findability is something that is useful but only as long as you don't
yet know the catalog. After that - which is going to be the longest time - other
aspects become more important. Or at least, in my opinion.

I am willing to believe that your catalog would be the champion in findability.
I just don't agree it's the most important thing. I think this will always
be a personal preferences thing..

It might well be that after setting a hierarchy of attributes, all the hinges
end up in the same category again - but that would be the result of making choices
about what the attributes should be and where to rank them when sorting parts.
It's not an either-or proposition.

I well understand the resistance to thinking about the catalog in a systematic
way. People who have spent years using it do not want anything moved. But there
appears to be general agreement that it is a bad thing that so many similar parts
are scattered around the catalog, and so many apparently dissimilar parts are
grouped together.

My point is not one about personal preference, it is simply to point out that
the cause of that issue is not that the categories are not defined clearly enough,
it is that many of the existing categories were not built from the ground up
based on attributes of the parts. They were imposed from the top down, and redefining
them simply re-imposes them from the top down with a new set of criteria. It
does not fix the root cause.

In fact, creating a system like this would eliminate the "personal preference"
that is built into the current system, and which is a major source of this problem:

The most common usage for this part

60583b Brick, Modified 1 x 1 x 3 with 2 Clips (Vertical Grip) - Hollow Stud
Parts: Brick, Modified

is to hold parts that swing back and forth like gates, doors, and shutters. In
other words, as part of a hinge. But you did not see it when you were browsing
the hinge category looking for solutions to your roof build, because it is not
in the hinge category. It's a Brick, Modified.

Why is it there? Because someone made a judgement call about where it should
go. I don't know what criteria they used, but the catalog is full of examples
like this where parts can fit into more than one category and there seems to
be no evident reason for choosing one over the other aside from personal preference
of the submitter, the admins, or both.

An attribute-based system would not necessarily eliminate the issue that a part
might fit in more than one category, but it would rank the attributes so it was
clear and consistent which ones have priority when assigning it to a category.
This is just as it is done currently when we make "brick" more important than
"round" and "decorated," and we make "decorated" less important than "round."
It's not a revolutionary idea. It is already in place. It just needs to be
expanded.

I think the current project to redefine the categories is an acknowledgment that
leaving these kinds of decisions up to personal preference is undesirable. But
the approach to resolving it is from the wrong direction.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

May 26, 2020 14:30

Subject:

Re: Why are these Hinges?

Viewed:

47 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

Well, maybe if you would put together a catalog according to your philosophy
and show it and then it'd convince me that it makes sense, then I will agree
with you.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

May 26, 2020 07:55

Subject:

Re: Why are these Hinges?

Viewed:

52 times

Topic:

In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:

Under the new definitions,

60478 Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with Bar Handle on End
Parts: Plate, Modified

could fall under either plate modified or hinge. Should we make an exception
for handles? Or should we handle these cases by defaulting to the existing categorization?

It's your catalog. What would you like to see and how would you revise the
category descriptions to make it happen?

I agree with the OP these examples are not hinges as they work with the clips
system. Clips and hinges have always been a clear mutual exclusion. I'd keep
the Hinge category for the parts with the hinge systems that we all know and
understand as hinges: The 2/3 finger systems, the swivels, the 1x2 hinge bricks,
pretty much the way it is now, with the examples from this topic removed because
they work with clips and bars.

I think removing the category is thowing away the baby with the bathwater. Sure
you can think up some reasons why some hinge would be hard to find or why something
wouldbe inconsistent if you think about it, but if the conclusion is category
elimination, we will eventually end up with 1 category called "parts"

That is actually not a bad idea. It is generally easier to identify an unfamiliar
part by searching for its function and/or physical characteristics than it is
to find it in the catalog, unless you are good at guessing. So as long as part
names are descriptive enough and the catalog is searchable, the only function
of categories is to start arguments over what is a plate modified and what is
a hinge.

No, you would not end up with one single category called parts. You would end
up with categories that describe the parts themselves so that someone not already
familiar with the part's complete usage or who is not current on 20 years
of forum debate can use the categories.

What is happening here is exactly backwards.

The problem is the categories, not the definitions of the categories.

What is happening here is people are imagining what they want the categories
to include, then arguing backward from that to come up with a definition that
will get them as close to that as possible.

That is backwards.

