|
 |
| | | Author: | calsbricks  | | Posted: | Sep 15, 2017 10:09 | | Subject: | Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 130 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Sep 15, 2017 11:39 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
I would vote no, for two reasons:
- In 627 orders processed on the other site, with them having one weight for
each part no, we haven't experienced one single issue. Weight differences
are small, the likelihood of this "screwing up" auto-checkout is minimal, and
if it does make an err, the seller can chalk it up to the cost of doing business.
- TLG is known to have made changes to their molds just to save a few cents
by requiring less ABS. These changes are done to parts that keep the exact same
PPC, and most times BL doesn't differentiate (think hollow versus solid pins
under a 1x4 brick for example). Those weight changes could actually be more significant
than the weight change for different colors. In effect, the weight-per-PPC will
almost always be an approximation, not the 100%-always-correct-weight for a PPC.
In short, I am convinced these weight differences are a non-issue for auto-checkout.
Experience proves this. I am sure others can verify this. Don't make things
more complex than they need to be.
Niek.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 15, 2017 11:54 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
I would vote no, for two reasons:
- In 627 orders processed on the other site, with them having one weight for
each part no, we haven't experienced one single issue. Weight differences
are small, the likelihood of this "screwing up" auto-checkout is minimal, and
if it does make an err, the seller can chalk it up to the cost of doing business.
- TLG is known to have made changes to their molds just to save a few cents
by requiring less ABS. These changes are done to parts that keep the exact same
PPC, and most times BL doesn't differentiate (think hollow versus solid pins
under a 1x4 brick for example). Those weight changes could actually be more significant
than the weight change for different colors. In effect, the weight-per-PPC will
almost always be an approximation, not the 100%-always-correct-weight for a PPC.
In short, I am convinced these weight differences are a non-issue for auto-checkout.
Experience proves this. I am sure others can verify this. Don't make things
more complex than they need to be.
Niek.
|
Thank you for your comment. Your opinion is noted, however I am not convinced
using the other site as a reference point is really relevant. The other site
also has proper dimensions for each part, which BL does not and as far as I can
tell from the brief look at the preview site the implementation here is different
to that over there. We sell lots and lots of bulk orders and a small difference
on an individual part can make a significant difference overall. As far as putting
that down to cost of business we will let you do that - it is of no interest
whatsoever to us. Maintaining margin/profitability is a key factor to a successful
business and taking all steps necessary to prevent additional costs is one small
part of that. With over 4000 order on this site we have no mistakes on postage
costs - once bl's implementation of instant checkout can be shown to provide
that reliability we will consider using it, however it is not of major importance
to us at the moment. There are far more important things to deal with.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 15, 2017 12:23 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
I would vote no, for two reasons:
- In 627 orders processed on the other site, with them having one weight for
each part no, we haven't experienced one single issue. Weight differences
are small, the likelihood of this "screwing up" auto-checkout is minimal, and
if it does make an err, the seller can chalk it up to the cost of doing business.
- TLG is known to have made changes to their molds just to save a few cents
by requiring less ABS. These changes are done to parts that keep the exact same
PPC, and most times BL doesn't differentiate (think hollow versus solid pins
under a 1x4 brick for example). Those weight changes could actually be more significant
than the weight change for different colors. In effect, the weight-per-PPC will
almost always be an approximation, not the 100%-always-correct-weight for a PPC.
In short, I am convinced these weight differences are a non-issue for auto-checkout.
Experience proves this. I am sure others can verify this. Don't make things
more complex than they need to be.
Niek.
|
Thank you for your comment. Your opinion is noted, however I am not convinced
using the other site as a reference point is really relevant. The other site
also has proper dimensions for each part, which BL does not and as far as I can
tell from the brief look at the preview site the implementation here is different
to that over there. We sell lots and lots of bulk orders and a small difference
on an individual part can make a significant difference overall. As far as putting
that down to cost of business we will let you do that - it is of no interest
whatsoever to us. Maintaining margin/profitability is a key factor to a successful
business and taking all steps necessary to prevent additional costs is one small
part of that. With over 4000 order on this site we have no mistakes on postage
costs - once bl's implementation of instant checkout can be shown to provide
that reliability we will consider using it, however it is not of major importance
to us at the moment. There are far more important things to deal with.
|
Sorry I mis-read part of your original post. We are not trying to overly complicate
things - our suggestion, we believe, would help not hinder, and I do not believe
in any way did we say that this would prevent 'screwing up' with instant
checkout. We suggested it would help - not hinder.
