Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | yorbrick  | | Posted: | Aug 4, 2020 04:53 | | Subject: | Re: Catagorizing pieces via molds | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, timewarp writes:
| | Its pretty simple, every printed astromech head (for instance) would link back
to its unprinted version under Mold (and vise versa in the "Item Appears In"
Molds.
|
This is already implicit in the numbering.
Also, the unprinted part does not appear in a printed part, so that relationship
should not be made.
|
 |
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Aug 3, 2020 04:36 | | Subject: | Re: Moving Things - Responses | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, qwertyboy writes:
| | is our "brick, round" category definition dependent on parts having an anti-stud?
|
The definition is:
Brick, Round - For bricks and modified bricks with spherical sides,
with or without attachments.
It can be found on this page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1568
If you have suggestions for improving any definitions, they are welcomed.
|
I'd agree this is a round brick. However, it does not fit the definition
of a round brick.
Brick, Round - For bricks and modified bricks with spherical
sides, with or without attachments.
It does not have spherical sides. Indeed, virtually all round bricks do not
have spherical sides. Most are cylindrical or truncated cylinders. There are
the few dome parts and robot bodies that are almost spherical but otherwise the
others do not fit there with the current definition.
But also the term brick has a definition: Brick - For basic and unmodified
LEGO system building bricks with one or more top studs and straight sides.
Similarly, modified bricks are defined: Brick, Modified - For bricks
without slopes or curves that include an attachment or modification.
So how can a brick or modified brick, as referred to in the definition of a round
brick, have spherical (or cylindrical sides) when the definitions of bricks and
modified bricks rule out the possibility of having non-straight or curved sides?
I think the term brick should not refer to a standard brick. The term brick should
be for the parent category. Then what are now called bricks could be "brick,
standard" or "brick, basic". That way, the term brick could be used to refer
to all bricks, be they standard, modified, round, etc.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Aug 3, 2020 04:22 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jonwil writes:
| | LEGO considers all the parts with studs on them (including the 4x4 with studs
on one edge and the larger parts with studs on 3 edges) as plates.
|
It depends where you look.
On bricks and pieces, tiles and plates are classed as "bricks, special".
On pick a brick, plates are classed as "plates" and tiles are classed as ...
also "plates". And modified tiles and plates, along with a lot of hinges, brackets
and so on are classed as "plates, special".
I don't think bricklink should care how LEGO classes parts, as that will
remove much of the useful functionality from bricklink.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Aug 3, 2020 04:15 | | Subject: | Re: Super Mario - Minifigs vs Animals | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | | | A Monty Mole for example seems very much like an animal to me because it is a
mole and not sentient in any way
|
I was definitely undecided about Monty Mole. It was a tough one. But this was
a playable character in at least four Mario games. In one game a Monty Mole
was an ally to the main characters. In another game a Monty Mole operated a
tank and in a different game a three-barreled cannon.
|
If these animals are minifigures:
then every character in Super Mario should also be a minifigure. As should Scooby-Doo
and similar animal based characters.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Aug 1, 2020 18:35 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | | | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | How about: For items that are conical, including truncated cones.
|
|
Jean tried to avoid circular definitions.
Removing a few words, yours becomes: “Cones: conical items and truncated cones.”
Othewise we could also have: “Cones: well, cones, you dummy!”  
|
The definition of Brick depends on the term brick.
Brick - For basic and unmodified LEGO system building bricks with one
or more top studs, plain straight sides and a hollow bottom.
Plus it relies on the terms basic and unmodified without defining them. Of course,
if you understand the context, then you know what the meaning is. But unmodified
could mean as supplied by LEGO, as it does elsewhere on BL.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Aug 1, 2020 16:09 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | | | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | How about: For items that are conical, including truncated cones.
|
|
Jean tried to avoid circular definitions.
Removing a few words, yours becomes: “Cones: conical items and truncated cones.”
Othewise we could also have: “Cones: well, cones, you dummy!”
|
I think that is exactly the point. Where there is a simple unambiguous definition,
why not use it? It would be possible to insert a formally correct mathematical
definition of a cone but does it really help any more than saying a cone is a
cone.
It probably also needs the word smooth in there too, as there are truncated cones
that are roofs, such as
* | | 35563 Tower Roof 2 x 4 x 4 Half Cone Shaped with Roof Tiles
Parts: Roof |
Incidentally, this part uses the base word cone to define its shape. So presumably
people need to understand the word cone here, so why not in the definitions.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Aug 1, 2020 13:35 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions suggestions, Part 1 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | […]
Cone - For items with a round base that narrow to a tip.
Issue: ‘narrow to a tip’ is not accurate as this category contains both cones
and truncated cones. The sides need to be defined as flat (ie planar or not curved)
to distinguish the category from Brick, Round.
Solution: new definition:
Cone - For items with a round base with sides that taper and are not curved.
|
“not vertically curved”
Because they are horizontally curved and that could be misunderstood (“What?
They are round but shan’t be curved?”).
|
How about: For items that are conical, including truncated cones.
After all, there are truncations that are vertical as well as horizontal, such
as:
These do not have a round base.
And there are also inverted cones that have a circular top rather than base such
as:
There is also this duplo part
if they did a piece like that in regular LEGO I would hope it would go into the
cone section. If the definition rules out vertical curvature, then they would
be excluded and have to go elsewhere, or require a re-write of the definition.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Aug 1, 2020 11:03 | | Subject: | Re: Search for sets takes you direct to box entry | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, grimsbricksuk writes:
| | Has anyone else noticed when searching for a set number and pressing enter it
takes you straight to the original box entry, rather than the set entry?
Example being set 31200 (SW The Sith), where as seller has ended up listing a
BNIB set under the original box, presumably due to this search anomoly?
|
When I search for it, I get the set first in the list, then instructions, then
the box.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jul 31, 2020 06:42 | | Subject: | Re: Avoid orders from buyers with 0 fedback | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Minifig_Central writes:
| | I understand your frustration but I think your idea is outlandish.
A buyer has the right to cancel an order no matter how big/small and no matter
how new they are.
If you're getting this frustrated set up IC, that will mitigate most of the
issue.
We all have to start somewhere, me and you both had 0 feedback once right? Be
the bigger person, cancel their order and move on. Simple. If you're getting
loads of cancellations then it's most likely your issue with shipping prices
or something, given your recent feedback and your retaliatory feedback I'm
inclined to believe that's true.
Sort yourself out, don't penalise others.
|
Yes, a shipping table or at least some indicative costs for postage or better
still Instant Checkout works well to stop orders that get cancelled due to unknown
postage costs.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jul 22, 2020 15:57 | | Subject: | Re: POLL: New Variant for 6641 | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I agree with a/b type variant. Even if the functionality is the same, I hate
mixing visually different parts in a build. Often I don't care which one
I actually use, but I want them to all be the same anyway.
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jul 22, 2020 14:37 | | Subject: | Re: Add Better (more complete) box descriptions | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I doubt there is much point from a selling/buying point of view, given the changes
that will be needed. A new set will have all the interior boxes. A complete used
set doesn't need them, and you can just say what boxes are included.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jul 17, 2020 12:26 | | Subject: | Re: new colour to be added - Item No: 47330 - Red | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
| In Colors, Stevemac1976 writes:
| | I have a red version of this but it is not showing as an available colour. can
you please update.
Bionicle Vahki Torso Lower Section with 2 Ball Joints and 4 Pin Holes
Item No: 47330
|
You should still be able to list it as red for selling, but it won't be under
known colours unless it appears in a set in that colour.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jul 15, 2020 06:26 | | Subject: | Re: Approve Set 75317-1 | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | So when was the official release date?
|
In regards to sets, I believe release dates vary by region. At least they used
to, sometimes by months. So the idea of an official release date would thus
be tied to the earliest regional release.
|
In an official LEGO store, or in a supermarket or other retail outlet that sells
it before LEGO does?
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jul 15, 2020 03:55 | | Subject: | Re: Approve Set 75317-1 | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Not everything is sold through official LEGO outlets. There are many exclusive
items that do not have a public release date. We are working on aligning the
catalog with official release data, but we're not quite there yet.
However, that does not mean there is not an official release date for every LEGO
item.
|
I added this item a number of years ago.
