|
 |
| | | Author: | SezaR  | | Posted: | Feb 23, 2018 18:30 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 135 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 2 Part 4276 Black Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 2 Fingers (match ID 1)
* Add 2 Part 4275 Black Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 3 Fingers (match ID 2)
* Change 2 Part Black 4276a Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 2 Fingers and Solid Studs {match ID 0 to 1}
* Change 2 Part Black 4275a Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 3 Fingers and Solid Studs {match ID 0 to 2}
Comments from Submitter:
This set was released until the end of 1990. So, similarly to the set 7745, these hinges were replaced with their new variants.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Feb 23, 2018 18:42 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location:  USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
 |
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 2 Part 4276 Black Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 2 Fingers (match ID 1)
* Add 2 Part 4275 Black Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 3 Fingers (match ID 2)
* Change 2 Part Black 4276a Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 2 Fingers and Solid Studs {match ID 0 to 1}
* Change 2 Part Black 4275a Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 3 Fingers and Solid Studs {match ID 0 to 2}
Comments from Submitter:
This set was released until the end of 1990. So, similarly to the set 7745, these hinges were replaced with their new variants.
|
We are not going to approve requests to blanket the inventory system with every
possible variant. If you want to add a variant to an inventory, you need to a
have a reliable source.
Even if you had a track record of being right with every request, we would still
reject these requests based on principal. But you have been sorely wrong in your
conclusions several times recently, and these wrong submissions amount in the
end to a lot of wasted time and effort on the part of our administrative staff.
I'm sorry if this seems harsh, but one of our main jobs with the BrickLink
catalog is to preserve it. There have been times in the past that people have
gotten away with these kinds of requests, but in the end somebody has to go through
(sometimes years later) and weed out all the unsubstantiated additions to try
to get a clear picture of what the sets really contained.
Russell
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | legoman77 | | Posted: | Feb 23, 2018 19:28 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 2 Part 4276 Black Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 2 Fingers (match ID 1)
* Add 2 Part 4275 Black Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 3 Fingers (match ID 2)
* Change 2 Part Black 4276a Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 2 Fingers and Solid Studs {match ID 0 to 1}
* Change 2 Part Black 4275a Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 3 Fingers and Solid Studs {match ID 0 to 2}
Comments from Submitter:
This set was released until the end of 1990. So, similarly to the set 7745, these hinges were replaced with their new variants.
|
We are not going to approve requests to blanket the inventory system with every
possible variant. If you want to add a variant to an inventory, you need to a
have a reliable source.
Even if you had a track record of being right with every request, we would still
reject these requests based on principal. But you have been sorely wrong in your
conclusions several times recently, and these wrong submissions amount in the
end to a lot of wasted time and effort on the part of our administrative staff.
I'm sorry if this seems harsh, but one of our main jobs with the BrickLink
catalog is to preserve it. There have been times in the past that people have
gotten away with these kinds of requests, but in the end somebody has to go through
(sometimes years later) and weed out all the unsubstantiated additions to try
to get a clear picture of what the sets really contained.
Russell
|
You are not too hard. Getting inventories correct is a very hard job. You might
look at Perron.
I did a lot of stuff for that catalog. I often would use two or more sets to
compare inventories.
Part of the problem with over jealous submissions is that Lego world substitute
parts they did not have on hand. They might have used a different part for just
a few sets or for hundreds. Lego creatived problems for those that try to have
a acruate list. It is literally impossible. You would be busy for ever going
back and forth. There can also be variants of the instructions.
John P
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | bb53904 | | Posted: | Feb 24, 2018 03:18 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, legoman77 writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 2 Part 4276 Black Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 2 Fingers (match ID 1)
* Add 2 Part 4275 Black Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 3 Fingers (match ID 2)
* Change 2 Part Black 4276a Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 2 Fingers and Solid Studs {match ID 0 to 1}
* Change 2 Part Black 4275a Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 3 Fingers and Solid Studs {match ID 0 to 2}
Comments from Submitter:
This set was released until the end of 1990. So, similarly to the set 7745, these hinges were replaced with their new variants.
|
We are not going to approve requests to blanket the inventory system with every
possible variant. If you want to add a variant to an inventory, you need to a
have a reliable source.
Even if you had a track record of being right with every request, we would still
reject these requests based on principal. But you have been sorely wrong in your
conclusions several times recently, and these wrong submissions amount in the
end to a lot of wasted time and effort on the part of our administrative staff.
I'm sorry if this seems harsh, but one of our main jobs with the BrickLink
catalog is to preserve it. There have been times in the past that people have
gotten away with these kinds of requests, but in the end somebody has to go through
(sometimes years later) and weed out all the unsubstantiated additions to try
to get a clear picture of what the sets really contained.
Russell
|
You are not too hard. Getting inventories correct is a very hard job. You might
look at Perron.
I did a lot of stuff for that catalog. I often would use two or more sets to
compare inventories.
Part of the problem with over jealous submissions is that Lego world substitute
parts they did not have on hand. They might have used a different part for just
a few sets or for hundreds. Lego creatived problems for those that try to have
a acruate list. It is literally impossible. You would be busy for ever going
back and forth. There can also be variants of the instructions.
John P
|
And lest we forget--LEGO stands for Play Well, not Catalog every littLE GObbledegook
variation. Build a display and invite the kids in your neighborhood to come PLAY
WELL with it.
Thea
Always An Adventure!
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | CrazyChris | | Posted: | Feb 23, 2018 19:59 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| But SezaR is right.
It is common knowledge that the hinges with hollow studs were introduced around
1987.
It is also common knowledge that the set 7735 was produced from 1until 1990.
(same as 7745, 7824 and some town/space sets that also were produced both before
and after the change).
So of course, the hinges with hollow studs must be alternate parts for all these
sets.
Some inventories already show this, it ist just logical to correct all affected
sets.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | PurpleDave | | Posted: | Feb 23, 2018 20:13 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, CrazyChris writes:
| | It is common knowledge that the hinges with hollow studs were introduced around
1987.
|
Introduced =/= exclusive. Old molds can be run alongside new ones for various
amounts of time. Old parts can be in inventory for years as they bleed the stock
down, and until the stock hits a low threshold they might not order up a new
run of parts using the newer mold in that color. I shouldn't own one of
these in dark-bley...but I do:
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | CrazyChris | | Posted: | Feb 23, 2018 20:33 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, PurpleDave writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, CrazyChris writes:
| | It is common knowledge that the hinges with hollow studs were introduced around
1987.
|
Introduced =/= exclusive. Old molds can be run alongside new ones for various
amounts of time. Old parts can be in inventory for years as they bleed the stock
down, and until the stock hits a low threshold they might not order up a new
run of parts using the newer mold in that color. I shouldn't own one of
these in dark-bley...but I do:
|
I know, but I refuse this kind of reasoning. Because it does not explain, why
set A is affected, but not set B. These parts were quite common and exist in
not too many colours. So, if old stock ever existed, please explain why it should
have been used only for certain sets, and not for all?
