|
 |
| | | Author: | bb1054204  | | Posted: | Jun 19, 2018 00:39 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 6279-1 | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 4265a Light Gray Technic Bush 1/2 Toothed Type I (match ID 1)
* Add 1 Part 4265b Light Gray Technic Bush 1/2 Toothed Type II (match ID 1)
Comments from Submitter:
4265a replaced with 4265b as per original instructions.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | Jun 19, 2018 01:40 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | Jun 19, 2018 01:43 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6279-1 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, poluteyourjorts writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 4265a Light Gray Technic Bush 1/2 Toothed Type I (match ID 1)
* Add 1 Part 4265b Light Gray Technic Bush 1/2 Toothed Type II (match ID 1)
Comments from Submitter:
4265a replaced with 4265b as per original instructions.
|
Some strange changes were made to this set.
Set originally inventoried with "a" type then in 2010 "a" type changed to "b"
type in regular section. In 2012 "a" type return but as an alternate. Finally
in 2013 in regular section "b" type changed to "a" but "a" left in alternate
So now we have "a" in both regular and alternate section. 
Unfortunately, any discussion about these changes remain.
And here we go again, this mess have to be straighten
Can somebody shed some light on this matter?
Marek
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | ZwarteMagica | | Posted: | Jun 19, 2018 03:20 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6279-1 | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| Seems odd, the same part as regular and alternate.
Does BrickLink also log changes made to the parts them self back in 2013?
I suspect there were made some changes to that part specific.
In Inventories Requests, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, poluteyourjorts writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 4265a Light Gray Technic Bush 1/2 Toothed Type I (match ID 1)
* Add 1 Part 4265b Light Gray Technic Bush 1/2 Toothed Type II (match ID 1)
Comments from Submitter:
4265a replaced with 4265b as per original instructions.
|
Some strange changes were made to this set.
Set originally inventoried with "a" type then in 2010 "a" type changed to "b"
type in regular section. In 2012 "a" type return but as an alternate. Finally
in 2013 in regular section "b" type changed to "a" but "a" left in alternate
So now we have "a" in both regular and alternate section.
Unfortunately, any discussion about these changes remain.
And here we go again, this mess have to be straighten
Can somebody shed some light on this matter?
Marek
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | Jun 19, 2018 03:26 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6279-1 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, ZwarteMagica writes:
| | Seems odd, the same part as regular and alternate.
Does BrickLink also log changes made to the parts them self back in 2013?
I suspect there were made some changes to that part specific.
|
Yes if the name or number of part is changed there is also log with that changes.
Those two parts don't have any.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Jun 19, 2018 04:47 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6279-1 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| this is again another way to help:
See
https://worldbricks.com/en/catalog-year/1990/catalogs-1995.html
The reviewer doesn't say if he opened a new one but this copy is so neat
coming with everything, like the clear inner tray and catalog of 1995. The catalog
shows that this copy was from 1995 and we can see in the images 4265a.
My guess is that in the early releases, 4265a was used but it is likely that
in the following year, it got replaced by 4265b.
In Inventories Requests, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, poluteyourjorts writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 4265a Light Gray Technic Bush 1/2 Toothed Type I (match ID 1)
* Add 1 Part 4265b Light Gray Technic Bush 1/2 Toothed Type II (match ID 1)
Comments from Submitter:
4265a replaced with 4265b as per original instructions.
|
Some strange changes were made to this set.
Set originally inventoried with "a" type then in 2010 "a" type changed to "b"
type in regular section. In 2012 "a" type return but as an alternate. Finally
in 2013 in regular section "b" type changed to "a" but "a" left in alternate
So now we have "a" in both regular and alternate section.
Unfortunately, any discussion about these changes remain.
And here we go again, this mess have to be straighten
Can somebody shed some light on this matter?
Marek
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | Jun 19, 2018 11:20 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6279-1 | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | this is again another way to help:
See
https://worldbricks.com/en/catalog-year/1990/catalogs-1995.html
The reviewer doesn't say if he opened a new one but this copy is so neat
coming with everything, like the clear inner tray and catalog of 1995. The catalog
shows that this copy was from 1995 and we can see in the images 4265a.
