Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | Cyndis_Bricks  | | Posted: | Oct 13, 2017 18:16 | | Subject: | User count Active vs. Inactive | | Viewed: | 117 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Hello all. I have been going through the Members - Feedback ratings list, going
on page 21,158 to find information on something that I have been wondering about.
Well in doing this I have seen thousands of users that don't seem to be
"active" users. So I am thinking the 731,476 registered users is somewhat irrelevant.
Many are a once and done, sort of user.
I would like to suggest, that leaving the registered user count intact, but add
the count of "Active" users. Have BL not count the inactive users after say
6 months or 1 year, of actual log in date. This would give us all a better idea
of how many actual users are using BL. This could work just as the purge orders
after 6 months. This would still allow a user to log in after being put into
not active, and then would be in the active number for the 6 months or year.
What say you?
Dave
|
 |
| Author: | tEoS | | Posted: | Oct 13, 2017 17:18 | | Subject: | Fix BL login & links | | Viewed: | 132 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Discarded | |
|
| 1) Please fix the BL login. Multiple times pretty much every day BL tells me
that my auto-fill password and id are in error.
Sometimes I can switch to a new tab or close the browser and start it again.
Other times, I have to clear my cookies (it took 2 tries of clearing cookies
just now). When I clear my cookies for BL, I also lose all my other site prefilled
info.
None of the above is acceptable for a modern website.
2) Links: why on earth do the upper links (community, my store, my bl, etc) work
when clicked on, but do not when you right-click for a new tab? (Google Chrome)
Please fix this too.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Oct 9, 2017 11:38 | | Subject: | Re: 29-min closure may lead to sell-price error | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | A better thing would be closing the store at the time store owners desire.
|
I agree with you there. But it has been discussed before, and it seems that it
is more buyer friendly to allow them to finish filling and checking out a cart
if they have been spending hours or days doing it.
|
|
| Author: | alahaka | | Posted: | Oct 9, 2017 11:09 | | Subject: | Re: 29-min closure may lead to sell-price error | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Clearly, and even repeatedly upon each closure, informing BrickLink sellers that
their stores are not closed until 30 minutes after they "close" them would be
a good thing.
A better thing would be closing the store at the time store owners desire.
The first paragraph, not being the situation at hand, is an indicator that developers
are detached from the community they serve.
In Suggestions, axaday writes:
| | Wow, I didn't know they didn't.
|
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Oct 9, 2017 08:15 | | Subject: | Re: 29-min closure may lead to sell-price error | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | Another consideration is that the 29-minute delay means the store is simply not
closed when a store owner wants it to be.
For example, I recently made a large discount error across many more lots and
item types than intended. I didn't know how to quickly undo the change without
messing up other pricing considerations, so I "closed" my store to ensure no
orders were placed with erroneous pricing.
However my store was not actually closed, based on BrickLink's imposed delay.
And during the five to ten minutes needed to set things straight, an order could
have been placed based on unintended pricing.
I recommend that stores close at the moment when store owners want them closed.
|
Setting a $1000000 minimum buy does that for most stores and is instant.
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Oct 9, 2017 05:53 | | Subject: | Re: 29-min closure may lead to sell-price error | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Wow, I didn't know they didn't.
In Suggestions, matejo writes:
| | Hi,
I recently commented that the apparent BrickLink-imposed delay of 29 (or 30)
minutes may wrongly give customers the impression they must complete their order
within this time frame, as opposed to my and others' store closed messages
which often state to simply contact the seller for a bypass password, allowing
for however much time, often days, a seller can provide a particular customer
to finish their shopping cart. In short, I think the store closure message is
more polite than the 29-minute countdown.
Another consideration is that the 29-minute delay means the store is simply not
closed when a store owner wants it to be.
For example, I recently made a large discount error across many more lots and
item types than intended. I didn't know how to quickly undo the change without
messing up other pricing considerations, so I "closed" my store to ensure no
orders were placed with erroneous pricing.
However my store was not actually closed, based on BrickLink's imposed delay.
And during the five to ten minutes needed to set things straight, an order could
have been placed based on unintended pricing.
I recommend that stores close at the moment when store owners want them closed.
Sincerely, Matthew
|
|
|
| Author: | alahaka | | Posted: | Oct 9, 2017 02:13 | | Subject: | 29-min closure may lead to sell-price error | | Viewed: | 155 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Hi,
I recently commented that the apparent BrickLink-imposed delay of 29 (or 30)
minutes may wrongly give customers the impression they must complete their order
within this time frame, as opposed to my and others' store closed messages
which often state to simply contact the seller for a bypass password, allowing
for however much time, often days, a seller can provide a particular customer
to finish their shopping cart. In short, I think the store closure message is
more polite than the 29-minute countdown.
Another consideration is that the 29-minute delay means the store is simply not
closed when a store owner wants it to be.
For example, I recently made a large discount error across many more lots and
item types than intended. I didn't know how to quickly undo the change without
messing up other pricing considerations, so I "closed" my store to ensure no
orders were placed with erroneous pricing.
However my store was not actually closed, based on BrickLink's imposed delay.
And during the five to ten minutes needed to set things straight, an order could
have been placed based on unintended pricing.
I recommend that stores close at the moment when store owners want them closed.
Sincerely, Matthew
|
|
| Author: | mandr | | Posted: | Oct 7, 2017 11:34 | | Subject: | Re: Reduce Store Verification Time | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, redimension writes:
| | Team,
I have been waiting to open my store for over a month. I am more than ready to
start selling. Do you need help in this department? Volunteers to assist in matters
like this?
Cheers!
|
From what I understand, if you upgrade from a buyer to a seller and if you are
a member in good standing (active 100 days and received 5 positive feedback),
then opening the store is automatically allowed.
You are a member in good standing, but you were not at the time that you tried
to upgrade as you just got the feedback last week. If I were you, I'd send
another email to Admin to try to kick-start the process again, perhaps with attention
to Jaclyn. For you it shouldn't take so long to open at this point, but
because you arrived at this point in a different way, it may unfortunately be
as MariaA says, take a few weeks. Hopefully not though. Good luck.
If you are selling parts, it might be helpful to include a shipping chart and
a few more details in your terms to help encourage buyers. I'm not in the
US, but I got the impression from buying in the US that there are shipping categories.
|
|
| Author: | Ariule | | Posted: | Oct 7, 2017 10:31 | | Subject: | Search vs Item Finder & New Style pages | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| For many years, I have used the "Item Finder" instead of "Search" at the top
of most pages as I find the functionality better, specifically for filtering
the country of origin of seller.
I again find the "new" search pages not as helpful. I click on "USA" for origin,
then click details, and it shows all parts, not just the sellers in "USA" for
example.
I wanted to pass along this user feedback and see if anyone else has easier and
better ways to find parts. I do not see the "Item Finder" on the new pages,
and suggest that it remain.
Ariule
|
|
| Author: | MadiganStation | | Posted: | Oct 7, 2017 09:00 | | Subject: | Re: Reduce Store Verification Time | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, qwertyboy writes:
| | Specifying a password there does not keep a store locked. We have a password
there, but our store is open. They specifically said that the "open" button did
not work.
Nick.
|
Removed the password, and still locked.
Nate
|
|
| Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Oct 7, 2017 08:35 | | Subject: | Re: Reduce Store Verification Time | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Brickwilbo writes:
| | In Suggestions, MarieA writes:
| | In Suggestions, redimension writes:
| | Team,
I have been waiting to open my store for over a month. I am more than ready to
start selling. Do you need help in this department? Volunteers to assist in matters
like this?
Cheers!
|
The process takes approx. two weeks after you complete the necessary steps. You
only completed at least two of those steps two days ago. You've been waiting
a month only because you didn't thoroughly read the information. I agree
the process could be simpler, but the information is there and simply needs to
be given the appropriate attention.
A better suggestion might be for BL to create an unambiguous list of things a
new store needs to do, with green ticks generated automatically against each
item as they're completed, with a "submit for review" button only available
after all other steps have been ticked off.
|
Agreed. All the information is there.
We've three people not understanding which settings to use.
They'd entered an unnecessary Store bypassword which keeps their stores locked.
|
Specifying a password there does not keep a store locked. We have a password
there, but our store is open. They specifically said that the "open" button did
not work.
Niek.
|
|
| Author: | Brickwilbo | | Posted: | Oct 7, 2017 01:23 | | Subject: | Re: Reduce Store Verification Time | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, MarieA writes:
| | In Suggestions, redimension writes:
| | Team,
I have been waiting to open my store for over a month. I am more than ready to
start selling. Do you need help in this department? Volunteers to assist in matters
like this?
Cheers!
|
The process takes approx. two weeks after you complete the necessary steps. You
only completed at least two of those steps two days ago. You've been waiting
a month only because you didn't thoroughly read the information. I agree
the process could be simpler, but the information is there and simply needs to
be given the appropriate attention.
A better suggestion might be for BL to create an unambiguous list of things a
new store needs to do, with green ticks generated automatically against each
item as they're completed, with a "submit for review" button only available
after all other steps have been ticked off.
|
Agreed. All the information is there.
We've three people not understanding which settings to use.
They'd entered an unnecessary Store bypassword which keeps their stores locked.
|
|
| Author: | bb414973 | | Posted: | Oct 6, 2017 23:51 | | Subject: | Re: Reduce Store Verification Time | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, redimension writes:
| | Team,
I have been waiting to open my store for over a month. I am more than ready to
start selling. Do you need help in this department? Volunteers to assist in matters
like this?
Cheers!
|
The process takes approx. two weeks after you complete the necessary steps. You
only completed at least two of those steps two days ago. You've been waiting
a month only because you didn't thoroughly read the information. I agree
the process could be simpler, but the information is there and simply needs to
be given the appropriate attention.
A better suggestion might be for BL to create an unambiguous list of things a
new store needs to do, with green ticks generated automatically against each
item as they're completed, with a "submit for review" button only available
after all other steps have been ticked off.
|
|
| Author: | bb840099 | | Posted: | Oct 6, 2017 17:41 | | Subject: | Reduce Store Verification Time | | Viewed: | 132 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Team,
I have been waiting to open my store for over a month. I am more than ready to
start selling. Do you need help in this department? Volunteers to assist in matters
like this?