Back in those days, I got lots of sets, and the hollow studded hinge plates where
contained quite everywhere, while the older version never appeared in any set
after 1987.
But of course, this is not an hard proof, just some knowledge from an unimportant
collector...
Now I see why many people stopped contributing to BL catalog.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 23, 2018 20:41 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, CrazyChris writes:
| | But of course, this is not an hard proof
|
Seeing all the photos which have recently surfaced of sealed train sets, I find
it difficult to understand why it would be difficult to locate some hard proof
for any change request for these sets. Some sets are practically impossible
to locate in brand new condition, or even used condition, but this does not appear
to be the case for 1980s train sets.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Feb 24, 2018 21:57 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| I wish it was that easy.
For the set 7735, I have about 50 photos but in none of them we can see a hinge.
Let alone the set 7730 whose existence in a sealed or MISB condition is now my
dream.
And this is concerning the sets 7710, 7715, 7720, 7722, 7725, 7727, 7730, 7735,
..., 7760 whose boxes are made with a cellophane making it possible to see some
parts through the cellophane.
You can google the boxes for 7810, 7813, 7814-24, 7834, 7835, 7838, 7839, 7850-67
For example, the sleepers with cable grooves came first in 1983. For all sets
released at this time or later, the newer variant of sleepers are already
added on inventory expect four sets. Luckily, I found images for 7710 and 7720
and submitted a request for these sets a couple of days ago. But what can I do
for sets 7853 and 7862 released between 1980-84? Do you have any idea?
For the part 3062a Brick, Round 1 x 1 Solid Stud, I have images for sets 7750,
7710, 7740, but we cannot see them in the photos. For 7810 and 7822, the box
is doesn't have a lid and cellophane, making it impossible to check this
part. What can we do then?
In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, CrazyChris writes:
| | But of course, this is not an hard proof
|
Seeing all the photos which have recently surfaced of sealed train sets, I find
it difficult to understand why it would be difficult to locate some hard proof
for any change request for these sets. Some sets are practically impossible
to locate in brand new condition, or even used condition, but this does not appear
to be the case for 1980s train sets.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 24, 2018 22:29 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | For 7810 and 7822, the box
is doesn't have a lid and cellophane, making it impossible to check this
part. What can we do then?
|
There are two options:
(a) Leave it alone. If you can't confirm it, then let it go.
(b) Buy the set, open it, and make the necessary corrections. I've bought
a fair number of sets, including some incredibly rare sets, solely for the purpose
of correcting/updating the BrickLink catalog. This was my most recent:
As you can see, the set now has an inventory (added 5 days ago) and large, high-quality
photos. I spent my own money and time making that happen.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Feb 23, 2018 21:17 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Inventories Requests, CrazyChris writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, PurpleDave writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, CrazyChris writes:
| | It is common knowledge that the hinges with hollow studs were introduced around
1987.
|
Introduced =/= exclusive. Old molds can be run alongside new ones for various
amounts of time. Old parts can be in inventory for years as they bleed the stock
down, and until the stock hits a low threshold they might not order up a new
run of parts using the newer mold in that color. I shouldn't own one of
these in dark-bley...but I do:
|
I know, but I refuse this kind of reasoning. Because it does not explain, why
set A is affected, but not set B. These parts were quite common and exist in
not too many colours. So, if old stock ever existed, please explain why it should
have been used only for certain sets, and not for all?
|
You simply cannot explain everything that happens with Lego. Experienced collectors
know this. There is the barrel theory, that Lego just gets to the bottom of the
barrel every once in a while, and then a bunch of old variants show up in sets.
Or there is plenty of evidence that Lego purposefully placed certain variants
in certain sets for various reasons. There are different packaging plants, there
is Samsonite, there is the Brazilian market, etc. etc. Some of this could be
explained in detail if you happen to meet a former employee of Lego. But much
of it is just conjecture, pure and simple.
| | Back in those days, I got lots of sets, and the hollow studded hinge plates where
contained quite everywhere, while the older version never appeared in any set
after 1987.
|
We're not disagreeing about the likelihood of a variant being found in a
given set. We're disagreeing about how the BrickLink inventories should function.
BrickLink inventories represent, as well as possible, what has actually been
found in reliable sources, not what should be found, or what is commonly found,
or what might eventually be found.
As such, the inventory system will never be complete with variants. That is not
the goal. The goal is to provide reliable data points so that users themselves
can piece together what could come in a set.
It doesn't bother me a bit that one train set has the later variant, and
another train set doesn't. All that means is that someone found it in one
set, and no one has found it (yet) in another. Users can put 2 + 2 together and
decide for themselves how reliable a given variant is, based on who submitted
it, what other sets it has been found in, and their own personal experience with
real sets.
| | But of course, this is not an hard proof, just some knowledge from an unimportant
collector...
|
The BrickLink system was built by collectors - there is no such thing as an unimportant
collector.
| | Now I see why many people stopped contributing to BL catalog.
|
It's an undeniable fact that people do stop contributing to the catalog.
Look at the logs and you will see many people from the early 2000's who haven't
done anything in years. As to WHY they stop, it's anyone's guess.
Fortunately, new people come along regularly to contribute, and we always get
a few who come back. So we're doing quite well actually when it comes to
contributors. We could always use more, but there is plenty of activity these
days, and we're grateful for it.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | CrazyChris | | Posted: | Feb 24, 2018 04:47 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | The BrickLink system was built by collectors - there is no such thing as an unimportant
collector.
|
Well, but your behaviour makes me fell like this. It is really annoying.
As I wrote before, what we are doing is not a request. It is an offer to Bricklink.
But you are treating us like annoying beggars.
That's why I am not in the mood anymore for contributing knowledge to the
database.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 24, 2018 05:25 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, CrazyChris writes:
| | Well, but your behaviour makes me fell like this. It is really annoying.
As I wrote before, what we are doing is not a request. It is an offer to Bricklink.
