Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | StormChaser  | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2020 12:57 | | Subject: | Re: Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, Legolibrarian2 writes:
| | This may be in response to a new law that took effect in California this month.
It has to do with personal information in an online environment. BL headquarters
is in California, so I guess they have to abide by the law.
|
No, from what I can tell by reading a summary of that law it would not be applicable
in this situation.
The following is not directed to you, but to several readers who really don't
seem to get it. I understand getting it and disagreeing, but some people really
aren't getting it.
So: there is a somewhat recent trend in society of erasing people from history.
A number of different reasons are used to justify this. In this instance, privacy
appears to have been the reason. Obviously I disagree with that trend.
BrickLink assigns each person a unique identifying number upon sign-up. This
is necessary for their database of members. Now it has reduced certain users
to that number, even though the vast majority (probably all) of them did not
request it.
I will present a couple of situations that may be somewhat analogous depending
on perspective.
Imagine a graveyard where the company that owns the graveyard has assigned each
gravesite a number. One day the company goes through and erases the name from
every headstone (or most of them) and replaces those names with the numbers they
have assigned to the plots. The reasons why they did so are irrelevant - it
should be obvious that this is not a wise decision on the part of the company.
Here's another: imagine that someone comes up with a numbering system for
authors and assigns every author throughout history a unique identifying number.
Then, one day, they have the power and ability to replace each author's
name with a number in all records kept by humans. So they do it.
And then we have Hamlet by Author_291763. Moby Dick by Author_9182772. 1984
by Author_3177634. I could continue, of course.
mfav makes the point that these contributors didn't contribute much and it
was a long time ago. He's saying that it therefore doesn't matter how
we treat them. Using the analogy above, then, if an author hasn't contributed
much to the collective human store of literature, then it's okay to erase
them. But Shakespeare, much as he desired anonymity, won't get it because
he contributed too much.
Of course, the logical response is that catalog contributions are not works of
art. That is fair, but they are still effort someone put forth with the understanding
and promise that they would receive perpetual credit for the volunteer work they
did. BrickLink has broken that promise and there is no way to justify that.
A username is not (and correct me if I'm wrong) PII.
It amazes me that I'm putting so much effort into explaining the effects
of erasing history. I think I may know the reason: nearly everyone alive today
grew up in cultures where everything is disposable. It is a logical extension
to see humans in the same way. I'm arguing against that way of looking at
the past. I'm arguing for treating people with the respect they deserve
and keeping promises. I'm arguing against erasure.
|
 |
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2020 12:07 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 75022-1 | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, teraith writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 2 Part 64802 Dark Bluish Gray Minifigure, Jet Pack with Nozzles
Comments from Submitter:
The deathwatch command have them as per the instructions.
|
Those items are already included in the inventory of the set. They exist in
the sub-inventories of these figures:
If you click on the Break Minifigs link at the top of the inventory page
the jet packs will be shown in the complete inventory.
The packs, by the way, are pearl dark gray, not dark bluish gray.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2020 03:31 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 70731-1 | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Minifig njo184s Jay (Deepstone Armor) - Possession, Lightning Pack with Yellow Danger Stripes and Gold Lightning Reactor Pattern (Sticker) (Counterpart)
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2020 13:41 | | Subject: | Re: Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, MidwestBrick writes:
| | In the long-run, why does it matter?
|
You make a fine argument. And if we were all to agree with it, then this page
should be removed from BrickLink altogether (which you clearly support):
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogMembers.asp
But to answer your question, I'll give you one way in which it actually does
matter. Catalog and inventory administrators sometimes have to make judgments
about the reliability of information that members submit. Contributors build
a reputation based on the quality of work they've done in the past.
Looking back on past work done to know how reliable it should be considered,
it actually does mean something to be able to identify a user and not just see
that one the blusers did it.
| | This literally sounds like an employee of mine that needs to know for every task they do that we all know they did it. After awhile, it doesn't hold any merit and I really don't care. The task was completed and we can move on.
|
Yeah, but if you truly believed that, then you would refer to all your employees
by a number. You would say things like, "Employee Number 3827, go assist Employees
Number 99234 and 439 with the task they're working on."
But you don't. Because people have names and you treat them like people,
not cogs in your machine.
At least I hope you do.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2020 13:28 | | Subject: | Re: Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, Andrsv writes:
| | It is probably related to privacy laws. If someone deletes their account it is
for a reason, and many want their info removed. This is a guess based on related
issues on other places.
|
This was done wholesale for a large number of users at the same time and thus
was likely NOT based on privacy laws. The likelihood that hundreds of thousands
of users simultaneously requested that their information be removed is remarkably
low.
The Help Center states:
If you have done any of the following, then that information and your user
profile cannot be deleted but all other information attached to your user profile
will be deleted:
•Placed or received at least 1 order
•Changed your username or a profile was merged into your username
•Added at least 1 item to the catalog
•Added at least 1 image small or large to the catalog
•Added at least 1 inventory of an item to the catalog
•Added at least 1 relationship to the catalog
•Added at least 1 link to the links section
•Added at least 1 inventory change request to the catalog
•Added weight, dimensions or color code for at least 1 item in the catalog
•Are an inventories verifier and verified at least 1 inventory
•Sent any messages to other members through the contact form
•Posted a message in our discussion forum and it is still there
•Moved a discussion forum post and the message is still there
•Are currently or have been before banned from Chat
I assume BrickLink decided that sentence in bold meant that the username was
part of the information that should be removed.
I get privacy laws and removing information attached to profiles, but taking
the username is what I have a problem with. I don't see any reason whatsoever
why it was necessary to go that far.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2020 13:20 | | Subject: | Re: Question about flags (parts 4495a and 4495b) | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, WilliamRaine writes:
| | would it be correct to submit a change request for the flags . . . since it appears that way in the instructions
|
No, part variant change requests should be based on actual sets contents and
not set instructions. Ideally, of course.
Set instructions don't always match set contents and inventories are intended
to represent actual set contents. A change request would need to be made based
on what was found in a brand new set.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2020 13:06 | | Subject: | Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 276 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| I can't help myself from returning to this topic.
It is not right to erase people who have contributed to the catalog and turn
them into a meaningless number (and a username that rhymes with "loser.").
The first attached image shows people who have contributed a set inventory to
the catalog. For each person it was only one inventory, but it was time they
took out of their day or week to make a contribution.
The second image shows people who have added items to the catalog. One person
added 113 items. Another added 97 items. Yet another added 87 items. And so
on down the list.
Some of these unregistered users are no doubt dead. Some have moved on to new
pursuits. Some may be in a coma or in prison. Who knows why any one person
hasn't logged on or may never log on again?
BrickLink wants contributions. BrickLink wants an involved community. But when
BrickLink treats former contributors so dismissively, by erasing them into meaninglessness,
it makes me think they have no respect for contributors.
BrickLink contributors deserve better treatment than this. Anonymizing people
who have contributed to the catalog was a poor decision. It was a careless and
heartless decision.
I urge the site to reconsider the decision to anonymize any former catalog and
inventory contributors.
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2020 11:49 | | Subject: | Re: Question about flags (parts 4495a and 4495b) | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, WilliamRaine writes:
| | I am replacing a few parts on set 7038-1 Troll Assault Wagon and noticed the
two flags included are listed as different variants....the dark blue is lefted
as "wave left" and the pearl gold as "wave right"
My set has the opposite style flags, and the instructions clearly show both flags
as the "wave left" variant.
|
If you scroll all the way to the bottom of the inventory page:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemInv.asp?S=7038-1
you will see the following sentence:
View a log of completed changes made to this inventory.
Clicking there will display the history of changes made to this set's inventory.
| | Is this a mistake in the inventory, or did the set
really come with both flags pointing in different directions?
|
According to BrickLink's timeline the flag change happened roughly around
2008, which is the year this set was released. So it's quite possible that
some 7038-1 sets came with left flags, some came with right flags, and some came
with both.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 23, 2020 00:12 | | Subject: | Re: Attack of the Blusers | | Viewed: | 90 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Many historic accounts, such as major contributors or Dan's own personal
account were intentionally untouched by the process.
|
Thank you for sharing.
I was wondering why Swanberg's account retained the name. Since major contributors
will not be turned into blusers at some point, then I feel much better about
the whole thing.