I don't believe it was ever sold by LEGO, so there was no first date it was
sold by LEGO. So when was the official release date? Was it the first time it
was sold by a store? If so, what would have happened if LEGO did start to sell
the item some time later? There would then be an official release date and BL
would have released it earlier than allowed.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jul 13, 2020 12:21 | | Subject: | Re: Add feature of minimum FB for listings. | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Presumably any items that get hidden behind a minimum feedback would also need
to be hidden from anyone not logged in too.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jul 13, 2020 12:14 | | Subject: | Re: Add feature of minimum FB for listings. | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | I never really liked that feature to disallow some buyers based on feedback,
and I don't understand why it exists. It's not solving a problem, it's
simply moving the problem of fraudulous buyers to other sellers that don't
use the setting. Also, from Bricklink's perspective, a website that has a
better shopping experience for experienced members than for those who just signed
up isn't very good website design in my opinion.
|
You can only block a buyer with negative overall feedback though, so someone
that has placed at least one order and not paid for at least as many as they
have paid for (and got feedback). If they have two negatives and two positives,
they cannot be blocked from buying using the setting.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jul 13, 2020 12:11 | | Subject: | Re: Add feature of minimum FB for listings. | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| If they are intent on scamming, won't they just place five cheap orders to
build up enough feedback to scam?
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jul 10, 2020 09:35 | | Subject: | Re: Dark Green - who's going to crack first? | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
| In Colors, misbi writes:
| | Now that TLG has acquired BL, isn't it about time that we set about resolving
conflicting colour names? The flesh/nougat adjustment shows that it's possible,
so when are we going to rename BL Dark Green to Earth Green?
Obviously there are many others which need aligned over time, but currently Dark
Green should be an immediate priority.
|
I'd keep it as it is. The flesh -- nougat at least had a reason, even
if not everyone agreed with the reason.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jul 9, 2020 11:42 | | Subject: | Re: Collecting the parts catalog | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | There is the LEGO HOUSE in Billund that documents the history of both the company
and the product.
|
I've never visited, but from reviews I've read and pictures I've
seen this facility does not match the definition of a true LEGO museum in the
way we've been discussing.
That is, it does not display the entire range of LEGO products as pieces and
sets. In fact, from what I've seen in pictures, it doesn't even come
close.
|
There is a historical section which covers the history of the company and the
development of products, from wooden toys (and barns) through to more modern
day products. It is not a one-of-everything type display, more a showcase of
important stages in the development of todays product.
|
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jul 9, 2020 11:14 | | Subject: | Re: Collecting the parts catalog | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, gunga writes:
| | A LEGO museum would be a fantastic idea. Dedicated to the history of the bricks
with the parts collection being the highlight. Similar places already exist
that highlight specific collections - the National Postal Museum comes immediately
to mind with their collection of stamps. So why not one for LEGO parts?
I would imagine that TLG would have to give its blessing to the project if it
were to succeed.
|
There is the LEGO HOUSE in Billund that documents the history of both the company
and the product.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jul 7, 2020 05:33 | | Subject: | Re: Collecting the parts catalog | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, gunga writes:
| | Just a random thought that came to me while sorting pieces...
Has anyone tried to collect, and complete, the parts catalog? In other words,
collecting every part in every know color. It would be an interesting challenge
to say the least.
Bill
|
Do you mean including printed parts and printed minifigure parts? As then it
becomes almost a collection of all minifigures too. I think they look better
as minifigures rather than parts.
But there are certainly collectors of individual parts in many colours. Personally,
I like 1x2 plates and tiles.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jul 6, 2020 09:59 | | Subject: | Re: Please stop pre-selecting shipping methods | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| So did the buyer have beer? 
But yes, I agree. Better to force the buyer to select something and read them
rather than default to one that is unsuitable.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jul 6, 2020 09:42 | | Subject: | Re: Stop showing estimated shipping charges | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | As far as I know, yes it's up to the seller to let the estimated S&H be shown.
Maybe they don't know that the fees they have in place are not correct in
their settings, it's a long shot, but it is possible
|
So I really don't understand what this is for. If a seller has to decide
whether or not to tell buyers an estimated cost, and the seller is in control
of inputting them into their store, then why not just tell the buyer what the
actual costs will be? If they can estimate the costs based on a calculation,
then they can calculate the costs.
These can be known and calculated for an order where all the data is present
or "unknown" where one or more parts/sets is missing dimensions or weights. To
allow a seller to display an estimated cost that is way lower than the price
they know they will charge, and for them to gain orders based on that low estimate,
just seems very wrong.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jul 6, 2020 05:21 | | Subject: | Re: Stop showing estimated shipping charges | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | How is BL supposed to update the shipping tables that you use?
As far as I know BL will only show the estimate from your own shipping settings
and only when you set the setting to show the estimate on checkout:
Show estimated fees on:
Checkout page
Estimated fees will be shown to the buyer. You may override them on the Order
Received page before invoicing orders.
|
Interesting, so this is seller input data and they are choosing to display it?
This functionality allows a seller to show a low estimated S+H then hit buyers
with a much higher charge once they place a "legally binding" order.
In that case, I'm glad I least favourited the seller.
This is nothing more than a way to con buyers into thinking shipping and handling
is a low price to get them to place an order.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jul 6, 2020 04:13 | | Subject: | Re: Stop showing estimated shipping charges | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | | |
Thats why I said that BL should make that clear and enforce it, so when a NPB
is filed for such an order it should get removed wihtout penalty to the buyer.
|
BL won't do that. Hence the suggestion to stop misleading customers with
inaccurate estimates leading to binding orders that can cost significantly more
than the costs shown.
In my view it is better to put "to be determined" to make it clear shipping and
handling ( unnown) will be added, rather than put a price that is likely to be
incorrect.
|
And if “TBD” could be clearly explained, that would help non-native speakers….
|
Yes, whatever makes sense for non-native speakers would be good.
It is also worth noting that when BL estimates the costs, they don't match
up to current Royal Mail postage prices. In the example I posted, they estimate
83p shipping and handling for a large letter. This is 5p less than the cheapest
possible large letter service, which starts at 88p. This has been the case for
over three months now. Removing the estimates for shipping (not handling) would
not only remove the problem of showing an estimated shipping only cost without
the handling, it would also remove the problem of having to update the shipping
costs (or maybe not, as BL doesn't care to update them).
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jul 6, 2020 03:15 | | Subject: | Re: Stop showing estimated shipping charges | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | |
Thats why I said that BL should make that clear and enforce it, so when a NPB
is filed for such an order it should get removed wihtout penalty to the buyer.
|
BL won't do that. Hence the suggestion to stop misleading customers with
inaccurate estimates leading to binding orders that can cost significantly more
than the costs shown.
In my view it is better to put "to be determined" to make it clear shipping and
handling ( unnown) will be added, rather than put a price that is likely to be
incorrect.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jul 5, 2020 03:49 | | Subject: | Re: Stop showing estimated shipping charges | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, BasKrie writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | BL should stop showing estimated shipping and handling charges, as this gives
a false impression of what they are. For example, I almost placed an order at
this store. But reading through the terms, there are extra handling fees, extra
paypal fees and different shipping costs to those estimated and shown here.
Showing an estimated value gives a false impression, and may lead to a (supposedly
legally binding) order being placed only to find out the actual costs are significantly
higher than those estimated.
|
I don't agree with completely stop showing them. For my store they are shown
as well, but they are accurate, unless something is wrong with the BL dimensions
of an item.
Either sellers should turn it off, and when turned off BL should not show it
in any form.
Or (maybe even better), BL should force sellers to put all fees in the appropriate
settings so they get shown, hence no after the fact surprises.
| | Of course, this could be completely removed by making the orders non-binding
until the seller has disclosed all costs and the buyer has a chance to agree
to them. But in the meantime, stop misleading buyers with incorrect estimated
values.
|
Legally (in Europe) an order isn't legally binding when not all costs are
shown at checkout, so technically, since sellers have to abide by local consumer
laws, this already is in place. BL should make that more clear and enforce it.
|
If they are correct, then a seller can use instant checkout or guarantee that
they charge no more than the estimate.
And yes, orders are not legally binding within Europe if costs are not shown.
Yet place three and refuse to pay costs higher than those shown at checkout and
you can no longer use BL if the sellers file NPB.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jul 4, 2020 10:52 | | Subject: | Re: Stop showing estimated shipping charges | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Dimi_DBB writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | Sure the estimated cost is easier to read, but it is meaningless when a seller
can charge what they like. They might have stated extra costs, in a simplistic
or complex way, in their terms so you have to read them. Showing an estimated
cost that ignores the terms is highly misleading.
|
I really agree with you on the problem, but I'm not 100% behind you on your
suggested solution.