But you are treating us like annoying beggars.
That's why I am not in the mood anymore for contributing knowledge to the
database.
|
I'm truly sorry to hear that you feel this way.
Sometimes hypothesis and speculation are necessary in inventory work, but when
adding part variants there is a high standard: variants are added only when they
are known for sure to have been included in a set. Yes, this standard of proof
is frustrating when it seems nearly certain that a part variant was included
in a set, but the standard is necessary to avoid filling inventories with "maybe"
or even "likely" variants.
Many of the recent changes to train sets have involved part variants, which is
why there have been mixed results.
I'm quite confident that no one in administration thinks of submitters in
the way you described - in fact, without member contributions BrickLink would
wither and die. The time and money you spend to make the BrickLink catalog better
is very much valued, even if the work is sometimes not approved.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | CrazyChris | | Posted: | Feb 24, 2018 07:26 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | Sometimes hypothesis and speculation are necessary in inventory work, but when
adding part variants there is a high standard.
|
Again, that makes me feel that you want to express, that my/our knowledge is
not driven by these high standards.
I am a collector, and I want my sets to be as close to original inv as possible.
There are many variants out there that BL database isn't aware of, so I believe
that my level of standards is at least as high as BL levels.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Feb 24, 2018 07:20 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| Ok, let's review:
I submitted many requests, some were accepted as I found the evidence after a
hard work in asking many people photos...
Some didn't get accepted but I am still certain they were correct, such as
the yellow cones 3943b for the popular train 7730.
Then I found 3040a to be added as regular (and 3040b moved to alternate): accepted
as there were photos available
Then I checked my photos of 7750 for
- "3062a Brick, Round 1 x 1 Solid Stud" to be added as regular (3062 moving to
alternate)
- "3040a Slope 45 2 x 1 - without Bottom Tube" to be added as regular (3062 moving
to alternate)
Concerning 3062a, I thought the photos confirm my change request. It is a very
confusing photo:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=232068
For 3040a, administrative rejected my request without even asking me if I have
a source? or to wait if other members would give a comment?
I still have the photo approving my request. I forgot to add it. This was my
request:
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?S=7750-1
And then I was truly wrong for my other requests ALL concerning "3062a Brick,
Round 1 x 1 Solid Stud". With no doubt, this case is a complicated one.
| | But you have been sorely wrong in your
conclusions several times recently, and these wrong submissions amount in the
end to a lot of wasted time and effort on the part of our administrative staff.
|
Several times yes I was, but ALL included one single part. After discussing my
first request and realizing that I had a wrong conclusion, it would not be difficult
or time-consuming to conclude that my other requests had to be rejected, would
it?
I think you need to review what you just wrote me. The catalog inventories of
vintage train sets from 80s have many, really many mistakes or incompleteness.
I have contributed a lot, spent a lot of time, did research to find evidence
and submitted many requested that were accepted. For most of these sets, there
were no inventory change after 2010. I am not wrong if I say that the number
of inventory change requests that I submitted is about one third of all requests
that were submitted before me for the last 10 years. (of course, many AFOL helped
me. They thought me almost everything I know. I didn't do all alone)
Only concerning 12v train motors, we have on bricklink many sellers specialized
on 12v trains, they have sold many motors, but didn't help on correcting
inventories. Before me, only one member (lego.12vtrains) fixed the correct type
of black motor for one single set: 7740 (and he submitted many other requests)
Again, such an important part was so incomplete before my requests.
This work was not done easy. It was even harder than what it seems. I invite
you to check this thread, which shows part of the work:
https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/158820-help-when-were-your-12v-motors-released-lets-complete-the-table/
I find it very disappointing that you mention about time wasted on the part of
our administrative staff! Really? Then what about my time and effort? Your administrative
staff are getting paid. I am not. They are paid by the buyers and sellers on
bricklink, like me.
I don't need or want any prize, but I find your words disappointing. This
is not the best way to encourage members to contribute to the catalogs.
After you rejected correctly my recent requests all concerning the part 3062a,
it seems to me that you looked into an opportunity to give me a lesson by rejecting
my next request.
I don't know why or how you got the idea that I am sitting home, checking
few inventories and hitting the bottom to submit a request.
My next request was this:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=232383
but I attached a photo of a sealed set. So you couldn't reject it. Then
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=232389
and
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=232409
coming with reliable evidences. You couldn't reject them. And finally this
request for 7735. You instantly reject it, without asking me for any source or
anything, or waiting others to comment on it, only FEW MINUTES after I submitted
it.
I am sorry but this is how it seems to me.
As far as I know, the right way to treat an inventory change request, is to ask
for a source, and if there is none or I gave a wrong source, rejecting it by
giving some reason. Your may correctly want to be very thoughtful and cautious
in accepting a request, but a reason should be given if rejected, otherwise how
can me or others know why it is rejected and why I was wrong.
Concerning this request that you rejected, I have two sources. One is the member
"go4bob" who submitted recently this request for this set 7735
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=232288
He has kept his set with box and every thing else in its original condition since
80s. One can check this on his utube channel, his recent video.
I have asked him to comment on this request. Unfortunately, you wrongly reject
this request.
His set contains:
- 3241c (released 1981-85) and not 2731a (released 1986-88) I just submitted
a request for this part to be added as regular. I provided another reliable source:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=232459&nID=1078362
- of course 4275 and 4276 black hinges with hollow studs (the current request
that got submitted)
- Yellow Minifig, Head Standard Grin Pattern - Solid Stud
- Black motor type 3: date of production 48 5 (i.e. 48th week in 1985)
- yellow and red 2x2 bricks without supports (old version)
The parts of his copy of 7735 seem to be consistent as they are all the older
variant.
In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 2 Part 4276 Black Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 2 Fingers (match ID 1)
* Add 2 Part 4275 Black Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 3 Fingers (match ID 2)
* Change 2 Part Black 4276a Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 2 Fingers and Solid Studs {match ID 0 to 1}
* Change 2 Part Black 4275a Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 3 Fingers and Solid Studs {match ID 0 to 2}
Comments from Submitter:
This set was released until the end of 1990. So, similarly to the set 7745, these hinges were replaced with their new variants.
|
We are not going to approve requests to blanket the inventory system with every
possible variant. If you want to add a variant to an inventory, you need to a
have a reliable source.
Even if you had a track record of being right with every request, we would still
reject these requests based on principal. But you have been sorely wrong in your
conclusions several times recently, and these wrong submissions amount in the
end to a lot of wasted time and effort on the part of our administrative staff.