I don't want to be a bluser. 
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 22, 2020 16:31 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6524-1 | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, Redrobboe writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 3705 Black Technic, Axle 4
* Add 2 Part 3749 Black Technic, Axle Pin without Friction Ridges Lengthwise
Comments from Submitter:
change gives a more stable axle arrangement for rear wheels, Not clear on instructions as to what item to use for an axle.
|
What source are you using to request these changes?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 22, 2020 14:22 | | Subject: | Re: Attack of the Blusers | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | Yes, it’s just part of the anonymisation of unregistered users. (GDPR)
|
I should have read this first. This is the likely explanation of what has occurred.
Now I'm wondering if there is a way I can prevent my account from being
made anonymous in the event that I am unable to temporarily or permanently log
into my account.
And I think it is unfortunate that a good thing (the fight for privacy) has resulted
in a bad thing (erasing people if they're absent long enough).
Have I mentioned that it would be nice if BrickLink communicated with us?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 22, 2020 14:08 | | Subject: | Re: Attack of the Blusers | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | Can you remove the underscore instead?
|
Yes.
Now I am who BrickLink sees me as.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 22, 2020 14:02 | | Subject: | Re: Attack of the Blusers | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, StormChaser writes:
| | I'd rather be remembered as StormChaser, not BLUSER_13161.
|
Well, I thought I'd get a head start on them and exercise some choice in
the matter. Unfortunately, they were smarter than I thought and have prohibited
me from changing my username.
It will be changed someday, but only when I have no say-so in the matter. Ah,
they think of everything. Except some of the things that matter.
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 22, 2020 13:53 | | Subject: | Re: Attack of the Blusers | | Viewed: | 84 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | bluser numbers assigned already
but just happen to be known by our chosen usernames instead.
|
Yes, your bluser number can be seen by going to your Account Info page. The
second bit of information there is titled User ID. That's your bluser number.
Someday in the distant future, when we're all dead, they'll eject us
from the system and make us blusers, too. Not too fond of the idea, as I'd
rather be remembered as StormChaser, not BLUSER_13161.
Doesn't matter what I want, though.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 22, 2020 13:50 | | Subject: | Re: Attack of the Blusers | | Viewed: | 81 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, dcarmine writes:
| | I noticed this user name a few weeks ago. I wondered what is going on because
the users have some feedback but is no longer registered.
Can you share what you learned?
|
Recently there was a secret clearing-out of old BrickLink accounts, presumably
related to the site sale to TLG. No information was released, but members noticed
that the number of registered users suddenly dropped dramatically.
The criteria for removing accounts was not shared, but I assume it was based
on the last time a member logged into the site. So perhaps if a member had not
logged in for five years, for example, their account was deleted (or, if not
deleted, somehow removed from the list of registered users).
Around the same time I noticed these Bluser accounts as contributors. I didn't
connect the two events until today when I looked at the contributions page for
inventories and figured out what was going on. The site needed to maintain credit
for catalog work completed, but with accounts deleted/disabled there was no username
to credit.
Note that this page, last updated in 2010, claims that accounts cannot be deleted
if certain conditions have been met. Some of those conditions are contributing
to the catalog:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=129
So certain accounts were renamed, although it doesn't look like they were
deleted. Not sure why they needed to be renamed, since this was all done (as
usual) in secret.
Here's what the Bluser accounts mean:
BLUSER_40105 = BrickLink USER ID 40105
All of the above is pure speculation, but it is based on reasonably solid logic.
Hope it helps.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 22, 2020 11:52 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6543-1 | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, Turez writes:
| | your "extra" cap should be a regular part.
|
I agree. This extra cap should be removed and the count of the existing cap
should be changed from 1 to 2.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 22, 2020 11:35 | | Subject: | Re: Overview of sets wiating for approval -- ?? | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, dearlydeparted writes:
| | Wow, that is a long list - folks who invested on definitely losing out on orders.
|
And yet, strangely, I still don't see your username anywhere on this list:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogMembers.asp?viewAll=S
I don't say that to be rude. But if work is not getting done at the speed
you'd prefer, then perhaps it may be time to pitch in and give a hand to
those of us who do perform the work.
I've only inventoried one 2020 set:
but I have another 2020 inventory completed and pending approval.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 22, 2020 11:10 | | Subject: | Re: Overview of sets wiating for approval -- ?? | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, Leftoverbricks writes:
| | However, is there is also a page that contains information about sets that are
reserved?
|
Yes:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?invRes=Y
You can find this from the main catalog page by clicking on Set Inventories
under Helpful Guides on the right side of the page. Then look under the
How Can I Contribute column on the left to find the page linked to above.
| | @Admin_Russell: can you help / clearify?
And please un-reserve the above mentioned set for me.
|
To save him the trouble of mentioning it, I'll tell you that the set you
reserved will automatically be unreserved after three days if you do nothing.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 21, 2020 00:48 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Gear 5005237 | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory: [G=5005237]
* Delete 1 Gear 36970 Dark Purple Ring (undetermined Inside Diameter)
* Delete 1 Gear 36970 Medium Azure Ring (undetermined Inside Diameter)
* Add 1 Gear 36970a Medium Azure Ring, 14mm Inside Diameter
* Add 1 Gear 36970b Dark Purple Ring, 16mm Inside Diameter
Comments from Submitter:
From sealed set contents. Rings measured.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 20, 2020 14:57 | | Subject: | Re: Keyword Exclusions | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | If you search for those keywords with "all items", then all words are used. If
you search in "catalog items", most get excluded. There is some difference there.
I still don't know what the two searches actually do that is different. Except
find the no pants guy.
Of course if you know he is called that then a search for "where are my pants"
in quotes finds him as a single keyword.
|
In Catalog, Cob writes:
| | If you use the search at the top of the page the results are correct.
|
Thank you both for your assistance. You would have thought I'd have understood
searching better after being around so long. 
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 20, 2020 14:37 | | Subject: | Keyword Exclusions | | Viewed: | 89 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| I feel like Bill in that I find myself making observations and then posting them
in the forum whilst saying, "Hmmmm." This is my Bill moment.
I just searched for the Where Are My Pants person from The LEGO Movie. The system
excluded 75% of my keywords. So . . . what's the point of titling this character
this way if 75% of the title is useless?
Wouldn't it be better to simply title him "Pants Guy" and leave it at that?
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 19, 2020 17:26 | | Subject: | Re: bb0007 Differences | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | So then perhaps my original surmise was correct and this should not be in the
catalog:
|
Correction: this is the one that should not be in the catalog and should be merged
with the part above:
[P=bb0007pb01]
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 19, 2020 17:21 | | Subject: | Re: bb0007 Differences | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, FreeStorm writes:
| | Yes it look like the picture blue motor is missing the glued 2.4 part.
We can see the 2x4 glued plate on the set picture
The inventory of this set do not have black 2x4 plate.
|
So then perhaps my original surmise was correct and this should not be in the
catalog:
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 19, 2020 16:49 | | Subject: | Re: bb0007 Differences | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, FreeStorm writes:
| | If we have a mistake, it need to be for the black version of motors that should
be moved from one to the other.
|
Ah, I see what you're saying. The photo of bb0007pb01 in black should be
moved to bb0007c01pb02. Yes, that would make sense. I see that the blue photo
of bb0007pb01 does not show the 2 x 4 plate.
Part bb0007pb01 is unquestionably an assembly, BTW, and should be numbered bb0007c**pb01.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 19, 2020 16:23 | | Subject: | Re: 31023 Dimensions | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | So the part just needs a title change.
|
Correction: after checking measurements it needed a dimensions change. So I
submitted that instead.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 19, 2020 16:05 | | Subject: | Re: 31023 Dimensions | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| |
The title says 1 x 4 x 4, but the stud dimensions are 1 x 4 x 5. Can someone
who has this part verify the correct dimensions?
|
|
Much obliged, Stellar!
So the part just needs a title change. I'll submit that. Thanks again!