Probably the best solution, for buyers, would be that every store has instant
checkout or request a quote. (Just like the other site)
But that's not going to work for all sellers, so not a realistic solution.
Showing an estimated cost is, imho, a second best solution.
You don't need to do an almost impossible calculation on x-amount of different
fees that could be applied to your order. Assuming the seller even sticks to
the shipping method you chose.
Giving the buyer the option to cancel (without penalty or receiving neg feedback)
when the difference is too big is imho a better solution.
When you start your order, you can ask yourself: Am I willing to pay an extra
10% H&S on this order or not?
If it's more than 10% added, just cancel the order.
Reading the terms is always a good idea, but how many buyers do that?
And how complicated are some terms written?
Making an order non-binding kills the NPB process. Buyer doesn't have to
pay if it's not binding, but the items are blocked for the seller. So he
can't sell them to someone else.
I could just order my wanted list in 30 different stores and wait for the cheapest
invoice.
Perhaps another option could be a setting for buyers: do I want to see estimated
costs or not when placing an order?
|
Showing an estimated cost is still pointless unless there is some way of stopping
the seller charging more, or more than 10% or similar as you say. But currently
it gives a false impression to the buyer. Reading through the terms for my order,
for example, makes shipping and handling just under 3x more than the estimate.
By showing a totally incorrect price, BL is conning people suggesting s&h is
much lower, when in reality it is not.
In my case, I've just least favourited the store.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jul 4, 2020 07:49 | | Subject: | Re: Stop showing estimated shipping charges | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Sure the estimated cost is easier to read, but it is meaningless when a seller
can charge what they like. They might have stated extra costs, in a simplistic
or complex way, in their terms so you have to read them. Showing an estimated
cost that ignores the terms is highly misleading.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jul 4, 2020 05:53 | | Subject: | Stop showing estimated shipping charges | | Viewed: | 177 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| BL should stop showing estimated shipping and handling charges, as this gives
a false impression of what they are. For example, I almost placed an order at
this store. But reading through the terms, there are extra handling fees, extra
paypal fees and different shipping costs to those estimated and shown here.
Showing an estimated value gives a false impression, and may lead to a (supposedly
legally binding) order being placed only to find out the actual costs are significantly
higher than those estimated.
Of course, this could be completely removed by making the orders non-binding
until the seller has disclosed all costs and the buyer has a chance to agree
to them. But in the meantime, stop misleading buyers with incorrect estimated
values.
|
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 17:20 | | Subject: | Re: Multible pictures to a set/part/figure | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, BGP writes:
| | I find that it's very time consuming, adding multiple pictures to the things
I have for sale. The process of uploading them to Bricklink, and adding them
to the items I have for sale is difficult and takes to much time.
I know the rules says, that it is not allowed to link outside Bricklink. But
is there another way to do it smarter ? Multiple pictures, describes the condition
better than words. And it's much easier for the buyer, to see if it's
something they want to buy, instead of waiting for the seller to sent pictures.
BGP
|
I wouldn't bother. A few words are usually just as good as a picture.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 12:22 | | Subject: | Re: Sprues | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | And then we have a whole bunch of items listed 'on sprue', flowers, above
wands, infinity stones, etc etc. But the sprue itself is not listed. Appears
that if there are multiple items on a sprue, it is listed as such, but if there
is a single item on a sprue, the sprue is ignored. But some of these sprues might
be very useful for some builds: [p=30112c01,47], [p=6176c01,44].
|
The sprue for this single part is in the images, just not in the main one. I
guess this is so that we do not need to have two entries - one for the part and
one for the part on the sprue. At least for the multi-part sprues, it makes sense
to have separate entries. Of course, it would be nice if you didn't have
to ask the seller if the plant has its sprue or not but I'm not sure it warrants
two entries for essentially the same part. That said, of course, there are "sets"
that contain a single part and they get entries as both the set and the part,
so two different entries and price guides.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 12:16 | | Subject: | Re: Sprues | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Leftoverbricks writes:
| | In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | In Catalog, Leftoverbricks writes:
| | Are sprues like the one from
[p=x8] in the catalog?
If yes: how to find?
If no: why not?
|
I would have been interested in buying them when I first discovered their use
in MOCs. I had to buy new leaves instead, in the hope they would include the
sprues.
This might be one of those cases where it would be good to make an exception
and include it in the catalogue. You could try to add it and see what the catmins
think of it. Whether the sprue alone stands a chance, I don't think so, but
the 'leaves on sprue' part has precedents in the flowers, coins and keys.
|
They are indeed used in MOC's, just like the pins that hold together RC Rails
or the sprue that holds the Harry Potter wands.
[p=36752c01]
The latter one is a popular 'part' in MOC's after New Elementary
published an excellent in-depth article about it: https://www.newelementary.com/2018/08/how-to-use-lego-harry-potter-wand-sprue.html#more
You can see that this part has System connections. So while it is not a part
that you can buy in the LEGO bricks shop, it is somehow a LEGO thing that people
want to buy (and sell).
|
See also here:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=227725
As I noted back then, the throwing star ones have "anti-stud" connections on
the underneath. You can use them on a neck bracket to look like mini airtanks.
|
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 12:05 | | Subject: | Re: Sprues | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Cups can be reused as their intended purpose, a “conduit” as you put it, Miro.
A sprue can not. But that doesn't preclude the sprue from being repurposed
and resold.
|
Yeah, I don't think a cup and a sprue are analogous, as the sprue is a leftover
that cannot be re-used for the intended purpose. They are more like the leftovers
of a sticker sheet once the sticker(s) have been removed or cape and string
boxes that have been opened and had the parts removed. They can occasionally
be used (especially if you want a thin mirror sticker for a MOC, for example)
but are unlikely to get added to the catalogue. I haven't seen a good use
for old cape boxes, aside from storing capes or string in them.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 10:42 | | Subject: | Re: Sprues | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | In Catalog, Leftoverbricks writes:
| | Are sprues like the one from
[p=x8] in the catalog?
If yes: how to find?
If no: why not?
|
I would have been interested in buying them when I first discovered their use
in MOCs. I had to buy new leaves instead, in the hope they would include the
sprues.
This might be one of those cases where it would be good to make an exception
and include it in the catalogue. You could try to add it and see what the catmins
think of it. Whether the sprue alone stands a chance, I don't think so, but
the 'leaves on sprue' part has precedents in the flowers, coins and keys.
|
If that one is allowed, then all the others should be allowed too. Some of them
have uses, or may have uses in the future.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 10:31 | | Subject: | Re: Coral part should not be in the Plant Section | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | The part in question just reminds me a lot of the fire corals and elkhorn corals
I use to snorkel around when I was younger.
|
yes and on first impression i'd say it is a coral, but LEGO calls it a plant
and considering LEGO owns this site and to keep part name continuation between
sites I think we should also call it a plant 
|
Torso and other printed part searches are going to be horrendous if you stick
to the line that LEGO owns the site and their terminology should be used.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 10:29 | | Subject: | Re: Sprues | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Leftoverbricks writes:
| | Are sprues like the one from
[p=x8] in the catalog?
If yes: how to find?
If no: why not?
|
No, they aren't - although there is a picture of the sprue in the additional
images. I guess no sprues are in the catalogue because they are not official
parts, just rubbish left over when removing the part(s).
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 10:25 | | Subject: | Re: Coral part should not be in the Plant Section | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, superchicken77 writes:
| | This is an interesting topic. One one hand I'm reading that people want
the catalog to be accurate. However, nobody has considered what most people (not
BL experts) will identify that part as or how they will search for it.
In coral colour, I would be searching for coral. In dark turquoise, I would
be searching for seaweed. As it stands now, I wouldn't find that part in
coral. Perhaps an extended description or additional tag to include coral?
|
Agreed! I have submitted a name change for the catmins to review.
Jen
|
I disagree since LEGO calls this part plant, so if people are looking for this
part based on what LEGO has and has sold I'd be looking for plant, this is
called part continuation between sites, there is also the fact LEGO owns this
place and if they are gonna call it plant there, they can call it plant here.
|
There is no harm in adding another name for it, it does not stop anyone searching
for seaweed finding it, and helps others that use another term.