I'm sorry if this seems harsh, but one of our main jobs with the BrickLink
catalog is to preserve it. There have been times in the past that people have
gotten away with these kinds of requests, but in the end somebody has to go through
(sometimes years later) and weed out all the unsubstantiated additions to try
to get a clear picture of what the sets really contained.
Russell
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Feb 24, 2018 15:02 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Ok, let's review:
I submitted many requests, some were accepted as I found the evidence after a
hard work in asking many people photos...
Some didn't get accepted but I am still certain they were correct, such as
the yellow cones 3943b for the popular train 7730.
Then I found 3040a to be added as regular (and 3040b moved to alternate): accepted
as there were photos available
Then I checked my photos of 7750 for
- "3062a Brick, Round 1 x 1 Solid Stud" to be added as regular (3062 moving to
alternate)
- "3040a Slope 45 2 x 1 - without Bottom Tube" to be added as regular (3062 moving
to alternate)
Concerning 3062a, I thought the photos confirm my change request. It is a very
confusing photo:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=232068
For 3040a, administrative rejected my request without even asking me if I have
a source? or to wait if other members would give a comment?
I still have the photo approving my request. I forgot to add it. This was my
request:
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?S=7750-1
|
Requests may rejected immediately if it is perceived they have been submitted
frivolously. There was no communication submitted for any of those rejected requests
for 3040a, let alone any evidence. Besides, they were submitted along with several
dozen wrong requests for 3062b.
Before submitting volleys of requests, it is better to contact an admin to make
sure you are on the same wavelength. Sure, there are many experienced submitters
who don't do that, but they've developed a sense for what will get approved
and what won't.
| | And then I was truly wrong for my other requests ALL concerning "3062a Brick,
Round 1 x 1 Solid Stud". With no doubt, this case is a complicated one.
| | But you have been sorely wrong in your
conclusions several times recently, and these wrong submissions amount in the
end to a lot of wasted time and effort on the part of our administrative staff.
|
Several times yes I was, but ALL included one single part. After discussing my
first request and realizing that I had a wrong conclusion, it would not be difficult
or time-consuming to conclude that my other requests had to be rejected, would
it?
|
It doesn't work that way. I had to look at every one of those inventories,
check who originally added the other variant, compare other period sets that
had that piece in that color, and reacquaint myself with earlier study I had
done on this and other vintage pieces.
| | I think you need to review what you just wrote me. The catalog inventories of
vintage train sets from 80s have many, really many mistakes or incompleteness.
I have contributed a lot, spent a lot of time, did research to find evidence
and submitted many requested that were accepted. For most of these sets, there
were no inventory change after 2010. I am not wrong if I say that the number
of inventory change requests that I submitted is about one third of all requests
that were submitted before me for the last 10 years. (of course, many AFOL helped
me. They thought me almost everything I know. I didn't do all alone)
Only concerning 12v train motors, we have on bricklink many sellers specialized
on 12v trains, they have sold many motors, but didn't help on correcting
inventories. Before me, only one member (lego.12vtrains) fixed the correct type
of black motor for one single set: 7740 (and he submitted many other requests)
Again, such an important part was so incomplete before my requests.
This work was not done easy. It was even harder than what it seems. I invite
you to check this thread, which shows part of the work:
https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/158820-help-when-were-your-12v-motors-released-lets-complete-the-table/
I find it very disappointing that you mention about time wasted on the part of
our administrative staff! Really? Then what about my time and effort? Your administrative
staff are getting paid. I am not. They are paid by the buyers and sellers on
bricklink, like me.
|
I don't want anyone to waste their time, whether they are being paid or not.
You need to exercise more care when coming to conclusions, and you need to accept
the way that the BrickLink system works. It will save both your time and ours.
I myself have had a few change requests rejected for trying to add variants based
on evidence I saw in sellers' listings. This was back in 2008. I learned
fast that BL listings were often wrong, and I had to come up with better sources.
| | I don't need or want any prize, but I find your words disappointing. This
is not the best way to encourage members to contribute to the catalogs.
After you rejected correctly my recent requests all concerning the part 3062a,
it seems to me that you looked into an opportunity to give me a lesson by rejecting
my next request.
|
I wish it were that easy to teach someone a lesson. But we don't reject requests
just to punish people. 
I'm not sure what you are referring to as your "next request". After the
3062b rejections, every change you have submitted was either approved or is still
pending - except for the 4275 hinge plates, for which you gave no evidence other
than a timeline.
The only requests typically accepted with timeline evidence are ones which change
the variant completely, from one type to the other, not adding alternates. When
you add an alternate on BrickLink, that means you have good evidence that both
were in the set.
But this is a complicated subject. I really need to make a timeline for a few
parts to show how this really works, and how to interpret the inventory data
that we have.
If you have a source, state it in the notes. Don't give a timeline only.
And regarding the decision to reject or accept, we are not obligated to accept
any request, regardless of the evidence given. If we don't believe the evidence,
or for whatever reason it is not in the site's interest to accept a request,
we will reject it.
| | I am sorry but this is how it seems to me.
As far as I know, the right way to treat an inventory change request, is to ask
for a source, and if there is none or I gave a wrong source, rejecting it by
giving some reason. Your may correctly want to be very thoughtful and cautious
in accepting a request, but a reason should be given if rejected, otherwise how
can me or others know why it is rejected and why I was wrong.
|
I gave you a reason in the form of a 3-paragraph-long post, followed up by other
posts, including this one.
| |
Concerning this request that you rejected, I have two sources. One is the member
"go4bob" who submitted recently this request for this set 7735
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=232288
He has kept his set with box and every thing else in its original condition since
80s. One can check this on his utube channel, his recent video.
I have asked him to comment on this request. Unfortunately, you wrongly reject
this request.
His set contains:
- 3241c (released 1981-85) and not 2731a (released 1986-88) I just submitted
a request for this part to be added as regular. I provided another reliable source:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=232459&nID=1078362
- of course 4275 and 4276 black hinges with hollow studs (the current request
that got submitted)
- Yellow Minifig, Head Standard Grin Pattern - Solid Stud
- Black motor type 3: date of production 48 5 (i.e. 48th week in 1985)
- yellow and red 2x2 bricks without supports (old version)
The parts of his copy of 7735 seem to be consistent as they are all the older
variant.
|
Go4bob is one of the site's esteemed and trusted Inventories Verifiers:
https://www.bricklink.com/memberList.asp?invVer=Y&v=5
He is certainly capable of submitting his own requests, and it is better he do
it, because if questions arise later, he can be contacted for confirmation.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | CrazyChris | | Posted: | Feb 24, 2018 18:28 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Before submitting volleys of requests, it is better to contact an admin to make
sure you are on the same wavelength.
|
That's funny, because that's what we already did sending the big Excel
file... but there was NO response. Later on, you told us that we should use the
ICR form.