The way forward is to look at the attributes of the parts themselves and decide
how they can be meaningfully grouped. Any attributes that are subjective or
ambiguous - like how a part may sometimes be used - are not suitable for
basing categories on.

The parts should not be defined by the categories. The categories should be defined
by the parts.

This is possible even given the current limitations imposed by Bricklink's
"flat" category structure. But it requires turning the thinking around to be
done effectively.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

May 25, 2020 09:28

Subject:

Re: Why are these Hinges?

Viewed:

60 times

Topic:

In Catalog, BricksThatStick writes:

In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:

If they belong together then they should be in Train category?

But again, there is no hinge. If they really have to belong together, maybe they
should be in Panel category?

I would say take a look at this proposed page and see if it, in your opinion,
properly addresses this issue. If it does not, then offer suggestions for improving
it:

https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2479

The page is proposed now, but is expected to become official in about a week.
The purpose of the page is to determine the proper category in situations like
the one you mention.

Does it do its job, or does it need work?

Under the new definitions,

60478 Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with Bar Handle on End
Parts: Plate, Modified

could fall under either plate modified or hinge. Should we make an exception
for handles? Or should we handle these cases by defaulting to the existing categorization?

"When in use a hinge needs to connect to another hinge to make it a hinge"

Does that apply to all hinges in use in sets?

Maybe the hinge category could somehow be defined based on that if so?

Plates with handles are modified plates. A handle doesn't make it a hinge
because it connects to other parts and moves. If that were the case plates with
clips could be included as well.

The question is not where to draw the lines, but which lines should be drawn
in the first place.

The categories that are based on one particular type of attachment or usage should
be eliminated and the parts distributed to categories based on general characteristics.

They aren't hinges shaped like plates, they are plates with a hinge attachment.
Likewise, they aren't hinges shaped like bricks, they are bricks with a hinge
attachment. So long as these types of categories exist, their definitions can
be debated forever without improving anything.

The reasons should be clear from this discussion. When you find yourself having
to think up all the exceptions you want to make to a rule so as not to disturb
the other categories, that is a sure sign you are coming at the problem from
the wrong direction.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

May 6, 2020 17:49

Subject:

Re: Part Lists

Viewed:

48 times

Topic:

Suggestions

In Suggestions, pete_brick writes:

Hmm, I'll have to work with that for a while until I understand it. Thanks

That describes the definition of "extra parts" for purposes of the inventory
pages.
Bricklink has a different definition of "extra parts" for purposes of defining
a complete used set.

https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=102

In Suggestions, StormChaser writes:

In Suggestions, pete_brick writes:

Is the extra part section at the
end of some sets the ones that are used but not necessarily in the original set?

Please see this page for an explanation of sections of a BrickLink inventory:

https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1562

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

May 6, 2020 16:52

Subject:

Re: Part Lists

Viewed:

25 times

Topic:

Suggestions

In Suggestions, pete_brick writes:

...Is the extra part section at the end of some sets the ones that are used but not necessarily in the original set?
For me the important thing is to have all the parts I need to build a set.

The extra parts section shows parts included in the box that are not on the "official"
parts list (if there is one). Additionally, any parts that came attached on a
sprue or in standard, bagged "sets" (like small tools and accessories) will
be in the regular section of the inventory even if one or more of the attached
or bagged parts are not needed to build the set.

There is no indication in Bricklink inventories of which parts are needed to
build a set according to the instructions. Sometimes the section of regular items
happens to include just those parts, but it is by coincidence and not by design.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

May 5, 2020 16:02

Subject:

Re: Part Lists

Viewed:

38 times

Topic:

Suggestions

In Suggestions, pete_brick writes:

I make a distinction between what parts are in a set when purchased (new) and
what parts are actually needed when building the set. It is very rare but once
or twice I have needed a part not shown in an instruction inventory.

If you are comparing Bricklink inventories to a list of parts needed to build
the set, they will not always match.