Cheers!
|
|
| Author: | Klodshansen | | Posted: | Oct 6, 2017 14:47 | | Subject: | Re: Invoice details | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| That is the wanted list for.
In Suggestions, recht writes:
| | I've been going through my old sets and reviving them for my kids. There
are quite a lot of parts missing, so I've been ordering the missing parts.
When doing this, I need to track what I've already ordered, so it would be
pretty awesome if the invoice/order overview also could show the part number
and color, not only the part descriptions.
Thanks,
Joakim
|
|
|
| Author: | tEoS | | Posted: | Oct 6, 2017 14:06 | | Subject: | Re: Invoice details | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| The order detail page already does. 
In Suggestions, recht writes:
| | I've been going through my old sets and reviving them for my kids. There
are quite a lot of parts missing, so I've been ordering the missing parts.
When doing this, I need to track what I've already ordered, so it would be
pretty awesome if the invoice/order overview also could show the part number
and color, not only the part descriptions.
Thanks,
Joakim
|
|
|
| Author: | MikeS | | Posted: | Oct 6, 2017 12:35 | | Subject: | Re: Invoice details | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| How do you know what parts you need to order on BL? Did you create a wanted
list(or lists) on BrickLink of missing parts for your old sets?
MikeS
In Suggestions, recht writes:
| | I've been going through my old sets and reviving them for my kids. There
are quite a lot of parts missing, so I've been ordering the missing parts.
When doing this, I need to track what I've already ordered, so it would be
pretty awesome if the invoice/order overview also could show the part number
and color, not only the part descriptions.
Thanks,
Joakim
|
|
|
| Author: | Cob | | Posted: | Oct 6, 2017 12:32 | | Subject: | Re: Invoice details | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, recht writes:
| | I've been going through my old sets and reviving them for my kids. There
are quite a lot of parts missing, so I've been ordering the missing parts.
When doing this, I need to track what I've already ordered, so it would be
pretty awesome if the invoice/order overview also could show the part number
and color, not only the part descriptions.
Thanks,
Joakim
|
It would also be awesome if we could put a buyer note beside the items ordered
so the buyer knew what set/project the part goes to when delivered.
Cob
|
|
| Author: | bb991556 | | Posted: | Oct 6, 2017 11:32 | | Subject: | Invoice details | | Viewed: | 115 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| I've been going through my old sets and reviving them for my kids. There
are quite a lot of parts missing, so I've been ordering the missing parts.
When doing this, I need to track what I've already ordered, so it would be
pretty awesome if the invoice/order overview also could show the part number
and color, not only the part descriptions.
Thanks,
Joakim
|
|
| Author: | ArteP | | Posted: | Oct 6, 2017 04:21 | | Subject: | Anyone else could use "first color, ..." | | Viewed: | 88 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Hello
Of course - everyone has his own system - but mine is:
Color first - item number second
Unfortunately this setting is not available in "orders settings".
Is it possible to have this setting option too?
If yes - where to ask for it?
Best regards
Petra
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Oct 4, 2017 10:35 | | Subject: | Re: Update item numbers of marked deletion items | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Suggestions, novabrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, Cob writes:
| | Suggestion:
Please update the item numbers of items marked for deletion to end with "-md"
or something similar. I am putting together older figures and keep running into
guys that are marked for deletion. There is no way to know they are marked for
deletion on Brickstock until I pull up the catalog or try to upload the parts.
The best solution would be to delete the items marked for deletion.
Thanks,
Cob
|
Maybe put the item number in italics and then delete the item after like 3 month
or so. Like [p=4070a] has been marked for deletion for years it seems. I am not
sure what keeps items from being deleted after being marked for deletion. Bit
of clarification would be nice.
|
I believe an item cannot be deleted as long as it is actively referenced elsewhere
(most commonly in people's shop inventory, stock rooms, possibly set inventories).
Niek.
|
Correct. As long as an item marked for deletion is referenced in the database
anywhere (set inventories, store inventories, stockroom inventories, old orders,
etc.), I don't think it can be removed by the Catalog Admins from the catalog.
Since some users never update their stockrooms or stores and disappear forever
into the LEGO abyss, some items will be in the database indefinitely. Unless
some updated guidelines and policies are created to remove items marked for deletion
after a certain amount of time (no matter the intended consequences to users'
stores), these items may never actually get deleted.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Oct 4, 2017 09:14 | | Subject: | Re: Update item numbers of marked deletion items | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, novabrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, Cob writes:
| | Suggestion:
Please update the item numbers of items marked for deletion to end with "-md"
or something similar. I am putting together older figures and keep running into
guys that are marked for deletion. There is no way to know they are marked for
deletion on Brickstock until I pull up the catalog or try to upload the parts.
The best solution would be to delete the items marked for deletion.
Thanks,
Cob
|
Maybe put the item number in italics and then delete the item after like 3 month
or so. Like [p=4070a] has been marked for deletion for years it seems. I am not
sure what keeps items from being deleted after being marked for deletion. Bit
of clarification would be nice.
|
I believe an item cannot be deleted as long as it is actively referenced elsewhere
(most commonly in people's shop inventory, stock rooms, possibly set inventories).
Niek.
|
|
| Author: | novabrick | | Posted: | Oct 4, 2017 08:46 | | Subject: | Re: Update item numbers of marked deletion items | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Cob writes:
| | Suggestion:
Please update the item numbers of items marked for deletion to end with "-md"
or something similar. I am putting together older figures and keep running into
guys that are marked for deletion. There is no way to know they are marked for
deletion on Brickstock until I pull up the catalog or try to upload the parts.
The best solution would be to delete the items marked for deletion.
Thanks,
Cob
|
Maybe put the item number in italics and then delete the item after like 3 month
or so. Like [p=4070a] has been marked for deletion for years it seems. I am not
sure what keeps items from being deleted after being marked for deletion. Bit
of clarification would be nice.
Christian
novabrick-team
|
|
| Author: | Cob | | Posted: | Oct 3, 2017 17:41 | | Subject: | Update item numbers of marked deletion items | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Suggestion:
Please update the item numbers of items marked for deletion to end with "-md"
or something similar. I am putting together older figures and keep running into
guys that are marked for deletion. There is no way to know they are marked for
deletion on Brickstock until I pull up the catalog or try to upload the parts.
The best solution would be to delete the items marked for deletion.
Thanks,
Cob
|
|
| Author: | LongDistanceStu | | Posted: | Oct 1, 2017 22:01 | | Subject: | New Part On Stud.io | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Dear Bricklink,
There is a part I would like you to add to Stud.io.
It is: Black Tile, Round 1 x 1 with Large White Square and Small White Square
Pattern
The part number is: 6178627
I would like it if you added it so I can add it to some of my creation.
Thanks for reading,
LongDistanceStu
|
|
| Author: | brickazon | | Posted: | Sep 28, 2017 13:44 | | Subject: | Shipping method VAT setting | | Viewed: | 72 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Hello,
I think that implementing a shipping method setting allowing or disallowing to
buy without VAT would be very helpful for VAT-registered sellers from the EU.
All orders received from buyers outside of the EU are automatically placed without
VAT, but sometimes sellers can only sell without VAT using particular shipping
methods. Of course VAT can be added manually to order if needed, but what about
upcoming instant checkout?
This setting would allow sellers to set shipping method to automatically add
VAT to orders in checkout when buyer selects such shipping method, even if the
buyer is from outside of the EU.
What do you think sellers?
Best regards,
Tomasz
|
|
| Author: | JulieK | | Posted: | Sep 27, 2017 12:27 | | Subject: | Re: More info on status change for suggestions | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Miffy. writes:
| | Julie, my interpretation of this "already exists", is that the suggestion was
already made by someone else, and they are processing that one instead of this
duplicate. Doesn't mean the problem is solved though.
I hope I got that right.
Miffy.
|
Well now, that makes sense.
Perhaps I should make a suggestion to add the word "suggestion" to the suggestion
status "already exists". 
|
|
| Author: | Miffy. | | Posted: | Sep 27, 2017 11:40 | | Subject: | Re: More info on status change for suggestions | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, Miffy. writes:
| | Julie, my interpretation of this "already exists", is that the suggestion was
already made by someone else, and they are processing that one instead of this
duplicate. Doesn't mean the problem is solved though.
I hope I got that right.
|
Yes, that seems more logical, otherwise, it would be too much like “implemented.”
Anyway, knowing what previously posted suggestion supercedes this one would be
nice.
|
Exactly!
And a link to the Road Map where the progress report is shown.
Miffy.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Sep 27, 2017 11:38 | | Subject: | Re: More info on status change for suggestions | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Miffy. writes:
| | Julie, my interpretation of this "already exists", is that the suggestion was
already made by someone else, and they are processing that one instead of this
duplicate. Doesn't mean the problem is solved though.
I hope I got that right.
|
Yes, that seems more logical, otherwise, it would be too much like “implemented.”
Anyway, knowing what previously posted suggestion supercedes this one would be
nice.
|
|
| Author: | Miffy. | | Posted: | Sep 27, 2017 11:23 | | Subject: | Re: More info on status change for suggestions | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Julie, my interpretation of this "already exists", is that the suggestion was
already made by someone else, and they are processing that one instead of this
duplicate. Doesn't mean the problem is solved though.
I hope I got that right.
Miffy.
In Suggestions, JulieK writes:
| | In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | It would be nice if there were some sort of explanation given when a suggestion
changes status.
For instance, explain how what the suggestion asks can be done when the status
goes from “open” to “implemented” or “already exists.”
Take this suggestion: https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1053439
It has recently been marked as “already exists.”
However, the situation didn’t change: When opening a “cart,” we’re not taken
directly to the cart. It depends on the store’s settings.
How can we go directly to a cart?
|
This is also marked as "already exists".
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=827221
Minimum order 4 international customers
If someone could point me to the page where I can set that up, that would be
fantastic.
Thanks!
Julie
|
|
|
| Author: | Miffy. | | Posted: | Sep 27, 2017 11:17 | | Subject: | Re: More info on status change for suggestions | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | It would be nice if there were some sort of explanation given when a suggestion
changes status.
For instance, explain how what the suggestion asks can be done when the status
goes from “open” to “implemented” or “already exists.”