So what method do you prefer? And what is the reason for your lack of communication?
I really admire Reza due to his power fo endurance - many other people (incl.
me) would have resigned. It is very disappointing.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Feb 24, 2018 19:24 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, CrazyChris writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Before submitting volleys of requests, it is better to contact an admin to make
sure you are on the same wavelength.
|
That's funny, because that's what we already did sending the big Excel
file... but there was NO response. Later on, you told us that we should use the
ICR form.
So what method do you prefer? And what is the reason for your lack of communication?
I really admire Reza due to his power fo endurance - many other people (incl.
me) would have resigned. It is very disappointing.
|
So, for you, it’s either flooding the admins with a big impractical Excel file
or flooding them with inventory requests?
Look at the threads a few weeks ago about re-categorizing Ninjago (main one https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1069910
, but there were a few messages before).
I believe that’s the kind of contact, discussion, and organization Russel would
prefer.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | CrazyChris | | Posted: | Feb 24, 2018 20:46 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SylvainLS writes:
| | So, for you, it’s either flooding the admins with a big impractical Excel file
or flooding them with inventory requests?
|
The Excel file is only impractical for people that are unskilled.
And it's intention was (and still is) to AVOID a flood of ICRs.
As I said before: it was an offer, not a request.
Bricklink decided not to accept it, and to go the complicated way instead.
If it goes on like this, we will see 50% correct/complete inventories not before
the year 2020, and probably never 100% correct and complete inventories.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Feb 24, 2018 21:25 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Inventories Requests, CrazyChris writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SylvainLS writes:
| | So, for you, it’s either flooding the admins with a big impractical Excel file
or flooding them with inventory requests?
|
The Excel file is only impractical for people that are unskilled.
And it's intention was (and still is) to AVOID a flood of ICRs.
As I said before: it was an offer, not a request.
Bricklink decided not to accept it, and to go the complicated way instead.
If it goes on like this, we will see 50% correct/complete inventories not before
the year 2020, and probably never 100% correct and complete inventories.
|
It was never not accepted. The fact that I had received the document from you
(both an early and a late version) made Sezar's requests go through more
easily. When the requests came up in the queue, I had already familiarized myself
with the parts and change logs.
But there is a difference between the BL inventory system and a collector's
timeline. I know this because I frequently make timelines and spreadsheets myself.
They rarely match up completely with BrickLink, and the reason is because they
are based partly on theory.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | CrazyChris | | Posted: | Feb 25, 2018 04:58 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, CrazyChris writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SylvainLS writes:
| | So, for you, it’s either flooding the admins with a big impractical Excel file
or flooding them with inventory requests?
|
The Excel file is only impractical for people that are unskilled.
And it's intention was (and still is) to AVOID a flood of ICRs.
As I said before: it was an offer, not a request.
Bricklink decided not to accept it, and to go the complicated way instead.
If it goes on like this, we will see 50% correct/complete inventories not before
the year 2020, and probably never 100% correct and complete inventories.
|
It was never not accepted. The fact that I had received the document from you
(both an early and a late version) made Sezar's requests go through more
easily. When the requests came up in the queue, I had already familiarized myself
with the parts and change logs.
|
Okay, I see.
If you are still interested - the latest version of the document can always be
downloaded from my FTP space:
http://www.124er.de/lego/train_parts_master_table_online.xlsx
There are quite a number of updates and changes, compared with the version you
have.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Feb 24, 2018 21:49 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| | | Requests may rejected immediately if it is perceived they have been submitted
frivolously. There was no communication submitted for any of those rejected requests
for 3040a, let alone any evidence. Besides, they were submitted along with several
dozen wrong requests for 3062b.
|
Half of the time, it was not my requests that were submitted frivolously, but
teh decision to reject them were taken frivolously. This includes:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=231670
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=231672
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=232081
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=232443
For 3040a Slope 45 2 x 1, I submitted four requests. One accepted for 6842, one
frivolously rejected for 7750 (therefore I submitted a new one yesterday), which
leaves two sets from 80s coming with 3040. I submitted two requests for thses
sets (7862 and 7810) hoping to get some reason why 3040 was added to their inventory.
Back in the time these inventories were created, the variant 3040a might have
not existed so why the submitter added 3040. I think this had to be clarified
on my request so that I know how the inventory for these sets created. If you
search the box for these sets, you can see that there were no cellophane through
which we could see the parts. Those copies of these sets on market are either
sealed or in used condition, which make it impossible to get any inclusion. So
if 3040 were used for their inventory because there were no 3040a at the time,
then it is more natural to add 3040a as the regular part.
| | Before submitting volleys of requests, it is better to contact an admin to make
sure you are on the same wavelength. Sure, there are many experienced submitters
who don't do that, but they've developed a sense for what will get approved
and what won't.
|
I have sent some emails to admins but I got only a response for 25% of cases.
| | I don't want anyone to waste their time, whether they are being paid or not.
You need to exercise more care when coming to conclusions, and you need to accept
the way that the BrickLink system works. It will save both your time and ours.
|
For the above four requests, my time was wasted.
| | I'm not sure what you are referring to as your "next request".
|
I am referring to this
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=232482
a request that was frivolously rejected previously.
| | I gave you a reason in the form of a 3-paragraph-long post, followed up by other
posts, including this one.
|
You gave a reason for some of my requests. But did you give reason for all the
above requests wrongly rejected?
I am saying "wrongly" because two of them are already accepted and for the other
two, there is a reliable source.
| | I don't want anyone to waste their time, whether they are being paid or not.
You need to exercise more care when coming to conclusions, and you need to accept
the way that the BrickLink system works. It will save both your time and ours.
|
I don't think the way the bricklink system work for submitting inventory
is perfect. This may have various reasons such as the bricklink software is an
old one, not well developed. But this is not defendable. I have been working
with this part of the bricklink system for three months and you are saying that
I have not learnt it well. This already shows that the system is not at all user-friendly,
understandable and very far from being perfect. If it was, I would have learnt
after it after few submissions not 50 ones.
