Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | LordSkylark  | | Posted: | Aug 16, 2021 10:40 | | Subject: | Re: Part 3702 in trans neon green | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Catalog Identification | |
|
| In Catalog Identification, Brickych writes:
| | I have this part
in trans neon green.
Lego logo on the studs.
Where did it come from? Not in the catalog.
|
Probably a prototype color.
If it's not a hassle, please consider photographing it and adding it to the
bricklink catalog for future verification reference that it does exist in that
color.
|
 |
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Jul 3, 2021 00:53 | | Subject: | Re: Castle In The Forest | | Viewed: | 74 times | | Topic: | Designer Program | |
|
| In LEGO, wildchicken13 writes:
| | In LEGO, SylvainLS writes:
| | In LEGO, peregrinator writes:
| | […]
There is a lot of room between the length of time it took for the BL AFOL sets
to sell out and the 40 minutes it took the Castle in the Forest to sell out yesterday.
Yes, the variables were different, but ... 40 minutes? I can't imagine that
was expected.
|
Indeed not. They apparently only expected double the ADP backers / half the
Ideas clickers.
The 3,000 minimum is understandable. And I guess they have lots of reasons for
setting a max (parts availability, with other sets to produce, relatively short
time to produce / manage supply, etc.).
Still, if the biggest toy seller in the world can’t predict anything, repeatedly….
If you add the no-more-exclusives fiasco (
AFOLs: Stop making exclusives! We all want to buy everything!
TLG: Okay, we hear you! No more regional exclusives, pinky swear! … BTW, here
are new sets exclusive to East Asia, and here’s another one for the SDCC, and,
and, and…. )
and other very limited limited editions, it’s like TLG only wants to sell (expensive)
collectibles, not toys, and only to scalpers.
|
Pure speculation here, but I think the artificial scarcity motivates people to
buy that might not otherwise. I can always put off buying a regular LEGO set
knowing that it will probably be available for a few years, but the same is not
true of a designer program set. Of course, LEGO could probably sell more than
5,000 of each if they made them regular sets, but it would probably take more
than a day.
|
Maybe I don't understand what's going on (and there's probably not
a sure way to do so)... But, if I were a company, I would think the best method
would be to make the max unlimited and then close the number AFTER the 30 days
(or whatever) time expired. I would want to maximize my profits. In fact, the
more sets that are produced at any factory at one time, the less the cost for
each set it. Because the biggest time/cost factor is setting up the production
run itself for the first time.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Jun 26, 2021 12:54 | | Subject: | Re: Parting out 71741 Ninjago City Gardens | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Help | |
|
| In Help, Papabricks writes:
| | Hello Bricklinkers,
After adding all my remarks and try to part out ninjago city gardens, it failed😞
I’ve noticed that you are meant to part this set in two halves.
Below is the additional note.
Additional Notes: Collapse ▲
Due to the massive number of lines (1000+) in the inventory of this set, the
BrickLink system will time out during the part out process. You must part out
the set in two different halves.
It would be much appreciated if someone is kind enough to let me know how you
do that please.
*do you just delete half of the lots?
Thank you.
Papabricks
|
Is it really that hard to fix this site error?
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Jun 15, 2021 02:42 | | Subject: | Re: Part Identification (Episode 2) | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog Identification | |
|
| In Catalog Identification, BricksterXD writes:
| | Hello there!
I need some more help identifying some parts in my inventory. I'm aware that
they're from either Bionicle / Hero Factory / Knights Kingdom - other than
that, I'm unable to identify them.
Any and all help appreciated.
Thank you!
|
Are you aware that most of those parts have a part number already engraved into
them? Simply type the part number in the search bar and the entry for it in the
catelog on bricklink will come up.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Jun 14, 2021 15:08 | | Subject: | Re: Modifying feedback? | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, YYCFigsNBricks writes:
| | Hi everyone,
We had a buyer leave us great and positive written feedback, but accidentally
chose "neutral" instead of "positive" feedback as the radio button. They are
a first time buyer. Any way to modify this to be a positive?
