|
 |
| | | Author: | par016  | | Posted: | Mar 6, 2015 08:54 | | Subject: | Solid Stud Heads | | Viewed: | 168 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| So I have been thinking a bit about the issues surrounding solid stud heads.
There seems to be a clear desire by at least some members to straighten this
issue out. I don't care too much which way it ends up going (though all my
future older figures will contain comments on head styles) but I did have a possible
solution.
I think that the reasons I have heard for not fixing this is:
A) It's in the rules that all figures will be inventoried with hollow stud
heads
B) There are so many listings that were made under this rule that changing it
would cause a lot of problems for sellers
C) Creating variants (such as sp007a) for every figure with solid studs is just
ridiculous
I agree that these are definitely concerns. When I first started selling, the
catalog was cannon. I figured that if the catalog said hollow studs, they better
be hollows studs otherwise buyers might get upset. I actually removed a few
solid stud heads from classic figures to add to my inventory. Going through
my ~2000 inventoried minifigures would probably be a pain now (though the vast
majority of those came after the switch). However, I do think that this is an
issue that should be addressed if possible.
I have no idea how feasible this is, however, I wouldn't think that it would
be too hard to implement. What if figures that are known to have been discontinued
before the 1990-1991 switch had some programming done to change the way they
are uploaded to the catalog? It could be programmed into the system to have
a pop up message when a seller tries to add any of these figures to their inventory.
The message would says something along the lines of "These figures must have
Solid Stud Heads to be added to the catalog." Then on top of that the system
AUTOMATICALLY puts "-Solid Stud Head" in the comments section.
This would allow users that have already uploaded figures with hollow stud heads
to continue selling their figures, the catalog would slowly update to the correct
version, people would be able to see which figures have solid stud heads by looking
at the comments, a new catalog entry would not be necessary.
Once all the figures before implementation of this were deleted, the catalog
could then be updated to reflect the change to solid stud heads.
Obviously I am not a BrickLink admin, and I am sure people will find problems
with my idea, but I thought I would try to throw out a compromising solution.
Whether it is feasible or nor and whether it will solve the problem is up to
the admins and community. Just an idea.
-Pete
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Miro78 | | Posted: | Mar 6, 2015 09:32 | | Subject: | Re: Solid Stud Heads | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, par016 writes:
| | So I have been thinking a bit about the issues surrounding solid stud heads.
There seems to be a clear desire by at least some members to straighten this
issue out. I don't care too much which way it ends up going (though all my
future older figures will contain comments on head styles) but I did have a possible
solution.
I think that the reasons I have heard for not fixing this is:
A) It's in the rules that all figures will be inventoried with hollow stud
heads
B) There are so many listings that were made under this rule that changing it
would cause a lot of problems for sellers
C) Creating variants (such as sp007a) for every figure with solid studs is just
ridiculous
I agree that these are definitely concerns. When I first started selling, the
catalog was cannon. I figured that if the catalog said hollow studs, they better
be hollows studs otherwise buyers might get upset. I actually removed a few
solid stud heads from classic figures to add to my inventory. Going through
my ~2000 inventoried minifigures would probably be a pain now (though the vast
majority of those came after the switch). However, I do think that this is an
issue that should be addressed if possible.
I have no idea how feasible this is, however, I wouldn't think that it would
be too hard to implement. What if figures that are known to have been discontinued
before the 1990-1991 switch had some programming done to change the way they
are uploaded to the catalog? It could be programmed into the system to have
a pop up message when a seller tries to add any of these figures to their inventory.
The message would says something along the lines of "These figures must have
Solid Stud Heads to be added to the catalog." Then on top of that the system
AUTOMATICALLY puts "-Solid Stud Head" in the comments section.
This would allow users that have already uploaded figures with hollow stud heads
to continue selling their figures, the catalog would slowly update to the correct
version, people would be able to see which figures have solid stud heads by looking
at the comments, a new catalog entry would not be necessary.
Once all the figures before implementation of this were deleted, the catalog
could then be updated to reflect the change to solid stud heads.
Obviously I am not a BrickLink admin, and I am sure people will find problems
with my idea, but I thought I would try to throw out a compromising solution.
Whether it is feasible or nor and whether it will solve the problem is up to
the admins and community. Just an idea.
-Pete
|
Pete,
I am all for having a sensible catalog, and one problem I foresee is if a seller
removes the listing for some reason and then wants to add it back later, but
now they might not have a complete figure with the correct head type as would
be required by this new implementation.