Take this suggestion: https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1053439
It has recently been marked as “already exists.”
However, the situation didn’t change: When opening a “cart,” we’re not taken
directly to the cart. It depends on the store’s settings.
How can we go directly to a cart?
|
Thanks for the reminder on this! The "problem" still exists (maybe BL doesn't
view it as a problem?).
I too, would like to know what is the current status of this suggestion as my
post is now essentially cancelled, and I do not know where the duplicate suggestion
is. The road map (here: https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2453) makes
no mention of this shopping cart issue (and we are always told to check the road
map for a list of all current website work).
Miffy.
|
|
| Author: | Cob | | Posted: | Sep 26, 2017 21:14 | | Subject: | Re: re-ordering from the same store | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | Mark the stores you like as your favorite. |
|
| Author: | mwright5 | | Posted: | Sep 26, 2017 20:47 | | Subject: | Re: re-ordering from the same store | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Grego writes:
| | In Suggestions, ilikeitgui writes:
| | Maybe I'm missing this option somewhere on the site, but I don't see
a way to quickly revisit a store you ordered parts from recently. I liked the
services of some of these stores so I want to go back to them to see if they
have the additional parts I need.
I would have expected a link on the My Orders page to see the seller's store,
but all I can find is detailed information about the seller minus a link to his
actual store.
I would also have expected a link to the stores I've ordered parts from under
recent activity, but again I don't see anything.
I did find a way to add the store as a Favorite, but that involved a decent amount
of work to copy the seller's id into the field to add them to the list just
so I can get a link back to that seller's store.
Is this an odd behavior to want to revisit a store?
|
Click on the little house icon next to the sellers name on your Orders Page...takes
you directly to their store
|
Also, you can hover your pointer over the "MY BL" icon, then click on "orders".
Then you can see all your orders, and of course the sellers from whom you purchased.
|
|
| Author: | Grego | | Posted: | Sep 26, 2017 20:45 | | Subject: | Re: re-ordering from the same store | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ilikeitgui writes:
| | Maybe I'm missing this option somewhere on the site, but I don't see
a way to quickly revisit a store you ordered parts from recently. I liked the
services of some of these stores so I want to go back to them to see if they
have the additional parts I need.
I would have expected a link on the My Orders page to see the seller's store,
but all I can find is detailed information about the seller minus a link to his
actual store.
I would also have expected a link to the stores I've ordered parts from under
recent activity, but again I don't see anything.
I did find a way to add the store as a Favorite, but that involved a decent amount
of work to copy the seller's id into the field to add them to the list just
so I can get a link back to that seller's store.
Is this an odd behavior to want to revisit a store?
|
Click on the little house icon next to the sellers name on your Orders Page...takes
you directly to their store
|
|
| Author: | bb2442 | | Posted: | Sep 26, 2017 20:41 | | Subject: | re-ordering from the same store | | Viewed: | 146 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Maybe I'm missing this option somewhere on the site, but I don't see
a way to quickly revisit a store you ordered parts from recently. I liked the
services of some of these stores so I want to go back to them to see if they
have the additional parts I need.
I would have expected a link on the My Orders page to see the seller's store,
but all I can find is detailed information about the seller minus a link to his
actual store.
I would also have expected a link to the stores I've ordered parts from under
recent activity, but again I don't see anything.
I did find a way to add the store as a Favorite, but that involved a decent amount
of work to copy the seller's id into the field to add them to the list just
so I can get a link back to that seller's store.
Is this an odd behavior to want to revisit a store?
|
|
| Author: | JulieK | | Posted: | Sep 26, 2017 19:38 | | Subject: | Re: More info on status change for suggestions | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | It would be nice if there were some sort of explanation given when a suggestion
changes status.
For instance, explain how what the suggestion asks can be done when the status
goes from “open” to “implemented” or “already exists.”
Take this suggestion: https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1053439
It has recently been marked as “already exists.”
However, the situation didn’t change: When opening a “cart,” we’re not taken
directly to the cart. It depends on the store’s settings.
How can we go directly to a cart?
|
This is also marked as "already exists".
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=827221
Minimum order 4 international customers
If someone could point me to the page where I can set that up, that would be
fantastic.
Thanks!
Julie
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Sep 26, 2017 19:13 | | Subject: | More info on status change for suggestions | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| It would be nice if there were some sort of explanation given when a suggestion
changes status.
For instance, explain how what the suggestion asks can be done when the status
goes from “open” to “implemented” or “already exists.”
Take this suggestion: https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1053439
It has recently been marked as “already exists.”
However, the situation didn’t change: When opening a “cart,” we’re not taken
directly to the cart. It depends on the store’s settings.
How can we go directly to a cart?
|
|
| Author: | swoosh_factor | | Posted: | Sep 24, 2017 12:37 | | Subject: | Re: Make it so all threads need to be approved. | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Speg writes:
| | In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, Roxxer writes:
| | […]
This unfortunately tends to clog up conversation, but it seems like the only
full-proof way of getting rid of the spam here. […]
|
They’ll just change their bot to answer the last post of each topic¹ instead
of creating a new thread.
¹ That’s why there’re so many posts: they make one in each topic.
| | I check the forum maybe once
a week and when I do it's always filled with these scams.
|
They attack about once a week too. Bad timing for you  
|
All posts (and replies) need approval? It's not that difficult if you "hire"
a person or two as forum mods that do only that. Or, as I've seen in a different
forum, you must have at least x amount of "quality" posts before you're free
to post without any checks and balances. Only some suggestions
|
That seems like a pretty big use of resources to deal with a minor inconvenience
that the existing forum mods already handle as well as can be expected.
|
|
| Author: | Addict2Brick | | Posted: | Sep 24, 2017 10:02 | | Subject: | Re: Make it so all threads need to be approved. | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, Roxxer writes:
| | […]
This unfortunately tends to clog up conversation, but it seems like the only
full-proof way of getting rid of the spam here. […]
|
They’ll just change their bot to answer the last post of each topic¹ instead
of creating a new thread.
¹ That’s why there’re so many posts: they make one in each topic.
| | I check the forum maybe once
a week and when I do it's always filled with these scams.
|
They attack about once a week too. Bad timing for you
|
All posts (and replies) need approval? It's not that difficult if you "hire"
a person or two as forum mods that do only that. Or, as I've seen in a different
forum, you must have at least x amount of "quality" posts before you're free
to post without any checks and balances. Only some suggestions
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Sep 24, 2017 05:38 | | Subject: | Re: Make it so all threads need to be approved. | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Roxxer writes:
| | […]
This unfortunately tends to clog up conversation, but it seems like the only
full-proof way of getting rid of the spam here. […]
|
They’ll just change their bot to answer the last post of each topic¹ instead
of creating a new thread.
¹ That’s why there’re so many posts: they make one in each topic.
| | I check the forum maybe once
a week and when I do it's always filled with these scams.
|
They attack about once a week too. Bad timing for you
|
|
| Author: | Elkenwood | | Posted: | Sep 24, 2017 05:32 | | Subject: | Make it so all threads need to be approved. | | Viewed: | 159 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Rules and regulations on the forum have been mentioned several times before with
others suggesting a feedback limit or a set age on an account for posting, but
I think the best option is for a moderator to manually comb through all new threads
before they get posted on the forum.
This unfortunately tends to clog up conversation, but it seems like the only
full-proof way of getting rid of the spam here. I check the forum maybe once
a week and when I do it's always filled with these scams.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Sep 23, 2017 13:49 | | Subject: | Re: Break out set inventory by the sum of parts | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, paulieb writes:
| | Example: Metalbeard's Sea Cow - I only want to bricklink Metalbeard
Or
Indiana Jones Peril in Peru - I only want to bricklink the airplane
|
This would not be possible unless these sub-assemblies are added to the catalog
separately. Here is one of the many discussions on the subject which have occurred
over the years:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1006169
|
| Author: | paulieb | | Posted: | Sep 23, 2017 13:45 | | Subject: | Break out set inventory by the sum of parts | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Example: Metalbeard's Sea Cow - I only want to bricklink Metalbeard
Or
Indiana Jones Peril in Peru - I only want to bricklink the airplane
|
| Author: | QA_Sheryl | | Posted: | Sep 22, 2017 11:17 | | Subject: | Re: Moderate Forum Posts | | Viewed: | 107 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, StormChaser writes:
| | I suggest that members with 2 or less feedback have their forum posts moderated,
meaning that posts must be approved by a moderator before appearing in the forum.
This should resolve the issue of scammers joining BrickLink merely to post spam
in the forum.
|
Please see:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1049510
|
|
| Author: | QA_Sheryl | | Posted: | Sep 22, 2017 11:14 | | Subject: | Re: Tablet friendly website | | Viewed: | 88 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | I've posted this before and was told Bricklink doesn't prioritise mobile
devices, but anyway, I would really really like to be able to use Bricklink properly
on my tablets. They are just much more comfortable to walk around with when sorting
orders than laptops.. but I can't, since I cannot use the menus. When I click
on the icons in the top bar, the dropdown menu appears properly, but whenever
I click on an item the menu disappears and nothing happens.
You can partly work around it by sending the links from a desktop computer and
then bookmarking them on the tablet, but it's still not comfortable.
Can this please be solved? I have this issue on a Lenovo as well as a Windows
Surface, in all browsers, so I'm sure I'm not the only one.
|
Hi there,
As mentioned in the past, we have been working on implementing a mobile-friendly
website, but it takes a lot of detailed planning and effort on our part. It is
definitely not a short-term project. We are currently working on the implementation
of this, but you can follow the progress here on our Road Map page: https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2453
Thank you for your patience as we work to make our website mobile-friendly!
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Sep 20, 2017 05:04 | | Subject: | Re: Suggestion - link to report post on message | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Cob writes:
| | Please put a quick link to report a post in each message.
Thanks
Cob
|
Yes, not having to find the message ID and the correct problem page would make
it easier to report messages. That would help.
An icon could be added next to Cancel and Reply, which could take you directly
to the reporting page with the message number already filled in.
|
| Author: | Cob | | Posted: | Sep 19, 2017 20:05 | | Subject: | Suggestion - link to report post on message | | Viewed: | 80 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Please put a quick link to report a post in each message.
