| Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | BrickCompulsion  | | Posted: | Feb 9, 2020 04:58 | | Subject: | Re: Description standardization note | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I totally support this change
Consistency is key
Maybe search and change all you can find and then put it out there on here for
messages about items missed. That’s if the sql person is on holiday or unavailable
|
 |
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Feb 9, 2020 04:49 | | Subject: | Re: Description Standardization Note | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | It would be good for consistency in the catalog description if all instances
of numbers were either integers or words, not arbitrarily some of each.
|
I have noticed this before and definitely agree it needs to be worked on. The
problem is (and I'm starting to understand the rearranging the chairs thing)
there are too many problems.
In the case of this problem, you can't even find the problem because you
can't search for it. So it would involve examining every single catalog
entry. All 100K+ of them.
And perhaps, when the next problem comes along, examining all of them again.
It almost makes a person think that there must be a better way . .
|
The answer is really quite simple - talk to a SQL person and they will advise
you how to organise your query to find precisely what you want. It isn't
rocket science. .
|
|
| Author: | FreeStorm | | Posted: | Feb 9, 2020 03:59 | | Subject: | Re: Description Standardization Note | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In the case of this problem, you can't even find the problem because you
can't search for it. So it would involve examining every single catalog
entry. All 100K+ of them.
|
What do you want to find?
Something like this?
"* three *" = 153 results
"* 3 *" = 6675 results
"* three *" AND "* 3 *" = 16 results
As example, last search find:
"Technic, Panel Car Spoiler 3 x 8 with Three Holes and Black and Yellow Danger
Stripes and Mud Pattern (Stickers) - Set 7968"
"Primo Brick 1 x 1 with Three Flowers and Number 3 on Opposite Side Pattern"
Of course,I made query to find only for "three" and "3" on same description,
but with a regexp it should be simple to spot every "word digit" with "digit"
on same description like "blah with two legs and 1 arm"
Some other incoherence (digit 3 should be between '' when you have pattern
after):
"*number 3 *pattern*" = 22 result
"*number '3' *pattern*" = 3 result
If you know what you want to find, it should be easy to make a search query,
to spot the majority of incoherence.
-Fred
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 9, 2020 03:29 | | Subject: | Re: Description Standardization Note | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | It would be good for consistency in the catalog description if all instances
of numbers were either integers or words, not arbitrarily some of each.
|
I have noticed this before and definitely agree it needs to be worked on. The
problem is (and I'm starting to understand the rearranging the chairs thing)
there are too many problems.
In the case of this problem, you can't even find the problem because you
can't search for it. So it would involve examining every single catalog
entry. All 100K+ of them.
And perhaps, when the next problem comes along, examining all of them again.
It almost makes a person think that there must be a better way . . .
|
|
| Author: | hpoort | | Posted: | Feb 9, 2020 03:00 | | Subject: | Re: Description standardization note | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | It would be good for consistency in the catalog description if all instances
of numbers were either integers or words, not arbitrarily some of each.
So:
Three eyeballs, Three earlobes
or
3 eyeballs, 3 earlobes
not
Three eyeballs, 3 earlobes
...that kind of thing.
There are pros and cons for each option. Please investigate how the search mechanism
works to see which option yields better results.
|
Unfortunately, single digits are thrown out of many of the search results. But
I think in general one would find more numerals in item names than the words
spelled out simply because it makes the name shorter.
|
Please drop the keyword exclusion altogether.
It does not make sense to make use of a full text English language keyword exclusion
list, when the contents of the database is actually not normal full text English,
but a specific dialect: Bricklink English (EN-BL) in which it makes more sense
to search for keywords like 'with' and 'without' and for single
digits. It should be easy to adjust the database configuration. No programming
involved.
Hans-Peter
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2020 22:49 | | Subject: | Re: Description standardization note | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Unfortunately, single digits are thrown out of many of the search results.
|
Aren't you the fella to talk to to get that changed, Mister Site Manager?
| | But I think in general one would find more numerals in item names than the words
spelled out simply because it makes the name shorter.
|
While that is undoubtedly true, it's not particularly helpful in any way.
If you search, say, legs assemblies...
search for "three" you get two results
search for "3" you get: The following keywords were excluded from your search:
3
...however there are 13 entries containing "3"
Isn't the point of StormBluser's standardization plan to fix this stuff?
To paraphrase the StormBluser: why name something like this when 75% of the search
words are invalid?
Again, I'll make the point you need to distinguish between identification
and discovery. The identification of a thing is irrelevant if it can't be
discovered. People use the search box to find things, they don't browse 180,000
individual items looking for "3". Hope you get my drift.
Aren't you the number one proponent of making the catalog useful? Let's
figure out a way to make it useful.
|
|
| Author: | Leftoverbricks | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2020 22:24 | | Subject: | Re: Sticker # When adding Items | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, OmnipresentECA writes:
| | I have come across a few tiles with stickers that are not in the catalog.
, nor in their set inventory.
How do I go about determining the Sticker # when Adding to the catalog.
For example one is a 87079pb###, how do I determine the last few digits?
|
Search for 87079pb*
You will get 725 results. The next ‘free’ number should be 726.
|
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2020 21:08 | | Subject: | Description standardization note | | Viewed: | 168 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| It would be good for consistency in the catalog description if all instances
of numbers were either integers or words, not arbitrarily some of each.
So:
Three eyeballs, Three earlobes
or
3 eyeballs, 3 earlobes
not
Three eyeballs, 3 earlobes
...that kind of thing.
There are pros and cons for each option. Please investigate how the search mechanism
works to see which option yields better results.
|
|
| Author: | OmnipresentECA | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2020 15:30 | | Subject: | Sticker # When adding Items | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| I have come across a few tiles with stickers that are not in the catalog.
, nor in their set inventory.
How do I go about determining the Sticker # when Adding to the catalog.
For example one is a 87079pb###, how do I determine the last few digits?
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
|
United Kingdom, England
Switzerland, Vaud
USA, Oklahoma
Netherlands, Groningen