We contacted the seller and they confirmed it was an accident, but this affects
the store and would like it changed.
Thanks!
|
In the past, I sent a message to the help desk and they were able to do something
about it.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | May 28, 2021 01:05 | | Subject: | Re: Brick, Round Corner 2 x 2 Macaroni with Stud | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bigasbricks writes:
| | Brick, Round Corner 2 x 2 Macaroni with Stud Notch and Reinforced Underside
Got this today in Trans Red can't find it anywhere under known colors for
this part.
|
If you have the time, please take a moment to submit a photo of the real part
to the database, so we have record that an authentic one is actually out in the
wild.
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | May 26, 2021 18:18 | | Subject: | Item removal request error | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Technical Issues | |
|
| When I click on the "Submit request" button on this screen (only grayed out because
I hit back after the error), I get an error message and cannot proceed.
|
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2021 11:34 | | Subject: | Re: Monochrome Minifigures | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Catalog, Brick.Door writes:
| | | |
'm pretty sure the main objective behind the catalog is
that it is a representation of the parts that are officially sold by Lego. While
they do sell parts to make monochrome minifigures, they are not sold as such,
hence why they are not listed in the standard catalog and require custom listings.
If they were to do this, it could open a can of worms for other requests.
|
Disagree - the main objective of the catalog is to facilitate selling and buying
LEGO in this marketplace. If there is significant demand it should be added to
the catalog to make it easier to buy and sell (and to track the price history).
I trust the catalog admins to make a judgement call whether something is worthy
or not, but can understand that they wouldn't want that responsibility and
the flood of requests/complaints.
|
I agree. This should be done with certain types of parts after proper discernment.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2021 11:34 | | Subject: | Re: Monochrome Minifigures | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, psusaxman2000 writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
This exists because it was sold this way. Same for the others that are mentioned
below that have appeared in sets as figs built that way. I get the idea of having
all different monochrome color figs available, but then where do you limit the
creation of them. Does it mean, you could only have figs if all the parts are
available to create it. If someone "cleans" a part to remove the print and create
a new monochrome, they technically have the part, but it's not original by
any means. The current catalog doesn't limit anyone from buying or creating
them, but I could see the gap if someone is looking to purchase one. It's
a balance that I'm glad I don't have to manage.
|
They can also "clean" a part and list it as the plain torso, that is nothing
new. I'd hope anyone doing that would list them as used or at least indicate
the parts had been wiped.
They can also create a monochrome torso assembly by pulling off (yellow) hands
from another one such as this
and adding the correct colour hands. So the torso assembly might not be original
but still exists if created. More of a worry are monochrome legs/hips, as people
can pull off the legs and damage the pins, but again that is not a new problem.
|
As long as they are sold as used it doesn't matter. And if after wipe it's
100% indistinguishable from a non-wiped used torso... well... it really doesn't
matter.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Feb 16, 2021 16:32 | | Subject: | Re: Adjusting Colour Names such as Bluish Grey? | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Can we use both Lego and bricklink color names simultaneously, or the user can
choose an option which to use?
In Suggestions, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Suggestions, infinibrix writes:
| | I hope others will share the same logic in what I’m trying to suggest or perhaps
I’m barking up the wrong tree? Thoughts?
|
We have considered harmonization of colors in the past, and we continue to do
so. But one thing I will mention is that the word "OLD" is likely not a term
we will include in Item Names or Color Names.
On BrickLink, the color and item name are often concatenated, meaning they are
stuck together for use as a single term. The official color numbers of Modulex
were removed from the color name for this very reason, to keep people from getting
confused.
And speaking of numbers, I'm thinking the first step in harmonization would
be to replace the BrickLink color numbers with official LEGO numbers. What do
people think of THAT idea. When we speak to internal folks, they tend to use
the numbers instead of the names, so there is value in those numbers.
|
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Jan 21, 2021 16:21 | | Subject: | Re: Have all printed Legs been deleted? | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, tonnic writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
If printed ones are removed, why are plain ones not being removed?