My time was wasted in the above 4 requests rejected, wasn't it?
There might have been more of these requests, but already deleted from the system.
I don't know.
| | He is certainly capable of submitting his own requests, and it is better he do
it, because if questions arise later, he can be contacted for confirmation.
|
the source of many of my requests are other members on bricklink. As far as they
take a photo of their sets, I can submit the request and mention on my request
who gave me the source as I have done this so far. Many people are reluctant
to submit the request so I don't write them "please take a photo of this
part, then go here and submit the request. And then follow the process and reply
to admin and be careful: you may need to comment back and forth few times so
that admin accept the request." I am sure they would think: "at the vert first
place, why do I need to do all these things?" But if I just ask them a photo,
it is more likely they provide me that.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 24, 2018 22:22 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Half of the time, it was not my requests that were submitted frivolously, but
teh decision to reject them were taken frivolously. This includes:
|
I've had plenty of submissions rejected and I learned to be more careful
with my submissions to avoid wasting my time and the time of others.
If you're here to make things better, then I'm all for it.
I'm not interested in squabbling, though. If that is something you're
looking for, then you may count me out.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Feb 24, 2018 22:47 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| I am working on this for three months now. I was ok if my requests didn't
not accepted for lack of hard proof, even if I know it was correct. But some
times, there were lack of communication or the rejection decision was made too
quick.
| | I'm not interested in squabbling, though. If that is something you're
looking for, then you may count me out.
|
I am sure those people who know me in person know that I am never interested
in squabbling.
But I should mention what part of the process is not working as it should be,
or there is a hope to improve it.
I also refer you to read other messages from admin Russel and make a comparison.
| | I've had plenty of submissions rejected and I learned to be more careful
with my submissions to avoid wasting my time and the time of others.
|
I am not sure It is really easy to learn how the system works easily, specially
for vintage sets.
For the following scenario for example:
1) hello, I bought this set sealed, opened it and found this part in it. Please
add it to the catalog.
2) Hello, I know 3 collectors who have bought this set in new/MISB condition
and they say that this part is missing in the catalog. (the case for 753, 754)
3) hello, it is known by collector that this part is included in this set.
So far, I don't know if in the above cases, how the decision would be made.
I also read older requests. Hopeless. In some cases, the case number 1 was accepted
without any photo. So was the case number 3 for those "bad" boxes with no cellophane.
I am frustrated 
In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Half of the time, it was not my requests that were submitted frivolously, but
teh decision to reject them were taken frivolously. This includes:
|
I've had plenty of submissions rejected and I learned to be more careful
with my submissions to avoid wasting my time and the time of others.
If you're here to make things better, then I'm all for it.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Feb 24, 2018 22:42 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| We're not going to engage in a public trial to see if my decisions or those
of our admin team were correct or not. Sometimes mistakes are made - it is true,
we are human - but we are mostly very accurate and we have a lot of experience.
I have, however, just gone over all your rejected requests and I don't see
any mistakes on our part. They were all rejected for good reasons. Sometimes
it took a few days, and sometime only a few minutes. But I stand behind all of
the decisions.
What I mean by the BrickLink system, is not just the mechanical aspect of handling
the forms and reading logs. These parts of our infrastructure are admittedly
outdated.
The BrickLink catalog is a system built on user credits and trust. If you want
to do well as a BrickLink contributor, build up trust with the admins and other
contributors. Be willing to trade some perfection in the system for better relationships
with other members, including admins.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Feb 24, 2018 23:07 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| | | I have, however, just gone over all your rejected requests and I don't see
any mistakes on our part. They were all rejected for good reasons. Sometimes
it took a few days, and sometime only a few minutes. But I stand behind all of
the decisions.
|
Let's take it from here.
This one was rejected:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=232081
I either forgot to upload the photo, or maybe my comment wasn't submitted.
This was rejected without any comment. Was it better to accept it?
Based on this newer request, I have two reliable sources:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=232482
I guess the photos 5 and 6 show that the part was included.
I am not trying to prove that your decision was wrong, but rather there were
"no communication". So I didn't learn wby this was rejected. I can think
of the following reasons:
1) the part "3040a" has to be regular and "3040" removed.
2) the first request didn't have any source so we don't have time to
comment on all requests.
3) the sources are not trusted.
I add that I don't have any proof that 3040 came with this set. The bricklink
system doesn't show what source was used in adding 3040. There is no message/thread
available from that time.
The problem for this set: it was released between 1980-82. The motors of all
sets I have checked (6 sealed + all auctions on auction sites + a seller on bricklink
who have sold this set many times) were produced in 1980. The complexicity of
the situation is annoying, as I have got information of about 70 red motors type
1 and 2: but only 1 made in late 1981, few in early 1982 and the rest in 1980.
Those produced in 1981 and 1982 came with 7730 (only two sets in 1980-2 came
with a red motor, making the red motor rare comparing to the black one)
This is surprising, making me believe that TLG didn't produce 7750 in 1981
and I am not sure they produced it in 1982. If it was not, then these parts should
be added:
- motor type 2
- 3040 as alternate
otherwise the following alternative part should be deleted
- x461b
The part x461b was added by therobo. I wrote him and ask him more details hoping
to get more information about motor type 2. He hasn't replied after 3 weeks.
From my part, I tried to communicate with catalog administrations. Unfortunately,
I didn't get any response.
In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | We're not going to engage in a public trial to see if my decisions or those
of our admin team were correct or not. Sometimes mistakes are made - it is true,
we are human - but we are mostly very accurate and we have a lot of experience.
I have, however, just gone over all your rejected requests and I don't see
any mistakes on our part. They were all rejected for good reasons. Sometimes
it took a few days, and sometime only a few minutes. But I stand behind all of
the decisions.
What I mean by the BrickLink system, is not just the mechanical aspect of handling
the forms and reading logs. These parts of our infrastructure are admittedly
outdated.
The BrickLink catalog is a system built on user credits and trust. If you want
to do well as a BrickLink contributor, build up trust with the admins and other
contributors. Be willing to trade some perfection in the system for better relationships
with other members, including admins.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2018 00:46 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | | | I have, however, just gone over all your rejected requests and I don't see
any mistakes on our part. They were all rejected for good reasons. Sometimes
it took a few days, and sometime only a few minutes. But I stand behind all of
the decisions.
|
Let's take it from here.
