Should BrickLink focus more on restoring BL 1.0 functionality as it was, working,
ugly et al.? (Yes)
Should BrickLink focus more on the MOC Shop (No)
I think this is not a fair question. The MOC shop will test the code for some
things that we would like to have in Bricklink 1.x
I don't need the MOC shop, and I wonder if it will succeed, but maybe it
can expand the market to people who would not end up here otherwise.
I don't think the MOC shop is so bad, let's give it a chance. If it is
user friendly and clear to me, I am certainly going to look into which models
I can support. Not all of those MOCs make sense to put on sale, but some cute
small ones have a certain desktop appeal, I can imagine people buying those.
For us, it could be a chance to get a wider range of customers and maybe sell
different parts.
I definitely thing the BL 1.0 functionality should be solid and more user friendly
for beginners. So a make-over is quite necessary in my opinion. Right now it's
more a site for nerds than a friendly and robust looking service that LEGO's
customer support can refer people to without feeling awkward about it.
Should BrickLink focus more on restoring BL 1.0 functionality as it was, working,
ugly et al.? (Yes)
Should BrickLink focus more on the MOC Shop (No)
I think this is not a fair question. The MOC shop will test the code for some
things that we would like to have in Bricklink 1.x
I don't need the MOC shop, and I wonder if it will succeed, but maybe it
can expand the market to people who would not end up here otherwise.
I don't think the MOC shop is so bad, let's give it a chance. If it is
user friendly and clear to me, I am certainly going to look into which models
I can support. Not all of those MOCs make sense to put on sale, but some cute
small ones have a certain desktop appeal, I can imagine people buying those.
For us, it could be a chance to get a wider range of customers and maybe sell
different parts.
I definitely thing the BL 1.0 functionality should be solid and more user friendly
for beginners. So a make-over is quite necessary in my opinion. Right now it's
more a site for nerds than a friendly and robust looking service that LEGO's
customer support can refer people to without feeling awkward about it.
I suggested "Word cloud" parts lookup long ago.
Yes, we need an updated interface. We also need the site to do what we need.
Indeed, it takes a geek to understand how to "work" BrickLink. I spent a month
looking at this site in 2007 just to figure it out.
I also suggested a "New buyer tutorial" and a "new seller tutorial" as a mandatory.
That was long ago.
Should BrickLink focus more on restoring BL 1.0 functionality as it was, working,
ugly et al.? (Yes)
Should BrickLink focus more on the MOC Shop (No)
I think this is not a fair question. The MOC shop will test the code for some
things that we would like to have in Bricklink 1.x
I don't need the MOC shop, and I wonder if it will succeed, but maybe it
can expand the market to people who would not end up here otherwise.
I don't think the MOC shop is so bad, let's give it a chance. If it is
user friendly and clear to me, I am certainly going to look into which models
I can support. Not all of those MOCs make sense to put on sale, but some cute
small ones have a certain desktop appeal, I can imagine people buying those.
For us, it could be a chance to get a wider range of customers and maybe sell
different parts.
I definitely thing the BL 1.0 functionality should be solid and more user friendly
for beginners. So a make-over is quite necessary in my opinion. Right now it's
more a site for nerds than a friendly and robust looking service that LEGO's
customer support can refer people to without feeling awkward about it.
I suggested "Word cloud" parts lookup long ago.
Yes, we need an updated interface. We also need the site to do what we need.
Indeed, it takes a geek to understand how to "work" BrickLink. I spent a month
looking at this site in 2007 just to figure it out.
I also suggested a "New buyer tutorial" and a "new seller tutorial" as a mandatory.
That was long ago.
-R
Those sound like good ideas! Yeah, an interface make-over is long overdue. The
tabs with the subtabs don't quite cut it - even I would have to spend some
time searching through them if I wanted to create a coupon or do something else
I rarely do.
It's nice that BL has this "many roads lead to Rome" kind of philosophy,
but it can also put newbies off. For example, when you want to go buy something,
you do NOT typically go to the "buy" tab. I would take the "catalog" approach
and I bet everyone has their own preferred series of steps. Instead of those
fairly misleading/nondescriptive one-word tabs, it would be nice if there were
just big buttons with "I want to buy a part" and "I want to browse stores in
an area" so people feel confident about where they are going. I wouldn't
spend any money if I didn't feel 100% confident about where a site is taking
me next.