As for your opinion, you are, of course entitled to it as we are to ours. You
have been around this site nearly as lone as we have so you will appreciate that
lots of people differ on what is needed, what is important etc. That is the way
life and business goes but it is more than essential to compare apples with apples
not apples and pears. In terms of coding this is a simple change and would take
any programmer less than a day to achieve it and it may, yes may help - it certainly
isn't going to hinder by any stretch of the imagination.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Sep 15, 2017 13:14 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| So how do you suggest BL tackles the weight issues resulting from TLG mold changes?
Niek.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 15, 2017 13:35 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, qwertyboy writes:
| | So how do you suggest BL tackles the weight issues resulting from TLG mold changes?
Niek.
|
There is no one single way of achieving that - Lego themselves haven't resolved
this. The K boxes of parts that get shipped to all the Lego stores differ in
weight for the same part and the same colour. Our suggestion was meant to be
an improvement on what is currently in place as it is far too generic. The reason
it has worked for so long is down to the individual stores and how they handle
orders - they have done the package weights manually and of course that is actual
not calculated. That works - there can be no denial to that. Where a postal system
is based just on weight it is the perfect solution - pick the parts - put them
in a parcel that will hold them weigh it and price it. Ship it - if instant checkout
can do that - then go for it.
Where volume calculations are required then it requires more than just weight
- manually it is easy and most stores who have been around a while will do it
almost instantly. Whether software can do that or not remains to be seen and
please do not refer to the other site for this. BL is not BO and vice versa -
if they were the same, despite the problem being the same - then BL would have
had instant checkout years ago - they aren't and probably never will be.
So the only real solution is doing it manually (AI solution perhaps - I doubt
it but that is feasible).
As not a lot is known about how the preview site is actually doing it is difficult
to comment accurately on where BL is with the feature. There are stores who are
clamouring for it - there are stores who are sitting back and waiting and there
are stores who say - not interested - don't need it. Time will tell - as
and when it gets released.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Sep 15, 2017 12:42 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | - In 627 orders processed on the other site, with them having one weight for
each part no, we haven't experienced one single issue. Weight differences
are small, the likelihood of this "screwing up" auto-checkout is minimal, and
if it does make an err, the seller can chalk it up to the cost of doing business.
|
I agree this is not really necessary. It is a huge amount of data to collect
as well especially if the data is meant to be "more" accurate.
A while ago I looked at the weight distribution of 100 of the Krusty torsos:
They are all identical parts, same colour and print, but they vary in weight
slightly (at most in the second decimal place - they were all 1.27+-0.03 g) with
a distribution that is very similar to the distribution of weights of a random
sample of torsos (both printed and unprinted).
If people are then adding "accurate" data based on PCC number, I really hope
they don't get this data by weighing just one part. They should be getting
it from a large number of the same parts with the same PPC, and taking the average.
If I had picked a single torso, I could have claimed the weight was as low as
1.24g, if another as heavy as 1.30g. I made the average for my batch 1.274g,
in the catalogue it is 1.25g.
If I sold 100 of them, I might think it is as low as 124g total or it could be
as high as 130g. The catalogue tells me 125g. That 6g possible difference is
well within the buffer I allow when estimating the weight of packaging, tape,
etc.
It is interesting to compare these torsos:
1.28g 1.30g 1.28g 1.28g 1.27g
They are all orange torso assemblies with (almost same) print and vary only in
the different colour hands. Are the hands really responsible for the variation
in weights? If a hand is 0.09g (I think all colours currently have same weight)
making a pair 0.18g, then the variation of 0.03g in 0.18g seems very large. Whereas
a natural variation within the same colour torsos and arms seems more reasonable.
The weight may well depend on the location of the part in the mold / on the sprue
if multiple parts are molded at once even though all are given the same PPC.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 15, 2017 13:20 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | | | - In 627 orders processed on the other site, with them having one weight for
each part no, we haven't experienced one single issue. Weight differences
are small, the likelihood of this "screwing up" auto-checkout is minimal, and
if it does make an err, the seller can chalk it up to the cost of doing business.
|
I agree this is not really necessary. It is a huge amount of data to collect
as well especially if the data is meant to be "more" accurate.