Thanks
Cob
|
| Author: | WonderlandToys | | Posted: | Sep 19, 2017 09:46 | | Subject: | Re: Block New Accounts from posting in forumsq | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I think a good solution would be, to let 0 feedback members tick a box with 'I'm
not a robot' before they can post a message.
In Suggestions, jenwick writes:
| | Potential new buyers need to be able to ask questions. There are many newbie
legit questions. I think a better thing to do would be to block the number of
posts. I would also like to see spammer messages not just canceled, but deleted
to clean up the legit forum. Just my two cents.
|
|
|
| Author: | jenwick | | Posted: | Sep 19, 2017 09:21 | | Subject: | Re: Block New Accounts from posting in forumsq | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Potential new buyers need to be able to ask questions. There are many newbie
legit questions. I think a better thing to do would be to block the number of
posts. I would also like to see spammer messages not just canceled, but deleted
to clean up the legit forum. Just my two cents.
|
|
| Author: | pitz8008 | | Posted: | Sep 19, 2017 02:57 | | Subject: | Re: Block New Accounts from posting in forumsq | | Viewed: | 88 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ArizonaBrix writes:
| | Why are there so many fake money/passport spam daily? Are bricklinkers their
core customers? What gives!
|
Hold on. Are you telling me the passport I just bought off this website is a
scam? Can't be. The guy didn't have any negative feedback. I'm sure
it will arrive. And if it doesn't, I'll just file an NSS.
|
|
| Author: | legoman77 | | Posted: | Sep 19, 2017 01:01 | | Subject: | Re: Block New Accounts from posting in forumsq | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ArizonaBrix writes:
| | Why are there so many fake money/passport spam daily? Are bricklinkers their
core customers? What gives!
|
Good idea except I would permit them to post after buying or selling one item.
These deleted ones always have 0 feedback.
John P
|
| Author: | bb398322 | | Posted: | Sep 19, 2017 00:49 | | Subject: | Block New Accounts from posting in forumsq | | Viewed: | 198 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Why are there so many fake money/passport spam daily? Are bricklinkers their
core customers? What gives!
|
| Author: | kidsncritters | | Posted: | Sep 18, 2017 19:39 | | Subject: | Re: Homepage Millenium Falcon Banner | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| It represents that only half the orders placed at S@H were actually filled
It does look odd though...
|
| Author: | M.Boss | | Posted: | Sep 18, 2017 19:29 | | Subject: | Homepage Millenium Falcon Banner | | Viewed: | 161 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Please fix the Millennium falcon banner on the home page. It looks very unprofessional
and has been like cut off like that for days now.
Thanks,
M.Boss
|
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Sep 18, 2017 04:38 | | Subject: | Re: Tablet friendly website | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, alphadavy writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | I've posted this before and was told Bricklink doesn't prioritise mobile
devices, but anyway, I would really really like to be able to use Bricklink properly
on my tablets. They are just much more comfortable to walk around with when sorting
orders than laptops.. but I can't, since I cannot use the menus. When I click
on the icons in the top bar, the dropdown menu appears properly, but whenever
I click on an item the menu disappears and nothing happens.
You can partly work around it by sending the links from a desktop computer and
then bookmarking them on the tablet, but it's still not comfortable.
Can this please be solved? I have this issue on a Lenovo as well as a Windows
Surface, in all browsers, so I'm sure I'm not the only one.
|
I voted yes, but I am able to use my Kindle Fire without too much trouble! Certainly
none of the problems you seem to have...
Davy
@ Alphablocks
|
Thanks for the feedback, strange that nobody yet mentioned they have the same!
Can anyone who also has this confirm?
Very odd that I have it on 2 devices, by different brands, in different browsers,
on different ISPs.
One thing in common: Windows 10. Looks like Bricklink's menus don't work
with the combination Windows 10 - touchscreen? The one tablet I have where it
does work is Android..
|
|
| Author: | bb363828 | | Posted: | Sep 18, 2017 03:09 | | Subject: | Re: Tablet friendly website | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | I've posted this before and was told Bricklink doesn't prioritise mobile
devices, but anyway, I would really really like to be able to use Bricklink properly
on my tablets. They are just much more comfortable to walk around with when sorting
orders than laptops.. but I can't, since I cannot use the menus. When I click
on the icons in the top bar, the dropdown menu appears properly, but whenever
I click on an item the menu disappears and nothing happens.
You can partly work around it by sending the links from a desktop computer and
then bookmarking them on the tablet, but it's still not comfortable.
Can this please be solved? I have this issue on a Lenovo as well as a Windows
Surface, in all browsers, so I'm sure I'm not the only one.
|
I voted yes, but I am able to use my Kindle Fire without too much trouble! Certainly
none of the problems you seem to have...
Davy
@ Alphablocks
|
|
| Author: | AngrySquirrel | | Posted: | Sep 17, 2017 14:11 | | Subject: | Re: Tablet friendly website | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, jbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | I've posted this before and was told Bricklink doesn't prioritise mobile
devices, but anyway, I would really really like to be able to use Bricklink properly
on my tablets. They are just much more comfortable to walk around with when sorting
orders than laptops.. but I can't, since I cannot use the menus. When I click
on the icons in the top bar, the dropdown menu appears properly, but whenever
I click on an item the menu disappears and nothing happens.
You can partly work around it by sending the links from a desktop computer and
then bookmarking them on the tablet, but it's still not comfortable.
Can this please be solved? I have this issue on a Lenovo as well as a Windows
Surface, in all browsers, so I'm sure I'm not the only one.
|
No problems at all using tablets for order picking and anything else on bricklink.
|
same here
|
|
| Author: | jbricks | | Posted: | Sep 17, 2017 12:41 | | Subject: | Re: Tablet friendly website | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | I've posted this before and was told Bricklink doesn't prioritise mobile
devices, but anyway, I would really really like to be able to use Bricklink properly
on my tablets. They are just much more comfortable to walk around with when sorting
orders than laptops.. but I can't, since I cannot use the menus. When I click
on the icons in the top bar, the dropdown menu appears properly, but whenever
I click on an item the menu disappears and nothing happens.
You can partly work around it by sending the links from a desktop computer and
then bookmarking them on the tablet, but it's still not comfortable.
Can this please be solved? I have this issue on a Lenovo as well as a Windows
Surface, in all browsers, so I'm sure I'm not the only one.
|
No problems at all using tablets for order picking and anything else on bricklink.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Sep 17, 2017 11:57 | | Subject: | Re: Tablet friendly website | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, WhiteHorseMatt writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | I've posted this before and was told Bricklink doesn't prioritise mobile
devices, but anyway, I would really really like to be able to use Bricklink properly
on my tablets. They are just much more comfortable to walk around with when sorting
orders than laptops.. but I can't, since I cannot use the menus. When I click
on the icons in the top bar, the dropdown menu appears properly, but whenever
I click on an item the menu disappears and nothing happens.
You can partly work around it by sending the links from a desktop computer and
then bookmarking them on the tablet, but it's still not comfortable.
Can this please be solved? I have this issue on a Lenovo as well as a Windows
Surface, in all browsers, so I'm sure I'm not the only one.
|
I can use the menus fine. But I still want a mobile version.
There is far too much zooming in and moving the screen around on a desktop site
aimed at a 24" screen to use comfortably on a 5/7" device.
I would also like an app that is optimised for mobile features, so I can have,
e.g. push notifications for messages, order change of status etc.
Matt
|
It's odd, I have seen 1 tablet where it works, and 2 where it doesn't.
I only have the issue on BL, and in all browsers..
|
|
| Author: | WhiteHorseMatt | | Posted: | Sep 17, 2017 10:25 | | Subject: | Re: Tablet friendly website | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | I've posted this before and was told Bricklink doesn't prioritise mobile
devices, but anyway, I would really really like to be able to use Bricklink properly
on my tablets. They are just much more comfortable to walk around with when sorting
orders than laptops.. but I can't, since I cannot use the menus. When I click
on the icons in the top bar, the dropdown menu appears properly, but whenever
I click on an item the menu disappears and nothing happens.
You can partly work around it by sending the links from a desktop computer and
then bookmarking them on the tablet, but it's still not comfortable.
Can this please be solved? I have this issue on a Lenovo as well as a Windows
Surface, in all browsers, so I'm sure I'm not the only one.
|
I can use the menus fine. But I still want a mobile version.
There is far too much zooming in and moving the screen around on a desktop site
aimed at a 24" screen to use comfortably on a 5/7" device.
I would also like an app that is optimised for mobile features, so I can have,
e.g. push notifications for messages, order change of status etc.
Matt
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Sep 17, 2017 08:33 | | Subject: | Tablet friendly website | | Viewed: | 168 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Implemented | |
|
| I've posted this before and was told Bricklink doesn't prioritise mobile
devices, but anyway, I would really really like to be able to use Bricklink properly
on my tablets. They are just much more comfortable to walk around with when sorting
orders than laptops.. but I can't, since I cannot use the menus. When I click
on the icons in the top bar, the dropdown menu appears properly, but whenever
I click on an item the menu disappears and nothing happens.
You can partly work around it by sending the links from a desktop computer and
then bookmarking them on the tablet, but it's still not comfortable.
Can this please be solved? I have this issue on a Lenovo as well as a Windows
Surface, in all browsers, so I'm sure I'm not the only one.
|
|
| Author: | Cob | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 23:08 | | Subject: | update fee schedule | | Viewed: | 132 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| I would prefer to see the fee schedule laid out as attached so I can specifically
track each order and the original fee, additional fees, reductions to fees, and
the final amount.
I do not like the separate popup that details the fee adjustments. It seems
completely disconnected from the fee schedule to have the fee adjustments listed
separately. It is very hard to cumbersome to track back and forth the fee adjustments
to the original order.
Attached is my example.
Thank you for taking this into consideration.
Cob
|
|
| Author: | bb373892 | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 22:32 | | Subject: | Re: Where are our manners gone?! | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | VERY well said, Dave! I agree 100%! |
| Author: | bb373892 | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 21:56 | | Subject: | Re: Tracking on orders placed | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | +1 |
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 14:07 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | […]
There
are well over 1/2 million members of Bricklink now - even if only 20% of them
contributed […]
|
You’re overly optimistic about contribution rate.
