|
 |
| | | Author: | DeLuca  | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2018 12:48 | | Subject: | Feedback on Rejected Catalog Submissions | | Viewed: | 333 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Would it be possible to include a section on a rejected Catalog Submission (similar
to the 'Note for Catalog Administrator' section) that explains the reason
that a certain change was rejected?
I ask, because I have noticed that some submissions have been rejected, only
to be approved after I changed the format slightly. Other changes have been rejected,
but accepted when I have resubmitted them.
Having feedback on rejected Catalog Submissions will prevent confusion over the
reason for the rejection, and will help others to improve their Submissions.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | BricksThatStick | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2018 17:30 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback on Rejected Catalog Submissions | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, todeluca writes:
| | Having feedback on rejected Catalog Submissions will prevent confusion over the
reason for the rejection, and will help others to improve their Submissions.
|
Good luck.
I submitted an image for a part who's light grey picture was missing. I asked
why it was rejected so I knew what to do right next time (not new to this so
was a bit confused) but no response.
No more time wasted from me - just no more contributions.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | BricksThatStick | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2018 17:49 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback on Rejected Catalog Submissions | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Suggestions, BricksThatStick writes:
| | In Suggestions, todeluca writes:
| | Having feedback on rejected Catalog Submissions will prevent confusion over the
reason for the rejection, and will help others to improve their Submissions.
|
Good luck.
I submitted an image for a part who's light grey picture was missing. I asked
why it was rejected so I knew what to do right next time (not new to this so
was a bit confused) but no response.
No more time wasted from me - just no more contributions.
|
How long ago did this happen, may I ask?
|
February this year.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | DeLuca | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2018 19:19 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback on Rejected Catalog Submissions | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, BricksThatStick writes:
| | In Suggestions, todeluca writes:
| | Having feedback on rejected Catalog Submissions will prevent confusion over the
reason for the rejection, and will help others to improve their Submissions.
|
Good luck.
I submitted an image for a part who's light grey picture was missing. I asked
why it was rejected so I knew what to do right next time (not new to this so
was a bit confused) but no response.
No more time wasted from me - just no more contributions.
|
I seem to have had better luck - most of my Submissions are accepted,
but I am just often confused by the ones that are not.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | DeLuca | | Posted: | Jul 3, 2018 09:32 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback on Rejected Catalog Submissions | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, todeluca writes:
| | Would it be possible to include a section on a rejected Catalog Submission (similar
to the 'Note for Catalog Administrator' section) that explains the reason
that a certain change was rejected?
I ask, because I have noticed that some submissions have been rejected, only
to be approved after I changed the format slightly. Other changes have been rejected,
but accepted when I have resubmitted them.
Having feedback on rejected Catalog Submissions will prevent confusion over the
reason for the rejection, and will help others to improve their Submissions.
|
This just happened.
Case in point, Re: formatting changes:
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Jul 3, 2018 18:28 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback on Rejected Catalog Submissions | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, todeluca writes:
| | In Suggestions, todeluca writes:
| | Would it be possible to include a section on a rejected Catalog Submission (similar
to the 'Note for Catalog Administrator' section) that explains the reason
that a certain change was rejected?
I ask, because I have noticed that some submissions have been rejected, only
to be approved after I changed the format slightly. Other changes have been rejected,
but accepted when I have resubmitted them.
Having feedback on rejected Catalog Submissions will prevent confusion over the
reason for the rejection, and will help others to improve their Submissions.
|
This just happened.
Case in point, Re: formatting changes:
|
The specific example seems a little pedantic. If I were the catmin, the reason
I would reject it was because the difference seemed trivial and I didn't
want to encourage more like it.
I can remember a few catalog changes of mine that were rejected. They were more
precise weights for minifigs that were even grams. Again, it was pretty obvious
to me why the requests were rejected. They just didn't feel that something
that was close enough needed more precision. I was a little surprised, but I
shrugged it off and turned my efforts elsewhere.