A while ago I looked at the weight distribution of 100 of the Krusty torsos:
They are all identical parts, same colour and print, but they vary in weight
slightly (at most in the second decimal place - they were all 1.27+-0.03 g) with
a distribution that is very similar to the distribution of weights of a random
sample of torsos (both printed and unprinted).
If people are then adding "accurate" data based on PCC number, I really hope
they don't get this data by weighing just one part. They should be getting
it from a large number of the same parts with the same PPC, and taking the average.
If I had picked a single torso, I could have claimed the weight was as low as
1.24g, if another as heavy as 1.30g. I made the average for my batch 1.274g,
in the catalogue it is 1.25g.
If I sold 100 of them, I might think it is as low as 124g total or it could be
as high as 130g. The catalogue tells me 125g. That 6g possible difference is
well within the buffer I allow when estimating the weight of packaging, tape,
etc.
It is interesting to compare these torsos:
1.28g 1.30g 1.28g 1.28g 1.27g
They are all orange torso assemblies with (almost same) print and vary only in
the different colour hands. Are the hands really responsible for the variation
in weights? If a hand is 0.09g (I think all colours currently have same weight)
making a pair 0.18g, then the variation of 0.03g in 0.18g seems very large. Whereas
a natural variation within the same colour torsos and arms seems more reasonable.
The weight may well depend on the location of the part in the mold / on the sprue
if multiple parts are molded at once even though all are given the same PPC.
|
A huge amount of data is also required for actual dimensions rather than studs
but none of that is impossible especially when you have a willing and capable
membership the size of Bricklink.
It is a complicated scenario really - no one solution can do it all but we could
do with improving the one we currently have.
Bricklink, we believe do not want to open the catalogue any further - it is their
single most valuable asset, so it is probably unlikely that this suggestion will
get anywhere near implementation. If it causes thought then it will achieve what
it was set out to do. Same part with mould variations but the same PCC as well
as variances on colours and composition (differing amounts of ABS etc all make
this a very, very complex arena.
Perhaps most importantly this does not prevent auto-checkout from working if
and when it comes out of preview and we didn't in any way suggest that, despite
earlier comments. Auto-checkout has already been built and this wasn't in
place - they have used some information from somewhere to determine weight and
volume? Not sure what nor how - that really hasn't been explained but I am
sure it will work for some - maybe not for all just yet, but only time will really
tell.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | bb414973 | | Posted: | Sep 15, 2017 14:49 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
If it were easy to accomplish then there'd be no reason not to do it, but
it won't be. The other week you claimed you were too busy to try out instant
checkout, yet here you're suggesting work that will require an amazing amount
of time. This means pulling, handling, recording data, re-stocking, submitting
data, etc. It's 10,000s of hours work.
In any case, all post carriers have a tolerance on their weight bands as is required
by the relevant international agreements (this can be verified on upu.int I'm
sure). The primary reason is because very few people/businesses use correctly
calibrated scales. Also, parcels can change in weight over the course of their
journey as they pick up moisture/dirt/dust etc.
Such tolerances will almost always be greater than any weight corrections made
possible by the changes you're suggesting. I accept there will be occasions
where they won't be, but that would have be a really unlucky combination
of parts where a bulk amount of each were ordered and all weighed more than the
BL catalog weight. A perfect storm as it were. I don't think it's unreasonable
to expect sellers encountering such rare events to either bite the bullet on
the price difference, or approach their customer to advise of a greater shipping
charge, or to otherwise think creatively about their packaging materials and
shipping method. The alternative, weighing and recording every single colour
of every single part, just to avoid these perfect storms for those handful of
sellers/buyers encountering them, is over-kill.
Dismissing a person's experience just because it originates from BO does
no-one any good. You aren't better than they are and your opinion carries
no more weight just because you sell on BL alone.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | misbi | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 03:36 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
There are far greater weight discrepancies / inconsistencies in batches of packaging
materials (even from same supplier), than those attributed to mold or part colour
differences. Furthermore, one weight submitter's scales and measuring technique
probably differs from another's to the extent that the exercise is moot.
I doubt that would ever be an effective use of people's time.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 04:13 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, brickbrowser writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
There are far greater weight discrepancies / inconsistencies in batches of packaging
materials (even from same supplier), than those attributed to mold or part colour
differences. Furthermore, one weight submitter's scales and measuring technique
probably differs from another's to the extent that the exercise is moot.