My guess is that in the early releases, 4265a was used but it is likely that
in the following year, it got replaced by 4265b.
In Inventories Requests, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, poluteyourjorts writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 4265a Light Gray Technic Bush 1/2 Toothed Type I (match ID 1)
* Add 1 Part 4265b Light Gray Technic Bush 1/2 Toothed Type II (match ID 1)
Comments from Submitter:
4265a replaced with 4265b as per original instructions.
|
Some strange changes were made to this set.
Set originally inventoried with "a" type then in 2010 "a" type changed to "b"
type in regular section. In 2012 "a" type return but as an alternate. Finally
in 2013 in regular section "b" type changed to "a" but "a" left in alternate
So now we have "a" in both regular and alternate section.
Unfortunately, any discussion about these changes remain.
And here we go again, this mess have to be straighten
Can somebody shed some light on this matter?
Marek
|
|
I'm sure that this set should have both variant "a" and "b" in inventory
(one of them as alternate), another set from the same year for example
the only strange think were these changes through years with final result having
the same part variant twice 
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Jun 19, 2018 16:17 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6279-1 | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| Check how the hinges 4276a and 4276b have been changed for this set 7824 from
1983-90:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogInvChangeItem.asp?itemType=S&itemNo=7824-1&viewDate=Y&viewStatus=1
In Inventories Requests, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | this is again another way to help:
See
https://worldbricks.com/en/catalog-year/1990/catalogs-1995.html
The reviewer doesn't say if he opened a new one but this copy is so neat
coming with everything, like the clear inner tray and catalog of 1995. The catalog
shows that this copy was from 1995 and we can see in the images 4265a.
My guess is that in the early releases, 4265a was used but it is likely that
in the following year, it got replaced by 4265b.
In Inventories Requests, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, poluteyourjorts writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 4265a Light Gray Technic Bush 1/2 Toothed Type I (match ID 1)
* Add 1 Part 4265b Light Gray Technic Bush 1/2 Toothed Type II (match ID 1)
Comments from Submitter:
4265a replaced with 4265b as per original instructions.
|
Some strange changes were made to this set.
Set originally inventoried with "a" type then in 2010 "a" type changed to "b"
type in regular section. In 2012 "a" type return but as an alternate. Finally
in 2013 in regular section "b" type changed to "a" but "a" left in alternate
So now we have "a" in both regular and alternate section.
Unfortunately, any discussion about these changes remain.
And here we go again, this mess have to be straighten
Can somebody shed some light on this matter?
Marek
|
|
I'm sure that this set should have both variant "a" and "b" in inventory
(one of them as alternate), another set from the same year for example
the only strange think were these changes through years with final result having
the same part variant twice
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | bb1054204 | | Posted: | Jun 20, 2018 00:15 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6279-1 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, poluteyourjorts writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 4265a Light Gray Technic Bush 1/2 Toothed Type I (match ID 1)
* Add 1 Part 4265b Light Gray Technic Bush 1/2 Toothed Type II (match ID 1)
Comments from Submitter:
4265a replaced with 4265b as per original instructions.
|
Some strange changes were made to this set.
Set originally inventoried with "a" type then in 2010 "a" type changed to "b"
type in regular section. In 2012 "a" type return but as an alternate. Finally
in 2013 in regular section "b" type changed to "a" but "a" left in alternate
So now we have "a" in both regular and alternate section.
Unfortunately, any discussion about these changes remain.
And here we go again, this mess have to be straighten
Can somebody shed some light on this matter?
Marek
|
It seems the change was already made but here is further evidence, if it helps.