I don't go looking at other people's pending requests, so I don't
know how it usually goes. Most of mine go through. I have occasionally had
a message asking for more information and I have occasionally seen questions
edited into the names of things. For example, I submitted a piece today and
therobo edited in the quesiton whether it was a certain piece already in the
catalog. It was. So I don't know what it is looking like. Are your requests
being quickly and summarily deleted or is it possible they are hanging for a
while with questions that you aren't seeing?
If the catmins don't want to give explanations, I'm not into forcing
it. Use the comments section to give your argument and if they reject it it
will be because they disagree with what you said in the comments, right?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | DeLuca | | Posted: | Jul 3, 2018 18:35 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback on Rejected Catalog Submissions | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, axaday writes:
| | In Suggestions, todeluca writes:
| | In Suggestions, todeluca writes:
| | Would it be possible to include a section on a rejected Catalog Submission (similar
to the 'Note for Catalog Administrator' section) that explains the reason
that a certain change was rejected?
I ask, because I have noticed that some submissions have been rejected, only
to be approved after I changed the format slightly. Other changes have been rejected,
but accepted when I have resubmitted them.
Having feedback on rejected Catalog Submissions will prevent confusion over the
reason for the rejection, and will help others to improve their Submissions.
|
This just happened.
Case in point, Re: formatting changes:
|
The specific example seems a little pedantic. If I were the catmin, the reason
I would reject it was because the difference seemed trivial and I didn't
want to encourage more like it.
I can remember a few catalog changes of mine that were rejected. They were more
precise weights for minifigs that were even grams. Again, it was pretty obvious
to me why the requests were rejected. They just didn't feel that something
that was close enough needed more precision. I was a little surprised, but I
shrugged it off and turned my efforts elsewhere.
I don't go looking at other people's pending requests, so I don't
know how it usually goes. Most of mine go through. I have occasionally had
a message asking for more information and I have occasionally seen questions
edited into the names of things. For example, I submitted a piece today and
therobo edited in the quesiton whether it was a certain piece already in the
catalog. It was. So I don't know what it is looking like. Are your requests
being quickly and summarily deleted or is it possible they are hanging for a
while with questions that you aren't seeing?
If the catmins don't want to give explanations, I'm not into forcing
it. Use the comments section to give your argument and if they reject it it
will be because they disagree with what you said in the comments, right?
|
I think that you misunderstood what happened. I submitted two changes for the
“AT-DP Pilot”: “Imperial Combat Driver (AT-DP Pilot)”, and “AT-DP Pilot (Imperial
Combat Driver)” - The former was rejected, while the latter was accepted.
My comments are generally sourcing information (quotes from Wookieepedia, for
example), so I am not sure how one could “disagree” with them. 😕
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Jul 3, 2018 18:39 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback on Rejected Catalog Submissions | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, todeluca writes:
| | In Suggestions, axaday writes:
| | In Suggestions, todeluca writes:
| | In Suggestions, todeluca writes:
| | Would it be possible to include a section on a rejected Catalog Submission (similar
to the 'Note for Catalog Administrator' section) that explains the reason
that a certain change was rejected?
I ask, because I have noticed that some submissions have been rejected, only
to be approved after I changed the format slightly. Other changes have been rejected,
but accepted when I have resubmitted them.
Having feedback on rejected Catalog Submissions will prevent confusion over the
reason for the rejection, and will help others to improve their Submissions.
|
This just happened.
Case in point, Re: formatting changes:
|
The specific example seems a little pedantic. If I were the catmin, the reason
I would reject it was because the difference seemed trivial and I didn't
want to encourage more like it.
I can remember a few catalog changes of mine that were rejected. They were more
precise weights for minifigs that were even grams. Again, it was pretty obvious
to me why the requests were rejected. They just didn't feel that something
that was close enough needed more precision. I was a little surprised, but I
shrugged it off and turned my efforts elsewhere.