This part:
* | | 55236 Plant Vine Seaweed / Appendage Spiked / Bionicle Spine
Parts: Plant |
is known by LEGO as "Tail Ø 3,2". I prefer the more descriptive name that BL
uses.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 04:36 | | Subject: | Re: Coral part should not be in the Plant Section | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, alcedoatthis writes:
| | Hello Bricklinkers,
Some minutes ago, I found out that the "Coral" part (49577) is included in the
Plant Section of Bricklink, which is scientifically wrong. Coral is an Animal!
Please check additional information here:
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coral.html
I wrote to customer service of Bricklink explaining this mistake. I hope they
change this part to the Animal Water section!
Best,
Rita
|
As it represented seaweed first, it is a plant. To me, I'd identify it as
seaweed, but if people also recognize it as coral, then maybe that should be
added to the name for search purposes. I wonder how many people pick one of these
up and the first word that comes to mind when searching for it is thallus.
Interesting this case is vice versa, a part that has been used extensively as
plants
* | | 55236 Plant Vine Seaweed / Appendage Spiked / Bionicle Spine
Parts: Plant |
but is listed as an animal part, as that was its original use. Although at least
it had its name changed to include seaweed and plant vine, as that it was it
is also recognizable as.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jun 30, 2020 07:25 | | Subject: | Re: Sets Members Want Project | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | From the to-do list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476
Add Sets Members Want - A project to discuss and possibly add pickable
models, in-store builds, and other similar sets to the catalog...
Project Review: This project traveled directly from under consideration to completed.
There were no existing guidelines discussing these kinds of sets, so no policy
changes were required. Instead, after administrative discussion, the majority
were in agreement to rescind the unwritten rule that prohibited addition of these
sets.
Date first added: December 6th, 2018
Date work began: June 13th, 2020
Goal for completion: July 1st, 2020
Date actually completed: June 17th, 2020
Suggested by: Many members
Maybe this is not so complete as catmins would like to believe it is as it appears
that none of those sets are in the catalogue at this time.
Also:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1204676
seems to be voided now.
So perhaps this project should be set to under consideration again just so the
ball is not dropped and the technical issues, whatever those may be, can be addressed
before the goal date. I would dearly like to believe that BL will eventually
give members what they want.
|
Funny enough, I found a couple of sticker sheets for Superman the other day.
https://brickset.com/sets/SUPERMAN-1/Superman
But it's a shame that I have used all the parts for something else now.
|
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2020 06:53 | | Subject: | Re: sw0527a r2-d2 misprint? | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Help | |
|
| In Help, iprice writes:
| | In Help, spacecaptain writes:
| | has anyone seen this? the head is rotated 45 degrees. it came in 75257. i
can't find any pictures anywhere.
|
I'm amazed that, despite the head being rotated, it's actualy printed
level. That's gotta be a misprint!
|
It is interesting that all the colours are aligned correctly on an unaligned
part, so they must be doing "wet-on-wet" printing - printing one colour directly
after another without moving the part.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jun 28, 2020 14:15 | | Subject: | Re: NPBs and NSSs proportional to feedback rating | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | I agree with no NPB and no feedback for mutual cancellations. In my experience,
the bulk of completed NPB's are users who just simply refuse to communicate.
The Buyers who request cancellation in my store will get cancelled without incident,
with few exceptions. However, when a large order is placed, with many lots, and
a good amount of time spent pulling it together, it does not leave the Seller
with good feelings towards a cancelling Buyer.
|
Yes, that is why I don't pick and pack before payment.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jun 28, 2020 08:03 | | Subject: | Re: NPBs and NSSs proportional to feedback rating | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | 4.when a buyer or seller has had no negative/neutral feedback for the last 5
years or so,his/her negatives or neutrals older then 5 years should be removed
from the scoreboard
so this is an extra motivation to improve quality or behaviour
|
If old negatives are removed, then old positives should also be removed. After
all, if bad behaviour is removed from a record, then so should any good feedback
at the same time.
I have no problem with the positive praise rating being calculated over the past
year or five years or whatever, but I don't think old feedback should ever
be removed.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jun 28, 2020 05:49 | | Subject: | Re: NPBs and NSSs proportional to feedback rating | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | If I do cancel the order, the buyer can give me a negative, so I have to undergo
the NPB procedure in order to prevent the seller from giving nasty feedbacks.
|
I think this is part of the issue. If a buyer contacts a seller and asks if they
can cancel and the seller agrees, I see no reason for NPB or feedback. The seller
knows the buyer doesn't want to proceed so could cancel the order and none
of their inventory is held up. There is no need for the seller to leave negative
feedback for a buyer if the buyer has asked for the cancellation and the seller
mutually agrees. I'd prefer to see it that if the order is mutually cancelled,
then no feedback should be allowed from either party. I think it is quite nasty
for a seller to mutually agree to cancel an order, then leave negative feedback
as the buyer asked to cancel. It is just vindictive. If sellers do this, then
there is little point in the buyer asking to cancel, they might as well just
sit it out and wait for the NPB, holding up the seller's inventory all that
time.
I'd much prefer to have buyers that ask to cancel than ones that do not contact
and just sit and wait it out even though they have no intention of paying.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 14:11 | | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | […]
Part of the problem is buyers keep buying from sellers with relatively poor feedback,
suggesting (some) buyers don't care.
|
I think it’s more a “it won’t happen to me” attitude.
Remember HouseOfLogo (and what a real mess it was).
|
Yes, and it was a huge ordeal to get that store shut down. I have often thought
of establishing some kind of disciplinary board to handle these high profile
cases. But regardless of the mechanism, honest data from users would be a big
help.
|
If you want honest feedback from buyers, then remove feedback for buyers. That
way, they don't have anything to lose by being honest (not that a buyer's
feedback matters anyway). Buyers getting only positives like at ebay is pointless.
You might as well just use the buyer order count instead, it amounts to the same
thing and saves a seller the time of leaving positive feedback.
It would be nice though to have a buyer score based not on the feedback they
received, but the feedback they left. If a buyer continuously leaves negatives
or neutrals as they feel they have the power to do so with no comeback, then
they are the problem. It should not be anonymous either. If they leave a seller
a negative (or multiple negatives), then the seller should have the right to
ban them from continuing to purchase and continue to leave poor feedback. If
a buyer has a problem with say 1 in every 20 orders, then leaving negative feedback
on that scale is fine. However, if they claim they have negative experiences
in 1 in every 2 orders then I imagine they will get added to many stoplists and
should probably be banned themselves.
I think you have to be careful though, giving lots of power to buyers might actually
reduce standards. If a buyer says they have a problem and is probably going to
leave negative feedback anyway no matter what the seller does, then the seller
has no incentive to put things right. And in a similar way, if negatives become
more common and there is some threshold set then there is less of an incentive
to maintain an excellent record when good enough is still enough to keep selling.
I think there is a better way for you to maintain standards than through feedback
though and that is through NSS claims. Not completed ones, but claims. For example,
if a seller continually fails to deliver but refunds when caught and does this
time and time again, why are they allowed to continue getting away with it? Just
refunding when they get a complaint does not mean they are a good seller.
You could always have another box for buyers to fill in when leaving feedback
- asking did you get everything in your order in the stated condition. If a seller
gets below a certain percentage for those, they should be warned. If they continue
to get very low ratings, then they should be banned. Of course, it should only
count if a buyer fills in this information for all of their orders.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 05:10 | | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | As it goes a rule not allowing retaliatory feedback should also be added for
removal of said feedback
|
I voted no, for the simple reason that a bad seller that knows they have done
wrong will leave a negative feedback first. Then any negative feedback
from the buyer is retaliatory and should be removed according to the rule. So
the buyer gets negative feedback and the seller gets none.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 04:19 | | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, Heartbricker writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, Heartbricker writes:
| | I don’t think it’s fair but I also don’t think that merits an intervention or
an investment of resources.
The retaliatory feedback reflects worse on the person who left it.
As a seller, this feedback wouldn’t cause me to block the buyer- specially considering
the seller who left it has a bad track record.
This has no impact on the buyer, it impacts the seller negatively as it should-
seems like it’s working okay.
