Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | Brickitty  | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 12:50 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | If you already sort a particular variant, simply add the descriptor to your listing
notes for each item. You can still sell them even though they are not distinguished
in the catalog. No need to lose money.
|
With respect, that is incorrect. I know my store very well and have extensive
data on the sales patterns due to being an Excel nerd. And I already have comments
for quite a few minor variations that Bricklink doesn't differentiate in
the catalog, and almost none of them sell (the only real exceptions being misprints
and Old Dark Red, which regularly sells better than the New Dark Reds even at
a higher price point).
Sure, if I price the 3747a variant the same as the 3747b variant under the new
umbrella entry, they'll both sell. But any markup for vintage variations
will almost certainly stop selling, and I have hundreds of these lots, many of
which are good or great sellers. Please trust me to know my business, and
make no mistake -- these changes will cost me hundreds in sales every month.
If you'd like, I will take the time to go through every order for the last
month and add up my sales for the parts to be changed, and then add up the sales
in February for the same parts when they're only differentiated with listing
notes.
|
 |
| Author: | Brickitty | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 12:39 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, TakeAbricK writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| | I read through this thread with great interest. Looks like there is some confusion
as to what the end result will be. Maybe you could make an addition to the Help
page that shows what the end result will be for the parts shown?
|
Yes, +1 on that.
I was already going to post a request that every single change be listed in advance
so that many of us can adjust our listings before the automatic changes mess
up our inventory systems. That way it'll only take a couple hours to fix
these entries, rather than a day or two of work.
|
Ok, I've started to build out the list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
Please let me know if this type of list is sufficient.
|
It is sufficient, will the list be complete before the two weeks start for sellers
to add notes and members who want to create their own database of removed variants
found in sets?
|
The list should be complete by tomorrow.
|
Thank you very much; this will be extremely helpful for preparing.
|
|
| Author: | Brickitty | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 16:55 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 74 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| First, thank you very much for the thorough and clear response. I really appreciate
it, and I feel a bit better about the proposed changes. I have just a few more
things to say, and thanks for your attention.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | No. For the 4 basic parts represented by the last example on the Help page, no
merges will take place, just a renaming and renumbering of the current "b"
variant.
|
That's a relief!
| | We're not even thinking of touching the jumpers. They are all considered
first class cosmetic variants. Even the stud holders on the 15573 are considered
cosmetic due to uses like:
|
And an even bigger relief!
| | Yes. But for the record, the 32064 entry currently is an umbrella entry anyway.
If you just want the the modern version, there is no entry on BrickLink that
will guarantee that.
|
To be clear, for entries like this that will be merged, there will be a note
added, correct? A note to clearly say that there are multiple variants of the
part, some with different axle holes and some with inside side supports?
| | In general, I agree. And in general, we aren't changing BrickLink's commitment
to variants. But I would ask, for example - what do you feel about the hinges
with teeth? Do you really think it matters?
|
Functionally? No. For MOCs? No. For the purpose of set inventories? Yes. As a
collector and a buyer, I would NOT want to receive a used set from 2010 with
7-tooth hinges.
| | It can only matter when someone is being super fussy about period variants, but
the reality is that BrickLink does not recognize most variants. Getting the exact
period element is not something BrickLink ever supported. Take, for example,
the solid and hollow pins on the bottom of 1 x X plates and bricks. This is actually
one of my favorites, and I very much appreciate the correct parts. But BrickLink
has never and likely will never distinguish to such a degree, because it's
impractical.
And the hinges with teeth are impractical. Academically they are interesting,
but they function exactly the same, and who uses hinges for cosmetic reasons?
The only use case is collectors wanting to fill out an old set, and we are so
very far from being able to provide that level of distinction on BrickLink.
|
I recognize that this is a very good point. Bricklink doesn't support fully
period-accurate inventories, and can't in any practical way. As a detail-oriented
person, though, I've always appreciated that the catalog tries to differentiate
down to the minutiae. Even though most of the language I'm hearing is trying
to minimize the effect that this will have on inventories, I believe that the
changes will make things significantly more difficult and frustrating for many
collectors.
Lastly, please recognize that for some of us sellers, these proposed changes
will directly hurt our bottom line. I've put a lot of time and money into
investing in certain variants that can be hard to find, and I have suppliers
that specifically search bulk for some of these soon-to-be-deleted variants,
which I pay a premium for. For example, over the years I've put a lot of
resources into having a huge stock of 4032b. It's been a best-selling part
for me for years, and if it's merged with 4032, all that time and money will
be wasted -- I know I can differentiate them with comments, but I also know
that my sales will drop drastically due to the part not being separated in set
inventories. Another example is part 553a. I don't know if that one's
going away, but I've invested a lot in having those verified parts, separate
from 553b and 553c, because buyers want them for certain old sets. Same for vintage
46212 in non-transparent colors. Same for certain blocked-open heads. Same for
3747a.
I estimate that these changes will cost me hundreds of dollars in sales every
month, not to mention all the work I've done in the past being negated. Please
understand that this is very, very frustrating and disheartening.
|
|
| Author: | Brickitty | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 15:59 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| | I read through this thread with great interest. Looks like there is some confusion
as to what the end result will be. Maybe you could make an addition to the Help
page that shows what the end result will be for the parts shown?
|
Yes, +1 on that.
I was already going to post a request that every single change be listed in advance
so that many of us can adjust our listings before the automatic changes mess
up our inventory systems. That way it'll only take a couple hours to fix
these entries, rather than a day or two of work.
|
|
| Author: | Brickitty | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 12:48 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 128 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Hi,
I'm opposed to this. As one of the sellers who differentiates every part
carefully, I frequently get messages asking me to confirm which variant I'm
sending. Buyers do want period-accurate mold differences, including ones on that
list. I realize I could still list these differences in the comments, but the
problem is that they're presumably going to be removed from inventories,
so buyers and collectors won't know which sets are supposed to have which
variants.
Before continuing, I would like some clarification on a few points, please.
1) For the tiles with/without groove, does this mean that 3068b 2x2 Tile With
Groove will become 3068 2x2 Tile, but that 3068a 2x2 Tile Without Groove will
still be an entry? Or will 3068a be deleted and merged?
2) For Blocked and Vented studs, does this mean merging those two categories,
or does it mean merging Blocked, Vented, AND Hollow studs into one entry? Will
all non-solid stud minifig heads be considered the same? Or will Blocked/Vented
and Hollow still remain two separate entries?
3) If merging is happening to both X-shaped axle holes and Inside Side Supports,
does this mean that all 3 variants of 32064 will be considered the same part?
4) Will the Inside Side Supports cause 2454 and 46212 to be merged?
5) What will happen to 1x2 jumper plates? Will 3794a, 3794b, and 15573 all be
merged into one entry? I think that's absolutely ridiculous if so, and I
would be very annoyed if I received 15573 in a used set from the '90s. Most
collectors would.
Some of these entries I understand changing, like the Smooth Slopes. For others,
though, I think it is very irresponsible to collectors to change the inventory.
It's one thing to make 3068b the default 3068, for example, but a totally
different thing to eliminate the entry for 3068a and remove the differentiation
in set inventories. And that goes for most of these variants. The variants are
there so that collectors can have a more accurate set and buyers can find period-accurate
parts. Like I said, I receive a lot of these orders and I know how detail-oriented
Lego collectors can be.
-Jordy
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