I doubt that would ever be an effective use of people's time.
|
You may be right - the only thing is surely we have to start somewhere - as I
said in an earlier reply the current generic system only works because sellers/stores
have been doing this manually - it would be nice to know how the instant checkout
is actually going to calculate which box type - and the associated tare it is
going to use - easy enough to set up a different delivery method for your boxes
and have the tare weight associated with that but as you say that can differ
between batches and manufacturers. Large letters come in envelopes as well as
boxes and small parcel boxes have an almost infinite number available in the
UK - all with different tares.
We would like to understand how their calculations are going to work so we can
determine whether it is worthwhile or not. That information is lacking.
As for the quite common comment that it works on BO so it should work here -
that is a logical statement if all things were equal, but unfortunately they
are not. The stores we have spoken to that are on both sites have tended to tell
us they only ever ship large letter style parcels on BO whereas they do both
parcels and large letters on BL. (I think this may be down to somewhat smaller
orders on BO - but cannot be 100% accurate with that)
Ignoring that completely a very thorough and detailed description of how ic is
intended to work on BL would be very helpful for all parties.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | misbi | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 04:46 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | As for the quite common comment that it works on BO so it should work here -
that is a logical statement if all things were equal, but unfortunately they
are not. The stores we have spoken to that are on both sites have tended to tell
us they only ever ship large letter style parcels on BO whereas they do both
parcels and large letters on BL. (I think this may be down to somewhat smaller
orders on BO - but cannot be 100% accurate with that)
|
We sell on BO and it works well enough. If dimensions for a particular part
aren't in the catalogue the system defaults to parcel rate. If it fits large
letter, a refund for difference is easy to send at time of shipping. It's
not a perfect system, but it's worth the minor inconvenience for the benefit
that instant checkout brings and as you said - we have to start somewhere.
I spend more time sending BL reminders to late/non payers on BL than I do sending
refunds to BO customers for overpaid P&P!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 05:37 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, brickbrowser writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | As for the quite common comment that it works on BO so it should work here -
that is a logical statement if all things were equal, but unfortunately they
are not. The stores we have spoken to that are on both sites have tended to tell
us they only ever ship large letter style parcels on BO whereas they do both
parcels and large letters on BL. (I think this may be down to somewhat smaller
orders on BO - but cannot be 100% accurate with that)
|
We sell on BO and it works well enough. If dimensions for a particular part
aren't in the catalogue the system defaults to parcel rate. If it fits large
letter, a refund for difference is easy to send at time of shipping. It's
not a perfect system, but it's worth the minor inconvenience for the benefit
that instant checkout brings and as you said - we have to start somewhere.
I spend more time sending BL reminders to late/non payers on BL than I do sending
refunds to BO customers for overpaid P&P!
|
Interesting - we don't sell on BO but have kept our options open. Have you
looked at the preview site and how it works in comparison with BO? There is almost
a deafening silence here about the preview site, which, of course adds to people's
concerns. If it was all working wonderfully well I am sure we would hear from
those who have the time to test it as well as NL with the 'good new'
but nothing like that at the moment.
We maintain our thoughts that BL needs to at worst add the dimensions capability
to the catalogue (or at least define where it is getting its information from,
and at best allow members to add those dimensions. That doesn't ensure that
it will, work but it gives it a better chance.
In our 6 years as a store we have had a handful of buyers that we had to chase
for payment - it isn't a major issue for us - but we do understand others
position as well. mot sure if we have ever completed an NPB. We may be lucky
with that and of course it can change almost instantly. but that side of it is
not our main concern. Getting the shipping right first time every time, which
is what we do manually, is.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | misbi | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 10:48 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | Have you looked at the preview site and how it works in comparison with BO? There is almost a deafening silence here about the preview site, which, of course adds to people's
concerns.
|
Not looked again since July, as I'm not aware of any further progress.
My thoughts on issues at that time were in regard to missing dimensions:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1045320
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 11:11 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, brickbrowser writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | Have you looked at the preview site and how it works in comparison with BO? There is almost a deafening silence here about the preview site, which, of course adds to people's
concerns.
|
Not looked again since July, as I'm not aware of any further progress.
My thoughts on issues at that time were in regard to missing dimensions:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1045320
|
Remember that - we voiced our concerns at the time as well, and so did others.