Perhaps there ought to be an undetermined head entry? Would this please both
sides?
Miro
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | par016 | | Posted: | Mar 6, 2015 09:47 | | Subject: | Re: Solid Stud Heads | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Miro78 writes:
| | In Suggestions, par016 writes:
| | So I have been thinking a bit about the issues surrounding solid stud heads.
There seems to be a clear desire by at least some members to straighten this
issue out. I don't care too much which way it ends up going (though all my
future older figures will contain comments on head styles) but I did have a possible
solution.
I think that the reasons I have heard for not fixing this is:
A) It's in the rules that all figures will be inventoried with hollow stud
heads
B) There are so many listings that were made under this rule that changing it
would cause a lot of problems for sellers
C) Creating variants (such as sp007a) for every figure with solid studs is just
ridiculous
I agree that these are definitely concerns. When I first started selling, the
catalog was cannon. I figured that if the catalog said hollow studs, they better
be hollows studs otherwise buyers might get upset. I actually removed a few
solid stud heads from classic figures to add to my inventory. Going through
my ~2000 inventoried minifigures would probably be a pain now (though the vast
majority of those came after the switch). However, I do think that this is an
issue that should be addressed if possible.
I have no idea how feasible this is, however, I wouldn't think that it would
be too hard to implement. What if figures that are known to have been discontinued
before the 1990-1991 switch had some programming done to change the way they
are uploaded to the catalog? It could be programmed into the system to have
a pop up message when a seller tries to add any of these figures to their inventory.
The message would says something along the lines of "These figures must have
Solid Stud Heads to be added to the catalog." Then on top of that the system
AUTOMATICALLY puts "-Solid Stud Head" in the comments section.
This would allow users that have already uploaded figures with hollow stud heads
to continue selling their figures, the catalog would slowly update to the correct
version, people would be able to see which figures have solid stud heads by looking
at the comments, a new catalog entry would not be necessary.
Once all the figures before implementation of this were deleted, the catalog
could then be updated to reflect the change to solid stud heads.
Obviously I am not a BrickLink admin, and I am sure people will find problems
with my idea, but I thought I would try to throw out a compromising solution.
Whether it is feasible or nor and whether it will solve the problem is up to
the admins and community. Just an idea.
-Pete
|
Pete,
I am all for having a sensible catalog, and one problem I foresee is if a seller
removes the listing for some reason and then wants to add it back later, but
now they might not have a complete figure with the correct head type as would
be required by this new implementation.
Perhaps there ought to be an undetermined head entry? Would this please both
sides?
Miro
|
That's a great point Miro. However, I feel like that wouldn't affect
many sellers and it would require the seller to actually do something in order
for that to be a problem. I think the whole point is to slowly get the catalog
to be more accurate in this area, and while they might not be able to sell their
figures the way they were they would then be notified of what it would need to
be and could fix them before re-uploading them. Again it's not perfect and
your point is certainly a valid one.
I would be curious how closing your store or putting items in your stockroom
would affect the listings if this was actually implemented.
I think the reason that the undetermined head entry isn't feasible is that
dozens of entries would then have to be added to the catalog for undetermined
heads. On top of that, it does not fix the problem with the current listings
having hollow heads.
-Pete
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | George_Lucy | | Posted: | Mar 6, 2015 10:31 | | Subject: | Re: Solid Stud Heads | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| The way it is right now if there is no doubt that a figure comes with both
heads it is only assigned the hollow stud head. If you buy 3 sets to part out
and the figure in there comes with stud recessed you technically do not have
a correct figure to list. You have to put a note on the listing or sell it and
hope the buyer doesn't care. How does that make sense?
In Suggestions, par016 writes:
| | In Suggestions, Miro78 writes:
| | In Suggestions, par016 writes:
| | So I have been thinking a bit about the issues surrounding solid stud heads.
There seems to be a clear desire by at least some members to straighten this
issue out. I don't care too much which way it ends up going (though all my
future older figures will contain comments on head styles) but I did have a possible
solution.
I think that the reasons I have heard for not fixing this is:
A) It's in the rules that all figures will be inventoried with hollow stud
heads
B) There are so many listings that were made under this rule that changing it
would cause a lot of problems for sellers
C) Creating variants (such as sp007a) for every figure with solid studs is just
ridiculous
I agree that these are definitely concerns. When I first started selling, the
catalog was cannon. I figured that if the catalog said hollow studs, they better
be hollows studs otherwise buyers might get upset. I actually removed a few
solid stud heads from classic figures to add to my inventory. Going through
my ~2000 inventoried minifigures would probably be a pain now (though the vast
majority of those came after the switch). However, I do think that this is an
issue that should be addressed if possible.