I've attached a photo of the 1995 instructions I came across that shows the
valid part. Let me know if you need anything else. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | Jun 19, 2018 11:30 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6279-1 | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, poluteyourjorts writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 4265a Light Gray Technic Bush 1/2 Toothed Type I (match ID 1)
* Add 1 Part 4265b Light Gray Technic Bush 1/2 Toothed Type II (match ID 1)
Comments from Submitter:
4265a replaced with 4265b as per original instructions.
|
Inventory change request aproved. I only move "a" variant to regular and "b"
variant to alternate as in other two sets (8210-1 and 6090-1) from this year
with this situation to be consistent.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Jun 19, 2018 16:11 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6279-1 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| Are you sure based on what? Based on the other two sets?
Based on the way Storm-chaser treats this type of cases, you should ONLY accept
any of these variations if there is an evidence: sealed set or an owner who has
kept the set with original parts.
All my inventories supported with any other type of evidence (including instructions)
have been rejected.
I don't think it is correct to have various procedures depending on which
admin check the request.
In Inventories Requests, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, poluteyourjorts writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 4265a Light Gray Technic Bush 1/2 Toothed Type I (match ID 1)
* Add 1 Part 4265b Light Gray Technic Bush 1/2 Toothed Type II (match ID 1)
Comments from Submitter:
4265a replaced with 4265b as per original instructions.
|
Inventory change request aproved. I only move "a" variant to regular and "b"
variant to alternate as in other two sets (8210-1 and 6090-1) from this year
with this situation to be consistent.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Jun 19, 2018 17:17 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6279-1 | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| | | Our system on BrickLink is based on the reliability of the username. The admins
have a lot of experience reading logs and determining the creditworthiness of
users both current and inactive. I am quite confident that any of our admins
(including our catalog admins and myself) would have come up with the same conclusion
in this case.
|
I don't find the connection between the reliability of the username with
the reason Marek gave (below):
| | Inventory change request aproved. I only move "a" variant to regular and "b"
variant to alternate as in other two sets (8210-1 and 6090-1) from this year
with this situation to be consistent.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jun 19, 2018 18:07 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6279-1 | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | I don't find the connection between the reliability of the username with
the reason Marek gave (below):
|
Speaking of usernames, I find it interesting that a zero feedback user who recently
signed up is submitting a complicated change request for obscure technical details
and then not bothering to comment on it.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jun 19, 2018 18:49 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6279-1 | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | I don't find the connection between the reliability of the username with
the reason Marek gave (below):
|
Speaking of usernames, I find it interesting that a zero feedback user who recently
signed up is submitting a complicated change request for obscure technical details
and then not bothering to comment on it.
|
Is it?
The user signed up 6 months ago.
The proposed change is a simple part version change.
The change request only became complicated because of the change history which
the user might not have known.
The change request was made less than 24 hours ago. To early to say he does not
comment.
Why could this not be a new user who found something odd in the inventory and
is now being helpful and trying to correct the information? Am I missing something
here?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jun 19, 2018 18:58 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6279-1 | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, WoutR writes:
| | The user signed up 6 months ago.
|
Which is relatively recent, to my mind. Six months with no buying/selling transactions
and no other catalog/inventory activity until now.
| | Why could this not be a new user who found something odd in the inventory and
is now being helpful and trying to correct the information?
|
This very well could be the case. But maybe it's not.
| | Am I missing something here?
|
Sometimes people have more than one account. That may not be what's happening
here, but maybe it is.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bb1054204 | | Posted: | Jun 20, 2018 00:04 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6279-1 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | I don't find the connection between the reliability of the username with
the reason Marek gave (below):
|
Speaking of usernames, I find it interesting that a zero feedback user who recently
signed up is submitting a complicated change request for obscure technical details
and then not bothering to comment on it.
|
Valid point, however I am a real person who just started inventorying classic
80s and 90s sets and came across this issue. I have the original instructions
booklet from a 1995 set that shows the valid part.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | therobo | | Posted: | Jun 20, 2018 07:28 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6279-1 | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, poluteyourjorts writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | I don't find the connection between the reliability of the username with
the reason Marek gave (below):
|
Speaking of usernames, I find it interesting that a zero feedback user who recently
signed up is submitting a complicated change request for obscure technical details
and then not bothering to comment on it.
|
Valid point, however I am a real person who just started inventorying classic
80s and 90s sets and came across this issue. I have the original instructions
booklet from a 1995 set that shows the valid part.
|
But that booklet does not rectify to delete the Type I from the inventory.