It certainly isn't going to go away - things need to be out in the open about
it - are there dimensions being held somewhere ? Have the converted stud measurements
to mm? Can we see and modify those? Lots and lots of question really but unfortunately
there are not a lot of answers coming out, which is a shame really.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 09:34 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, brickbrowser writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
There are far greater weight discrepancies / inconsistencies in batches of packaging
materials (even from same supplier), than those attributed to mold or part colour
differences. Furthermore, one weight submitter's scales and measuring technique
probably differs from another's to the extent that the exercise is moot.
I doubt that would ever be an effective use of people's time.
|
You may be right - the only thing is surely we have to start somewhere - as I
said in an earlier reply the current generic system only works because sellers/stores
have been doing this manually
|
For the record - when doing up shipping cost for an order, we have _never_ weighed
the order, we always used BL's supplied weight (unless of course the weight
was not specified). As far as I can recall, we have never had issues with an
order needing more postage than what was indicated by using supplied weights.
As others have indicated as well, adding weights to PPCs is a massive undertaking,
time that would be better and more profitably spent elsewhere.
Niek.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 10:30 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, brickbrowser writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
There are far greater weight discrepancies / inconsistencies in batches of packaging
materials (even from same supplier), than those attributed to mold or part colour
differences. Furthermore, one weight submitter's scales and measuring technique
probably differs from another's to the extent that the exercise is moot.
I doubt that would ever be an effective use of people's time.
|
You may be right - the only thing is surely we have to start somewhere - as I
said in an earlier reply the current generic system only works because sellers/stores
have been doing this manually
|
For the record - when doing up shipping cost for an order, we have _never_ weighed
the order, we always used BL's supplied weight (unless of course the weight
was not specified). As far as I can recall, we have never had issues with an
order needing more postage than what was indicated by using supplied weights.
As others have indicated as well, adding weights to PPCs is a massive undertaking,
time that would be better and more profitably spent elsewhere.
Niek.
|
We weight every order and totally disregard BL's weight as
it does not make allowances for bags, other packaging materials and of course
the box we use. Strange you don't weigh your orders? As for the claim about
massive undertaking - so is adding dimensions and how does everyone think the
catalogue got put together in the first place - it just appeared !!!!! There
are well over 1/2 million members of Bricklink now - even if only 20% of them
contributed that reduces the amount of time it would take to get started
populating the relevant fields - The absolute same applies to proper dimensions.
The catalogue wasn't created in a day or a year it is still ongoing and so
would this if it were to be put in place.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 13:31 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, brickbrowser writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
There are far greater weight discrepancies / inconsistencies in batches of packaging
materials (even from same supplier), than those attributed to mold or part colour
differences. Furthermore, one weight submitter's scales and measuring technique
probably differs from another's to the extent that the exercise is moot.
I doubt that would ever be an effective use of people's time.
|
You may be right - the only thing is surely we have to start somewhere - as I
said in an earlier reply the current generic system only works because sellers/stores
have been doing this manually
|
For the record - when doing up shipping cost for an order, we have _never_ weighed
the order, we always used BL's supplied weight (unless of course the weight
was not specified). As far as I can recall, we have never had issues with an
order needing more postage than what was indicated by using supplied weights.
As others have indicated as well, adding weights to PPCs is a massive undertaking,
time that would be better and more profitably spent elsewhere.
Niek.
|
We weight every order and totally disregard BL's weight as
it does not make allowances for bags, other packaging materials and of course
the box we use. Strange you don't weigh your orders?
|
Poor choice of words, my bad. I meant - we don't weigh orders before determining
shipping cost. We have a good handle on what fits into where, and that includes
how much weight to add for packing material. We have enough NBPs to make packing-up-and-then-unpacking
a pain in the behind. If we over-estimated shipping, we refund. If we under-estimated,
we eat the diff. Same will happen when auto-checkout will come by.
For us, PPC weights are a non-issue, and (again for us) efforts would be better
spent developing other features.
Niek.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 13:49 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 14 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, brickbrowser writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
There are far greater weight discrepancies / inconsistencies in batches of packaging
materials (even from same supplier), than those attributed to mold or part colour
differences. Furthermore, one weight submitter's scales and measuring technique
probably differs from another's to the extent that the exercise is moot.