This one was rejected:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=232081
I either forgot to upload the photo, or maybe my comment wasn't submitted.
This was rejected without any comment. Was it better to accept it?
Based on this newer request, I have two reliable sources:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=232482
I guess the photos 5 and 6 show that the part was included.
I am not trying to prove that your decision was wrong, but rather there were
"no communication". So I didn't learn wby this was rejected.
|
It is my personal policy to inform submitters why I reject their submission.
In this case, the official reason came a little late:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1078304
Although I'm pretty sure you were informed before this time (maybe not by
me) that all such requests need proof.
But just to make it absolutely clear, I am not interested in people fussing around
with basic variants, such as the 3062b or the 3040a. Those parts, and others
like them, have already been worked on enough to determine an approximate timeline,
and the only changes left to make are within the "undefined zone" between when
one variant started showing up and when the other faded out.
Fact-based data points are always welcome, although they really should be firsthand.
I think we have been more than generous in accepting your secondhand sources
(even though they appear sealed) because of that one element, trust. It's
not that we think you would intentionally mislead, but how can we really trust
all these sellers you communicate with? They don't put their username on
the line, and we have no guarantee the sets they are taking photos of have not
been tampered with. It really takes an experienced collector to determine the
reliability of a source, even if that source is sealed.
Any adjustments to the "undefined zone" other than reliable data points should
only really be made by an Inv Admin or other highly experienced members who know
the system and its contributors very well.
But when it comes to train parts, this is a different matter, and we will give
you more leaway in terms of tailoring inventory and variants.
| | I can think
of the following reasons:
1) the part "3040a" has to be regular and "3040" removed.
|
We don't reject requests for technical reasons. Whoever handled the requests
would have accepted the requests and then made any necessary adjustments. We
don't expect all submitters to know when to retain an existing alternate.
| | 2) the first request didn't have any source so we don't have time to
comment on all requests.
|
Just because a variant is found in one set doesn't mean you can add it to
every other comparable set. Yes, there are times when one piece of evidence is
sufficient for a whole volley of requests, and we're not going to be pedantic
about filing everything in triplicate.
But alternate variants are very special in the BrickLink database, and they are
supposed to indicate a data point of some sort, not a state of probability.
| | 3) the sources are not trusted.
|
Well, there was no source for that one.
| | I add that I don't have any proof that 3040 came with this set. The bricklink
system doesn't show what source was used in adding 3040. There is no message/thread
available from that time.
|
| | The problem for this set: it was released between 1980-82. The motors of all
sets I have checked (6 sealed + all auctions on auction sites + a seller on bricklink
who have sold this set many times) were produced in 1980. The complexicity of
the situation is annoying, as I have got information of about 70 red motors type
1 and 2: but only 1 made in late 1981, few in early 1982 and the rest in 1980.
Those produced in 1981 and 1982 came with 7730 (only two sets in 1980-2 came
with a red motor, making the red motor rare comparing to the black one)
This is surprising, making me believe that TLG didn't produce 7750 in 1981
and I am not sure they produced it in 1982. If it was not, then these parts should
be added:
- motor type 2
- 3040 as alternate
otherwise the following alternative part should be deleted
- x461b
|
We really only know when sets were advertised. Getting into the mold numbers,
when the parts were produced, and which sets had which numbers - this is all
a matter of guesswork, and we will not use it as sole evidence in any case. You
can study and present such data as *part* of a complete argument for such and
such, but it is unreliable in and of itself.
| | The part x461b was added by therobo. I wrote him and ask him more details hoping
to get more information about motor type 2. He hasn't replied after 3 weeks.
From my part, I tried to communicate with catalog administrations. Unfortunately,
I didn't get any response.
|
If he added it, the chances of it being wrong are very slim. Do you know who
he is?
https://www.bricklink.com/memberAdmins.asp
| | In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | We're not going to engage in a public trial to see if my decisions or those
of our admin team were correct or not. Sometimes mistakes are made - it is true,
we are human - but we are mostly very accurate and we have a lot of experience.
I have, however, just gone over all your rejected requests and I don't see
any mistakes on our part. They were all rejected for good reasons. Sometimes
it took a few days, and sometime only a few minutes. But I stand behind all of
the decisions.
What I mean by the BrickLink system, is not just the mechanical aspect of handling
the forms and reading logs. These parts of our infrastructure are admittedly
outdated.
The BrickLink catalog is a system built on user credits and trust. If you want
to do well as a BrickLink contributor, build up trust with the admins and other
contributors. Be willing to trade some perfection in the system for better relationships
with other members, including admins.
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2018 01:47 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| Dear Admin_Russell
| | But just to make it absolutely clear, I am not interested in people fussing around
with basic variants, such as the 3062b or the 3040a. Those parts, and others
like them, have already been worked on enough to determine an approximate timeline,
and the only changes left to make are within the "undefined zone" between when
one variant started showing up and when the other faded out.
|
Some time ago, you wrote me there would be tones of work for vintage sets. I
can see there are many problems with trains from 80s and I guess there are many
problems for trains from 70s.
In this case, I agree I had to contact you. But I found 3062a in 7750
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?S=7750-1
but my photos are misleading or confusing so I am not sure now as stormchaser
was not convinced that the red 3062 in the photo were 3062a.
I also found 3040a in 7750
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=232482
I got photos from two different sets.
This gave me an impression that these parts were not completely checked for many
sets in early 80s. From now on, for general parts, I will contact admin before
making an action.
| | but how can we really trust all these sellers you communicate with? They don't put their username on the line,
|
I can partially help with that. I will write you a pm.
| | and we have no guarantee the sets they are taking photos of have not
been tampered with.
|
I can only decrease the chance of mistake by doing some guesswork, theory,...
For example, for 2 months I tried to find a sealed or MISB 7745 or 7735 coming
with motor bb12vc (last type). This is because, I got production date of over
200 motors and it became clear that in 88, TLG changed the mold of 12v motor
and replaced motor type 3 (bb12b+) with bb12vc. 7745 was released until the end
of 1990. At the same time, I got a 7745 from ebay of UK coming with bb12vc and
parts were all latest variants. I contacted the seller and he told me that his
parents bought the set second-hand for christmas 1990. OF course, I had seen
other photos on ebay,...
The problem is that there are very few sealed 7745 out in the market and if I
find one, the chance that it comes with bb12vc not bb12vb+ is less than 20% and
the chance that I can get photos from the seller is also not 100%.