Surely these suffer the same problems as printed ones when taken apart.
|
Yep, that is a good one if not a really good one!
I agree with you.
I see a lot of chewed on legs, plain and decorated, it should be nice if you
can replace them for a lower price than a complete assembly.
In fact, there is no reason at all why arms and hands can be sold apart while
decorated legs cannot be sold separately.
And if someone makes up a reason it would be valid for the legs too.
|
Well, I hope that they don't delete the non-printed versions, because when
I get large lots of used pieces, I end up with lots of misc. legs.
But I definitely would rather have all printed legs added to the catelog.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Dec 13, 2020 02:38 | | Subject: | Re: USPS struggles & NSS | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, rob.ulm writes:
| | In Suggestions, Ctbyrne writes:
| | I'm sure I'm not alone in getting hit with plenty of NSS claims because
USPS is taking too long to deliver packages. Once the mail carrier takes the
package, there's nothing I can do about how long they take to deliver it
to the buyer. I know that buyers need their protection too, but too many stores
are going to be shut down because of the impatience of buyers. Maybe during these
trying times for USPS, the ability to file NSS be pushed back a certain amount
of time? As far as I know now, you can file it immediately after placing the
order. Maybe something like 2 weeks after the order is placed before you can
file an NSS. I would think that most if not all sellers would have long since
shipped the package out within 2 weeks. The lag time on my store is about 4 days,
but never have I taken 2 weeks to ship out a package.
Chris
Bricks on the Dollar
|
Speaking as a *patient* buyer, I'm interested in hearing from sellers if
there's actually anything you're able to do in terms of dealing with
USPS/trying to track down packages. I'm waiting on an order for three weeks
now with tracking indicating that it's been hung up at the last "stop" for
two weeks.
I have no intention of claiming NSS - the seller obviously shipped it and this
is 100% on the post office - I'm just wondering if it's even worth bothering
the seller or if there's no value in even doing that. I'm legitimately
interested in the seller perspective on this.
In September/October I had a package straight up lost (package was never scanned
and never arrived, seller refunded) and another than took six weeks to arrive.
I took a break for a little bit but came back because I had an expiring coupon
to use. I would never blame a seller for stuff out of their control but the unfortunate
consequence is I've just stopped buying from anyone (not just Bricklink,
other small businesses as well). Also, I had toyed with the idea of starting
to sell some of my spare parts, but that's on the shelf until the post office
can sort itself out.
|
After 7 days of the order entering the system, the seller is able to file a "Missing
Mail" request search online with the post office. I personally do this after
the item has not had any tracking updates for 7 days. I'm not sure if this
actually helps or not, but usually within a day or two of filing the item is
back moving again.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Sep 15, 2020 18:51 | | Subject: | Re: Tap category? | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, firestar246 writes:
| | Could Stormchaser verify what's going on here?
|
I believe Randy answered the questions you had.
The Tap category may be removed at some point in the future, but for now it will
remain. All changes shown right now on this page will absolutely occur on October
1st:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
|
Judging by some of the items getting moved into Scala and Belville categories...
Are we going to be moving more items into those categories then? I was definitely
hoping those theme-type categories would be eliminated and the parts divided
out amongst actual part type categories.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Aug 21, 2020 13:16 | | Subject: | Re: Make neutral feedback actually NEUTRAL | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, axaday writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, axaday writes:
| | In Suggestions, randyf writes:
| | In Suggestions, CanadaFirst writes:
| | We all know that currently the way feedback works is kinda borked. The feedback
percentage counts Positive vs other feedbacks and so it causes a neutral feedback
to lower that score. Neutral feedback should simply not be a part of the equation.
It should be positive vs megative and completely disregard neutral feedback so
that neutral feedback is actually neutral and not 'negative light'.