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 19, 2020 15:57 | | Subject: | Re: bb0007 Differences | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, FreeStorm writes:
I believe it's just a duplicate catalog entry that should be merged. But,
of course, I'd like to make sure before requesting that merge.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 19, 2020 15:24 | | Subject: | Re: bb0007 Differences | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, FreeStorm writes:
| | For me , the difference on the black "2x4 plate" on the motor
|
Okay, but the other motor has a black 2 x 4 plate also, doesn't it?
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 19, 2020 13:45 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 41188-1 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, Odur writes:
| | OK, got it. Didn't know it varied between regions. I'll not make that
mistake again. Thanks for the information.
|
You're welcome! Don't feel too bad . . . people make these change requests
fairly regularly.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 19, 2020 12:00 | | Subject: | bb0007 Differences | | Viewed: | 107 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| What are the differences in these parts? The images seem to me to show exactly
the same parts in different colours.
[P=bb0007pb01]
Am I missing something or are the images for the second part wrong?
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 19, 2020 10:02 | | Subject: | 31023 Dimensions | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
|
The title says 1 x 4 x 4, but the stud dimensions are 1 x 4 x 5. Can someone
who has this part verify the correct dimensions?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 19, 2020 09:38 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 41188-1 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, Odur writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* | | 41188-1 (Inv) Breakout from the Goblin King's Fortress
681 Parts, 4 Minifigures, 2017
Sets: Elves |
* Delete 1 Part 27965 Pearl Gold Hose, Flexible 22L with 2 Connector Ends (Zipline) (Extra)
Comments from Submitter:
Inventory from a new sealed set
|
Please read:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=248863
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 19, 2020 09:36 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 41188-1 | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, Odur writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* | | 41188-1 (Inv) Breakout from the Goblin King's Fortress
681 Parts, 4 Minifigures, 2017
Sets: Elves |
* Delete 1 Part 27965 Pearl Gold Hose, Flexible 22L with 2 Connector Ends (Zipline) (Extra)
Comments from Submitter:
Inventory from a new sealed set
|
Extra parts vary by region. Just because your set did not include this extra
doesn't mean that it did not appear in sets from other regions.
.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 19, 2020 03:00 | | Subject: | Re: 7662 MTT Reddish-Brown 4460a Slope | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Proprietor writes:
| | Member Teos verified that inventory from a closed set, so I would trust it as
100% accurate.
|
But that verification was done in '08. The part in question was not split
into two different catalogue entries until '11. So the verification could
not be expected to encompass this part variant.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 18, 2020 03:23 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 70922-1 | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, mickandyp writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 3038 Black Slope 45 2 x 3 (Counterpart)
Comments from Submitter:
Slope with sticker 9 from Set 70922
|
First you need to add the part with a sticker to the catalog. You may do that
here:
https://www.bricklink.com/wantedCatalog.asp
Then you need to add an image. You may do that here:
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogImageAdd.page
Once the new part has been approved, then you can submit an inventory change
request to add it to the set's inventory.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 16, 2020 17:59 | | Subject: | Re: Element 6286835 wrong colour | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Compare other sites that use data from TLG to BrickLink inventories and ask yourself:
is that really what you want?
Because It's not something I want. Be careful what you ask for.
|
I should have been clearer here. In fact, I was clearer, but BrickLink kindly
removed a large portion of what I said with an error message and I didn't
feel like retyping it.
The point is that inventories should not be automated solely with data from TLG
and it sounds like that's what you want. You need a human to actually open
the box and see what's inside to have a quality inventory. You need people
to generate the data that TLG does not include in their parts lists.
If you're dreaming that all inventories will be immediately complete on the
day sets are released, then you're dreaming of a system that produces inventories
that I don't think you'd care for.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 16, 2020 17:52 | | Subject: | Re: Element 6286835 wrong colour | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Drudatz writes:
| | well now that BL belongs to TLG such things should be automated by pulling the
partlists directly from the source now, shouldnt it? ^^
|
Compare other sites that use data from TLG to BrickLink inventories and ask yourself:
is that really what you want?
Because It's not something I want. Be careful what you ask for.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 15, 2020 21:40 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9152-1 | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 4375 Blackish-Green Duplo Tree Post - Thin Leaves
* Change {2,820 to 13} Part Red-Gold 666 Duplo Tile, Modified 34 x 144 x 9/10 (Thick) with 4 Elephant Tusks
* Change {1 to 1} Part Yellow 4066 Duplo, Brick 1 x 2 x 2 without Bottom Tube
|
Changes based on incomplete parts list recently discovered. Photo 1 and Photo
2 attached.
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 15, 2020 21:34 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 9152-1 | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 4375 Black Duplo Sign Post Short - Thin Base
* Change {2 to 1} Part Red 6413 Duplo Tile, Modified 2 x 4 x 1/2 (Thick) with 4 Center Studs
* Change {10 to 11} Part Yellow 4066 Duplo, Brick 1 x 2 x 2 without Bottom Tube
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 15, 2020 12:00 | | Subject: | Re: Sticker Over Assembly Inventories | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| Thank you for taking the time to reply.
In Inventories, randyf writes:
| | How do you stop a seller from just
selling a couple of bricks as a stickered Brick Assembly when the inventory shows
they are in the right even though the sticker is the most important part of the
stickered Brick Assembly?
|
I assumed this would come up, so I prepared a response. First, there will always
be sellers who abuse whatever systems are in place. I think it's fair to
say those sellers are very much in the minority. Most sellers, I would hope,
want to do right by buyers - so most sellers are going to sell what the catalog
entry intends.
Second, this argument could be made for many other catalog entries and inventories.
Yet we still continue to have catalog entries and inventories, trusting that
sellers will do right by buyers. I'm not convinced that the catalog and
its inventories should be structured with bad actors as our primary focus.
| | (1) part inventories can't have alternates in them, (2) if there are changes to the main set inventories, the assembly inventories in the set may have to be separately maintained, (3) proliferation of notes on items, etc.
|
Those are better arguments and I can understand the logic behind them. So maybe
stickered assembly inventories would be too much work to keep up with. I don't
have strong feelings either way.
Just an idea for discussion.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 14, 2020 23:32 | | Subject: | Re: Sticker Over Assembly Inventories | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Inventories, StormChaser writes:
| | Some of these titles are ridiculous
|
And I see now that a few items have no part inventories at all in their titles:
* | | BA001pb02 Stickered Assembly 3 x 2 x 1 2/3 with Exxon Tank Number 1 on Both Sides Pattern (Stickers) - Set 6375-2 - 2 Plate 2 x 3, 1 Brick 1 x 2, 1 Brick 1 x 3, 1 Brick, Modified 1 x 1 with Headlight
Parts: Stickered Assembly |
* | | BA082pb02 Stickered Assembly 3 x 2 x 1 2/3 with Exxon Tank Number 2 on Both Sides Pattern (Stickers) - Set 6375-2 - 2 Plate 2 x 3, 1 Brick 1 x 2, 1 Brick 1 x 3, 1 Brick, Modified 1 x 1 with Headlight
Parts: Stickered Assembly |
* | | BA001pb01 Stickered Assembly 3 x 2 x 1 2/3 with Shell Tank Number 1 Pattern (Sticker) - Set 6610 - 2 Plate 2 x 3, 1 Brick 1 x 2, 1 Brick 1 x 3, 1 Brick, Modified 1 x 1 with Headlight
Parts: Stickered Assembly
Marked for Deletion |
So, the usual inconsistencies unabashedly present themselves.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 14, 2020 22:46 | | Subject: | Re: Multipacks as one inventory item? | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, chetzler writes:
| | I know it was discussed as some point but I can't
find much in the forum.
|
Here is an informative thread regarding this issue:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=246062&nID=1120706
Multipacks have been on BrickLink for over a decade:
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 14, 2020 21:30 | | Subject: | Sticker Over Assembly Inventories | | Viewed: | 69 times | | Topic: | Inventories | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Randy and Paul,
Have you ever considered allowing inventories for parts in the Sticker over Assembly
category? Some of these titles are ridiculous and the only reason they have
to be like that is because someone long ago decided that these parts shouldn't
have inventories.