(Sorry, I don't mean to bash BL, it all works out perfectly for me, but I'm
just thinking how we could embrace more people )
Should BrickLink focus more on restoring BL 1.0 functionality as it was, working,
ugly et al.? (Yes)
Should BrickLink focus more on the MOC Shop (No)
I think this is not a fair question. The MOC shop will test the code for some
things that we would like to have in Bricklink 1.x
I don't need the MOC shop, and I wonder if it will succeed, but maybe it
can expand the market to people who would not end up here otherwise.
I don't think the MOC shop is so bad, let's give it a chance. If it is
user friendly and clear to me, I am certainly going to look into which models
I can support. Not all of those MOCs make sense to put on sale, but some cute
small ones have a certain desktop appeal, I can imagine people buying those.
For us, it could be a chance to get a wider range of customers and maybe sell
different parts.
I definitely thing the BL 1.0 functionality should be solid and more user friendly
for beginners. So a make-over is quite necessary in my opinion. Right now it's
more a site for nerds than a friendly and robust looking service that LEGO's
customer support can refer people to without feeling awkward about it.
I think the point of it, despite the fact that it's done and this suggestion
will fall on deaf ears, is this.
If you were in charge of Bricklink's development, would you have put months
of effort into creating a MOC shop instead of prioritizing 10 or so really major
things, 30 more semi-major things?
I think that's the point that people make..
Course, if they shared their plan with us before they started developing, we
could have at least provided group input, but no one does that apparently.
Should BrickLink focus more on restoring BL 1.0 functionality as it was, working,
ugly et al.? (Yes)
Should BrickLink focus more on the MOC Shop (No)
I think this is not a fair question. The MOC shop will test the code for some
things that we would like to have in Bricklink 1.x
I don't need the MOC shop, and I wonder if it will succeed, but maybe it
can expand the market to people who would not end up here otherwise.
I don't think the MOC shop is so bad, let's give it a chance. If it is
user friendly and clear to me, I am certainly going to look into which models
I can support. Not all of those MOCs make sense to put on sale, but some cute
small ones have a certain desktop appeal, I can imagine people buying those.
For us, it could be a chance to get a wider range of customers and maybe sell
different parts.
I definitely thing the BL 1.0 functionality should be solid and more user friendly
for beginners. So a make-over is quite necessary in my opinion. Right now it's
more a site for nerds than a friendly and robust looking service that LEGO's
customer support can refer people to without feeling awkward about it.
I think the point of it, despite the fact that it's done and this suggestion
will fall on deaf ears, is this.
If you were in charge of Bricklink's development, would you have put months
of effort into creating a MOC shop instead of prioritizing 10 or so really major
things, 30 more semi-major things?
I think that's the point that people make..
Course, if they shared their plan with us before they started developing, we
could have at least provided group input, but no one does that apparently.
Yeah agreed. First stable and robust 1.0 with interface update. Only when that
part has had a make-over, we can afford to have additional stuff. Otherwise we'll
get completely lost in a maze of options I'm secretly hoping for a BL
2.0 launch that includes the MOC shop as a natural part of the new design, not
as an ad hoc added extension to the old guff.
Should BrickLink focus more on restoring BL 1.0 functionality as it was, working,
ugly et al.? (Yes)
Should BrickLink focus more on the MOC Shop (No)
I think this is not a fair question. The MOC shop will test the code for some
things that we would like to have in Bricklink 1.x
I don't need the MOC shop, and I wonder if it will succeed, but maybe it
can expand the market to people who would not end up here otherwise.
I don't think the MOC shop is so bad, let's give it a chance. If it is
user friendly and clear to me, I am certainly going to look into which models
I can support. Not all of those MOCs make sense to put on sale, but some cute
small ones have a certain desktop appeal, I can imagine people buying those.
For us, it could be a chance to get a wider range of customers and maybe sell
different parts.
I definitely thing the BL 1.0 functionality should be solid and more user friendly
for beginners. So a make-over is quite necessary in my opinion. Right now it's
more a site for nerds than a friendly and robust looking service that LEGO's
customer support can refer people to without feeling awkward about it.
I think the point of it, despite the fact that it's done and this suggestion
will fall on deaf ears, is this.