I don’t think that there ever were 20% of BLers who contributed, even back when,
even counting one-time contributors.
And for something that will only interest sellers, 0.02% (100 people) seems more
likely. But maybe it would suffice
|
There are two of us who have already said we would supply our data which, I can
assure you, would make a dent in what is needed. We are all 'whistling in
the wind' over this cause BL do their own thing and changes to the catalogue
are changes to their single most important and valuable asset. You will remember
the saga over image rights when they took over and how there is a shyness to
open the catalogue any further (the changes to Brickstock and logging in). Good
to get this out in the air and see what peoples thoughts are but it ain't
going to happen.
If it promotes dialogue with BL development we will have achieved something.
Dimensions, weights etc ?????
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 14:01 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, WoutR writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, DadsAFOL writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
Yes, we have manually recorded lot weights on thousands of PCC's over the
years of selling. I would be happy to share that info to seed the database.
From there like everything else here it just gets crowdsourced over time and
wouldn't really be a big deal. Just set up the system with a bit of a waterfall...
if MyWeight exists, use that; if not then if PCC weight exists use that; else
use ItemID weight.
Here's a good example of why this would be helpful:
- Catalog - 0.36
- Black actual - 0.3331 (-7.5%)
- White actual - 0.3425 (-4.9%)
- Trans Clear actual - 0.3836 (+6.5%)
So if someone bought 1000 of these in your store, and you wanted to weigh them
using the catalog weight instead of counting them...
- Your customer would get 1075 black and your inventory would be short 75 for
the next order
- Your customer would get 1049 white and your inventory would be short 49 for
the next order
- Your customer would get 935 trans clear and your inventory would be over 65,
and your customer would be upset asking for a refund or for you to ship the missing
parts.
Same issue applies to postage calculation. Its totally possible that the system
undercharges on postage for the trans clear because 1000 actually weighs 383g,
not 360g like the catalog expects.
|
Thank you for joining this thread and the detail you provided it is helpful for
others to see what a difference the weights can make towards shipping. We would
be happy to share our data with BL as well.
|
The transparent parts are heavier because they are made in a different material.
LEGO often has a different designID for those parts,which BrickLink sees as an
alternative (to keep things simple for buyers and sellers).
I have been studying the small design changes on the 3001 bricks. I have seen
many mold changes that would cause such small changes in weight, and the exact
weight of the raw material might differ from one batch to the next (especially
because LEGO uses several suppliers). Even mold wear adds weight to the parts.
The only correct way to do this would be to assign a tolerance to the weight,
it is an illusion that the part weight is constant in so many decimals.
|
Hardly an illusion based on the data presented, although we agree nothing is
constant with Lego. They weigh parts that they send out for their B&P site and
the count can be significantly out on the same item. Everyone agrees this is
not an exact science - we are simply exploring other possibilities that may help
to solve or improve on the current system, which, with the best will in the world
is far too generic.
|
Personally, I see too many variables to make this work with the accuracy that
seems to be suggested here. 0.01 gram is a very small amount of material. The
weight could change depending on
- mold design variations, up to minor variations between mold cavities and mold
numbers.
- mold life phase, wear, revisions etc
- factory/production location, the injection moulding machine used and its operating
settings.
- material (CA (old), ABS (solid) or PP (transparent))
- material supplier (BASF, BAYER, BORG-WARNER etc do not have identical material
formulas)
- raw material batch
- material additives, including color
- possibly even temperature or moisture (do bricks absorb that?)
- brick age (wear, additives leaking out, binding materials from the environment)
Some of these have larger contributions than others, but I cannot predict what
their combined effect will be. And I seriously doubt if the effects are constant
over time.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 13:49 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 14 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, brickbrowser writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
There are far greater weight discrepancies / inconsistencies in batches of packaging
materials (even from same supplier), than those attributed to mold or part colour
differences. Furthermore, one weight submitter's scales and measuring technique
probably differs from another's to the extent that the exercise is moot.
I doubt that would ever be an effective use of people's time.
|
You may be right - the only thing is surely we have to start somewhere - as I
said in an earlier reply the current generic system only works because sellers/stores
have been doing this manually
|
For the record - when doing up shipping cost for an order, we have _never_ weighed
the order, we always used BL's supplied weight (unless of course the weight
was not specified). As far as I can recall, we have never had issues with an
order needing more postage than what was indicated by using supplied weights.
As others have indicated as well, adding weights to PPCs is a massive undertaking,
time that would be better and more profitably spent elsewhere.
Niek.
|
We weight every order and totally disregard BL's weight as
it does not make allowances for bags, other packaging materials and of course
the box we use. Strange you don't weigh your orders?
|
Poor choice of words, my bad. I meant - we don't weigh orders before determining
shipping cost. We have a good handle on what fits into where, and that includes
how much weight to add for packing material. We have enough NBPs to make packing-up-and-then-unpacking
a pain in the behind. If we over-estimated shipping, we refund. If we under-estimated,
we eat the diff. Same will happen when auto-checkout will come by.
For us, PPC weights are a non-issue, and (again for us) efforts would be better
spent developing other features.
Niek.
|
Then AFOL's comments about checking MyWeight a PPC weight or defaulting to
the generic weight solve that issue - if the PPC weight were available.
BTW
We work very differently to you. Our parts are picked and prepacked to determine
an accurate shipping cost - we never under or overcharge - no refunds no administration
just simply parcel sent at cost given to buyer. It has worked well for us for
6 years and 4100+ orders - not sure we need to change it. Haven't had an
NPB in all that time - so again that is not an issue for us. I have said this
many times and will keep saying it - if instant checkout can replace a manual
system which doesn't get it wrong - ever - then subject to them sorting out
the Paypal on site payment issue (to do with addresses) we will look at it in
seriousness if not we will stay with what works for us and hasn't let us
down - the old expression applies if it ain't broke don't fix it.
There are huge number of things that are needed on the site - we agree with
that but that all appears to be out of our (The community's) control or influence
- the roadmap has changed a multitude of times - no one knows where the seller
tools are or if we will ever see them - so many other things do need doing -
we agree but we and others do not see this as being the lead weight to bring
it all to a halt it would simply be another enhancement to the BL catalogue.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 13:38 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | […]
There
are well over 1/2 million members of Bricklink now - even if only 20% of them
contributed […]
|
You’re overly optimistic about contribution rate.
I don’t think that there ever were 20% of BLers who contributed, even back when,
even counting one-time contributors.
And for something that will only interest sellers, 0.02% (100 people) seems more
likely. But maybe it would suffice
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 13:36 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, WoutR writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, DadsAFOL writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
Yes, we have manually recorded lot weights on thousands of PCC's over the
years of selling. I would be happy to share that info to seed the database.
From there like everything else here it just gets crowdsourced over time and
wouldn't really be a big deal. Just set up the system with a bit of a waterfall...
if MyWeight exists, use that; if not then if PCC weight exists use that; else
use ItemID weight.
Here's a good example of why this would be helpful:
- Catalog - 0.36
- Black actual - 0.3331 (-7.5%)
- White actual - 0.3425 (-4.9%)
- Trans Clear actual - 0.3836 (+6.5%)
So if someone bought 1000 of these in your store, and you wanted to weigh them
using the catalog weight instead of counting them...
- Your customer would get 1075 black and your inventory would be short 75 for
the next order
- Your customer would get 1049 white and your inventory would be short 49 for
the next order
- Your customer would get 935 trans clear and your inventory would be over 65,
and your customer would be upset asking for a refund or for you to ship the missing
parts.
Same issue applies to postage calculation. Its totally possible that the system
undercharges on postage for the trans clear because 1000 actually weighs 383g,
not 360g like the catalog expects.
|
Thank you for joining this thread and the detail you provided it is helpful for
others to see what a difference the weights can make towards shipping. We would
be happy to share our data with BL as well.
|
The transparent parts are heavier because they are made in a different material.
LEGO often has a different designID for those parts,which BrickLink sees as an
alternative (to keep things simple for buyers and sellers).
I have been studying the small design changes on the 3001 bricks. I have seen
many mold changes that would cause such small changes in weight, and the exact
weight of the raw material might differ from one batch to the next (especially
because LEGO uses several suppliers). Even mold wear adds weight to the parts.
The only correct way to do this would be to assign a tolerance to the weight,
it is an illusion that the part weight is constant in so many decimals.
|
Hardly an illusion based on the data presented, although we agree nothing is
constant with Lego. They weigh parts that they send out for their B&P site and
the count can be significantly out on the same item. Everyone agrees this is
not an exact science - we are simply exploring other possibilities that may help
to solve or improve on the current system, which, with the best will in the world
is far too generic.
|
|
| Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 13:31 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, brickbrowser writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
There are far greater weight discrepancies / inconsistencies in batches of packaging
materials (even from same supplier), than those attributed to mold or part colour
differences. Furthermore, one weight submitter's scales and measuring technique
probably differs from another's to the extent that the exercise is moot.
I doubt that would ever be an effective use of people's time.
|
You may be right - the only thing is surely we have to start somewhere - as I
said in an earlier reply the current generic system only works because sellers/stores
have been doing this manually
|
For the record - when doing up shipping cost for an order, we have _never_ weighed
the order, we always used BL's supplied weight (unless of course the weight
was not specified). As far as I can recall, we have never had issues with an
order needing more postage than what was indicated by using supplied weights.
As others have indicated as well, adding weights to PPCs is a massive undertaking,
time that would be better and more profitably spent elsewhere.
Niek.
|
We weight every order and totally disregard BL's weight as
it does not make allowances for bags, other packaging materials and of course
the box we use. Strange you don't weigh your orders?
|
Poor choice of words, my bad. I meant - we don't weigh orders before determining
shipping cost. We have a good handle on what fits into where, and that includes
how much weight to add for packing material. We have enough NBPs to make packing-up-and-then-unpacking
a pain in the behind. If we over-estimated shipping, we refund. If we under-estimated,
we eat the diff. Same will happen when auto-checkout will come by.
For us, PPC weights are a non-issue, and (again for us) efforts would be better
spent developing other features.
Niek.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 13:11 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, DadsAFOL writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
Yes, we have manually recorded lot weights on thousands of PCC's over the
years of selling. I would be happy to share that info to seed the database.