Even if the new type was invented by Lego at the time the instruction layout
(which is only a drawing) was created, old variants still appear in sets, produced
at that time, since Lego always mixes new and old variants in the same bins in
their storage.
So it *can* happen (and has happened) that sets contain a new variant and when
a bin is emptied close to the bottom, the old variants appear and are put in
new sets.
So, given the various changes to the inventory of set 6279, both types of the
bush should be in the inventory, one of them as alternate.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jun 19, 2018 18:57 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6279-1 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Are you sure based on what? Based on the other two sets?
Based on the way Storm-chaser treats this type of cases, you should ONLY accept
any of these variations if there is an evidence: sealed set or an owner who has
kept the set with original parts.
All my inventories supported with any other type of evidence (including instructions)
have been rejected.
I don't think it is correct to have various procedures depending on which
admin check the request.
|
Our system on BrickLink is based on the reliability of the username.
|
Could we please rephrase that to:
"The system on BrickLink is evidence based. When in doubt the judgement can be
based on the reliability of the username."
I think that is what you mean to say. The way it was written could be interpreted
with a completely different meaning.
| | The admins
have a lot of experience reading logs and determining the creditworthiness of
users both current and inactive. I am quite confident that any of our admins
(including our catalog admins and myself) would have come up with the same conclusion
in this case.
| | In Inventories Requests, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, poluteyourjorts writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 4265a Light Gray Technic Bush 1/2 Toothed Type I (match ID 1)
* Add 1 Part 4265b Light Gray Technic Bush 1/2 Toothed Type II (match ID 1)
Comments from Submitter:
4265a replaced with 4265b as per original instructions.
|
Inventory change request aproved. I only move "a" variant to regular and "b"
variant to alternate as in other two sets (8210-1 and 6090-1) from this year
with this situation to be consistent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jun 19, 2018 19:27 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6279-1 | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location:  USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
 |
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Inventories Requests, WoutR writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Are you sure based on what? Based on the other two sets?
Based on the way Storm-chaser treats this type of cases, you should ONLY accept
any of these variations if there is an evidence: sealed set or an owner who has
kept the set with original parts.
All my inventories supported with any other type of evidence (including instructions)
have been rejected.
I don't think it is correct to have various procedures depending on which
admin check the request.
|
Our system on BrickLink is based on the reliability of the username.
|
Could we please rephrase that to:
"The system on BrickLink is evidence based. When in doubt the judgement can be
based on the reliability of the username."
I think that is what you mean to say. The way it was written could be interpreted
with a completely different meaning.
|
Before there is evidence, there must be a reliable deliverer of that evidence.
In any court of law, testimonies are given about the nature of the evidence as
to where and when it was found. If the testimonies can't be believed, than
neither can the evidence.
That having been said, it is very helpful and important that contributors document
their presentations as thoroughly as possible. So I'm not saying evidence
is not necessary. But the BrickLink catalog relies principally on a large group
of contributors who have built up their reputation on the site to the point where
their submissions can be trusted.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jun 19, 2018 19:50 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6279-1 | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, WoutR writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Are you sure based on what? Based on the other two sets?
Based on the way Storm-chaser treats this type of cases, you should ONLY accept
any of these variations if there is an evidence: sealed set or an owner who has
kept the set with original parts.
All my inventories supported with any other type of evidence (including instructions)
have been rejected.
I don't think it is correct to have various procedures depending on which
admin check the request.
|
Our system on BrickLink is based on the reliability of the username.
|
Could we please rephrase that to:
"The system on BrickLink is evidence based. When in doubt the judgement can be
based on the reliability of the username."