It’s not perfect but it doesn’t merit investment of resources.
|
Actually you would be wrong, how do people not know the buyer was very difficult
or made outrageous demands or such? you don't all you know is the buyer got
a negative feedback which reflects on him in the negative and you are saying
he has to suffer with it. wouldn't be surprised if this keeps up this site
may lose many potential buyers because they are not allowed to change a grave
injustice to their reputation and you are ok with that.
|
Your insinuation of me not caring about buyers experience is a good point for
me to tag out and not waste any further time debating you.
good luck.
|
But it is true, you say he should just keep the negative feedback, it is like
you do not care and think nothing should be done about and that I disagree with.
|
Does it matter if the buyer has a negative feedback? It is not possible to stop
anyone with a minority of negative feedback from buying, so the buyer is not
affected in any way. However, if a buyer has many negative feedbacks, then they
are probably a problem.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 04:16 | | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | That, of course, is the real issue. IMO we need an auxiliary buyer feedback system
that is completely anonymous, where the results are amalgamated before presenting
them (privately) to the seller. These results could then be used to weed out
sellers who consistently perform poorly and lower the reputation of the site.
|
There are a number of sellers that come up time and time again, for bad selling
practices. Leaving negative feedback, not supplying items but refunding to get
out of NSS, sending orders missing items and refunding for missing parts without
telling buyers, and so on. If BL really cared, they could weed out these sellers
now.
Part of the problem is buyers keep buying from sellers with relatively poor feedback,
suggesting (some) buyers don't care.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jun 20, 2020 14:26 | | Subject: | Re: Terminology - DB to organize my 100,000+ pcs | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | QUESTIONS: Q1;What are these sub-categories called? I would call them an ELEMENT.
is that correct? is there a better name for the sub-categories? Further, the
sub-categories such as 1x1 bricks of course come in many colours. Q2: What are
these sub-sub-categories called, or what are these ELEMENTs with a particular
colour called? I would call them a PART. Correct? Any other better name?
Q3; Lastly, if I hold in my hand, one blue 1x1 brick, what should that be called?
I would suggest that is a PIECE. Correct? Any better answer?
CATEGORY :: ELEMENT :: PART :: PIECE ??
|
It is the other way around. A 1x1 brick is a part. A 1x1 brick in blue is an
element. A single piece in your hand can be called piece or part or element,
whatever you want really.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jun 18, 2020 12:28 | | Subject: | Re: Retirement Date List | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, legohed writes:
| | Hi all,
New member here...
I'm interested to know if there is a list anywhere of the sets with their
retirement date.
I see the 'year released' on all the item pages, but nothing on retirement.
If anyone can help I'd be most grateful
Thanks!
|
Do you mean already retired sets? If so, look on brickset, they have data the
sets were available direct from LEGO so about as close to a retirement date as
you can get.
For future retirements, there are only guesses.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jun 15, 2020 09:49 | | Subject: | Re: Tan Knit Sweater Minifig Torso (76382) | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, DianeGronas writes:
| | Tan Knit Sweater Minifig Torso (76382)
|
Why are you starting loads of threads with no questions in?
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jun 15, 2020 04:34 | | Subject: | Re: Minifigures being given incorrect codes? | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | As a huge minifigure collector who categorizes their entire collection by the
BrickLink item numbers, I would not be in favor of any renumbering of huge swaths
of the BrickLink catalog as it stands. Small sections, okay, but not lumping
Galaxy Squad into the Classic Space figures, etc. I think having minifigures
classified according to the themes they occur in is how they should be classified
for now, and the catalog manages to currently do that relatively okay for the
majority of the minifigures.
|
It would be absolutely crazy to remove an entire theme such as Galaxy Squad from
both sets and minifigures, to rebrand the humans into a minifigure section called
Classic Space and the aliens into a completely different section called Aliens,
chuck all the sets in an unsorted Space section, but keep the name of the theme
alive in part names such as "Galaxy Squad Armor".
Oh, wait a minute ... that is exactly what BL is planning with XP.
More than ever minifigures need the correct numbering as that is the only link
to the theme within XP.
|
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jun 10, 2020 04:29 | | Subject: | Re: Consistent Zamor Sphere Inventory Listings | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| | | Currently, Zamors are often inconsistently listed. For example, Zaktan is listed
with a different zamor from the other 5 Piraka sets, even though they all share
the same one
|
What do you mean by this, as they all are catalogued as containing:
* | | 54821pb05 Ball, Bionicle Zamor Sphere with Marbled Trans-Bright Green Pattern
Parts: Ball |
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jun 4, 2020 04:12 | | Subject: | Re: Implement an enforced grading scale | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | The site already has a "grading scale" even if its designed to convey the history
of the piece. New and Used.
|
This is not a grading scale. It is a binary condition. A part is either new or
used. There is no scale.
| | I'm just suggesting one that is more intuitive, and accurate. Even changing
it to "new" "used" and "broken" would be a huge improvement in my opinion, and
its not as paradigm shifting as you people seem to think.
|
It would not be more accurate, as it would be subjective.
What does broken mean? A piece could be heavily scratched but completely functional,
therefore not broken as it functions as intended.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jun 4, 2020 04:00 | | Subject: | Re: Implement an enforced grading scale | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | Then I fail to see why having a more intuitively labled system is a bad idea?
|
New vs used is easy to define. If it has been used, it is used. If it has not
been used, it is new.
Whereas labelling schemes like
excellent very good good reasonable poor
or 1 2 3 4 5
are highly subjective.
Worse still is when you combine that with the fact that most orders are not individual
pieces, a buyer will get a range of conditions within "good" - likely some will
be almost very good whereas others will be only just better than reasonable.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jun 4, 2020 03:55 | | Subject: | Re: Implement an enforced grading scale | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | I know sellers already grade parts, I'm asking for that information in a
way thats easier to use for purchases then the current "notes" method.
If that was implemented for sellers to use, then I think they would make more
money.
|
More money - but for how much extra work and storage space?
| | On TCGPlayer, statistically cards with pictures sell more for cards without,
even when damaged. Buyers like knowing they are going to get something with a
lower potential for dispute later.
|
Do sellers on this card site sell 10s or 100s or 1000s of the same card, in
multiple grades, for a few cents each? And do buyers buy 10s or 100s or 1000s
of the same card at a time? If not, you are not comparing like with like.
| | A built in, accurate method of correctly labeling the condition of parts, would
make better condition parts more valuable, and easier to purchase for interested
buyers.
|
It wouldn't make it easier, it would make it harder, as when sorted by grade
each grade for the same part becomes a different lot, and there would be many,
many more smaller lots that a buyer needs to look through. It would make it easier
to know what you are getting though.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jun 3, 2020 18:05 | | Subject: | Re: Implement an enforced grading scale | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | It is a free market. If the idea made economic sense ( ie the profit from additional
orders attracted was greater than the cost of grading, sellers would do it without
being told to. Hundreds of sellers are now thinking about your suggestion.
Let's see if it affects their actions. Lots of sellers grade instructions.
Many grade boxes. More than a few grade stickers for older sets. Nothing should
stop them from grading parts.
|
Very true, and of course some already do grade parts. When you look at many of
the boxes, instructions, sticker sheets, etc that get graded, they tend to be
the valuable ones. I think most sellers that have valuable used parts do something
similar. If something is uncommon and vaulable, it is worth letting a buyer know
what the condition is. Whereas if the seller has 100s or 1000s of a common part
worth a few cents each, in many different conditions, then it is probably less
worthwhile listing the conditions of each one.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jun 3, 2020 16:42 | | Subject: | Re: Implement an enforced grading scale | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, revfds writes:
| | the thing I dislike most about ordering from this site, in how hard it is to
control the quality of the pieces that I get.
And I don't think loose pieces should be categorized between "new" and "used",
because all loose pieces are used (Yes I know you can order them individually
from Lego at times, but functionally when you buy lego it comes in a set, outside
of that set they are used).
What there needs to be is a grading scale, either number based (1-5) or description
based (Comics use words like Mint, Near Mint, Very Fine, Fine, etc; playing cards
will use words like Near Mint, Lightly Played, Moderately Played, Damaged, etc).
Sellers would be forced to classify all their pieces into one of these conditions,
and then I would be able to filter out conditions that I thought were unacceptable.
|
A big downside of this is that used parts then need 5x the number of locations
for storage and, being a continuous scale, there will still be disputes. I don't
know what the cards you sell are worth but when you factor in that some parts
are worth a cent or two, it is unlikely that sellers would want a five point
scale.
I can understand a (used) scale something like - excellent/like new, some playwear,
heavy playwear. But even that means 3x locations for used parts and would not
be popular. And there will still be disputes over condition.
Even a two point scale for used - acceptable and filler - leads to double the
number of storage locations, and of course there will be some things a seller
calls acceptable that are really filler, leading to disputes.