From there like everything else here it just gets crowdsourced over time and
wouldn't really be a big deal. Just set up the system with a bit of a waterfall...
if MyWeight exists, use that; if not then if PCC weight exists use that; else
use ItemID weight.
Here's a good example of why this would be helpful:
- Catalog - 0.36
- Black actual - 0.3331 (-7.5%)
- White actual - 0.3425 (-4.9%)
- Trans Clear actual - 0.3836 (+6.5%)
So if someone bought 1000 of these in your store, and you wanted to weigh them
using the catalog weight instead of counting them...
- Your customer would get 1075 black and your inventory would be short 75 for
the next order
- Your customer would get 1049 white and your inventory would be short 49 for
the next order
- Your customer would get 935 trans clear and your inventory would be over 65,
and your customer would be upset asking for a refund or for you to ship the missing
parts.
Same issue applies to postage calculation. Its totally possible that the system
undercharges on postage for the trans clear because 1000 actually weighs 383g,
not 360g like the catalog expects.
|
Thank you for joining this thread and the detail you provided it is helpful for
others to see what a difference the weights can make towards shipping. We would
be happy to share our data with BL as well.
|
The transparent parts are heavier because they are made in a different material.
LEGO often has a different designID for those parts,which BrickLink sees as an
alternative (to keep things simple for buyers and sellers).
I have been studying the small design changes on the 3001 bricks. I have seen
many mold changes that would cause such small changes in weight, and the exact
weight of the raw material might differ from one batch to the next (especially
because LEGO uses several suppliers). Even mold wear adds weight to the parts.
The only correct way to do this would be to assign a tolerance to the weight,
it is an illusion that the part weight is constant in so many decimals.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 12:07 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, DadsAFOL writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
Yes, we have manually recorded lot weights on thousands of PCC's over the
years of selling. I would be happy to share that info to seed the database.
From there like everything else here it just gets crowdsourced over time and
wouldn't really be a big deal. Just set up the system with a bit of a waterfall...
if MyWeight exists, use that; if not then if PCC weight exists use that; else
use ItemID weight.
Here's a good example of why this would be helpful:
- Catalog - 0.36
- Black actual - 0.3331 (-7.5%)
- White actual - 0.3425 (-4.9%)
- Trans Clear actual - 0.3836 (+6.5%)
So if someone bought 1000 of these in your store, and you wanted to weigh them
using the catalog weight instead of counting them...
- Your customer would get 1075 black and your inventory would be short 75 for
the next order
- Your customer would get 1049 white and your inventory would be short 49 for
the next order
- Your customer would get 935 trans clear and your inventory would be over 65,
and your customer would be upset asking for a refund or for you to ship the missing
parts.
Same issue applies to postage calculation. Its totally possible that the system
undercharges on postage for the trans clear because 1000 actually weighs 383g,
not 360g like the catalog expects.
|
Thank you for joining this thread and the detail you provided it is helpful for
others to see what a difference the weights can make towards shipping. We would
be happy to share our data with BL as well.
|
|
| Author: | DadsAFOL | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 11:50 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
Yes, we have manually recorded lot weights on thousands of PCC's over the
years of selling. I would be happy to share that info to seed the database.
From there like everything else here it just gets crowdsourced over time and
wouldn't really be a big deal. Just set up the system with a bit of a waterfall...
if MyWeight exists, use that; if not then if PCC weight exists use that; else
use ItemID weight.
Here's a good example of why this would be helpful:
- Catalog - 0.36
- Black actual - 0.3331 (-7.5%)
- White actual - 0.3425 (-4.9%)
- Trans Clear actual - 0.3836 (+6.5%)
So if someone bought 1000 of these in your store, and you wanted to weigh them
using the catalog weight instead of counting them...
- Your customer would get 1075 black and your inventory would be short 75 for
the next order
- Your customer would get 1049 white and your inventory would be short 49 for
the next order
- Your customer would get 935 trans clear and your inventory would be over 65,
and your customer would be upset asking for a refund or for you to ship the missing
parts.
Same issue applies to postage calculation. Its totally possible that the system
undercharges on postage for the trans clear because 1000 actually weighs 383g,
not 360g like the catalog expects.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 11:11 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, brickbrowser writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | Have you looked at the preview site and how it works in comparison with BO? There is almost a deafening silence here about the preview site, which, of course adds to people's
concerns.
|
Not looked again since July, as I'm not aware of any further progress.
My thoughts on issues at that time were in regard to missing dimensions:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1045320
|
Remember that - we voiced our concerns at the time as well, and so did others.
It certainly isn't going to go away - things need to be out in the open about
it - are there dimensions being held somewhere ? Have the converted stud measurements
to mm? Can we see and modify those? Lots and lots of question really but unfortunately
there are not a lot of answers coming out, which is a shame really.
|
|
| Author: | misbi | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 10:48 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | Have you looked at the preview site and how it works in comparison with BO? There is almost a deafening silence here about the preview site, which, of course adds to people's
concerns.
|
Not looked again since July, as I'm not aware of any further progress.
My thoughts on issues at that time were in regard to missing dimensions:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1045320
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 10:30 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, brickbrowser writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
There are far greater weight discrepancies / inconsistencies in batches of packaging
materials (even from same supplier), than those attributed to mold or part colour
differences. Furthermore, one weight submitter's scales and measuring technique
probably differs from another's to the extent that the exercise is moot.
I doubt that would ever be an effective use of people's time.
|
You may be right - the only thing is surely we have to start somewhere - as I
said in an earlier reply the current generic system only works because sellers/stores
have been doing this manually
|
For the record - when doing up shipping cost for an order, we have _never_ weighed
the order, we always used BL's supplied weight (unless of course the weight
was not specified). As far as I can recall, we have never had issues with an
order needing more postage than what was indicated by using supplied weights.
As others have indicated as well, adding weights to PPCs is a massive undertaking,
time that would be better and more profitably spent elsewhere.
Niek.
|
We weight every order and totally disregard BL's weight as
it does not make allowances for bags, other packaging materials and of course
the box we use. Strange you don't weigh your orders? As for the claim about
massive undertaking - so is adding dimensions and how does everyone think the
catalogue got put together in the first place - it just appeared !!!!! There
are well over 1/2 million members of Bricklink now - even if only 20% of them
contributed that reduces the amount of time it would take to get started
populating the relevant fields - The absolute same applies to proper dimensions.
The catalogue wasn't created in a day or a year it is still ongoing and so
would this if it were to be put in place.
|
|
| Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 09:34 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, brickbrowser writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
There are far greater weight discrepancies / inconsistencies in batches of packaging
materials (even from same supplier), than those attributed to mold or part colour
differences. Furthermore, one weight submitter's scales and measuring technique
probably differs from another's to the extent that the exercise is moot.
I doubt that would ever be an effective use of people's time.
|
You may be right - the only thing is surely we have to start somewhere - as I
said in an earlier reply the current generic system only works because sellers/stores
have been doing this manually
|
For the record - when doing up shipping cost for an order, we have _never_ weighed
the order, we always used BL's supplied weight (unless of course the weight
was not specified). As far as I can recall, we have never had issues with an
order needing more postage than what was indicated by using supplied weights.
As others have indicated as well, adding weights to PPCs is a massive undertaking,
time that would be better and more profitably spent elsewhere.
Niek.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 05:37 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, brickbrowser writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | As for the quite common comment that it works on BO so it should work here -
that is a logical statement if all things were equal, but unfortunately they
are not. The stores we have spoken to that are on both sites have tended to tell
us they only ever ship large letter style parcels on BO whereas they do both
parcels and large letters on BL. (I think this may be down to somewhat smaller
orders on BO - but cannot be 100% accurate with that)
|
We sell on BO and it works well enough. If dimensions for a particular part
aren't in the catalogue the system defaults to parcel rate. If it fits large
letter, a refund for difference is easy to send at time of shipping. It's
not a perfect system, but it's worth the minor inconvenience for the benefit
that instant checkout brings and as you said - we have to start somewhere.
I spend more time sending BL reminders to late/non payers on BL than I do sending
refunds to BO customers for overpaid P&P!
|
Interesting - we don't sell on BO but have kept our options open. Have you
looked at the preview site and how it works in comparison with BO? There is almost
a deafening silence here about the preview site, which, of course adds to people's
concerns. If it was all working wonderfully well I am sure we would hear from
those who have the time to test it as well as NL with the 'good new'
but nothing like that at the moment.
We maintain our thoughts that BL needs to at worst add the dimensions capability
to the catalogue (or at least define where it is getting its information from,
and at best allow members to add those dimensions. That doesn't ensure that
it will, work but it gives it a better chance.
In our 6 years as a store we have had a handful of buyers that we had to chase
for payment - it isn't a major issue for us - but we do understand others
position as well. mot sure if we have ever completed an NPB. We may be lucky
with that and of course it can change almost instantly. but that side of it is
not our main concern. Getting the shipping right first time every time, which
is what we do manually, is.
|
|
| Author: | misbi | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 04:46 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | As for the quite common comment that it works on BO so it should work here -
that is a logical statement if all things were equal, but unfortunately they
are not. The stores we have spoken to that are on both sites have tended to tell
us they only ever ship large letter style parcels on BO whereas they do both
parcels and large letters on BL. (I think this may be down to somewhat smaller
orders on BO - but cannot be 100% accurate with that)
|
We sell on BO and it works well enough. If dimensions for a particular part
aren't in the catalogue the system defaults to parcel rate. If it fits large
letter, a refund for difference is easy to send at time of shipping. It's
not a perfect system, but it's worth the minor inconvenience for the benefit
that instant checkout brings and as you said - we have to start somewhere.
I spend more time sending BL reminders to late/non payers on BL than I do sending
refunds to BO customers for overpaid P&P!
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 04:13 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, brickbrowser writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
There are far greater weight discrepancies / inconsistencies in batches of packaging
materials (even from same supplier), than those attributed to mold or part colour
differences. Furthermore, one weight submitter's scales and measuring technique
probably differs from another's to the extent that the exercise is moot.