* | | BA067pb01 Stickered Assembly 4 x 2 x 1 with Classic Fire Logo Pattern on Both Sides (Stickers) - Set 590 & 374-1 - 1 Plate 1 x 4, 2 Plate 1 x 1, 1 Plate 2 x 2, 1 Plate, Modified 1 x 4 with Tow Ball Socket, Long, 2 Slots
Parts: Stickered Assembly |
There's only a single good reason that I know of not to inventory the parts:
because individual stickers don't have catalog entries and thus cannot be
included in the inventories.
I wonder if that's reason enough, though. I'm thinking it's not.
Am I missing another reason not to inventory them?
What do you (and anyone else) think?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 14, 2020 10:48 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 76103-1 | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, mickandyp writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 3010 Black Brick 1 x 4 (Counterpart)
Comments from Submitter:
Brick 1 x 4 with White upside down Triangle Pattern (Sticker) - Set 76103. Sticker #2
|
First you need to add the part with a sticker to the catalog. You may do that
here:
https://www.bricklink.com/wantedCatalog.asp
Then you need to add an image. You may do that here:
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogImageAdd.page
Once the new part has been approved, then you can submit an inventory change
request to add it to the set's inventory.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 13, 2020 12:08 | | Subject: | Re: Pattern 1. Pattern 2. | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | I have a masterful command of the English language (no Polish sadly) and I have
no idea how to describe those blue ones where someone who was looking for them
would find them.
|
For those particular parts, a difference that could be identified in the titles
would be:
Triangle Facing Model Left
Triangle Facing Model Right
For the two Technic liftarms the actual warnings displayed on the stickers could
be described in the title.
For the modified tiles, the images are too small to even see clearly. So the
difference between those particular parts would need to be determined by looking
at the sticker sheets.
But the point is that we should all try to move away from this pattern 1/pattern
2 practice whenever possible. And I'm sure that if someone looks back through
stuff I've added that I've done it, too.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 13, 2020 11:49 | | Subject: | Re: Pattern 1. Pattern 2. | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | These are added by me, I've named them so I have to say as non native english
speaker I have no idea how to describe them properly in english. This is the
barrier I cannot pass.
They both have almost identical pattern just those geometrical spots are just
in other places on both parts but are the same in shapes.
|
Sorry, Marek, I wasn't picking on you or anyone else and I hope I didn't
make it appear that way. I understand language barriers.
The problem with pattern 1/pattern 2 parts is that it's difficult to even
locate them by searching. One has to scan through entire parts categories to
even find pattern 1/pattern 2 titles.
Perhaps this could be made into a community project of locating and retitling
these kinds of parts with slightly more descriptive titles.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 13, 2020 11:34 | | Subject: | Pattern 1. Pattern 2. | | Viewed: | 164 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| There seems to be an increasing trend of identifying patterned parts by simply
calling them Pattern 1 and Pattern 2. Here are three random examples of recent
parts, but I could go on for a while.
I would caution against this practice of non-descriptively titling items. In
fact, I was hoping the site would move away from things like this, not more toward.
Although I suppose we could greatly simplify all titles by simply going the Mini
Upper Part "No. 1470" route that TLG uses.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2020 15:27 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 60153-1 | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, Odur writes:
| | * Delete 1 Part (Extra)
* Delete 1 Part (Extra)
Comments from Submitter:
Inventory from a new sealed set
|
Have you checked all new sealed sets to verify that these extra parts never came
in any of them?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2020 12:57 | | Subject: | Re: Set 75248 Inventory Awareness | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:
| | The parts list determines whether a part is extra or not, and not the building instructions.
|
In this recent set, yes:
In this recent set, no:
So there is an inconsistent approach.
Nevertheless, we need the ability to display and use inventories in different
ways based on the needs of the person viewing that inventory. You don't
think so, because you want inventories to be structured in the specific way that
you feel is best for users of the site.
Why not just agree with me that inventories can do more than the system currently
allows and join me in the push for customizable inventories?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2020 10:48 | | Subject: | Re: Set 75248 Inventory Awareness | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:
| | Bricklink set inventories are not based on the building instructions at all.
|
That is absolutely false. From BrickLink guidelines for what should be included
in the Regular Items section of an inventory:
"Parts required to build the main model and any secondary models plus
any other parts on the official parts list. In the absence of an official parts
list, the official parts count, the instructions, and/or images on the packaging
are used to determine as closely as possible the contents of this section."
In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:
| | The printed parts list is the only thing that matters.
|
That is absolutely false. From the Standards for Inventorying a Set section,
which explicitly states that the source of an inventory should be a physical
copy of a set:
"You should have a physical copy of the set you are inventorying to properly
identify the parts and colors. When this is not possible for old or rare sets,
then it is acceptable to use the instructions, set picture, or parts list (sometimes
printed on the box or in the instructions) to complete the inventory."
I hope the following sentence clears the confusion:
BrickLink inventories are based on what actually came in the box or bag.
Parts lists have errors. Set photos have errors. Building instructions have
errors. You like the idea of simple, straightforward, commonsense guidelines,
Don. Well, the sentence in bold text above is as simple and as sensible as you
can possibly get and you should applaud this if you stand behind your principles.
I understand and have participated in the debate about how to best represent
what came in the box or bag, but saying that BrickLink bases inventories on the
parts list only and that inventories are not based on the building instructions
at all is spreading misinformation.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2020 02:35 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 60178-1 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, TuffyJCW writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 6239 Black Tail Shuttle (Counterpart)
Comments from Submitter:
There is no entry in inventory for the 6239 Tail Decorated with sticker #2 and #6.
|
First you must add the items to the catalog here:
https://www.bricklink.com/wantedCatalog.asp
Then add images here:
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogImageAdd.page
Once the new items are approved, then you may add them to the inventory of this
set.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2020 12:03 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6274-1 | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | This policy has removed historical information from the site (the information
about which parts are needed to build the set according to the instructions)
|
So you believe that a set inventory should contain only the parts required to
construct the set per instructions and anything else included in the box should
be considered an extra? I'm not asking to argue, but just to understand
your position.
And how does your vision align with that significant fraction of sets which included
no building instructions? How would we address those sets without rules and
exceptions, to which you're mildly allergic?
If the site has removed certain information, such as what is required to build
the set, it has added other information: exactly what comes in a new box.
Again with the horses, it is possible to have an inventory both ways. Just needs
additional inventory functionality that doesn't rely so heavily on "sections."
And yes, I'm aware that you disagree with that. But since we've trotted
out our horses, I'm gonna abuse mine a little, too.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2020 11:04 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6274-1 | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Since we cannot add it to the regular section, I guess we can still have it in
the counterpart section.
|
The definition of counterparts:
Counterparts - Parts which are either assembled from or permanently
changed from parts in the Regular Items section during the process of building
a set according to the instructions. Examples include parts with stickers applied
and cut pneumatic hoses. In the absence of instructions, exceptions may be made.
Refer to Additional Information About Counterparts for further details.
Parts on sprues are addressed in the Additional Information About Regular Items
section here:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1562
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2020 13:10 | | Subject: | Re: Element 6286835 wrong colour | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Drudatz writes:
| | (sadly BL is the worst side speed wise when it comes to adding inventories...)
|
If you were tasked with identifying a reason for this, keeping in mind the source
of BrickLink inventories, from where would you discover that the problem originates?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 15:04 | | Subject: | Re: Analysts Are People, Too | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Problem, mfav writes:
Fair enough. You're most likely right.
In an ideal world the catalog would be rebuilt as necessary and the database
would be relational in the ways you've advocated. The catalog and its inventories
would then be managed by people with education in an appropriate field (such
as information science).
And all of this is moot anyway, because none of us have any idea what TLG's
plans for the site are. I rather doubt we'll be consulted about or informed
of any major decisions that are made regarding the site.
Therefore, all of us would be wise to take your advice and not get involved in
these kinds of discussions until we see what is to come.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 13:21 | | Subject: | Re: Official Lego Part Codes vs Bricklink Codes? | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | Does anyone share a similar view or am I alone here?
|
I share a similar view. We need to get rid of those old part numbers carried
over years ago from other sites.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 11:08 | | Subject: | Re: Analysts Ruin Everything | | Viewed: | 72 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Problem, bje writes:
| | I really hope you are not offended by this, but with the greatest of respect,
you yourself walked away from this very idea that it should be a community thing.
|
It's difficult to offend me, so do not trouble yourself in that regard.