They could ban anything that is poor condition, but then people will complain
that sometimes people want filler quality bricks or that damaged minifigures/parts
should be allowed to be sold.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jun 3, 2020 16:26 | | Subject: | Re: Implement an enforced grading scale | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | Correct me if I'm wrong, but currently there isn't a way to do advanced
catalog search to omit items with comments/remarks added? That would weed out
entries where there's been a note about playwear/discoloring/bites etc.
Wouldn't get them all if they aren't remarked, but it would weed out
a lot.
|
It would also weed out all the ones where a seller says that the parts are excellent
condition, and eventually lead to all sellers saying nothing about condition
if it became the norm to filter out anything with a comment.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jun 3, 2020 14:17 | | Subject: | Re: Show Tracking number on Orders list | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | Also, incentives should be made to encourage tracking numbers. 1st class postage
with tracking can be had for around $3 in the US for small items, most places
have charged me at least that regardless of whether they include tracking or
not. It should be prioritized, and required for purchases over a certain amount
as it alleviates a lot of headache and prevents a lot of bad interactions.
When I sell cards on www.Tcgplayer.com, I waive my right to win any dispute with
a buyer if I do not include a tracking #, and I have to include one in order
to get paid for an order over $50. I love it, because when things go missing,
I can just politely point them to the USPS and both Tcgplayer and Paypal will
have my back.
|
It should be up to a seller to decide if they insist on tracking or not and for
what order size. This is a global site and works well in one country does not
work so well in others.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jun 1, 2020 07:08 | | Subject: | Re: Did horizontal become vertical & vice versa? | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Legoboy_II writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | Thanks for the explanation!
I am pretty sure that the plates also used to be called differently. (vertical
was horizontal and around)
Theory behind the names is not logical to me, when a clip is vertical, call it
vertical. Why go a step further and think about the bar that will attach it.
|
|
|
| | Valid argument, however, the manufacturer is the naming source, and shouldn't
we respect that they are considering the orientation of the clip itself, not
the "channel" or the orientation of the object it might hold?
|
LEGO kept the names secret for many years, and BL started using it's own
definition. If BL changes this, then should change they everything else to fit
LEGO's catalogue too? For example,
should be called a ROCKER BEARING 1x2.
[p=30367c]
is a FINAL BRICK 2x2.
Then there are inconsistencies in the naming of similar parts:
LEGO calls these:
RIGHT PLATE W. ANGLE 3X12
and
LEFT PLATE 2X3 W/ANGLE
One gets the dimensions first, then angle, the other is the other way around.
Plus one name is "W. ", the other is "W/"
These two, that look similar, have similar names at BL:
Whereas at LEGO one is a BRICK 2X2W.INSIDE AND OUTS.BOW, the other is a BOW 1/4
4X4X1. So one is a brick, the other a bow.
You'd expect these two things to be similar based on their LEGO names:
BRICK W. BOW 2X4
BRICK W. BOW 1X4
Yet the names correspond to these parts:
And this thing:
has no orientation in the name, it is just a PLATE 1X1 W/ HOLDER.
| | The industry standard for such devices, is that opposing angles bind; that is
to say, a vertical device holds a horizontal element, and the part's reference
is based on the object you are referring to, not the future mated object.
|
But what defines a clip, is it the "arms" or is it groove in it? It could be
either, especially as they are both roughly the same dimensions here.
How would you describe these, if they needed to be distinguished?
I would say they are vertical and horizontal, and they hold vertical and horizontal
parts.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jun 1, 2020 06:31 | | Subject: | Re: Torso: Misprint or Variant? | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
snip
| |
Is this down to print density? The part name does not mention the shade of the
colour grey. I wonder if a thin coat of grey appears dark (bluish) grey whereas
a thicker coat appears lighter.
|
Under a magnifying glass, they both look equally dotty (or pixelated). I hope
the image at the original resolution can show that. Also the tie on the black
knot, seems to have some shading whereas the tie with the white knot looks to
be more of a solid colour. I cannot tell if there is a difference in printing
apart from the fact that they look different.
|
The close up of the knot does make it look different. I anything, the black knot
looks more "correct" as the tie is uniformly black, unless it is a tie that is
half white, half black.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jun 1, 2020 04:56 | | Subject: | Re: Torso: Misprint or Variant? | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | I have some from sets between 2008 and 2010 that have a white
knot on the tie and Light Grey lapels, sides and button prints, as in the part
on the left in the image.
The assembly on the right is from sets in 2007, 2010 and 2013, which has the
same torso as the current entry for this part - black knot and Dark Grey lapels,
sides and button prints, on the right in the image.
Is this a misprint on those torsos I have or is it a differrent torso altogether?
|
Is this down to print density? The part name does not mention the shade of the
colour grey. I wonder if a thin coat of grey appears dark (bluish) grey whereas
a thicker coat appears lighter.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jun 1, 2020 04:51 | | Subject: | Re: Did horizontal become vertical & vice versa? | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Thanks for the explanation!
I am pretty sure that the plates also used to be called differently. (vertical
was horizontal and around)
Theory behind the names is not logical to me, when a clip is vertical, call it
vertical. Why go a step further and think about the bar that will attach it.
At least on Brickset they do it right.
https://brickset.com/parts/4533771/brick-1x1-w-holder-h0rizontal
|
Brickset copies lego names, which is why they also copy LEGO's errors, such
as using a zero instead of an O. It doesn't have to be the bar you think
of, you can also think of the channel of the clip, the channel runs vertically.
That said, I think the definition based on what a clip holds is probably best,
as clips are designed to hold something. So if I use a clip to hold a drainpipe,
I want a vertical one.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 27, 2020 10:08 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | 1. Offering a tiered discount schedule can be a good marketing strategy, when
employed correctly and truly passes on a wholesale savings, elsewise, buyers
could see it as price gouging at the lower tiers, similar to the earlier comment
regarding same;
|
Sure, I have no issue with price tiers. They make sense if it helps sell a lot
of the same items. The thing I think weird is ...
| | 2. Regarding when there aren't enough items to meet a tier limit, I always
recommend to my clients that they advertise their scheme, and allow aggregation
of orders or backorders, IF they intend to replenish their stock in a timely
manner, though I discourage aggregation of future orders. Elsewise, remove the
advert;
|
... this. Sellers shouldn't tell a buyer they can buy 10 for a discount if
they only have 9.
It would be simple for BL to remove the tiered pricing from the buyer's view
when it cannot be met, even though it stays in the seller's inventory. Better
still would be a warning in the inventory page that highlights the issue to a
sell, so they can either reduce the number needing to be purchased in a tier
or increase stock numbers if they can fulfill it.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 26, 2020 12:02 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | "Verkoopt U ook kussentjes?"
|
Goedemiddag
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 26, 2020 11:49 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Buying | |
|
| In Buying, crazylegoman writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | Why does bricklink show this? A simple IF statement could be used to only show
a discount when it is possible for a buyer to achieve. Then it doesn't make
the store look stupid by offering discounts that a buyer cannot possibly take
advantage of.
|
The older version of Bricklink used to do this automatically. It's a bug
that they've never fixed.
David
|
Yeah, I thought it used to work correctly but couldn't really remember. It
is difficult to tell whether something automatically disappeared or the seller
removed a discount.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 26, 2020 07:10 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | Why does bricklink show this? A simple IF statement could be used to only show
a discount when it is possible for a buyer to achieve. Then it doesn't make
the store look stupid by offering discounts that a buyer cannot possibly take
advantage of.
|
I notice almost every day that the perfect way to ensure Dutch people will never
buy croissants or buns, is by putting a sign "4 for €1" when there's 3 left.
Pretty sure that if they'd remove the sign, people would be willing to pay
€1 each
|
Yes, we have the same here with "buy one get one free" which often means the
store is overcharging for one but when you get two for the same price they are
charging about the right price for each. And if there is only one left on the
shelf, it will never sell.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 26, 2020 06:56 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | Keeps its value(s) once they replenish or rotate their stock.
|
Yes, it can be kept for the seller with their inventory - but there is not really
any reason to show it to the buyer. If anything, it puts a buyer off buying from
the store now if they think there will be a discount in the future if the store
replenishes stock.