New users do not understand that leaving a neutral feedback hurts the shop's
feedback percentage and to be honest, it's completely understandable because
neutral should be neutral, it should not have any incidence on a shop's feedback
percentage.
|
Using this suggestion...
First store:
1000 positive feedback + 100 neutral feedback + 0 negative feedback = 100% score
Second store:
200 positive feedback + 0 neutral feedback + 1 negative feedback = 99.5% score
Which one is the better store?
|
In my opinion, the answer to this and lots of similar ones is "Stop obsessing
so much about your percentage and score". I don't think most customers even
pay attention to it. And the ones that do aren't going to see a 97% and
run away. If it seems low to them, they'll want to see what the complaints
were and if it was just someone saying they had a ho-hum experience in your store
it isn't going to matter.
If something needs to be done about the percentage calculation, perhaps just
getting rid of the percentage calculation is the answer.
|
The percentage is a warning against high feedback stores that have lots of neutrals
or negs. Although only if people use it to prompt them to look at the feedback.
|
What if we just changed the Feedback "score" to tell the whole truth concisely?
axaday(4777 2 0) with the numbers in color.
|
Much better. That way it would be very easy to spot without having to click on
every user's/store's number.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Aug 20, 2020 12:49 | | Subject: | Re: Tweezers in gold color? | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Modulex | |
|
| In Modulex, minibricks writes:
| | I have a large Modulex collection and have several of the silver colored item
that you are calling "tweezer" -- it is indeed a Modulex item and it is used
to remove tiles/bricks from a baseplate. I have not seen the brass colored one
though!
Karyn
In Modulex, patpendlego writes:
| | Hi,
found these in a large lot of Modulex, the left one metallic and same as the
images here on bricklink, the right one is gold color and different... is it
Modulex?
Arnoud
|
|
Is it in the catalog?
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Aug 19, 2020 22:55 | | Subject: | Re: Moving Things - Responses | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I agree with keeping the bracket category, this is definitely a unique category
and needs to be retained.
In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Bracket - category poorly defined (suggested solution is to rewrite definition)
Response: Like Antenna, here I would support eliminating the category
altogether. There are only 24 parts within and all of them would probably fit
better in other categories.
|
Bit of a late response, but I would like to add here that "only 24 parts" isn't
the whole story - Bracket is not exactly like other small categories. In actual
inventory volume, this category accounts for approximately as many parts as "Brick,
Arch" or "Brick, Round", and the buying frequency is also comparable. So I just
wanted to add here that while the number of entries is low, it is not entirely
the same as other small categories.
That fact (together with the fact that elimination would probably result in even
more Plate,Modifieds) leads me to prefer keeping it. Possibly moving brackets
without angled studs somewhere else, like Vehicle Base or Cockpit.
Just wanted to add this but I leave the decision up to you guys.
|
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Aug 19, 2020 22:45 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | This flame had me confused for a while yesterday, as I couldn't find it with
the other flaming parts in energy effect ...
[P=16768pb001]
|
I always store this with my minifigure weapons...
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Aug 19, 2020 22:41 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Is there any other good category for this? I wouldn't personally have thought
this would be a utensil...
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Aug 19, 2020 21:59 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Combine categories like "large figure", "bionicle", "hero factory" into one,
and then divide them up into different sub-categories, like "torso", "mask",
etc.
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Okay, I won't promise anything will happen.
But this is the plan:
1. I'm opening discussion right now, in this thread, on changes in
item type and and category for any items wrongly categorized. I expect discussion
will probably focus on parts and last around two weeks.
2. I'll post all changes deemed worth making on this page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
3. The catalog team will discuss internally during the month of September.
This will give everyone time to prepare for item movements. I'll post public
updates/reminders occasionally during August and September.
4. The actual changes will be made on October 1st, 2020. A record of
the changes will be retained for reference purposes for two years on the page
linked to above.
I know some of you are excited about this. It's the first time BrickLink
has been widely open to correcting some longstanding categorization issues.