My position on this is commonly misunderstood. I believe I came close to explaining
it well two years ago:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1066807
I'm not against volunteerism. I'm against working for free for a for-profit
company on something for which they then claim complete ownership.
Again, it's like going to a major chain supermarket and putting in eight
hours a week stocking shelves for free. It's nonsensical unless you just
enjoy the feeling of being used. But there is a vast difference between that
and volunteering for Wikipedia, which is a non-profit.
I did not walk away from the idea that it should be a community thing.
I walked away from the idea that the work should be a community thing
and the profit and ownership should belong to those who weren't doing
the work.
I walked away from being used and my philosophy is very simple: either pay me
for the work I do or give me some ownership in the work I'm doing.
| | Analysts are paid to do a job
|
Yeah. Maybe I should be gentler with them. I just have a fondness for getting
things done within, say, a given decade.
| | I think every project you had in place to start, has been on hold for all of the time you've not been here.
|
I noticed that and I confess some disappointment.
| | And those were to a large extent also cosmetic
|
Possibly so. I was working on things that could be worked on within the limited
scope of my position. Obviously I couldn't force the site to implement new
functionality.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2020 10:19 | | Subject: | Re: Analysts Ruin Everything | | Viewed: | 94 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Problem, calsbricks writes:
| | The catalogue is a different animal and needs a huge amount of thought.
|
| | Lets get behind hiring some senior analysts
|
I refuse to get behind, in front of, beside, over, or under this in any way until
someone can demonstrate that we, as a community, are incapable of catalog construction
and maintenance.
For 20 years the community has managed the catalog without the help of senior
or junior or any other kinds of analysts. We haven't done things perfectly,
but we have the potential to do much better with member involvement and the support
of management.
|
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 5, 2020 13:28 | | Subject: | Re: Part number 4494 in black | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, mfav writes:
Ha! You have made me smile with this one.
Without getting into another long, drawn-out debate, I presented a different
viewpoint two weeks ago in this post:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1171710
I enjoyed seeing the horse disassembled in your comic. I'd never seen one
disassembled before. So yeah, for purely educational reasons it is interesting
to take stuff apart. And I think it would be nice to have pictures of disassembled
assemblies as additional images for catalog entries. But as far as creating
additional catalog entries, I think some common sense has to come into the picture
somewhere.
I've never read a comic book in my life, but I grew up reading comic strips
in newspapers and thus have a certain affection for comic strips. They're
like short stories as opposed to the novels that are comic books. I don't
do novels, either, by the way.
So I always enjoy reading your comics and hope you plan to continue them for
a long, long time. I know you probably don't get much feedback on them,
but this is the lot of the artist. For every comment you get I'm sure many
more people read and enjoy them.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2020 01:27 | | Subject: | Re: Description change for 94886c01? | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, sircueball writes:
| | Should I post this somewhere else to request this?
|
I just now submitted a request to change the title of this part. I requested
that the title be changed from:
Duplo Cannon Shooting with Axle Hole and Red Firing Button and Medium Blue
Base
to:
Duplo Cannon Shooting with Axle Hole and Red Firing Button and Matching Color
Base
I hope you will find this so ridiculously helpful that you click the "Subscribe"
button and the "Like" button and fund my Kickstarter and follow me on Facebook,
Twitter, Flickr, Myspace, LinkedIn, Instagram, Snapchat, Pinterest, YouTube,
Tumblr, and the other 28 social networking sites I attend online. Because it
shows you care.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 2, 2020 22:59 | | Subject: | Re: New 2020 Colors | | Viewed: | 74 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:
| | Here's the list with the color codes added
|
Thank you for doing that!
I was going to do it originally, but I figured it would be confusing to have
a list of parts with no images. But I did want to see them listed that way,
so what you did was perfect. Now we have two lists - one with images of the
parts themselves and one which will show the parts in the new colors when images
are added.
I appreciate it.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 2, 2020 22:47 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9748-1 | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, geebeewojo writes:
| | this was a new set, bought it new when it came out
|
Extra parts are rarely removed from inventories. The extra part was apparently
present in the initial inventory and this was later confirmed by a person who
later became a longtime inventories administrator for the site.
Extra parts sometimes vary by region. Even though your new set didn't include
this extra part, that doesn't mean that every set didn't include it.
Don't be too surprised if this request is not approved.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 2, 2020 17:34 | | Subject: | New 2020 Colors | | Viewed: | 433 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| This is not a comprehensive list. As always, it would be most helpful if BrickLink
included an easy way to see these.
New appearances in dark turquoise:
* | | 18923c01 Vehicle, Base 8 x 16 x 2 1/2 with Mudguards Raised, 4 x 14 Recessed Center with 3 Holes, and Dark Bluish Gray Wheels Holders
Parts: Vehicle, Base |
New appearances in black:
New appearances in white:
New appearances in pearl dark gray:
New appearances in dark bluish gray:
New appearances in light bluish gray:
New appearances in tan:
* | | 32828 Bar 1L with 1 x 1 Round Plate with Hollow Stud
Parts: Bar |
New appearances in reddish brown:
* | | 476 Bar 12L with Open Stud, Tow Ball, and Slit (Boat Mast)
Parts: Bar |
New appearances in red:
New appearances in blue:
New appearances in yellow:
New appearances in orange:
* | | 21459 Minifigure, Weapon Sword, Shamshir/Katana (Square Guard) with Capped Pommel and Holes in Crossguard and Blade
Parts: Minifigure, Weapon |
New appearances in green:
* | | 44665 Cockpit 4 x 10 x 4 with 3 Holes on Bottom and 2 Pin Holes on Sides
Parts: Cockpit |
* | | 15254 Arch 1 x 6 x 2 - Medium Thick Top without Reinforced Underside
Parts: Arch |
New appearances in lime:
New appearances in pearl gold:
New appearances in bright light yellow:
New appearances in bright light orange:
* | | 14137 Hinge Plate 1 x 8 with Angled Side Extensions, Squared Plate Underside
Parts: Hinge |
New appearances in bright light blue:
New appearances in bright green:
New appearances in bright pink:
New appearances in dark pink:
New appearances in dark orange:
New appearances in dark blue:
New appearances in dark red:
New appearances in dark azure:
* | | 11208 Wheel 14mm D. x 9.9mm with Center Groove, Fake Bolts and 6 Double Spokes
Parts: Wheel |
* | | 55982 Wheel 18mm D. x 14mm with Axle Hole, Fake Bolts and Shallow Spokes
Parts: Wheel |
New appearances in dark green:
New appearances in dark tan:
New appearances in dark purple:
New appearances in dark brown:
New appearances in magenta:
* | | 13269 Wedge 6 x 4 Cutout (Train Roof) with 5 Large Bottom Tubes
Parts: Wedge |
New appearances in light aqua:
* | | 95347 Support 2 x 2 x 10 Girder Triangular Vertical - Type 4 - 3 Posts, 3 Sections
Parts: Support |
New appearances in lavender:
New appearances in medium lavender:
New appearances in medium dark flesh:
New appearances in medium azure:
New appearances in coral:
New appearances in trans-neon orange:
[P=35252]
I got tired of sorting colors, so here are the rest:
This is now in trans-neon green:
* | | 41125 Technic Circular Saw Blade with Pin Hole and Six Teeth (Large Shuriken Throwing Star)
Parts: Technic |
This is now in trans-light blue:
This is now in glitter trans-light blue:
This is now in trans-dark pink:
This is now in trans-orange:
This is now in metallic gold:
This is now in sand green:
This is now in violet:
This is now in yellowish green:
This is now in flat silver:
Finally, if you missed these, here are some entirely new parts:
[P=bb1115]
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 2, 2020 11:44 | | Subject: | Re: Part Variants | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Admin_Russell writes:
Could you explain this term in more detail? I'm genuinely not sure what
it means. I've gone back through and reread all the forum posts where it
is used and I'm still not sure of the definition.
| | the fewest possible entries
|
| | eliminate some variants that don't really need to be distinguished by the majority
of buyers and sellers.
|
Fair enough. I always thought there must be some way to structure the catalog/site
so that all variants could be distinguished without affecting commercial interests.
I still feel like that would be the best possible outcome. It would allow the
site to serve all users equally.