I doubt that would ever be an effective use of people's time.
|
You may be right - the only thing is surely we have to start somewhere - as I
said in an earlier reply the current generic system only works because sellers/stores
have been doing this manually
|
For the record - when doing up shipping cost for an order, we have _never_ weighed
the order, we always used BL's supplied weight (unless of course the weight
was not specified). As far as I can recall, we have never had issues with an
order needing more postage than what was indicated by using supplied weights.
As others have indicated as well, adding weights to PPCs is a massive undertaking,
time that would be better and more profitably spent elsewhere.
Niek.
|
We weight every order and totally disregard BL's weight as
it does not make allowances for bags, other packaging materials and of course
the box we use. Strange you don't weigh your orders?
|
Poor choice of words, my bad. I meant - we don't weigh orders before determining
shipping cost. We have a good handle on what fits into where, and that includes
how much weight to add for packing material. We have enough NBPs to make packing-up-and-then-unpacking
a pain in the behind. If we over-estimated shipping, we refund. If we under-estimated,
we eat the diff. Same will happen when auto-checkout will come by.
For us, PPC weights are a non-issue, and (again for us) efforts would be better
spent developing other features.
Niek.
|
Then AFOL's comments about checking MyWeight a PPC weight or defaulting to
the generic weight solve that issue - if the PPC weight were available.
BTW
We work very differently to you. Our parts are picked and prepacked to determine
an accurate shipping cost - we never under or overcharge - no refunds no administration
just simply parcel sent at cost given to buyer. It has worked well for us for
6 years and 4100+ orders - not sure we need to change it. Haven't had an
NPB in all that time - so again that is not an issue for us. I have said this
many times and will keep saying it - if instant checkout can replace a manual
system which doesn't get it wrong - ever - then subject to them sorting out
the Paypal on site payment issue (to do with addresses) we will look at it in
seriousness if not we will stay with what works for us and hasn't let us
down - the old expression applies if it ain't broke don't fix it.
There are huge number of things that are needed on the site - we agree with
that but that all appears to be out of our (The community's) control or influence
- the roadmap has changed a multitude of times - no one knows where the seller
tools are or if we will ever see them - so many other things do need doing -
we agree but we and others do not see this as being the lead weight to bring
it all to a halt it would simply be another enhancement to the BL catalogue.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 13:38 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | […]
There
are well over 1/2 million members of Bricklink now - even if only 20% of them
contributed […]
|
You’re overly optimistic about contribution rate.
I don’t think that there ever were 20% of BLers who contributed, even back when,
even counting one-time contributors.
And for something that will only interest sellers, 0.02% (100 people) seems more
likely. But maybe it would suffice 
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 14:07 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | […]
There
are well over 1/2 million members of Bricklink now - even if only 20% of them
contributed […]
|
You’re overly optimistic about contribution rate.
I don’t think that there ever were 20% of BLers who contributed, even back when,
even counting one-time contributors.
And for something that will only interest sellers, 0.02% (100 people) seems more
likely. But maybe it would suffice
|
There are two of us who have already said we would supply our data which, I can
assure you, would make a dent in what is needed. We are all 'whistling in
the wind' over this cause BL do their own thing and changes to the catalogue
are changes to their single most important and valuable asset. You will remember
the saga over image rights when they took over and how there is a shyness to
open the catalogue any further (the changes to Brickstock and logging in). Good
to get this out in the air and see what peoples thoughts are but it ain't
going to happen.
If it promotes dialogue with BL development we will have achieved something.
Dimensions, weights etc ?????
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | DadsAFOL | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 11:50 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
Yes, we have manually recorded lot weights on thousands of PCC's over the
years of selling. I would be happy to share that info to seed the database.
From there like everything else here it just gets crowdsourced over time and
wouldn't really be a big deal. Just set up the system with a bit of a waterfall...
if MyWeight exists, use that; if not then if PCC weight exists use that; else
use ItemID weight.
Here's a good example of why this would be helpful:
- Catalog - 0.36
- Black actual - 0.3331 (-7.5%)
- White actual - 0.3425 (-4.9%)
- Trans Clear actual - 0.3836 (+6.5%)
So if someone bought 1000 of these in your store, and you wanted to weigh them
using the catalog weight instead of counting them...
- Your customer would get 1075 black and your inventory would be short 75 for
the next order
- Your customer would get 1049 white and your inventory would be short 49 for
the next order
- Your customer would get 935 trans clear and your inventory would be over 65,
and your customer would be upset asking for a refund or for you to ship the missing
parts.
