| Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | bb1054204  | | Posted: | Jun 20, 2018 00:15 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6279-1 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, poluteyourjorts writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 4265a Light Gray Technic Bush 1/2 Toothed Type I (match ID 1)
* Add 1 Part 4265b Light Gray Technic Bush 1/2 Toothed Type II (match ID 1)
Comments from Submitter:
4265a replaced with 4265b as per original instructions.
|
Some strange changes were made to this set.
Set originally inventoried with "a" type then in 2010 "a" type changed to "b"
type in regular section. In 2012 "a" type return but as an alternate. Finally
in 2013 in regular section "b" type changed to "a" but "a" left in alternate
So now we have "a" in both regular and alternate section. 
Unfortunately, any discussion about these changes remain.
And here we go again, this mess have to be straighten
Can somebody shed some light on this matter?
Marek
|
It seems the change was already made but here is further evidence, if it helps.
I've attached a photo of the 1995 instructions I came across that shows the
valid part. Let me know if you need anything else. Thanks.
|
|
 |
| Author: | bb1054204 | | Posted: | Jun 20, 2018 00:04 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6279-1 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | I don't find the connection between the reliability of the username with
the reason Marek gave (below):
|
Speaking of usernames, I find it interesting that a zero feedback user who recently
signed up is submitting a complicated change request for obscure technical details
and then not bothering to comment on it.
|
Valid point, however I am a real person who just started inventorying classic
80s and 90s sets and came across this issue. I have the original instructions
booklet from a 1995 set that shows the valid part.
|
|
| Author: | Stoick | | Posted: | Jun 19, 2018 22:39 | | Subject: | Wanted list colors | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| When adding an item to my wanted list, I typically want it in 5 colors. As it
is, I have to add the item in each color or select 'no-applicable' which
means when I check a store I get a rainbow of the item which slows my search.
When I add an item it should just let me select boxes for the desired colors.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jun 19, 2018 20:09 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6279-1 | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location:  USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
 |
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Inventories Requests, WoutR writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, WoutR writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Are you sure based on what? Based on the other two sets?
Based on the way Storm-chaser treats this type of cases, you should ONLY accept
any of these variations if there is an evidence: sealed set or an owner who has
kept the set with original parts.
All my inventories supported with any other type of evidence (including instructions)
have been rejected.
I don't think it is correct to have various procedures depending on which
admin check the request.
|
Our system on BrickLink is based on the reliability of the username.
|
Could we please rephrase that to:
"The system on BrickLink is evidence based. When in doubt the judgement can be
based on the reliability of the username."
I think that is what you mean to say. The way it was written could be interpreted
with a completely different meaning.
|
Before there is evidence, there must be a reliable deliverer of that evidence.
In any court of law, testimonies are given about the nature of the evidence as
to where and when it was found. If the testimonies can't be believed, than
neither can the evidence.
That having been said, it is very helpful and important that contributors document
their presentations as thoroughly as possible. So I'm not saying evidence
is not necessary. But the BrickLink catalog relies principally on a large group
of contributors who have built up their reputation on the site to the point where
their submissions can be trusted.
|
Any new user can submit new information to the catalog. If there is enough evidence,
the submission is accepted. At that time, the contributor does not have a reputation
yet. The submission is a first step in building that.
Our large group of contributors have gained their reputation of being reliable
because they have shown consistent and careful evidence-based work. That reputation
has to be based on something more than just a large number of catalog change
requests.
|
Of course, new users have to start somewhere, and we extend to each one a certain
token amount of goodwill. And their work gets checked extra carefully.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jun 19, 2018 19:50 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6279-1 | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, WoutR writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Are you sure based on what? Based on the other two sets?
Based on the way Storm-chaser treats this type of cases, you should ONLY accept
any of these variations if there is an evidence: sealed set or an owner who has
kept the set with original parts.
All my inventories supported with any other type of evidence (including instructions)
have been rejected.
I don't think it is correct to have various procedures depending on which
admin check the request.
|
Our system on BrickLink is based on the reliability of the username.
|
Could we please rephrase that to:
"The system on BrickLink is evidence based. When in doubt the judgement can be
based on the reliability of the username."
I think that is what you mean to say. The way it was written could be interpreted
with a completely different meaning.
|
Before there is evidence, there must be a reliable deliverer of that evidence.
In any court of law, testimonies are given about the nature of the evidence as
to where and when it was found. If the testimonies can't be believed, than
neither can the evidence.
That having been said, it is very helpful and important that contributors document
their presentations as thoroughly as possible. So I'm not saying evidence
is not necessary. But the BrickLink catalog relies principally on a large group
of contributors who have built up their reputation on the site to the point where
their submissions can be trusted.
|
Any new user can submit new information to the catalog. If there is enough evidence,
the submission is accepted. At that time, the contributor does not have a reputation
yet. The submission is a first step in building that.
Our large group of contributors have gained their reputation of being reliable
because they have shown consistent and careful evidence-based work. That reputation
has to be based on something more than just a large number of catalog change
requests.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
|
Canada, Alberta
Netherlands, Zuid-Holland