I have no idea how feasible this is, however, I wouldn't think that it would
be too hard to implement. What if figures that are known to have been discontinued
before the 1990-1991 switch had some programming done to change the way they
are uploaded to the catalog? It could be programmed into the system to have
a pop up message when a seller tries to add any of these figures to their inventory.
The message would says something along the lines of "These figures must have
Solid Stud Heads to be added to the catalog." Then on top of that the system
AUTOMATICALLY puts "-Solid Stud Head" in the comments section.
This would allow users that have already uploaded figures with hollow stud heads
to continue selling their figures, the catalog would slowly update to the correct
version, people would be able to see which figures have solid stud heads by looking
at the comments, a new catalog entry would not be necessary.
Once all the figures before implementation of this were deleted, the catalog
could then be updated to reflect the change to solid stud heads.
Obviously I am not a BrickLink admin, and I am sure people will find problems
with my idea, but I thought I would try to throw out a compromising solution.
Whether it is feasible or nor and whether it will solve the problem is up to
the admins and community. Just an idea.
-Pete
|
Pete,
I am all for having a sensible catalog, and one problem I foresee is if a seller
removes the listing for some reason and then wants to add it back later, but
now they might not have a complete figure with the correct head type as would
be required by this new implementation.
Perhaps there ought to be an undetermined head entry? Would this please both
sides?
Miro
|
That's a great point Miro. However, I feel like that wouldn't affect
many sellers and it would require the seller to actually do something in order
for that to be a problem. I think the whole point is to slowly get the catalog
to be more accurate in this area, and while they might not be able to sell their
figures the way they were they would then be notified of what it would need to
be and could fix them before re-uploading them. Again it's not perfect and
your point is certainly a valid one.
I would be curious how closing your store or putting items in your stockroom
would affect the listings if this was actually implemented.
I think the reason that the undetermined head entry isn't feasible is that
dozens of entries would then have to be added to the catalog for undetermined
heads. On top of that, it does not fix the problem with the current listings
having hollow heads.
-Pete
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Mar 6, 2015 10:32 | | Subject: | Re: Solid Stud Heads | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | Perhaps there ought to be an undetermined head entry? Would this please both
sides?
|
I'd prefer that for all minifigs. Just have the minifig with undetermined
head as the standard. Then if a seller wants, they can specify the head type
in the comments. If a buyer cares, they can check comments, or can ask the seller.
There are of course many people that care about getting the "correct" head as
catalogued (even if the figure was issued with two types). However, there are
many buyers (and indeed sellers too) that also don't care.
This is not just an issue for solid vs hollow, it also occurs for hollow vs blocked
open.
As for inventory of the minifig, there should also then be alternates so all
relevant heads can belong to the figure.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | viejos | | Posted: | Mar 6, 2015 13:27 | | Subject: | Re: Solid Stud Heads | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Miro78 writes:
| | I am all for having a sensible catalog, and one problem I foresee is if a seller
removes the listing for some reason and then wants to add it back later, but
now they might not have a complete figure with the correct head type as would
be required by this new implementation.
Perhaps there ought to be an undetermined head entry? Would this please both
sides?
Miro
|
Frankly, I would rather have an undetermined entry solution instead of the situation
we have now with the early minifigs. At least the inventories wouldn't be
incorrect.
But the problem with using an undetermined entry is that doing so would orphan
the determined entries. I have only seen a couple of instances where active entries
were orphaned after having had a place in the inventory system, and there were
people that were furious about it. So I doubt whether both sides would ever accept
that, especially considering the work that has gone into separating the partially
blocked stud and recessed stud in modern inventories.
Russell
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | viejos | | Posted: | Mar 6, 2015 13:06 | | Subject: | Re: Solid Stud Heads | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I voted yes to this suggestion, not because I agree in every detail, but I am
happy to see more input on this subject.
In Suggestions, par016 writes:
| | So I have been thinking a bit about the issues surrounding solid stud heads.
There seems to be a clear desire by at least some members to straighten this
issue out. I don't care too much which way it ends up going (though all my
future older figures will contain comments on head styles) but I did have a possible
solution.