I think that is what you mean to say. The way it was written could be interpreted
with a completely different meaning.
|
Before there is evidence, there must be a reliable deliverer of that evidence.
In any court of law, testimonies are given about the nature of the evidence as
to where and when it was found. If the testimonies can't be believed, than
neither can the evidence.
That having been said, it is very helpful and important that contributors document
their presentations as thoroughly as possible. So I'm not saying evidence
is not necessary. But the BrickLink catalog relies principally on a large group
of contributors who have built up their reputation on the site to the point where
their submissions can be trusted.
|
Any new user can submit new information to the catalog. If there is enough evidence,
the submission is accepted. At that time, the contributor does not have a reputation
yet. The submission is a first step in building that.
Our large group of contributors have gained their reputation of being reliable
because they have shown consistent and careful evidence-based work. That reputation
has to be based on something more than just a large number of catalog change
requests.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jun 19, 2018 20:09 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6279-1 | | Viewed: | 38 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, WoutR writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, WoutR writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Are you sure based on what? Based on the other two sets?
Based on the way Storm-chaser treats this type of cases, you should ONLY accept
any of these variations if there is an evidence: sealed set or an owner who has
kept the set with original parts.
All my inventories supported with any other type of evidence (including instructions)
have been rejected.
I don't think it is correct to have various procedures depending on which
admin check the request.
|
Our system on BrickLink is based on the reliability of the username.
|
Could we please rephrase that to:
"The system on BrickLink is evidence based. When in doubt the judgement can be
based on the reliability of the username."
I think that is what you mean to say. The way it was written could be interpreted
with a completely different meaning.
|
Before there is evidence, there must be a reliable deliverer of that evidence.
In any court of law, testimonies are given about the nature of the evidence as
to where and when it was found. If the testimonies can't be believed, than
neither can the evidence.
That having been said, it is very helpful and important that contributors document
their presentations as thoroughly as possible. So I'm not saying evidence
is not necessary. But the BrickLink catalog relies principally on a large group
of contributors who have built up their reputation on the site to the point where
their submissions can be trusted.
|
Any new user can submit new information to the catalog. If there is enough evidence,
the submission is accepted. At that time, the contributor does not have a reputation
yet. The submission is a first step in building that.
Our large group of contributors have gained their reputation of being reliable
because they have shown consistent and careful evidence-based work. That reputation
has to be based on something more than just a large number of catalog change
requests.
|
Of course, new users have to start somewhere, and we extend to each one a certain
token amount of goodwill. And their work gets checked extra carefully.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jun 19, 2018 17:59 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6279-1 | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Based on the way Storm-chaser treats this type of cases,
|
My username does not have a hyphen and the second word is capitalized: StormChaser.
As for the way I treat these kinds of cases, read this message from less than
a month ago:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1091324
I did exactly the same thing there that Marek did with this request for 6279
and I said:
| | I don't consider the thin ring clip variant proven to have appeared in this set, but I am adding it back into the inventory as a regular part to avoid inconsistency in the catalog.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Jun 19, 2018 19:26 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6279-1 | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| | | My username does not have a hyphen and the second word is capitalized: StormChaser.
|
My apologies.
| | As for the way I treat these kinds of cases, read this message from less than
a month ago:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1091324
I did exactly the same thing there that Marek did with this request for 6279
and I said:
| | I don't consider the thin ring clip variant proven to have appeared in this set, but I am adding it back into the inventory as a regular part to avoid inconsistency in the catalog.
|
|
Yes you did (but you were reluctant to do so). But I am not following everything
here:
You wrote many times that inconsistency of catalog cannot be a reason to add
a variant of a part and this would not be considered as evidence. Should we distinguish
the regular and alternate (later variant)? For what reason?
I can give many instances in which you didn't accept to add a variant because
a similar set released on the same years came also with that variant (and I do
agree that this is not enough at all. But I will continue the other "probabilistic
discussion soon...")
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poland, w. Wielkopolskie
Netherlands, Noord-Holland
Canada, British Columbia
Germany, Berlin