I doubt that would ever be an effective use of people's time.
|
You may be right - the only thing is surely we have to start somewhere - as I
said in an earlier reply the current generic system only works because sellers/stores
have been doing this manually - it would be nice to know how the instant checkout
is actually going to calculate which box type - and the associated tare it is
going to use - easy enough to set up a different delivery method for your boxes
and have the tare weight associated with that but as you say that can differ
between batches and manufacturers. Large letters come in envelopes as well as
boxes and small parcel boxes have an almost infinite number available in the
UK - all with different tares.
We would like to understand how their calculations are going to work so we can
determine whether it is worthwhile or not. That information is lacking.
As for the quite common comment that it works on BO so it should work here -
that is a logical statement if all things were equal, but unfortunately they
are not. The stores we have spoken to that are on both sites have tended to tell
us they only ever ship large letter style parcels on BO whereas they do both
parcels and large letters on BL. (I think this may be down to somewhat smaller
orders on BO - but cannot be 100% accurate with that)
Ignoring that completely a very thorough and detailed description of how ic is
intended to work on BL would be very helpful for all parties.
|
|
| Author: | misbi | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 03:36 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
There are far greater weight discrepancies / inconsistencies in batches of packaging
materials (even from same supplier), than those attributed to mold or part colour
differences. Furthermore, one weight submitter's scales and measuring technique
probably differs from another's to the extent that the exercise is moot.
I doubt that would ever be an effective use of people's time.
|
|
| Author: | bb414973 | | Posted: | Sep 15, 2017 14:49 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
If it were easy to accomplish then there'd be no reason not to do it, but
it won't be. The other week you claimed you were too busy to try out instant
checkout, yet here you're suggesting work that will require an amazing amount
of time. This means pulling, handling, recording data, re-stocking, submitting
data, etc. It's 10,000s of hours work.
In any case, all post carriers have a tolerance on their weight bands as is required
by the relevant international agreements (this can be verified on upu.int I'm
sure). The primary reason is because very few people/businesses use correctly
calibrated scales. Also, parcels can change in weight over the course of their
journey as they pick up moisture/dirt/dust etc.
Such tolerances will almost always be greater than any weight corrections made
possible by the changes you're suggesting. I accept there will be occasions
where they won't be, but that would have be a really unlucky combination
of parts where a bulk amount of each were ordered and all weighed more than the
BL catalog weight. A perfect storm as it were. I don't think it's unreasonable
to expect sellers encountering such rare events to either bite the bullet on
the price difference, or approach their customer to advise of a greater shipping
charge, or to otherwise think creatively about their packaging materials and
shipping method. The alternative, weighing and recording every single colour
of every single part, just to avoid these perfect storms for those handful of
sellers/buyers encountering them, is over-kill.
Dismissing a person's experience just because it originates from BO does
no-one any good. You aren't better than they are and your opinion carries
no more weight just because you sell on BL alone.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 15, 2017 13:35 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, qwertyboy writes:
| | So how do you suggest BL tackles the weight issues resulting from TLG mold changes?
Niek.
|
There is no one single way of achieving that - Lego themselves haven't resolved
this. The K boxes of parts that get shipped to all the Lego stores differ in
weight for the same part and the same colour. Our suggestion was meant to be
an improvement on what is currently in place as it is far too generic. The reason
it has worked for so long is down to the individual stores and how they handle
orders - they have done the package weights manually and of course that is actual
not calculated. That works - there can be no denial to that. Where a postal system
is based just on weight it is the perfect solution - pick the parts - put them
in a parcel that will hold them weigh it and price it. Ship it - if instant checkout
can do that - then go for it.
Where volume calculations are required then it requires more than just weight
- manually it is easy and most stores who have been around a while will do it
almost instantly. Whether software can do that or not remains to be seen and
please do not refer to the other site for this. BL is not BO and vice versa -
if they were the same, despite the problem being the same - then BL would have
had instant checkout years ago - they aren't and probably never will be.
So the only real solution is doing it manually (AI solution perhaps - I doubt
it but that is feasible).
As not a lot is known about how the preview site is actually doing it is difficult
to comment accurately on where BL is with the feature. There are stores who are
clamouring for it - there are stores who are sitting back and waiting and there
are stores who say - not interested - don't need it. Time will tell - as
and when it gets released.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 15, 2017 13:20 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | | | - In 627 orders processed on the other site, with them having one weight for
each part no, we haven't experienced one single issue. Weight differences
are small, the likelihood of this "screwing up" auto-checkout is minimal, and
if it does make an err, the seller can chalk it up to the cost of doing business.
|
I agree this is not really necessary. It is a huge amount of data to collect
as well especially if the data is meant to be "more" accurate.
A while ago I looked at the weight distribution of 100 of the Krusty torsos:
They are all identical parts, same colour and print, but they vary in weight
slightly (at most in the second decimal place - they were all 1.27+-0.03 g) with
a distribution that is very similar to the distribution of weights of a random
sample of torsos (both printed and unprinted).
If people are then adding "accurate" data based on PCC number, I really hope
they don't get this data by weighing just one part. They should be getting
it from a large number of the same parts with the same PPC, and taking the average.
If I had picked a single torso, I could have claimed the weight was as low as
1.24g, if another as heavy as 1.30g. I made the average for my batch 1.274g,
in the catalogue it is 1.25g.
If I sold 100 of them, I might think it is as low as 124g total or it could be
as high as 130g. The catalogue tells me 125g. That 6g possible difference is
well within the buffer I allow when estimating the weight of packaging, tape,
etc.
It is interesting to compare these torsos:
1.28g 1.30g 1.28g 1.28g 1.27g
They are all orange torso assemblies with (almost same) print and vary only in
the different colour hands. Are the hands really responsible for the variation
in weights? If a hand is 0.09g (I think all colours currently have same weight)
making a pair 0.18g, then the variation of 0.03g in 0.18g seems very large. Whereas
a natural variation within the same colour torsos and arms seems more reasonable.
The weight may well depend on the location of the part in the mold / on the sprue
if multiple parts are molded at once even though all are given the same PPC.
|
A huge amount of data is also required for actual dimensions rather than studs
but none of that is impossible especially when you have a willing and capable
membership the size of Bricklink.
It is a complicated scenario really - no one solution can do it all but we could
do with improving the one we currently have.
Bricklink, we believe do not want to open the catalogue any further - it is their
single most valuable asset, so it is probably unlikely that this suggestion will
get anywhere near implementation. If it causes thought then it will achieve what
it was set out to do. Same part with mould variations but the same PCC as well
as variances on colours and composition (differing amounts of ABS etc all make
this a very, very complex arena.
Perhaps most importantly this does not prevent auto-checkout from working if
and when it comes out of preview and we didn't in any way suggest that, despite
earlier comments. Auto-checkout has already been built and this wasn't in
place - they have used some information from somewhere to determine weight and
volume? Not sure what nor how - that really hasn't been explained but I am
sure it will work for some - maybe not for all just yet, but only time will really
tell.
|
|
| Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Sep 15, 2017 13:14 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| So how do you suggest BL tackles the weight issues resulting from TLG mold changes?
Niek.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Sep 15, 2017 12:42 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | - In 627 orders processed on the other site, with them having one weight for
each part no, we haven't experienced one single issue. Weight differences
are small, the likelihood of this "screwing up" auto-checkout is minimal, and
if it does make an err, the seller can chalk it up to the cost of doing business.
|
I agree this is not really necessary. It is a huge amount of data to collect
as well especially if the data is meant to be "more" accurate.
A while ago I looked at the weight distribution of 100 of the Krusty torsos:
They are all identical parts, same colour and print, but they vary in weight
slightly (at most in the second decimal place - they were all 1.27+-0.03 g) with
a distribution that is very similar to the distribution of weights of a random
sample of torsos (both printed and unprinted).
If people are then adding "accurate" data based on PCC number, I really hope
they don't get this data by weighing just one part. They should be getting
it from a large number of the same parts with the same PPC, and taking the average.
If I had picked a single torso, I could have claimed the weight was as low as
1.24g, if another as heavy as 1.30g. I made the average for my batch 1.274g,
in the catalogue it is 1.25g.
If I sold 100 of them, I might think it is as low as 124g total or it could be
as high as 130g. The catalogue tells me 125g. That 6g possible difference is
well within the buffer I allow when estimating the weight of packaging, tape,
etc.
It is interesting to compare these torsos:
1.28g 1.30g 1.28g 1.28g 1.27g
They are all orange torso assemblies with (almost same) print and vary only in
the different colour hands. Are the hands really responsible for the variation
in weights? If a hand is 0.09g (I think all colours currently have same weight)
making a pair 0.18g, then the variation of 0.03g in 0.18g seems very large. Whereas
a natural variation within the same colour torsos and arms seems more reasonable.
The weight may well depend on the location of the part in the mold / on the sprue
if multiple parts are molded at once even though all are given the same PPC.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 15, 2017 12:23 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
I would vote no, for two reasons:
- In 627 orders processed on the other site, with them having one weight for
each part no, we haven't experienced one single issue. Weight differences
are small, the likelihood of this "screwing up" auto-checkout is minimal, and
if it does make an err, the seller can chalk it up to the cost of doing business.
- TLG is known to have made changes to their molds just to save a few cents
by requiring less ABS. These changes are done to parts that keep the exact same
PPC, and most times BL doesn't differentiate (think hollow versus solid pins
under a 1x4 brick for example). Those weight changes could actually be more significant
than the weight change for different colors. In effect, the weight-per-PPC will
almost always be an approximation, not the 100%-always-correct-weight for a PPC.
In short, I am convinced these weight differences are a non-issue for auto-checkout.
Experience proves this. I am sure others can verify this. Don't make things
more complex than they need to be.
Niek.
|
Thank you for your comment. Your opinion is noted, however I am not convinced
using the other site as a reference point is really relevant. The other site
also has proper dimensions for each part, which BL does not and as far as I can
tell from the brief look at the preview site the implementation here is different
to that over there. We sell lots and lots of bulk orders and a small difference
on an individual part can make a significant difference overall. As far as putting
that down to cost of business we will let you do that - it is of no interest
whatsoever to us. Maintaining margin/profitability is a key factor to a successful
business and taking all steps necessary to prevent additional costs is one small
part of that. With over 4000 order on this site we have no mistakes on postage
costs - once bl's implementation of instant checkout can be shown to provide
that reliability we will consider using it, however it is not of major importance
to us at the moment. There are far more important things to deal with.
|
Sorry I mis-read part of your original post. We are not trying to overly complicate
things - our suggestion, we believe, would help not hinder, and I do not believe
in any way did we say that this would prevent 'screwing up' with instant
checkout. We suggested it would help - not hinder.