I think that the reasons I have heard for not fixing this is:
A) It's in the rules that all figures will be inventoried with hollow stud
heads
|
It is sometimes overlooked that this is actually a written rule that has been
established on the site for a long time. Undoubtedly it was a rule that was enacted
at the site Admin level, not at the volunteer Admin level, and in order to "undo"
this rule, it would follow that our proposal would also have to be accepted by
the current site Administration (i.e. Jaclyn, Ryan, Marvin). One of the reasons
I am interested in as much input as possible, is that it will help make our presentation
(if things get that far) more comprehensive and more worthy of approval.
| | B) There are so many listings that were made under this rule that changing it
would cause a lot of problems for sellers
|
A change would only cause actual problems if we implemented it in the wrong way.
I will admit there is no way of dealing with this issue without some *effort*
required on the part of affected sellers, but actual problems (e.g. upset buyers)
should not be part of the equation.
And I would rather dwell on all the problems *solved* by the change. For example,
the way things are set up now, a seller could still end up with a problem if
a buyer would expect a certain head simply because the fig was used in an early
set inventory. IMO, if a dispute escalates to the level that a seller has to
point to the fig inventory to prove they are in the right, things have already
gone too far, especially since we have disclaimers on every inventory, and the
fact that early fig inventories were forced to have a certain type of head.
| | C) Creating variants (such as sp007a) for every figure with solid studs is just
ridiculous
|
This whole issue is seen as ridiculous by folks who don't think the stud
type is something the site should distinguish. In fact, when I first started
seeing alternate fig entries being created for recessed stud heads, I must admit
I really questioned whether the site could handle the ensuing complexity. However,
we are several years into that decision, and it seems to have been the right
one.
And I do believe that when it gets right down to it, the final result of implementing
a fix for the solid stud heads would not only be tolerable, but an efficient,
useful part of the site. It would keep the vintage and modern figs in their rightful
places, while providing correct guidance to the thousands of new users that come
to the site every year.
| | I agree that these are definitely concerns. When I first started selling, the
catalog was cannon. I figured that if the catalog said hollow studs, they better
be hollows studs otherwise buyers might get upset. I actually removed a few
solid stud heads from classic figures to add to my inventory. Going through
my ~2000 inventoried minifigures would probably be a pain now (though the vast
majority of those came after the switch). However, I do think that this is an
issue that should be addressed if possible.
|
Ideally, every seller would have read the rule, know the timeline for each head,
and be brave enough to add remarks to their listings instead of altering their
fig to match the inventory. But we know this is not always the case, and perhaps
not even typically the case. It's the same issue with an incorrect image.
People *should* rely primarily on the item name, but they often don't, and
therefore it is critical that correct images accompany listings whenever possible.
| | I have no idea how feasible this is, however, I wouldn't think that it would
be too hard to implement. What if figures that are known to have been discontinued
before the 1990-1991 switch had some programming done to change the way they
are uploaded to the catalog? It could be programmed into the system to have
a pop up message when a seller tries to add any of these figures to their inventory.
The message would says something along the lines of "These figures must have
Solid Stud Heads to be added to the catalog." Then on top of that the system
AUTOMATICALLY puts "-Solid Stud Head" in the comments section.
This would allow users that have already uploaded figures with hollow stud heads
to continue selling their figures, the catalog would slowly update to the correct
version, people would be able to see which figures have solid stud heads by looking
at the comments, a new catalog entry would not be necessary.
|
From my buying experience on BL I can tell you that no feature or rule will ever
stop people from listing things they way want to list them. An auto-add note
would really muddy the waters further, because it would give buyers potentially
false information about stud type.
| | Once all the figures before implementation of this were deleted, the catalog
could then be updated to reflect the change to solid stud heads.
|
It typically takes several years for old listings to get sold or moved in cases
where an entry has been marked for deletion. I sense from the people pushing
for this change that a solution that comes to fruition in that length of time
is not really what they had in mind. There is no solution that will fix the problem
overnight, either, but my own plan estimates the changes could be made comfortably
over a period of 12 weeks.
| | Obviously I am not a BrickLink admin, and I am sure people will find problems
with my idea, but I thought I would try to throw out a compromising solution.
Whether it is feasible or nor and whether it will solve the problem is up to
the admins and community. Just an idea.
-Pete
|
Thanks again for the ideas. They will be included in my research.
Russell
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, New York
United Kingdom, England
