| Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | Emporiosa  | | Posted: | Nov 13, 2020 08:28 | | Subject: | Re: Minifigue Complete Build Inconsistencies? | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| Poor Oscar, he must feel naked! I was so surprised when I saw the original marked
for deletion and the new one, but understood why it was done. Although thankfully
if they do keep the newer listing to keep consistency, most buyers are savvy
enough to know to go and look for the trashcan apart (or I also assume we will
see a lot of the Oscar listings including a bonus trashcan accessory to cover
the poor guy up).
In Inventories, axaday writes:
| | I have sympathy with you and the admins are discussing all of this right now
and I believe you will get some of what you are asking for.
I added the non-can Oscar. Two admins pointed out the rule that every part of
a minifig has to attach together. The trash can is flat inside and cannot attach
to Oscar. He only stays in by gravity.
In Inventories, infinibrix writes:
| | Whilst I’m sure we all understand and appreciate that minifigs have to be listed
as per the instructions and whilst for the most part this might be a good guideline
to follow can we not also try and gauge what we feel the majority of the community
would consider more fitting as a complete minifigure along with what might be
considered unnecessary as part of a complete minifigure?
For instance we have Oscar the Grouch in his trash can marked for deletion??
To be replaced with this:-
I’m not sure anyone would consider the newer entry complete for instance would
anyone actually display the Oscar minifig without the trash can either way the
instructions point to the parts being arrow directed down into the trash can
anyway?
Then compared with these minifigs that have non-essential accessories:-
The yoda has a part only useful with the actual build and if you want Jay In
his kimono outfit you have to specifically purchase him with the multiple part
jet pack whilst the other ninja characters in matching outfits are sold standalone
as should be the same for all?
I’m then confused further as we have Ghostbusters characters in the catalog with
and without their proton packs so are they supposed to be fully accessorised,
barebone or a mix of both, which is it?
To be honest I like the two options given for the Ghostbusters minifigs and whilst
the majority of minifgs should only have one entry I think it would make sense
to have two entries for certain minifigs like the Jay without jetpack and other
minifigs like this one with an option to buy with and without a backpack:-
|
|
|
 |
| Author: | Emporiosa | | Posted: | Nov 8, 2020 10:20 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9641-1 | | Viewed: | 17 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, Turez writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, Emporiosa writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 5102c24 Blue Hose, Pneumatic 4mm D. 24L / 19.2cm (Extra)
Comments from Submitter:
Parted out 7 of the set, none come with an extra of this pneumatic hose.
|
Earlier copies of this set had the extra hoses. See set unboxing (from 2008)
at https://brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=357433
|
Good to know, thanks! I'm not sure what the standard is for BrickLink for
parts that may or may not exist over time (if they're kept in the official
inventory as extras or not or just have a note added).
|
|
| Author: | Emporiosa | | Posted: | Nov 7, 2020 19:37 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 9641-1 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 5102c24 Blue Hose, Pneumatic 4mm D. 24L / 19.2cm (Extra)
Comments from Submitter:
Parted out 7 of the set, none come with an extra of this pneumatic hose.
|
| Author: | Emporiosa | | Posted: | Oct 5, 2020 16:37 | | Subject: | Re: Please approve set 40426 Christmas Wreath | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Emporiosa writes:
| | The catalogue entry was created on Sept 17th but has a note that it is released
October 1st. May it please be approved so I may submit inventory? Thank-you!
|
|
Thanks Russell! 
|
| Author: | Emporiosa | | Posted: | Oct 5, 2020 15:11 | | Subject: | Please approve set 40426 Christmas Wreath | | Viewed: | 93 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| The catalogue entry was created on Sept 17th but has a note that it is released
October 1st. May it please be approved so I may submit inventory? Thank-you!
|
|
| Author: | Emporiosa | | Posted: | Sep 24, 2020 16:15 | | Subject: | Re: Allow only complete animal listings | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, BrickBuy writes:
| | Similar to the "minifigs must be complete in order to list under minifig listing",
this should be extended to animals as well.
An elephant without ears should be listed as a custom item or broken down.
Likewise, a basilisk without teeth is not a basilisk, but a custom assembly of
part.
(discuss?)