But I understand that some variants really are unimportant and I see the chaos
that variants have on inventories. And I haven't heard anyone propose a
solution that would work well. I'm not sure that one exists.
But if we are going to make a distinction (and the site already does) between
important and unimportant variants, it would probably be helpful to clearly define
that distinction in writing so that everyone knows where the line is drawn.
| | give a fixed, reasonable length of time for sellers to
deal with undetermined entries in their stores, instead of waiting until all
items have sold out.
|
Yeah, maintaining hundreds of Marked for Deletion items for years is not the
best policy.
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 31, 2019 13:57 | | Subject: | Re: hope for the new year | | Viewed: | 120 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, calsbricks writes:
| | BYW - why would I want to sign up to the experts ..... system.
|
Yeah, I think that program (and BrickLink does love a good program) is somewhat
misunderstood at this point.
Russell said in a forum post:
"Just to be clear, all admins are inactive until the new Community Experts
Program is put in place. This does NOT mean they will be inactive in the near
future."
The Community Expert (or Experts, as it has also been identified) Program was
also explained in the Next Steps announcement thread as follows:
"We plan to introduce a new program for our volunteers called the Community
Expert Program. This will recognize and provide support for everyone who contributes
time and effort to make BrickLink truly useful for our community. More details
in early 2020."
It's somewhat clear from both posts that this program is intended for people
who volunteer in some form for the site, which nearly certainly means the volunteer
people on this page:
https://www.bricklink.com/memberAdmins.asp
Considering the fact that the volunteers are being moved to a "program," a person
could make certain deductions about what that could mean for those volunteers.
I believe what has confused people is this sentence:
"This will recognize and provide support for everyone who contributes time
and effort to make BrickLink truly useful for our community."
It's a slippery sentence laden with business-speak that can be read in a
number of different ways and, as I say, has lead to the kind of confusion seen
here:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1170123
and here:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1172044
and here:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1172086
and more. Of course, the rollout of the program not corresponding chronologically
with the furtive removal of volunteer administrative duties made things more
confusing.
My takeaway is that there has been some communication, which we should all applaud.
It may not have been easily-understood or comprehensive communication, but at
least it happened.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 31, 2019 13:30 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9748-1 | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, geebeewojo writes:
| | * Delete 1 Part 78c08 White Hose, Ribbed 7mm D. 8L (Extra)
|
| | Just cleaned and checked this set, book shows one of these items, I didn't find an extra one.
|
The extra one would have been included in a brand new set, but probably not in
a used set like you have. The instructions book never shows extra parts, at
least so far as I am aware.
Please take a moment to read how BrickLink defines extra parts:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1562
| | I am getting ready to put this up for sale, with extra pieces included, and just want to verify if this is an extra item, so I can list it with or without this item.
|
You are not required to include extra parts with used sets. In fact, I imagine
that most people don't include them. The Extras section is intended for
use when parting out brand new sets - that section makes it easier to sell everything
that came in the box.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 31, 2019 13:22 | | Subject: | Re: hope for the new year | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, mfav writes:
I liked this comic. It was both timely and funny. I clicked the "Like" button
on that website and this one.
As for communication: it really does matter.
As for hope: it brought me back. I hope it doesn't let me down.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 31, 2019 00:26 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9353-1 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | I think they may have been manually deleted in a debate about whether or not
they were the instructions.
|
They were just added to the BrickLink catalog today. I don't think they
were ever in the catalog in the past.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 30, 2019 22:51 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 9353-1 | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Book 9353b02 Set 9353 Activity Card 1 (120249)
* Add 1 Book 9353b03 Set 9353 Activity Card 2 (120249)
* Add 1 Book 9353b04 Set 9353 Activity Card 3 (120249)
* Add 1 Book 9353b05 Set 9353 Activity Card 4 (120249)
Comments from Submitter:
I made these requests. That may seem obvious. I mean, I guess it is obvious. So obvious that there is no point in even mentioning it.
Note to self: delete this comment prior to submitting these requests.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 30, 2019 03:17 | | Subject: | Re: Define This Item | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jbroman writes:
| | Technically, it’s an antenna tipped with a rangefinder.
So how about we label it as just that “antenna/rangefinder”
|
Sure, sounds decent enough. I'll submit the title change requests.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 30, 2019 03:07 | | Subject: | Define This Item | | Viewed: | 133 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Is this thing a rangefinder or a helmet antenna?
Some consider it a rangefinder:
Some consider it a helmet antenna:
I have no interest in Star Wars whatsoever, but I do have an interest in consistent
titling of catalog entries. So which is it?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 28, 2019 21:33 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 8143-1 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, d66n writes:
| | It is my opinion that this should be removed and would be interested to know if you agreed.
|
I do not agree. The set contents have been verified by three different members
since the extra part was added. All three verifications were done from sealed
set contents.
| | I would not expect Lego to supply a spare technic part of such a size
|
What about this as a spare part?
I found that as a spare in this set:
Removal of the extra 2 x 16 plate was attempted unsuccessfully:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1061609
Although large extra parts are unusual, they do happen.
| | I did not have this part as a spare in my sealed box
|
Extra parts vary by location. Sets packaged in one location may include them,
while sets packaged in another location may not include them. For that reason,
extras are rarely removed from inventories.
In the case of this set, I would not expect the request to be approved.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 27, 2019 18:57 | | Subject: | Re: Please approve | | Viewed: | 79 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, legoman77 writes:
| | I had a feeling that it would start and now it has. First the catalog and then
who knows what. For the optimists out there, this is not going to be good.
|
It was rather obvious from the pending approval backlog that something was going
on. However, I'm fairly confident that it's nothing bad. Just a transition.
A little more communication from the start might have been rather helpful in
this situation. But perhaps such communication was affected by an NDA . . .
I hear they're magical in that way.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 27, 2019 05:23 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | What evidence is there that the doors and windows came assembled in the package?
|
Just for the sake of being informative, note that in set 6166 these parts did
not come assembled. Sealed bag photo attached. You can see that the windows
came in a separate bag altogether and the door is clearly not attached to the
yellow door frame.
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 27, 2019 05:05 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1670-1 | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | Will attach that image to request for preservation.
|
I have also attached an image of a MOC I made a little over a year ago. Because
that's what LEGO cities need . . . more police. 
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 27, 2019 04:31 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 1670-1 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 4133 Yellow Window 2 x 4 x 3 Pane
* Delete 1 Part 4131 Yellow Door 1 x 4 x 5
* Delete 1 Part 4132 Red Window 2 x 4 x 3 Frame
* Delete 1 Part 4130 Red Door Frame 2 x 4 x 5
* Change 1 Part Red 4130c03 Door Frame 2 x 4 x 5 with Yellow Door 1 x 4 x 5 (4130 / 4131) {Counterpart to Regular}
* Change 1 Part Red 4132c02 Window 2 x 4 x 3 Frame with Yellow Window 2 x 4 x 3 Pane (4132 / 4133) {Counterpart to Regular}
Comments from Submitter:
Per BrickLink image of set box front and side of box showing inventory. Will attach that image to request for preservation.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 26, 2019 22:46 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | Minifig inventories support assembled part entries. Every hips/legs combo and
torso/arms torso, for example. It's not a functionality issue.
|
I am aware that figure inventories may contain assemblies. I was speaking about
the functionality of inventories when they interact with other features like
wanted lists and set part-outs. There was a good explanation of this posted
some time ago in the forum, but I cannot now locate it.
| | At any rate, I wonder what would/will happen should we start applying the rules
to minifig inventories.
|
Nothing would happen because figure inventories would not change. What would
change is how sets are inventoried. Figure parts would be included in the set
inventory and figures themselves would be essentially counterparts like all other
assemblies.
| | I suspect if we
start changing minifig inventories people will squawk.
|
I confess that I have never heard a human squawk. I would be interested in experiencing
this sonic delight.