An alternative is that a seller could opt to give a discount on min(all, N) where
N is a variable. So if their stock drops below N, a buyer can still buy all the
seller can supply right now at their discount level.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 26, 2020 04:47 | | Subject: | Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 241 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Why does bricklink show this? A simple IF statement could be used to only show
a discount when it is possible for a buyer to achieve. Then it doesn't make
the store look stupid by offering discounts that a buyer cannot possibly take
advantage of.
|
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 22, 2020 05:36 | | Subject: | Re: Is dual color mold really decorated? | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | I think we should decide a term that fits more than Dual moulded too, so MCM
is a good option. But we never know if in the future Lego might do hundreds of
dual and triple and future selfs would like to distinguish them 
But as things are, this is not likely the case haha
|
Yes, multi-color molded is probably a good idea rather than dual. If for example
there is a piece with A-B-A colouring (like Bart Simpson legs) is that dual or
triple molding? It might be triple molded but dual colored.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 21, 2020 15:11 | | Subject: | Re: Is dual color mold really decorated? | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | As for dual-molded parts, I would say that the appearance of the part
is what is important. If a part appears to have a pattern, then BrickLink should
probably treat it as a patterned part regardless of the production method.
This is because when anyone is looking for an item, I imagine they would want
a clean distinction between plain parts and multicolored or patterned parts.
That's not to say we couldn't distinguish dual-molded parts in some
way, either with titles or item numbers. For example, we already distinguish
patterned parts that have stickers using the part title.
|
| | The dual-molding issue will have to wait until we get to a catalog page that
would address it.
|
I don't care either way, but it would be very useful to know which legs are
dual molded (and so have the correct colours on the back of the legs) vs those
that are printed (and so have a single colour on the backs).
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 13, 2020 16:19 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Parts P - R | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | I don't think the definitions should be so focussed.
|
I've modified the Propeller definition to this:
For items with circularly-spinning blades, including accessories and component
parts.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 13, 2020 12:19 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Parts P - R | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| .
| |
I'd shorten the definition to say two or more blades that spin around. Even then
what about the individual blades that are listed there?
|
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 13, 2020 12:18 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Parts P - R | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Propeller - For items with two or more blades that spin round at speed
to provide movement or control for ships, boats and aircraft. Note 8
|
What about submarines, spacecraft or land based vehicles such as high speed cars.
I don't think the definitions should be so focussed.
Then there are these types ...
Introduced as windmill / turbines.
If shorten the definition to say two of more blades that spin around. Even then
what about the individual blades that are listed there?
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 5, 2020 04:33 | | Subject: | Re: Part Lists | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | Since bricklink is now part of Lego, perhaps the bricklink part lists for sets
cold be compared with the Lego lists and corrected as necessary.
|
I agree. LEGO could correct their inventory lists based on those at Bricklink.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 04:49 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | […]
I had already questioned this in the admin forums yesterday. None of us even
knew this was happening, and we are as surprised as anyone else. We pretty much
got the rug pulled out from under us, and I honestly have no idea where we go
from here.
|
Change the buying process, don’t ask anything to experienced buyers.
Change the selling process, don’t ask anything to experienced sellers.
Change the catalogue, don’t ask anything to catalogue admins BL appointed!
“Hobby project” indeed.
|
I guess if you think about it, LEGO just made lego.com move up one place in the
best LEGO websites.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 04:43 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Is this entire project now dead, given LEGO has re-mapped the catalog to make
it logical for new users (new users that obviously have no interest at all in
themes, part types, etc)?
|
I had already questioned this in the admin forums yesterday. None of us even
knew this was happening, and we are as surprised as anyone else. We pretty much
got the rug pulled out from under us, and I honestly have no idea where we go
from here.
|
I guess it is time to save a "community catalog" again, before the old one is
removed and the re-mapped one becomes the new BL standard.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 04:25 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Is this entire project now dead, given LEGO has re-mapped the catalog to make
it logical for new users (new users that obviously have no interest at all in
themes, part types, etc)?
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 09:07 | | Subject: | Re: 3626cpb2463 Fright knight head | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Torso looks male.
In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| |
* | | 3626cpb2463 Minifigure, Head Alien Female Bright Light Blue Long Eyelashes and Cheek Lines, White Eyes, Blue Open Mouth Smile with Teeth Parted and Fangs Pattern - Hollow Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
I notice the head of the Fright Knight from CMF S19 is listed as female. Has
LEGO ever confirmed that this character is meant to be female? I couldn't
find the online bios like they used to do.
|
|
Yes the torso is a "male" or at least gender neutral one without the typical
curves given to female adult torsos. I just found it strange that the head was
listed as female, given most / all people on youtube and other reviews talk of
him / he / his when referring to the Fright Knight.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 09:00 | | Subject: | 3626cpb2463 Fright knight head | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
|
* | | 3626cpb2463 Minifigure, Head Alien Female Bright Light Blue Long Eyelashes and Cheek Lines, White Eyes, Blue Open Mouth Smile with Teeth Parted and Fangs Pattern - Hollow Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
I notice the head of the Fright Knight from CMF S19 is listed as female. Has
LEGO ever confirmed that this character is meant to be female? I couldn't
find the online bios like they used to do.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 12:14 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | I like that plan. It solves the whole box and instruction issue for them too.
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | According to the new page "Games - These are considered sets when the game is
significantly brick-built. Games that do not predominantly feature built models
are considered gear."
So . . . will finally be considered sets?
|
Yes, that's the plan at the moment.
|
|
Yes, a good move here. However, there is still ambiguity in what "significantly
brick-built" means.
Maybe they should just include regular bricks / LEGO parts as opposed to significantly
brick built. That would exclude the games with cardboard pieces and so on plus
it would mean any real minifigures or parts are in sets not games.
Creationary, for example, the whole point is that it is not brick-built at least
at the start of the game. Plus there is no right way to build it. Where would
that go?
I guess problem ones are like this one:
[g=852676]
where the lego parts are only really used as game pieces, and the minifigures
are not real figures. That one feels more like a game.
But this one:
[g=g574]
has real buildable figures but the board is pre-assembled.
And this one, very similar:
[g=852750]
but you build the board on a piece of gear (plus the similar Castle one).
And this one:
[g=852751]
where there are many buildable figures, and some small builds with a pre-glued
board.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 08:53 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
| | I agree. If there are studs on top, then it is a "Plate, modified". If there
are no studs on top, then it is a "Tile, modified".
|
Should the hollow stud count as a stud as it is different to studs on normal
plates. To me, a jumper is a tile with a hollow stud in the middle.
And what about this one? It has a stud on it, its just that there is a bar in
between the surface and the stud.
* | | 30256 Support 2 x 2 x 5 Bar on Tile Base with Solid Stud and Stop Ring
Parts: Support |
Although I would say a 2x2 jumper and the bar above are in the same family as
this one, which is clearly not a plate.
Making up taxonomy rules is very difficult!
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 23, 2020 13:21 | | Subject: | Re: Instructions | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| If they start differentiating instructions then they will need to do boxes too,
as they are also different.
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 21, 2020 05:57 | | Subject: | Re: A few more Preference options | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, bje writes:
Yeah, that is no good.
Not being able to set defaults for the things I use 100s of times every day is
annoying!
Especially as you can exclude items in stores which do not ship to me, avoid
sellers that are least favourites and that exclude me, and can set to only see
new or used items. But cannot set a default for the location of the seller.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 21, 2020 03:57 | | Subject: | Re: A few more Preference options | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Is there a way to restrict all stores to UK only by default when I am searching
for an item. I know I can select it every time I search, but can I do it automatically?
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 18, 2020 11:57 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Parts A sect | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Ducks and chickens can fly. I think I'd prefer all birds to go in the same
category, to avoid such confusion.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 17, 2020 04:45 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, Miro78 writes:
| | The distinction between Plate, Modified and Tile, Modified is quite
confusing as are some parts that blur between the 2 categories of Brick, Modified
and Slope, Curved
|
And this is the purpose of category definitions: to clear up that confusion.
Do these new definitions serve that purpose? If not, then how can they be improved?
|
They have to explicitly place every existing part into one category or another.
So for example, if a part with a curved surface has at least one top stud on
it, then define it as a modified brick. If it does not, then define it as a slope.
And so on. That way, there is no ambiguity. Of course, some people may not agree
with the definitions, but if they are defined, then at least there are no arguments
as to where it should go.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2020 12:53 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | I don't see the definition of Plate, Modified and Tile, Modified helping
to choose between them for parts like .