Paul
|
Have to agree. I'm a bit on the fence as to whether or not an incomplete
option for figs should exist, but assuming that's not even a discussion,
and because of the decision made for the minifigures (or rather, it is more clearly
described now in the terms), then other kinds of assemblies like animals should
follow suit.
|
|
| Author: | Emporiosa | | Posted: | Aug 3, 2020 12:45 | | Subject: | Re: Prevent repeat offenders from re-registering | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | Thank you for responding.
I agree that scoundrels can always find a roundabout way to re-register but that
doesn't mean we should make it easy on them as the current system allows.
I'm sorry that you also had to experience this, a few other sellers have
complained about this issue in the past.
Best wishes,
Thanks again.
|
Ironically, they're back again! And they found a new address to use, but
same name (and the address is in the same city so possibly a friend/family member).
I only turned off IC last week domestically. Didn't take them long. Put in
the ticket and now to wait for this account to get shut down before cancelling
the order.
|
|
| Author: | Emporiosa | | Posted: | Jul 27, 2020 13:07 | | Subject: | Re: Prevent repeat offenders from re-registering | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Heartbricker writes:
| | We've seen people who have opened up to 5 accounts because they have burned
out previous accounts by being repeat NPB offenders. We report those accounts
it takes a while and they get merged and the offender just opens another account,
completes the orders that suit him and NPBs the others.
As it stands right now, a repeat offender can re-register a new buyer account
with THE SAME MAILING ADDRESS, SAME NAME AND SAME IP ADDRESS.
All you need is a new email address.
This makes it very easy for a buyer to place orders in stores that have banned
him.
The suggestion we're making is to somehow cross reference new accounts with
banned accounts other info (currently BL only cross reference email address and
no other info.)
Such as mailing addresses.
We understand that someone can use a friend or neighbor's mailing address;
it's still more cumbersome for that buyer than just keep the same address
as they can right now.
The current system makes it just too easy for someone to open multiple accounts
with no obstacles.
I'm sure sellers don't want buyers to block their inventory for 10 days
(course of npb process) and i'm sure that buyers wouldn't want inventory
blocked from their favorite stores as they will have to spend more to ship from
multiple sellers.
|
+1
Had one constantly do this last year. Same name/address everytime. I know users
can easily get around the IP ban, but it's a good preventative measure at
least to do a temp ban on that IP, and a perm ban on the name/address combination
(or even just the address so they don't start making up names to circumvent
the ban).
|
|
| Author: | Emporiosa | | Posted: | Jul 6, 2020 08:30 | | Subject: | Re: Please stop pre-selecting shipping methods | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | At one point on BL people would regularly build their order over time adding
parts here and there. This is fine as long as I know so I do not send and resend
invoices (which at times created buyer confusion and paying of an old incorrect
invoice amount) each and every time not knowing what the intentions of the buyer
were. I created a method called "Hold for additions" to accommodate this and
it helped those types of orders.At a point BL resorted how my shipping methods
get displayed putting the "Hold for additions" at the top of the list (Default)
which about 75% of buyers do actually change to what they desire. Many do not
change it and wonder why I have not invoiced them, claim I am slow to invoice.
I only know what I am told. I did change the length of time I automatically invoice
if I do not hear from them from 7 to 3 days.
|
This is exactly why I had to remove the Hold Open option; so many people started
selecting as soon as I had it enabled. After a few in a row I started messaging
and asking them if they were already complete after the first pass, and they
all were. I had to disable it.
Same thing for the "free" local pickup. Previously, I had that as an option and
so many selected it (likely the first pre-selected option) as soon as I turned
it on. But for almost every one of them I had to invoice with shipping as they
were not local. Right now, I was able to re-enable it but it's safely at
the bottom of the list. If we had control over the order of the shipping methods,
it would be much appreciated. Maybe it already exists and I'm unaware, but
I couldn't figure out how to enforce it.
|
|
| Author: | Emporiosa | | Posted: | Jun 14, 2020 07:03 | | Subject: | Re: Feature Request | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, axaday writes:
| | Now and then (today for me) it would be handy to be able to merge two orders
from the same customer. I'm going to be sending two separate invoices to
be paid because it seems to be the most proper way to do it in this case. It
would be nice to just merge them.
|
+1 And to add to that (and I think you may have been referring to this scenario
too), it would be nice that there is an order combine option (as seen on another
site) for IC orders, or any order that has been already paid. Ever since expanding
IC, it's just been order after order of buyers reaching out asking if they
can somehow add to their original order without paying shipping twice via IC.
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
|
Canada, Ontario