If you were in charge of Bricklink's development, would you have put months
of effort into creating a MOC shop instead of prioritizing 10 or so really major
things, 30 more semi-major things?
I think that's the point that people make..
Course, if they shared their plan with us before they started developing, we
could have at least provided group input, but no one does that apparently.
Yeah agreed. First stable and robust 1.0 with interface update. Only when that
part has had a make-over, we can afford to have additional stuff. Otherwise we'll
get completely lost in a maze of options I'm secretly hoping for a BL
2.0 launch that includes the MOC shop as a natural part of the new design, not
as an ad hoc added extension to the old guff.
Let's say that BL wants to put out a live version of the new interface, which
sellers can opt into, which will draw in new buyers and test out functionality
all without breaking existing stores.
Should BrickLink focus more on restoring BL 1.0 functionality as it was, working,
ugly et al.? (Yes)
Should BrickLink focus more on the MOC Shop (No)
I think this is not a fair question. The MOC shop will test the code for some
things that we would like to have in Bricklink 1.x
I don't need the MOC shop, and I wonder if it will succeed, but maybe it
can expand the market to people who would not end up here otherwise.
I don't think the MOC shop is so bad, let's give it a chance. If it is
user friendly and clear to me, I am certainly going to look into which models
I can support. Not all of those MOCs make sense to put on sale, but some cute
small ones have a certain desktop appeal, I can imagine people buying those.
For us, it could be a chance to get a wider range of customers and maybe sell
different parts.
I definitely thing the BL 1.0 functionality should be solid and more user friendly
for beginners. So a make-over is quite necessary in my opinion. Right now it's
more a site for nerds than a friendly and robust looking service that LEGO's
customer support can refer people to without feeling awkward about it.
I think the point of it, despite the fact that it's done and this suggestion
will fall on deaf ears, is this.
If you were in charge of Bricklink's development, would you have put months
of effort into creating a MOC shop instead of prioritizing 10 or so really major
things, 30 more semi-major things?
I think that's the point that people make..
Course, if they shared their plan with us before they started developing, we
could have at least provided group input, but no one does that apparently.
Yeah agreed. First stable and robust 1.0 with interface update. Only when that
part has had a make-over, we can afford to have additional stuff. Otherwise we'll
get completely lost in a maze of options I'm secretly hoping for a BL
2.0 launch that includes the MOC shop as a natural part of the new design, not
as an ad hoc added extension to the old guff.
Let's say that BL wants to put out a live version of the new interface, which
sellers can opt into, which will draw in new buyers and test out functionality
all without breaking existing stores.
What would that look like?
It would look like the MOC shop.
Frankly, I think this approach is brilliant.
--
Marc.
Hadn't thought of that one yet. That could be a very good point, although
it does remain a guess I agree that would be a genius strategy..
Let's say that BL wants to put out a live version of the new interface, which
sellers can opt into, which will draw in new buyers and test out functionality
all without breaking existing stores.
What would that look like?
It would look like the MOC shop.
Frankly, I think this approach is brilliant.
--
Marc.
Really?
Me: "You know, it's annoying that when I pull into my driveway I have to
put my car in Park, get out and unlock the garage door, open it by hand, and
then get back in my car to pull the rest of the way in."
Remodeler: "You're in luck. They make automatic 'garage door openers'
now! Just give me $300K and 6 months and I can build you a whole new house next
door that has one in it so you can see how great it works!"
Let's say that BL wants to put out a live version of the new interface, which
sellers can opt into, which will draw in new buyers and test out functionality
all without breaking existing stores.
What would that look like?
It would look like the MOC shop.
Frankly, I think this approach is brilliant.
--
Marc.
Really?
Me: "You know, it's annoying that when I pull into my driveway I have to
put my car in Park, get out and unlock the garage door, open it by hand, and
then get back in my car to pull the rest of the way in."
Remodeler: "You're in luck. They make automatic 'garage door openers'
now! Just give me $300K and 6 months and I can build you a whole new house next
door that has one in it so you can see how great it works!"
You would prefer that they build it right on top of your house?
The new Bricklink will not have identical functionality as the existing Bricklink.
I very much appreciate that the new site is being built in parallel instead
of potentially breaking the existing site as updates are rolled out.
Marc, thank you for expressing this so clearly. I've posted a similar explanation
a couple of times in the forum, but I wasn't nearly as succinct.