Bricklink inventories do not document the parts needed to build the set. They
document the contents of the box.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Jan 12, 2020 18:13

Subject:

Re: Set 75248 Inventory Awareness

Viewed:

81 times

Topic:

In Inventories, randyf writes:

In Inventories, popsicle writes:

In Inventories, foxweasle writes:

I thought I would post this Discussion to bring to the members awareness of a
possible misinterpretation of the Inventory list of Set 75248 Star Wars Resistance
A-Wing Starfighter. The inventory is listed correct as I see it. I just opened
a sealed complete set and confirmed the Inventory. The only Item in Question
is Part 15303 Trans-Red Bar 8L with round End (Spring Shooter Dart). In the Instructions
it does show 3 Items are used but only 2 are actually used in the set. At first
I would think the 3rd piece would be considered an extra part, but since all
three are listed in step 101 the last Instruction step. The Inventory should
remain unchanged.

Some of the best reads on the subject of BL’s catalog, are between the members
in this thread:

StormChaser
62Bricks
Hygrotus
jennnifer

When they come together in debate, it’s gold!

TLG, if you’re reading this, covet these individual’s collective knowledge and
passion for the site. Two of which have abdicated their admin positions in said
passion.

I would join the discussion, but I have laid out my thoughts, ideas, opinions,
and general method of approach to our catalog and inventory strategies many times
to Don, and he continues to belittle the admins (who aren't paid and give
exceptionally of ourselves to this site) and rant that his opinion is the only
one that matters. Those are truly the personality hallmarks of trying to affect
change!

I understand what he wants, but the admins just settled on a different
means to getting there and I don't believe any of us are going to apologize
for our joint decisions. The decisions require site development, and I am more
hopeful than ever that we can get there once LEGO looks to start developing the
site. Until then, he can rant until he is blue in the face or starts his own
marketplace.

Cheers,
Randy

As the admin who personally undid fifteen years worth of past practice on dozens
of former extra part entries, Randy, your input would be most welcome.

Don't explain it to me - explain it to the OP, who is one of many users here
who is still relying on those years of past practice in determining the difference
between a regular and an extra part. Whatever explaining you may have done to
me, the message apparently has not reached the whole community.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Jan 12, 2020 14:00

Subject:

Re: Set 75248 Inventory Awareness

Viewed:

65 times

Topic:

In Inventories, jennnifer writes:

In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:

Bricklink set inventories are not based on the building instructions at all.

The printed parts list is the only thing that matters. It is a widespread misunderstanding
that the regular section of the inventory lists the parts needed to complete
the set according to the instructions.

Wow, this is a pretty bold incorrect assertion. I was an inventory admin for
three years. The building instructions are the ultimate source for accurate inventories.
Not every set follows every rule, but that is where everything starts.

Jen

This does not fit with the current policy that it is the box contents, not the
building instructions, that are the basis of the inventories.

And if a part is present in the parts list but not in the building instructions,
it will be included in the regular items. In other words, the parts list overrules
the building instructions. So do other policies, like the one covering parts
on sprues.

I believe you that the former actual practice was to base the regular parts section
on the building instructions. You can see evidence of this in the change logs
of some parts that have been moved from regular to extra (like the small plumes).
That appears not to have been in compliance with the policy as it is now being
enforced, so despite it having been the actual practice, and despite the fact
that many longtime Bricklinkers still believe it to be the practice, it is not
the case, and those parts have been put back in the regular section. For many
of these sets, there is now no information on Bricklink indicating what parts
are included in the building instructions.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Jan 12, 2020 13:16

Subject:

Re: Set 75248 Inventory Awareness

Viewed:

56 times

Topic:

In Inventories, StormChaser writes:

In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:

The parts list determines whether a part is extra or not, and not the building instructions.

In this recent set, yes:

40433-1 (Inv) 1989 Batmobile - Limited Edition
366 Parts, 2019
Sets: Super Heroes: Tim Burton's Batman

In this recent set, no:

41381-1 (Inv) Rescue Mission Boat
877 Parts, 4 Minifigures, 2019
Sets: Friends

So there is an inconsistent approach.

Nevertheless, we need the ability to display and use inventories in different
ways based on the needs of the person viewing that inventory. You don't
think so, because you want inventories to be structured in the specific way that
you feel is best for users of the site.

Why not just agree with me that inventories can do more than the system currently
allows and join me in the push for customizable inventories?

This feels like a false choice. Of course we would all like to see greater convenience
and functionality, but that does not mean we should allow information and functionality
to be removed now in the hope that someday we'll have a system
that lets us put it back. How about we use the existing functionality,
which will support all the information people want, including the full box contents
as they were packaged as well as the parts that form a "complete" set, and then
when (if) those extra features come along we can talk about how to use them?