Same issue applies to postage calculation. Its totally possible that the system
undercharges on postage for the trans clear because 1000 actually weighs 383g,
not 360g like the catalog expects.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 12:07 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, DadsAFOL writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
Yes, we have manually recorded lot weights on thousands of PCC's over the
years of selling. I would be happy to share that info to seed the database.
From there like everything else here it just gets crowdsourced over time and
wouldn't really be a big deal. Just set up the system with a bit of a waterfall...
if MyWeight exists, use that; if not then if PCC weight exists use that; else
use ItemID weight.
Here's a good example of why this would be helpful:
- Catalog - 0.36
- Black actual - 0.3331 (-7.5%)
- White actual - 0.3425 (-4.9%)
- Trans Clear actual - 0.3836 (+6.5%)
So if someone bought 1000 of these in your store, and you wanted to weigh them
using the catalog weight instead of counting them...
- Your customer would get 1075 black and your inventory would be short 75 for
the next order
- Your customer would get 1049 white and your inventory would be short 49 for
the next order
- Your customer would get 935 trans clear and your inventory would be over 65,
and your customer would be upset asking for a refund or for you to ship the missing
parts.
Same issue applies to postage calculation. Its totally possible that the system
undercharges on postage for the trans clear because 1000 actually weighs 383g,
not 360g like the catalog expects.
|
Thank you for joining this thread and the detail you provided it is helpful for
others to see what a difference the weights can make towards shipping. We would
be happy to share our data with BL as well.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 13:11 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, DadsAFOL writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
Yes, we have manually recorded lot weights on thousands of PCC's over the
years of selling. I would be happy to share that info to seed the database.
From there like everything else here it just gets crowdsourced over time and
wouldn't really be a big deal. Just set up the system with a bit of a waterfall...
if MyWeight exists, use that; if not then if PCC weight exists use that; else
use ItemID weight.
Here's a good example of why this would be helpful:
- Catalog - 0.36
- Black actual - 0.3331 (-7.5%)
- White actual - 0.3425 (-4.9%)
- Trans Clear actual - 0.3836 (+6.5%)
So if someone bought 1000 of these in your store, and you wanted to weigh them
using the catalog weight instead of counting them...
- Your customer would get 1075 black and your inventory would be short 75 for
the next order
- Your customer would get 1049 white and your inventory would be short 49 for
the next order
- Your customer would get 935 trans clear and your inventory would be over 65,
and your customer would be upset asking for a refund or for you to ship the missing
parts.
Same issue applies to postage calculation. Its totally possible that the system
undercharges on postage for the trans clear because 1000 actually weighs 383g,
not 360g like the catalog expects.
|
Thank you for joining this thread and the detail you provided it is helpful for
others to see what a difference the weights can make towards shipping. We would
be happy to share our data with BL as well.
|
The transparent parts are heavier because they are made in a different material.
LEGO often has a different designID for those parts,which BrickLink sees as an
alternative (to keep things simple for buyers and sellers).
I have been studying the small design changes on the 3001 bricks. I have seen
many mold changes that would cause such small changes in weight, and the exact
weight of the raw material might differ from one batch to the next (especially
because LEGO uses several suppliers). Even mold wear adds weight to the parts.
The only correct way to do this would be to assign a tolerance to the weight,
it is an illusion that the part weight is constant in so many decimals.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 13:36 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, WoutR writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, DadsAFOL writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
Yes, we have manually recorded lot weights on thousands of PCC's over the
years of selling. I would be happy to share that info to seed the database.
From there like everything else here it just gets crowdsourced over time and
wouldn't really be a big deal. Just set up the system with a bit of a waterfall...
if MyWeight exists, use that; if not then if PCC weight exists use that; else
use ItemID weight.
Here's a good example of why this would be helpful:
- Catalog - 0.36
- Black actual - 0.3331 (-7.5%)
- White actual - 0.3425 (-4.9%)
- Trans Clear actual - 0.3836 (+6.5%)
So if someone bought 1000 of these in your store, and you wanted to weigh them
using the catalog weight instead of counting them...
- Your customer would get 1075 black and your inventory would be short 75 for
the next order
- Your customer would get 1049 white and your inventory would be short 49 for
the next order
- Your customer would get 935 trans clear and your inventory would be over 65,
and your customer would be upset asking for a refund or for you to ship the missing
parts.