Coincidentally, earlier today I noted the category Mini Dolls Hair - Is there
any physical distinction between hair originally used for mini dolls and hair
used for minifigures? If not, why would this be a separate category?
|
Some are worn by both minidolls and minifigures, such as:
* | | 92254pb01 Mini Doll, Hair Combo, Hair with Hat, Long Ponytail, Side Bangs, Hole in Back with Molded Black Horse Riding Helmet Pattern
Parts: Mini Doll, Hair |
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemIn.asp?P=92254pb01&in=M
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2020 12:47 | | Subject: | Re: Buyer Lock In | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | I agree with you that this can be an issue. Personally I would like to see a
feature where all sellers have to state an order response time in their terms
(a required field) and if they do not respond within that time then the buyer
can just cancel the order with no risk of NPB or bad feedback and the store automatically
closes until the seller wakes up.
|
I agree for first communication. But then, it should probably be standardised
across all sellers. If a seller hasn't invoiced within 7 days, then a buyer
should have the right to cancel without penalty. It wouldn't bother me if
it was three days. It might be better to have two categories, say, fast = 3 days
and slow = 7 days. If it was just a(nother) number to measure a store by, then
would buyers act on it? Whereas if a store was marked as slow or fast responders,
then at least a buyer knows to avoid a 'slow' store if they are in a
hurry for parts. Although even then of course, they will need to make sure they
choose a store in their own country and pay for fast / premium shipping depending
on location if they need things quick. Of course, if time is not an issue, then
'slow' stores would not be a problem, so long as the buyer knows they
will get a response.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2020 09:46 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Was the whole point not that you must become your own thingie?
|
No, just that we are no longer part of THAT thingie, where THAT thingie is the
European Union.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2020 08:02 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Another funny language one here:
Card, Collector Card - For items that are essentially trading cards released
in the 1990s.
Card, Trading Card - For cards that typically come in series to be collected.
Collector cards are essentially trading cards, whereas trading cards are
to be collected.
Aren't these the same thing, differentiated here only by a release date?
If they are different things, then I note that all of the Collector Cards are
LEGO Builders Club cards. If that is what makes them Collector Cards rather than
Trading Cards, why not call them that.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2020 07:53 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| There are a number of phrases such as "intended to appeal to girls". Is this
necessary? Shouldn't the phrases describe the product/item and not the intended
user? Otherwise, why not have things like "intended to appeal to Star Wars fans"
for Star Wars sets, and so on.
Dots - For a line of sets and related items initially released in 2020 that
featured tiny parts and were intended to appeal to girls.
LEGO uses the word KIDS in the advertising, and there are some boys in the
adverts for them.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2020 07:14 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Are all the dates necessary, as these will need updating if things change and
new items fall into older categories.
For example:
No dates are given:
Harry Potter - For themed sets and related items from the Harry Potter universe.
Star Wars - For themed sets and related items from the Star Wars universe.
Dates are given, but not so well defined:
The Lord of the Rings - For sets and other items related to three different Lord
of the Rings movies and released in the early 2010s
Dates are given and are highly specific:
Pirates of the Caribbean - For sets and other items released primarily in 2011
and related to one or more movies of the same name.
Why not use the HP or SW one as a guide and not include dates in the others.
POTC had The Silent Mary and also the Brickheadz sets outside of the given date,
so why not just say POTC refers to the POTC universe. Same for LOTR and the Tolkein
universe.
I can understand having dates for in-house themes that will not be repeated such
as Pirates I, II and III. If LEGO suddenly decides to release more LOTR or POTC
sets, then having the dates will be misleading or need correcting.
This one is incorrect:
The Battle of the Five Armies - For sets and other items related to the Lord
of the Rings movie of the same name and released in the mid 2010s.
This was a "The Hobbit" movie, not LOTR.
|
Thinking more about it, might it be more useful to have three separate lists:
1. In-house LEGO theme names
2. Licensed theme names
3. Everything else (all the parts type names and so on)
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2020 07:09 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Are all the dates necessary, as these will need updating if things change and
new items fall into older categories.
For example:
No dates are given:
Harry Potter - For themed sets and related items from the Harry Potter universe.
Star Wars - For themed sets and related items from the Star Wars universe.
Dates are given, but not so well defined:
The Lord of the Rings - For sets and other items related to three different Lord
of the Rings movies and released in the early 2010s
Dates are given and are highly specific:
Pirates of the Caribbean - For sets and other items released primarily in 2011
and related to one or more movies of the same name.
Why not use the HP or SW one as a guide and not include dates in the others.
POTC had The Silent Mary and also the Brickheadz sets outside of the given date,
so why not just say POTC refers to the POTC universe. Same for LOTR and the Tolkein
universe.
I can understand having dates for in-house themes that will not be repeated such
as Pirates I, II and III. If LEGO suddenly decides to release more LOTR or POTC
sets, then having the dates will be misleading or need correcting.
This one is incorrect:
The Battle of the Five Armies - For sets and other items related to the Lord
of the Rings movie of the same name and released in the mid 2010s.
This was a "The Hobbit" movie, not LOTR.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 10, 2020 14:41 | | Subject: | Re: Automatic feedback | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | But I do agree that automatic feedback as an optional feature would be welcomed
|
I guess also why not also have automatic feedback for buyers too, as their time
is also better spent than saying how good a seller is. The seller can automatically
leave +ve after the buyer leaves it, and the buyer can automatically leave +ve
after the seller leaves it. Or both get positive after six months when the order
is purged.
Another interesting statistic would be to show also the percentage of +ve feedback
left by a buyer/seller. That might make more sellers leave (+ve) feedback when
warranted, otherwise their ratio of +ve feedback left would be very low.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 10, 2020 07:10 | | Subject: | Re: Automatic feedback | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Erikmax writes:
| | In Suggestions, Erikmax writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | Why not just leave feedback as part of processing the order at time of payment
or when you change the order status to shipped. It is a couple of extra clicks
and how long does it take to write "good buyer" or similar?
1-2 hours per month is 2-4 minutes per day. Do it at the time of processing an
order and it is nothing.
|
It adds up to be excactly the same precious time, even much more because batch
handling saves some time and by copy/paste youdon't have to type the comment
over and over again. Why not doing it (optional) if it saves time anyway?
|
..and I don't think the moment you ship is the moment you give the positive
FB, better is to do it some time afterwards.
|
Waiting some time afterwards suggest that you need to either think about the
transaction again before leaving positive (which costs significant time),
or more likely just wait for positive from the buyer as a check that the buyer
did not leave negative, so you can do the same.
For many sellers, if the buyer (of good standing) pays promptly I image the vast
majority of transactions will go on to be positive and so there is not really
any reason not to leave feedback straight away, especially if you are confident
that the buyer will be happy with their order.
Of course, not leaving positive feedback for buyers is also an option and quicker
but then it makes sellers look a bit aggressive when they only leave negatives
and neutrals, if buyers look at feedback left by sellers before buying. Although
I imagine most buyers don't do this.
As as seller, I don't really care if a buyer leaves me a feedback - I'm
not going to stop a buyer from buying in future just because of it. Whereas as
a buyer, if I leave a seller feedback and the seller doesn't spend a few
seconds to leave me one, then they clearly don't value my custom very highly
and I tend not to buy from them again.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 10, 2020 06:06 | | Subject: | Re: Automatic feedback | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Why not just leave feedback as part of processing the order at time of payment
or when you change the order status to shipped. It is a couple of extra clicks
and how long does it take to write "good buyer" or similar?
1-2 hours per month is 2-4 minutes per day. Do it at the time of processing an
order and it is nothing.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Mar 25, 2020 15:19 | | Subject: | Re: Money off code to distribute | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, allenafol writes:
| | Hi,
I think it would be great if you could generate a code for your store so people
could enter it for a discount.
This would be good for marketing on social media rather than having to issue
individual coupons.
Is there any chance this could be developed?
Thanks,
Allen.
|
You don't use Instant Checkout, so why not just put your code on facebook
or wherever, saying add it to the order comments. Then you can manually adjust.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Mar 19, 2020 05:39 | | Subject: | Re: A private message for SylvainLS | | Viewed: | 95 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Sylvain,
The source for this request is a new copy of this train. I was trying to show
to the catalog admins how extra bricks were used for alternate models so I carefully
built part of two alternate models using few bricks very carefully. I was so
carefully with bricks. Do you think if my copy is still in new condition or used?
I mean, if I decide to sell it one day, can I still list and sell it as "new",
knowing the good reason I had for building part of two alternate models?
|
No, not if it had been built. If there are exceptions for taking catalogue pictures,
then why not have exceptions for builders that build it carefully for their own
use (blogs, videos, etc).
You could substitute those used parts with new ones and sell it as new but bags
opened. Although the instructions are used if you thumbed through them.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
United Kingdom, England