I'm excited, too. I will fully read and carefully consider every post made
in this thread. To help me out, please:
1. Snip replies (remove extraneous content before replying).
2. Stay on point (don't post digressions).
3. Keep everything in this one thread.
4. Don't expect miracles. Some ideas may have to be added to the
roadmap as separate projects.
5. Try to limit complaints. Or, if you believe everything is already
properly categorized and don't like change, complain loudly and often. Site
management will be watching.
Thanks to everyone for the input you're about to provide. I don't know
how this will go, but I expect it to be interesting. 
|
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Jul 23, 2020 13:10 | | Subject: | Re: POLL: New Variant for 6641 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | There is a new variant for
that was just released that has a completely new type of axle hole.
It has Design ID 51149: https://brickset.com/parts/design-51149
The catalog team is considering whether to add this as a new part to the catalog
or just add an alternate item number to 6641.
POLL:
What would you like to see done?
Thanks in advance for your responses!
Cheers,
Randy
|
Can we work on getting some designated A/B entries for some of the parts that
haven't had any for years (or have one variant designated but not the other)
of which there are actually functional differences?
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | May 16, 2020 05:41 | | Subject: | Re: Part marked for deletion | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, BricksThatStick writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, bengreen28 writes:
| | Hi, I have a 1x2 plate that has a sticker on it, I have gone to list it and have
found that it is marked for deletion because the sticker was applied to the wrong
part.
I have got this model at home and also have the instructions for it. the sticker
has been applied to the correct part as it shows it clearly on the instructions.
Who do we contact in order to get the deletion cancelled?
Part number is 3023pb01, you can see clearly in the picture that the sticker
is applied to the 1x2 plate and not the mudguard.
|
Here is the thread from when it was removed from the inventory:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=253659
The sticker now forms this assembly:
* | | BA081pb01 Stickered Assembly 4 x 2 x 1 with 'Shell' Small Pattern on Both Sides (Stickers) - Set 6634 - 2 Plate 1 x 2, 1 Mudguard 2 x 4 with Arch Studded
Parts: Stickered Assembly |
So the sticker is in the correct place but it covers more than 1 part (admittedly
only just)
|
The only problem is, because that is just barely over, a majority of people will
have the 1x2 plate with with the sticker in a lot rather than the entire assembly...
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | May 6, 2020 14:05 | | Subject: | Re: Dual molded arms | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, hpoort writes:
I've always thought it should be reversed, as most arms base would be either
yellow or flesh, therefore limiting the amount of catelog entries drastically.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Mar 17, 2020 16:54 | | Subject: | Re: Question about part x168 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
"x" exists as a temporary number when the official Lego part number was originally
not known (usually because it is not printed on the part itself).
When I've discovered the true part number, I've submitted many for the
"x" number to be replaced by the official Lego part number, and it's always
been done. (The "x" number was not even retained as an alternate.) In fact, one
time I went through the catelog to discover and replace as many as I could find
the original part number for.
For some reason here though... When the original part number was discovered,
it was added as an alternate number, but not replaced. So, there's obviously
serious inconsistency here.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2020 23:48 | | Subject: | Re: Question about part x168 | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, edeevo writes:
| | […]
I'm guessing it also has to do with all the dependencies within the site
that would be affected if the numbers were simply changed... […]
|
Nah, items have a fixed, internal ID in the database, that ID doesn’t change.
The part ID is just another description, shorter and unique.
Think about when they add a digit to the numbered minifigs (bla001 becoming bla0001).
|
Right. These "x" numbers are changed all the time when the actual number becomes
known. I'm surprised it wasn't done here.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Mar 15, 2020 23:09 | | Subject: | Re: Question about part x168 | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, jonwil writes:
| | is labeled as "underwater" when it has never
appeared in any underwater type sets?
Should it be renamed?
|
It has been renamed.
|
Is there a reason that the "x" number is still the primary number when the actual
part number is now known?
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
USA, Michigan
)
)