Today I got the photos of MISB 7745 from lego.12vtrains coming with bb12vc. So
I trusted it.
How can I do it better than this?
| | We really only know when sets were advertised. Getting into the mold numbers,
when the parts were produced, and which sets had which numbers - this is all
a matter of guesswork, and we will not use it as sole evidence in any case. You
can study and present such data as *part* of a complete argument for such and
such, but it is unreliable in and of itself.
|
I agree. But if 5 people claim that their set came with such variant of such
part and I get photos from them, confirming also the guesswork and theory, is
that reliable?
The same I say if I see a variant coming with a set in many various lots "appearing
from a private seller selling his Legos he/she had in his/her childhood", then
is that more reliable?
This was the case for yellow cones of 7730.
Finding one single MISB or sealed 7730 is now my dream!
Yes I know him. I don't have any problem in trusting that, but he may give
me some information about this set 7750 that helps me to understand other issues
about this set. I don't know if the red motor type 2 was used for this set
in late 1981 and 1982.
In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | | | I have, however, just gone over all your rejected requests and I don't see
any mistakes on our part. They were all rejected for good reasons. Sometimes
it took a few days, and sometime only a few minutes. But I stand behind all of
the decisions.
|
Let's take it from here.
This one was rejected:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=232081
I either forgot to upload the photo, or maybe my comment wasn't submitted.
This was rejected without any comment. Was it better to accept it?
Based on this newer request, I have two reliable sources:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=232482
I guess the photos 5 and 6 show that the part was included.
I am not trying to prove that your decision was wrong, but rather there were
"no communication". So I didn't learn wby this was rejected.
|
It is my personal policy to inform submitters why I reject their submission.
In this case, the official reason came a little late:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1078304
Although I'm pretty sure you were informed before this time (maybe not by
me) that all such requests need proof.
But just to make it absolutely clear, I am not interested in people fussing around
with basic variants, such as the 3062b or the 3040a. Those parts, and others
like them, have already been worked on enough to determine an approximate timeline,
and the only changes left to make are within the "undefined zone" between when
one variant started showing up and when the other faded out.
Fact-based data points are always welcome, although they really should be firsthand.
I think we have been more than generous in accepting your secondhand sources
(even though they appear sealed) because of that one element, trust. It's
not that we think you would intentionally mislead, but how can we really trust
all these sellers you communicate with? They don't put their username on
the line, and we have no guarantee the sets they are taking photos of have not
been tampered with. It really takes an experienced collector to determine the
reliability of a source, even if that source is sealed.
Any adjustments to the "undefined zone" other than reliable data points should
only really be made by an Inv Admin or other highly experienced members who know
the system and its contributors very well.
But when it comes to train parts, this is a different matter, and we will give
you more leaway in terms of tailoring inventory and variants.
| | I can think
of the following reasons:
1) the part "3040a" has to be regular and "3040" removed.
|
We don't reject requests for technical reasons. Whoever handled the requests
would have accepted the requests and then made any necessary adjustments. We
don't expect all submitters to know when to retain an existing alternate.
| | 2) the first request didn't have any source so we don't have time to
comment on all requests.
|
Just because a variant is found in one set doesn't mean you can add it to
every other comparable set. Yes, there are times when one piece of evidence is
sufficient for a whole volley of requests, and we're not going to be pedantic
about filing everything in triplicate.
But alternate variants are very special in the BrickLink database, and they are
supposed to indicate a data point of some sort, not a state of probability.
| | 3) the sources are not trusted.
|
Well, there was no source for that one.
| | I add that I don't have any proof that 3040 came with this set. The bricklink
system doesn't show what source was used in adding 3040. There is no message/thread
available from that time.
|
| | The problem for this set: it was released between 1980-82. The motors of all
sets I have checked (6 sealed + all auctions on auction sites + a seller on bricklink
who have sold this set many times) were produced in 1980. The complexicity of
the situation is annoying, as I have got information of about 70 red motors type
1 and 2: but only 1 made in late 1981, few in early 1982 and the rest in 1980.
Those produced in 1981 and 1982 came with 7730 (only two sets in 1980-2 came
with a red motor, making the red motor rare comparing to the black one)
This is surprising, making me believe that TLG didn't produce 7750 in 1981
and I am not sure they produced it in 1982. If it was not, then these parts should
be added:
- motor type 2
- 3040 as alternate
otherwise the following alternative part should be deleted
- x461b
|
We really only know when sets were advertised. Getting into the mold numbers,
when the parts were produced, and which sets had which numbers - this is all
a matter of guesswork, and we will not use it as sole evidence in any case. You
can study and present such data as *part* of a complete argument for such and
such, but it is unreliable in and of itself.
| | The part x461b was added by therobo. I wrote him and ask him more details hoping
to get more information about motor type 2. He hasn't replied after 3 weeks.
From my part, I tried to communicate with catalog administrations. Unfortunately,
I didn't get any response.
|
If he added it, the chances of it being wrong are very slim. Do you know who
he is?
https://www.bricklink.com/memberAdmins.asp
| | In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | We're not going to engage in a public trial to see if my decisions or those
of our admin team were correct or not. Sometimes mistakes are made - it is true,
we are human - but we are mostly very accurate and we have a lot of experience.
I have, however, just gone over all your rejected requests and I don't see
any mistakes on our part. They were all rejected for good reasons. Sometimes
it took a few days, and sometime only a few minutes. But I stand behind all of
the decisions.
What I mean by the BrickLink system, is not just the mechanical aspect of handling
the forms and reading logs. These parts of our infrastructure are admittedly
outdated.
The BrickLink catalog is a system built on user credits and trust. If you want
to do well as a BrickLink contributor, build up trust with the admins and other
contributors. Be willing to trade some perfection in the system for better relationships
with other members, including admins.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2018 03:04 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | but my photos are misleading or confusing so I am not sure now as stormchaser
was not convinced that the red 3062 in the photo were 3062a.
|
The problem with posting photos here is that many of them are too small to make
out fine details. This is likely due to restrictions on photo size in the forum.
I'd suggest continuing to post pictures with your requests so that we'll
have a record of them here, but have larger versions online elsewhere which you
can link to in your requests. There are numerous free photo hosting websites
out there and you may provide links to any of them provided they aren't sites
which sell LEGO items.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | wannes. | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2018 08:32 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
probably more than 20 7750's build from original bricks went true my hands
by now. and not one dit have x461b.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Canada, British Columbia
Germany, Baden-Württemberg
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
Belgium