Because we have put the cart firmly before the horse, here. There are thousands
of complete set listings right now that do not include all the parts Bricklink
says they should - some of them quite expensive parts. This is not due to any
error or wrongdoing by the sellers. It is purely the result of inventory changes
that have been made to accord with bad policies. I don't hear anybody really
defending that. I'm not surprised, as it seems indefensible.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Jan 12, 2020 12:10

Subject:

Re: Set 75248 Inventory Awareness

Viewed:

44 times

Topic:

In Inventories, Hygrotus writes:

In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:

Nobody disputes that if three darts came in the
box, three darts should appear somewhere on the inventory page for the set. However
as is demonstrated by the existence of this thread, there are many people who
have come to understand that the regular section represents only the parts included
in the building instructions. For purposes of classifying parts within the inventory,

For the record about this set. Instruction clearly shows three darts being used
in build process

(step 101, so this is not an extra part)

Yes, the OP is correct, but for the wrong reason. The inventory would still be
"correct" even if the instructions only showed the two darts that can be held
by the model, because there are three darts in the parts list. The parts list
determines whether a part is extra or not, and not the building instructions.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Jan 12, 2020 11:33

Subject:

Re: Set 75248 Inventory Awareness

Viewed:

44 times

Topic:

In Inventories, StormChaser writes:

In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:

Bricklink set inventories are not based on the building instructions at all.

That is absolutely false. From BrickLink guidelines for what should be included
in the Regular Items section of an inventory:

"Parts required to build the main model and any secondary models plus
any other parts on the official parts list. In the absence of an official parts
list, the official parts count, the instructions, and/or images on the packaging
are used to determine as closely as possible the contents of this section."

In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:

The printed parts list is the only thing that matters.

That is absolutely false. From the Standards for Inventorying a Set section,
which explicitly states that the source of an inventory should be a physical
copy of a set:

You have forgotten to boldface plus any other parts on the official parts
list.

Since there will be no parts in the building instructions that are not also on
the parts list, the parts list is all that matters.

"You should have a physical copy of the set you are inventorying to properly
identify the parts and colors. When this is not possible for old or rare sets,
then it is acceptable to use the instructions, set picture, or parts list (sometimes
printed on the box or in the instructions) to complete the inventory."

I hope the following sentence clears the confusion:

BrickLink inventories are based on what actually came in the box or bag.

Parts lists have errors. Set photos have errors. Building instructions have
errors. You like the idea of simple, straightforward, commonsense guidelines,
Don. Well, the sentence in bold text above is as simple and as sensible as you
can possibly get and you should applaud this if you stand behind your principles.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, packing a lot of vagueness into a short statement
does not make it more simple. "Based on" is the slippery term, here.

You are playing fast and loose with the definition of "inventory." The discussion
here is not about the complete inventory page, but in what section the parts
appear within that inventory. Nobody disputes that if three darts came in the
box, three darts should appear somewhere on the inventory page for the set. However
as is demonstrated by the existence of this thread, there are many people who
have come to understand that the regular section represents only the parts included
in the building instructions. For purposes of classifying parts within the inventory,
the building instructions do not matter.

I understand and have participated in the debate about how to best represent
what came in the box or bag, but saying that BrickLink bases inventories on the
parts list only and that inventories are not based on the building instructions
at all is spreading misinformation.

I disagree. The building instructions are not used to determine whether a part
is in the Extras sections or the Regular section. The parts list is used for
this determination. The building instructions do not matter.

Where the building instructions do matter is in the determination of a
"complete" set. Unfortunately, since the fairly recent romp through the inventories,
Bricklink is no longer a reference point for this information. It is now up to
each individual seller to verify their own complete set listing against the building
instructions. It takes about thirty seconds to amass thousands of listings for
used, complete sets with the remarks that they do not include the "extras." What
sellers almost always mean by "extras" is "the parts listed in the Extras section
of the inventory."

The admins know this, but the official response is, well, you know, it says at
the bottom of the page the inventory is just a guide, so, you know, let's
just pretend that our actions have no consequences and make with the change requests.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Jan 12, 2020 09:13

Subject:

Re: Set 75248 Inventory Awareness

Viewed:

54 times

Topic:

In Inventories, foxweasle writes:

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Jan 11, 2020 13:08

Subject:

Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6274-1

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

Inventories Requests