As for your opinion, you are, of course entitled to it as we are to ours. You
have been around this site nearly as lone as we have so you will appreciate that
lots of people differ on what is needed, what is important etc. That is the way
life and business goes but it is more than essential to compare apples with apples
not apples and pears. In terms of coding this is a simple change and would take
any programmer less than a day to achieve it and it may, yes may help - it certainly
isn't going to hinder by any stretch of the imagination.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 15, 2017 11:54 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
I would vote no, for two reasons:
- In 627 orders processed on the other site, with them having one weight for
each part no, we haven't experienced one single issue. Weight differences
are small, the likelihood of this "screwing up" auto-checkout is minimal, and
if it does make an err, the seller can chalk it up to the cost of doing business.
- TLG is known to have made changes to their molds just to save a few cents
by requiring less ABS. These changes are done to parts that keep the exact same
PPC, and most times BL doesn't differentiate (think hollow versus solid pins
under a 1x4 brick for example). Those weight changes could actually be more significant
than the weight change for different colors. In effect, the weight-per-PPC will
almost always be an approximation, not the 100%-always-correct-weight for a PPC.
In short, I am convinced these weight differences are a non-issue for auto-checkout.
Experience proves this. I am sure others can verify this. Don't make things
more complex than they need to be.
Niek.
|
Thank you for your comment. Your opinion is noted, however I am not convinced
using the other site as a reference point is really relevant. The other site
also has proper dimensions for each part, which BL does not and as far as I can
tell from the brief look at the preview site the implementation here is different
to that over there. We sell lots and lots of bulk orders and a small difference
on an individual part can make a significant difference overall. As far as putting
that down to cost of business we will let you do that - it is of no interest
whatsoever to us. Maintaining margin/profitability is a key factor to a successful
business and taking all steps necessary to prevent additional costs is one small
part of that. With over 4000 order on this site we have no mistakes on postage
costs - once bl's implementation of instant checkout can be shown to provide
that reliability we will consider using it, however it is not of major importance
to us at the moment. There are far more important things to deal with.
|
|
| Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Sep 15, 2017 11:39 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
I would vote no, for two reasons:
- In 627 orders processed on the other site, with them having one weight for
each part no, we haven't experienced one single issue. Weight differences
are small, the likelihood of this "screwing up" auto-checkout is minimal, and
if it does make an err, the seller can chalk it up to the cost of doing business.
- TLG is known to have made changes to their molds just to save a few cents
by requiring less ABS. These changes are done to parts that keep the exact same
PPC, and most times BL doesn't differentiate (think hollow versus solid pins
under a 1x4 brick for example). Those weight changes could actually be more significant
than the weight change for different colors. In effect, the weight-per-PPC will
almost always be an approximation, not the 100%-always-correct-weight for a PPC.
In short, I am convinced these weight differences are a non-issue for auto-checkout.
Experience proves this. I am sure others can verify this. Don't make things
more complex than they need to be.
Niek.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 15, 2017 10:09 | | Subject: | Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 130 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
|
| Author: | grumpyoldgit | | Posted: | Sep 15, 2017 08:35 | | Subject: | Losing order when changing pages | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Losing order items when changing pages if I forget to 'add to cart' first.
For chumps like me, how about a reminder pop-up, or 'Add to cart' next
to each item?
|
|
| Author: | nlbell | | Posted: | Sep 14, 2017 23:34 | | Subject: | New Format | | Viewed: | 140 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Hello BrickLink Managers,
I know you're working hard but, as for the New Layout.....
Everything I wanted to see at first glance is on that classic front page. I spend
hours a day working on my site and I'm all over that page. I would prefer
not to have to keep changing pages....it just adds to the time I need to work.
The first thing I check is messages either to see them or send them. Then I go
to Catalog to add parts or figures. Later, before end of day all of my orders
are out that can be out. Please don't change it; it's not broken and
in my humble opinion it doesn't need fixing. The old format was an inspiration....at
least to me.
Thank you,
Nancy, Sierra Trade
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Jaclyn | | Posted: | Sep 13, 2017 18:42 | | Subject: | Re: Wanted lists: bring back the lot count | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Hi tEoS,
Thank you for the great suggestion! We will add a "Show Wanted Qty" checkbox
on the Buy page so that users will have the option to view the total quantity
of parts still needed for each of their Wanted Lists. I've heard from the
Dev Team that the addition has already been committed which means that it shouldn't
be too long before it's deployed to the live site.
Thanks again!
-- Jaclyn
BrickLink Customer Support
In Suggestions, tEoS writes:
| | Please "downgrade" from the recent update to the wanted list and give us back
the number of "needed" lots (eg: those where the have field is not fulfilled).
Ideally we should be able to not only see the number of needed lots, but also
the quantity of parts still required for each wanted list.
P.S. If someone were to analyse what functions each feature offers before designing
an upgrade, I'm reasonably confident that there will be less complaints about
missing features.
Measure twice, cut once vs. measure once, cut it too short and have to start
all over.
P.P.S. Tutorials on how to use new features would also help. Maybe info/features
in each upgrade are available that aren't obvious to all of us.
|
|
|
| Author: | tEoS | | Posted: | Sep 13, 2017 16:50 | | Subject: | Wanted lists: bring back the lot count | | Viewed: | 112 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Implemented | |
|
| Please "downgrade" from the recent update to the wanted list and give us back
the number of "needed" lots (eg: those where the have field is not fulfilled).
Ideally we should be able to not only see the number of needed lots, but also
the quantity of parts still required for each wanted list.
P.S. If someone were to analyse what functions each feature offers before designing
an upgrade, I'm reasonably confident that there will be less complaints about
missing features.
Measure twice, cut once vs. measure once, cut it too short and have to start
all over.
P.P.S. Tutorials on how to use new features would also help. Maybe info/features
in each upgrade are available that aren't obvious to all of us.
|
|
| Author: | chetzler | | Posted: | Sep 13, 2017 12:06 | | Subject: | Re: Moderate Forum Posts | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, StormChaser writes:
| | I suggest that members with 2 or less feedback have their forum posts moderated,
meaning that posts must be approved by a moderator before appearing in the forum.
This should resolve the issue of scammers joining BrickLink merely to post spam
in the forum.
|
I still think some sort of filter is the best way to slow this down. If the
member is new (zero-feedback or recent sign-up date), block any posts containing
key words or variants thereof. Better yet, block any posts containing a character
count over some specified number (500-1000), since most of the spam posts seem
to be quite long-winded. This still allows new members to post legitimate questions
unhindered, and established members won't get tripped up by unintentionally
triggering the filter.
Also, when the spammer is logged in, his posts should still show for him so he
doesn't know he's being blocked and won't try to circumvent the filter.
|
|
| Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Sep 13, 2017 11:46 | | Subject: | Re: Moderate Forum Posts | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, StormChaser writes:
| | I suggest that members with 2 or less feedback have their forum posts moderated,
meaning that posts must be approved by a moderator before appearing in the forum.
This should resolve the issue of scammers joining BrickLink merely to post spam
in the forum.
|
Another fantastic idea from StormChaser.
However, I think yorbrick has a point, in that newly signed-up members are often
those that are of need of help. We all know how it is when we’re new to something;
if it’s too troublesome many of us simply give-up on the idea and move on.
I don’t know what the current sign-up rate is, but I believe I read from another
post, it’s fairly high. Which would overly burden the volunteer moderators.
If it were me, I’d feel the need to offer compensation to said moderators, if
I were to ask them to take on the added role.
Maybe an amendment to your idea? Restrict new member's (however "new" can
be determined) posts to the “Help” topic only. At least until a level of activity
is reached by said member. This would restrict spam post somewhat, or at least
keep them confined.
Ryanme, also has a valid point regarding this issue. Why not let the mods use
a demarcation “Deleted” when dealing with such posts?
-IMHO
|
|
| Author: | Killermike | | Posted: | Sep 13, 2017 06:40 | | Subject: | Re: Moderate Forum Posts | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Valid point.
One solution would be to exempt the moderation for new users in the HELP section;
but impose a 1 or 2 msg per hour limit; it would 'throttle' the spammers,
and still allow newer members to post problem issues.
|
|
| Author: | Pippysblocks | | Posted: | Sep 12, 2017 16:55 | | Subject: | Re: Moderate Forum Posts | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Yep, I'm now all for the original suggestion, this is a joke.
In Suggestions, Cob writes:
| | In Suggestions, StormChaser writes:
| | I suggest that members with 2 or less feedback have their forum posts moderated,
meaning that posts must be approved by a moderator before appearing in the forum.
This should resolve the issue of scammers joining BrickLink merely to post spam
in the forum.
|
Round 2 of spam posts just started.
|
|
|
| Author: | Cob | | Posted: | Sep 12, 2017 16:40 | | Subject: | Re: Moderate Forum Posts | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, StormChaser writes:
| | I suggest that members with 2 or less feedback have their forum posts moderated,
meaning that posts must be approved by a moderator before appearing in the forum.
This should resolve the issue of scammers joining BrickLink merely to post spam
in the forum.
|
Round 2 of spam posts just started.
|
|
| Author: | QCBricks | | Posted: | Sep 12, 2017 16:07 | | Subject: | Re: Moderate Forum Posts | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, StormChaser writes:
| | I suggest that members with 2 or less feedback have their forum posts moderated,
meaning that posts must be approved by a moderator before appearing in the forum.
This should resolve the issue of scammers joining BrickLink merely to post spam
in the forum.
|
Not a bad idea, but the bigger issue seems to be to limit the total number of
posts that a new member can make. It isn't the random one off posts, it
is the "post it 50 times" that is the bigger problem of the two.
Scott
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
USA, California
United Kingdom, England
Canada, Ontario
Netherlands, Gelderland
Belgium, Flemish Brabant
Denmark
Germany, Schleswig-Holstein
Poland, w. Śląskie
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
United Kingdom, Scotland