Figure inventories are very rarely changed for a number of reasons. Those reasons
don't derive much from the noises people utter, but instead the reasons they
produce those sounds. If a figure inventory needs to be changed, the standard
practice is to mark that catalog entry for deletion and create a new catalog
entry which is given a correct inventory.
| | That may be the reason
it has not been tackled yet, or why an exception is being made.
|
No, I don't think so. There was a great fear in the past of disturbing the
masses, which is one of the reasons why known catalog/inventory problems were
not addressed. I believe the philosophy is somewhat different now, or is at
least changing as time goes by.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 26, 2019 20:00 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | If we're in the business of applying current policies retroactively to old
sets, someone should start fixing these minifig inventories.
|
Right now nearly all inventories are incorrect when it comes to figures. The
figures should be reflected in inventories as they came. However, they are not
shown that way currently because of a lack of functionality in the inventories
system.
Again, I believe that additional inventory functionality would solve some things.
I'm willing to admit the possibility that I'm wrong, though.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 26, 2019 16:17 | | Subject: | Re: missing 7026 on window catalog page | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WildBricks writes:
| | I kept going round and around not being able to identify a part earlier today
when I realized it isn't showing up on the catalog page at all. All the
variations are there, but not the original.
|
It's a quirk of part titles. The parts are titled differently, which causes
7206 to appear 16 parts lower than the variants. Further standardizing the titles
for windows in a way that caused similar windows to be grouped immediately together
would solve this problem.
The part is there, just down two rows (see attached picture - penultimate row
at the far right).
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 26, 2019 12:55 | | Subject: | Re: Part 41747 Sand Green | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | That's because it only came in this set:
Back in '02 and '03 you could pick those sets up quite inexpensively
on clearance at major retailers in the US.
|
Correction: because it only came in that set and because the value has been inflated
by either (a) someone trying to corner the market, or (b) someone buying a whole
bunch of them for a MOC, or (c) some other reason unrelated to their availability.
I remember that particular set not being that rare to see on shelves at the time,
even clearance shelves, which is why I thought it was odd that the part was so
expensive. I see when looking at several other parts exclusive to that set that
they are not expensive. So something else going on with the price.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 26, 2019 12:47 | | Subject: | Re: Part 41747 Sand Green | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, paolocolombo writes:
| | Is it possible that the central 41747 is Sand Green?
|
Yes, that's what it looks like to me.
| | On bricklink it has an absurd value ....
|
That's because it only came in this set:
Back in '02 and '03 you could pick those sets up quite inexpensively
on clearance at major retailers in the US.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 25, 2019 15:24 | | Subject: | Re: Unhelpful Feature | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, Turez writes:
| | The inventory depends on whether you have set a color or not. 
|
Aha! Very nice. I understand it now.
But I believe a problem still remains. The system should always default to the
Select Color view, or at least I should be able to tell the system to do that
if that's how I prefer to see things (and it is).
Right now the system appears to default to a specific color only when
the item appears only in that color and all items for sale are in that color.
Otherwise, it appears to always default to Select Color. I would like
it to always default to the Select Color view, or at least for me to be able
to adjust my settings that way.
Thanks very much for helping me understand why this was occurring.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 25, 2019 14:48 | | Subject: | Re: Unhelpful Feature | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | It appears to be just some kind of bug, which is what
I originally thought.
|
But I was being nice and thinking it might be a feature, albeit an unhelpful
feature.
Anyway, screenshots below so you know I ain't making it up. This is the
inventory of 2878c01. Sometimes I get one method of display, and sometimes I
get the other. No idea why, but I'm wondering if clicking into the old inventory
page might have some effect.
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 25, 2019 14:34 | | Subject: | Re: Unhelpful Feature | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | Making this a catalog request
|
Okay, I take it back. It appears to be just some kind of bug, which is what
I originally thought. Now I'm getting variable results when I click on things.
Perhaps this could be looked into either way.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 25, 2019 14:28 | | Subject: | Unhelpful Feature | | Viewed: | 170 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Making this a catalog request instead of a site suggestion so that I know it
will be read. All of the parts linked to below have inventories containing at
least one variable color part.
For these parts the color shown on the Part Inventory tab (which I'm defining
as the new inventory page) is (Variable Color):
* | | 2878c01 (Inv) Train Wheel RC, Holder with Black Train Wheel Pair on Chrome Silver Metal Axle with Slots (2878 / 2879c01)
Parts: Wheel |
Took me a little bit, but I figured out that's only because they appear in
multiple colors.
However, for other parts also inventoried with variable colors the new page shows
an actual color name because they only appear in one color:
* | | 4180c01 (Inv) Brick, Modified 2 x 4 with Black Wheels, Train Spoked Small (23mm D.) and Black Pins (4180 / wheel3 / 2344)
Parts: Wheel |
* | | 38339c01 (Inv) Train Wheel RC, Holder with Pin Slots with 2 Black Train Wheel RC Train with Pins (38339 / 38340)
Parts: Wheel |
* | | 4180c04 (Inv) Brick, Modified 2 x 4 with Red Wheels, Train Spoked Small (23mm D.) and Red Pins (4180 / wheel3 / 2344)
Parts: Wheel |
I'm guessing this was done on the new inventory page to make things less
confusing, but it is inaccurate. If a part is inventoried with one or more components
having variable colors, then the new page shouldn't make things more confusing
by falsely representing the inventory to contain a defined color.
Only by clicking through to the old inventory page (Item Consists Of) can you
determine if the inventory is correct, and even then you can only surmise the
existence of a variable color when there is no image and no part color listed
(the words "Variable Color" don't appear on that page).
The new inventory tab is convenient to use, but it's disappointing that it
doesn't accurately reflect variable colors in inventories.
Can this issue be corrected?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 25, 2019 13:48 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Part 4180c02 | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* | | 4180c02 (Inv) Brick, Modified 2 x 4 with Red Wheels FreeStyle and Red Pins (4180 / 4259 / 2344)
Parts: Wheel |
* Change 1 Part {Black to (Variable Color)} 4180 Brick, Modified 2 x 4 with Wheels Holder FreeStyle
Comments from Submitter:
The brick color should be variable. Submitted title change to define that the red parts are the wheels and pins. This part appears in sets in both red and black (the brick itself).
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 25, 2019 13:42 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Part 4180c03 | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* | | 4180c03 (Inv) Brick, Modified 2 x 4 with White Wheels FreeStyle and White Pins (4180 / 4259 / 2344)
Parts: Wheel |
* Change 1 Part {Black to (Variable Color)} 4180 Brick, Modified 2 x 4 with Wheels Holder FreeStyle
Comments from Submitter:
Currently the black brick has a defined colour. For this part the colour should be variable. Also, the title should be changed to indicate that not only are the wheels themselves white, but the pins are also. Will submit title change.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 25, 2019 11:57 | | Subject: | Re: Set 76140 | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, AZbrickGUY writes:
| | When will this set be added in? Picked two sets up last night at Target, ($9.99
each) but everything I find on it says it shouldn't be out yet. Mostly for
the new Iron Man mini that comes in the set. Thanks.
|
Probably on one of either of the two following dates:
December 26th, 2019
or
January 1st, 2020
BrickLink has had an unofficial policy for some time of waiting until the set
is actually released before adding it to the catalog. Now that TLG is steering
the helm, that unwritten policy is pretty much guaranteed.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2019 23:49 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1106-1 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | So far, I could not find 1106-1 in any catalog! Any input is welcomed
|
It is for sure in c80uk. Brickset has a scan of that catalog.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2019 17:46 | | Subject: | Re: Was this really ever made or sold? Mandalay | | Viewed: | 101 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, tonnic writes:
| | If so I think this set shouldn’t be in the catalog, there is most likely no set
to be found ‘in the wild’.
|
The set should be in the catalog, but it definitely should have an additional
note added that provides some detail regarding the set.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2019 17:44 | | Subject: | Re: sets incorrectly categorized | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jakyasar writes:
I created new categories to organize that section last year when I was a CA.
For some of the sets I had little to work from when deciding where they should
go. If you find any inconsistencies or inaccurate categorizations within the
LEGO Brand top category, then you can post a list of them here and I'm sure
the CAs will get it handled.