When the full MOC Shop launches, it will include a lot of the framework and features
that are planned for the future BL website. I know it may seem like an odd choice
to many of our members, but the MOC Shop is a big development step toward the
new BL website. Even if you don't have an interest in buying or selling on
the MOC Shop, the site is going to test out features that will benefit you on
BL down the road.
In the mean time, we are also looking into issues that can be addressed here
on the current BL website to improve functionality. While it may not always seem
like it, all three websites (MOC Shop, current BL website, future BL website)
are being worked on simultaneously.
Thanks
Amanda
CS Team
Let's say that BL wants to put out a live version of the new interface, which
sellers can opt into, which will draw in new buyers and test out functionality
all without breaking existing stores.
Should BrickLink focus more on restoring BL 1.0 functionality as it was, working,
ugly et al.? (Yes)
Should BrickLink focus more on the MOC Shop (No)
I think this is not a fair question. The MOC shop will test the code for some
things that we would like to have in Bricklink 1.x
I don't need the MOC shop, and I wonder if it will succeed, but maybe it
can expand the market to people who would not end up here otherwise.
I don't think the MOC shop is so bad, let's give it a chance. If it is
user friendly and clear to me, I am certainly going to look into which models
I can support. Not all of those MOCs make sense to put on sale, but some cute
small ones have a certain desktop appeal, I can imagine people buying those.
For us, it could be a chance to get a wider range of customers and maybe sell
different parts.
I definitely thing the BL 1.0 functionality should be solid and more user friendly
for beginners. So a make-over is quite necessary in my opinion. Right now it's
more a site for nerds than a friendly and robust looking service that LEGO's
customer support can refer people to without feeling awkward about it.
I think the point of it, despite the fact that it's done and this suggestion
will fall on deaf ears, is this.
If you were in charge of Bricklink's development, would you have put months
of effort into creating a MOC shop instead of prioritizing 10 or so really major
things, 30 more semi-major things?
I think that's the point that people make..
Course, if they shared their plan with us before they started developing, we
could have at least provided group input, but no one does that apparently.
Yeah agreed. First stable and robust 1.0 with interface update. Only when that
part has had a make-over, we can afford to have additional stuff. Otherwise we'll
get completely lost in a maze of options I'm secretly hoping for a BL
2.0 launch that includes the MOC shop as a natural part of the new design, not
as an ad hoc added extension to the old guff.
Putting the cart before the horse comes to mind, no?
Should BrickLink focus more on restoring BL 1.0 functionality as it was, working,
ugly et al.? (Yes)
Should BrickLink focus more on the MOC Shop (No)
I think this is not a fair question.
What would be a fair question, or questions?
I would like to see both. We need people to work on Bricklink 1.x and
we need people to work toward the future.
I just one of our developers is working on 1.x and 14 are working on 2.0 then
I think we have a problem. If 8 are working on 1.x and 7 are working on 2.0 then
it might be reasonable.
Should BrickLink focus more on restoring BL 1.0 functionality as it was, working,
ugly et al.? (Yes)
Should BrickLink focus more on the MOC Shop (No)
I can't answer the question, the moc website is still very bad design, I
can barely read text and design is nonsensical. I REALLY hope bl 2.0, (real 2.0,
not "plugin" of moc pages) will not like that.
Should BrickLink focus more on restoring BL 1.0 functionality as it was, working,
ugly et al.? (Yes)
Should BrickLink focus more on the MOC Shop (No)
I understand what you are trying to get at, but the question can not provide
any answers. None of us know what level of resources have been committed to each
project and none of know what the final outputs are intended to be. Do you want
pig-in-a-poke #1 or pig-in-a-poke #2?
Should BrickLink focus more on restoring BL 1.0 functionality as it was, working,
ugly et al.? (Yes)
Should BrickLink focus more on the MOC Shop (No)
Voted No.
There is no real evidence that one is going to hold up the other. Just because
some number of people are working on the MOC Shop concept does not instantly
mean that they are resources being taken away from some other project.
BL has said nothing about having a finite number of people and having them all
divided to the MOC shop concept.
USA, Washington
Netherlands, Zuid-Holland
)
Canada, Ontario
I'm secretly hoping for a BL
I agree that would be a genius strategy..