Same issue applies to postage calculation. Its totally possible that the system
undercharges on postage for the trans clear because 1000 actually weighs 383g,
not 360g like the catalog expects.
|
Thank you for joining this thread and the detail you provided it is helpful for
others to see what a difference the weights can make towards shipping. We would
be happy to share our data with BL as well.
|
The transparent parts are heavier because they are made in a different material.
LEGO often has a different designID for those parts,which BrickLink sees as an
alternative (to keep things simple for buyers and sellers).
I have been studying the small design changes on the 3001 bricks. I have seen
many mold changes that would cause such small changes in weight, and the exact
weight of the raw material might differ from one batch to the next (especially
because LEGO uses several suppliers). Even mold wear adds weight to the parts.
The only correct way to do this would be to assign a tolerance to the weight,
it is an illusion that the part weight is constant in so many decimals.
|
Hardly an illusion based on the data presented, although we agree nothing is
constant with Lego. They weigh parts that they send out for their B&P site and
the count can be significantly out on the same item. Everyone agrees this is
not an exact science - we are simply exploring other possibilities that may help
to solve or improve on the current system, which, with the best will in the world
is far too generic.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 14:01 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, WoutR writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, DadsAFOL writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
Yes, we have manually recorded lot weights on thousands of PCC's over the
years of selling. I would be happy to share that info to seed the database.
From there like everything else here it just gets crowdsourced over time and
wouldn't really be a big deal. Just set up the system with a bit of a waterfall...
if MyWeight exists, use that; if not then if PCC weight exists use that; else
use ItemID weight.
Here's a good example of why this would be helpful:
- Catalog - 0.36
- Black actual - 0.3331 (-7.5%)
- White actual - 0.3425 (-4.9%)
- Trans Clear actual - 0.3836 (+6.5%)
So if someone bought 1000 of these in your store, and you wanted to weigh them
using the catalog weight instead of counting them...
- Your customer would get 1075 black and your inventory would be short 75 for
the next order
- Your customer would get 1049 white and your inventory would be short 49 for
the next order
- Your customer would get 935 trans clear and your inventory would be over 65,
and your customer would be upset asking for a refund or for you to ship the missing
parts.
Same issue applies to postage calculation. Its totally possible that the system
undercharges on postage for the trans clear because 1000 actually weighs 383g,
not 360g like the catalog expects.
|
Thank you for joining this thread and the detail you provided it is helpful for
others to see what a difference the weights can make towards shipping. We would
be happy to share our data with BL as well.
|
The transparent parts are heavier because they are made in a different material.
LEGO often has a different designID for those parts,which BrickLink sees as an
alternative (to keep things simple for buyers and sellers).
I have been studying the small design changes on the 3001 bricks. I have seen
many mold changes that would cause such small changes in weight, and the exact
weight of the raw material might differ from one batch to the next (especially
because LEGO uses several suppliers). Even mold wear adds weight to the parts.
The only correct way to do this would be to assign a tolerance to the weight,
it is an illusion that the part weight is constant in so many decimals.
|
Hardly an illusion based on the data presented, although we agree nothing is
constant with Lego. They weigh parts that they send out for their B&P site and
the count can be significantly out on the same item. Everyone agrees this is
not an exact science - we are simply exploring other possibilities that may help
to solve or improve on the current system, which, with the best will in the world
is far too generic.
|
Personally, I see too many variables to make this work with the accuracy that
seems to be suggested here. 0.01 gram is a very small amount of material. The
weight could change depending on
- mold design variations, up to minor variations between mold cavities and mold
numbers.
- mold life phase, wear, revisions etc
- factory/production location, the injection moulding machine used and its operating
settings.
- material (CA (old), ABS (solid) or PP (transparent))
- material supplier (BASF, BAYER, BORG-WARNER etc do not have identical material
formulas)
- raw material batch
- material additives, including color
- possibly even temperature or moisture (do bricks absorb that?)
- brick age (wear, additives leaking out, binding materials from the environment)
Some of these have larger contributions than others, but I cannot predict what
their combined effect will be. And I seriously doubt if the effects are constant
over time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
United Kingdom, England
Canada, Alberta
Belgium, Flemish Brabant
United Kingdom, Scotland
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
USA, California
Netherlands, Zuid-Holland