Or, if you want to save them some hassle, you can directly request category changes
for individual sets here:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReq.asp?itemType=S
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2019 01:44 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1106-1 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | * Change 1 Part {Blue to Black}
* Change 1 Part {Red to Black}
|
| | Since the only 4.5v trains between 1977-1980 were 183-1 and 182-1
we can assume it only came with black battery wagon and black roof.
|
How do you account for the fact that this inventory was confirmed correct from
sealed set contents twice, each time by a highly reliable member?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2019 22:40 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | I'm not calling for anarchy. I'm not even calling for fewer rules. I
am calling for simpler rules that do not include or exclude information
based on shifting criteria (such as the way Lego chooses to package or count
its parts).
|
Thank you for explaining in further detail. I understand your position better
now.
| | The individual pieces are the elements of the Lego system. They are the atoms.
These are what the catalog should be built on, and if that were Rule #1, so many
other things would fall into place.
|
Yes, that is undoubtedly the simplest rule. I'm not sure if you made it
over to Dropbox to read what Russell had to say on this, but he does make some
good points. I'll quote him directly at length:
"For example, to really get down to basic elements, the axles in the early small wheel assemblies should
be listed separately. Yes, the early types did come apart easily before Lego added little loops to hold the
axles in place. And the wheels DO come off the axles with a little work. So why weren’t these changed
along with removing tires from all the wheels?
And the motorcycles from the eighties are currently not listed separately. Why? Because this would be
pedantic and impractical. They never came disassembled to begin with, and most buyers and sellers wish
to only deal with the *whole* assembly.
Motors are not broken apart into screws and casings, minifig arms are not separated from the torso,
hinges are not dismantled, nor are winches, claws, or electrical cables. It’s just the practical thing to do to
leave things in their normal, intended state."
| | Now we have a set of rules (and exceptions) that say some molecules are treated
like molecules sometimes and atoms at other times, depending on how Lego treated
them.
|
I see now what you're talking about. But your simple system, taken to the
extremes that Russell points out, would be a little much.
| | All of the information
that is desired - how a set was packaged and all of the individual elements in
it - could be included in set inventories today even with the current site design.
|
Could it? Possibly, by using the Counterparts section as you mention. But wow,
inventories would look so different. Especially when we consider reducing all
electronic parts to their lowest user-separable components.
And how, precisely, could I look at a 150 piece set with the current inventory
system, see that the box count was 89 pieces, and have any way of judging the
accuracy of the inventory? Please explain how the current inventory system functions
well enough to solve that issue.
| | The reason it is not is because the policies currently in place are preventing
it, and the philosophy is to follow the pole star of Lego's shifting practices
rather than the practices of the users of Bricklink.
|
Actually, I would argue that in the case of some things, old motorcycles for
example, BrickLink does follow the practices of BrickLink users. Who
really completely disassembles one of these?
And I've had several old tricycles and never even attempted to end up with
this:
You'll notice, by the way, that those don't sell very well.
I get what you're saying now, but I also see what Russell is saying. Your
system would be simpler, no doubt. I'm just not sure how workable or desirable
it would be with the current functionality of inventories.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2019 20:31 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | Opposite to my philosophy is the idea that the data has to be wrangled and defined and rules have to be written and rewritten and exceptions considered and so on and so on.
|
I struggle to imagine that philosophy in practice.
Without rules, literally anything could be added to the catalog. So we have
a first rule: only LEGO products. Already that is against the philosophy.
Then there is a second rule: no random assemblies of parts. Without that rule,
the catalog would expand as close to infinity as several hundred thousand people
could accomplish until space ran out. So we have two necessary rules now and
the philosophy is weakened further.
I won't continue on, but I trust you get the point. Rules are necessary.
Where rules exist, there is always disagreement about them. All of this is
natural and inevitable regardless of what activity humans undertake together.
There is such a thing as too many rules and it seems you feel like that's
where we are now. But don't forget what we had just a few years ago: poorly-written
rules and unwritten rules that were enforced seemingly at random, resulting in
widespread inconsistency.
You may not be troubled by inconsistencies (except that I know you are), but
they make things confusing for everyone involved. Widespread inconsistencies
are not a desirable end result of cataloging 100K items and the only way to avoid
them is with rules.
Without written rules, it's all just the preference of whomever is doing
the approving. With written rules, you know. Written rules can be discussed,
debated, and changed as necessary, whereas unwritten rules can't. And we
know that no rules at all is simply anarchy.
Like I said, I struggle to imagine that rule-free philosophy in practice.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2019 17:05 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 42079-1 | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, naramba writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 32580 Black Hose, Soft Axle 7L (Extra)
|
It was only recently added:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=250644
It is not too uncommon for copies of some sets to include an extra part that
other sets produced in other locations did not include. Just because your copy
or copies of the set didn't include the extra part doesn't mean that
this holds true for all copies of the set.
I would not expect this request to be approved.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2019 03:11 | | Subject: | Re: Torso's v Legs - assembled or not | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, tpr writes:
| | Why is it not possible to have all leg variants in the catalogue.
|
Sorry, one more point. At this time in history, to accomplish this comprehensively
would require a minimum of 4,500 new catalog entries with 4,500 part photographs
and over 1,500 new inventories.
I see that you've added 115 items to the catalog, 79 images, and 3 inventories.
Therefore, you're no stranger to catalog work and you realize how much is
involved in 10,000+ new items of work that you're asking for.
Not making the argument that it's too much work, because I don't believe
it is. Just trying to give some perspective on how much work it will be.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2019 02:53 | | Subject: | Re: Torso's v Legs - assembled or not | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, tpr writes:
| | Why is it not possible to have all leg variants in the catalogue.
|
It is possible. Just takes more work on the part of members coupled with a policy
change.
| | They do come apart, its not a problem easing them apart, no different than trying
to take arms out of torso's.
|
I've done both. One is unquestionably more difficult than the other. Still,
if a person had some practice and experience with separating legs from the assembly,
then it might come more naturally. For me removing legs is difficult and requires
some form of tool.
And even with arms you risk damaging them by removal - I suspect that the sleeve
splits sometimes seen in older arms came from the prying force applied to that
area from the figure hand being attached and pushed against during arm removal.
| | If I have a hips/legs combination with one leg marked or bitten, why can't
I just buy the leg I need?
|
Fair point. Really, we'll just have to wait and see how the site deals with
it. Hopefully it won't be in the traditional BrickLink Style™ of making
decisions behind closed doors and implementing them without community discussion.
Really, if you have input on the matter, then you should reply to my open catalog
request here and make your opinion heard:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1171361
I honestly don't care that much either way, although I do have a stated preference,
but I would definitely like to see a consistent approach to the matter.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2019 02:21 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | I don't like that policy, as I have said before, so I imagine my question
will be taken as opposition. But I really just want us to be asking the question
of whether we are making changes to actually improve the usefulness of the catalog,
or are we just making changes for the sake of making changes.
|
Read this (it is one of many):
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogInvChangeItem.asp?itemType=S&itemNo=1701-1&viewDate=Y&viewStatus=1
Your real objection, I suspect from lengthy conversations, is that the site is
becoming too oriented toward purists and historians.
I don't disagree with you. The original intent of the catalog was to serve
commerce, not to be a historical resource. Times have changed and now the BrickLink
catalog is the foremost repository of historical LEGO knowledge in the world.
I've said it before and I'll say it until it becomes a reality:
It is possible to satisfy everyone who uses the catalog.
We simply need some additional functionality for the catalog. It is my hope
that the new ownership will be able to fund the programmers who will create that
functionality.
Specifically:
(1) We need to be able to display historically accurate inventories for each
set, but also commercially viable inventories for each set (essentially new or
used inventories).
(2) We need to find some way around the part variant issue. Additional site
functionality would solve it.
(3) Both of the above need to be user-selectable. So if you don't care about
historical accuracy, you can turn that off. If you don't care about part
variants, you can ignore them. That requires features that don't exist yet.
I understand your objections to inventories being aligned for new-set accuracy.
Really, I do. And it remains to be seen what TLG will bring to the catalog
in terms of updates. But right now the die has been cast and inventories have
been moving in a certain direction for several years. It is not a recent thing,
but has been occurring steadily since roughly 2015.
If things go in the best possible direction, as I sincerely hope they will, then
you will be able to click a button and see inventories however you want. That's
what we need and what I'm hoping to see. Instead of carrying on the forlorn
fight against the direction things have been going for years, perhaps you will
join me in my call to the new owners for additional site functionality that will
make the site truly serve all users equally.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
USA, Oklahoma
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