I don't go looking at other people's pending requests, so I don't
know how it usually goes. Most of mine go through. I have occasionally had
a message asking for more information and I have occasionally seen questions
edited into the names of things. For example, I submitted a piece today and
therobo edited in the quesiton whether it was a certain piece already in the
catalog. It was. So I don't know what it is looking like. Are your requests
being quickly and summarily deleted or is it possible they are hanging for a
while with questions that you aren't seeing?
If the catmins don't want to give explanations, I'm not into forcing
it. Use the comments section to give your argument and if they reject it it
will be because they disagree with what you said in the comments, right?
|
I think that you misunderstood what happened. I submitted two changes for the
“AT-DP Pilot”: “Imperial Combat Driver (AT-DP Pilot)”, and “AT-DP Pilot (Imperial
Combat Driver)” - The former was rejected, while the latter was accepted.
My comments are generally sourcing information (quotes from Wookieepedia, for
example), so I am not sure how one could “disagree” with them. 😕
|
That DOES make more sense. I thought you just felt the order of words should
be switched around !
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | DeLuca | | Posted: | Jul 3, 2018 19:00 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback on Rejected Catalog Submissions | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, axaday writes:
| | In Suggestions, todeluca writes:
| | In Suggestions, axaday writes:
| | In Suggestions, todeluca writes:
| | In Suggestions, todeluca writes:
| | Would it be possible to include a section on a rejected Catalog Submission (similar
to the 'Note for Catalog Administrator' section) that explains the reason
that a certain change was rejected?
I ask, because I have noticed that some submissions have been rejected, only
to be approved after I changed the format slightly. Other changes have been rejected,
but accepted when I have resubmitted them.
Having feedback on rejected Catalog Submissions will prevent confusion over the
reason for the rejection, and will help others to improve their Submissions.
|
This just happened.
Case in point, Re: formatting changes:
|
The specific example seems a little pedantic. If I were the catmin, the reason
I would reject it was because the difference seemed trivial and I didn't
want to encourage more like it.
I can remember a few catalog changes of mine that were rejected. They were more
precise weights for minifigs that were even grams. Again, it was pretty obvious
to me why the requests were rejected. They just didn't feel that something
that was close enough needed more precision. I was a little surprised, but I
shrugged it off and turned my efforts elsewhere.
I don't go looking at other people's pending requests, so I don't
know how it usually goes. Most of mine go through. I have occasionally had
a message asking for more information and I have occasionally seen questions
edited into the names of things. For example, I submitted a piece today and
therobo edited in the quesiton whether it was a certain piece already in the
catalog. It was. So I don't know what it is looking like. Are your requests
being quickly and summarily deleted or is it possible they are hanging for a
while with questions that you aren't seeing?
If the catmins don't want to give explanations, I'm not into forcing
it. Use the comments section to give your argument and if they reject it it
will be because they disagree with what you said in the comments, right?
|
I think that you misunderstood what happened. I submitted two changes for the
“AT-DP Pilot”: “Imperial Combat Driver (AT-DP Pilot)”, and “AT-DP Pilot (Imperial
Combat Driver)” - The former was rejected, while the latter was accepted.
My comments are generally sourcing information (quotes from Wookieepedia, for
example), so I am not sure how one could “disagree” with them. 😕
|
That DOES make more sense. I thought you just felt the order of words should
be switched around !
|
The ‘catmin’ obviously did, though - hence my confusion!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Jul 3, 2018 19:50 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback on Rejected Catalog Submissions | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, todeluca writes:
| | | | That DOES make more sense. I thought you just felt the order of words should
be switched around !
|
The ‘catmin’ obviously did, though - hence my confusion!
|
That is not obvious to me, but might actually be a case in a different point
for you. See, there are two of them. If seems likely that you floated one out
and ran it into a Catmin who felt there was no point in making a change. You
then second guessed yourself and tried it a little different and ran it into
the other Catmin who may actually have been willing to accept your original submission
just as happily as the second. And then you also have to recall that Russell
and Jaclyn (and Cheyne?) are also able to step into that role. I have sometimes
been curious (though I'm not sure there is a need to know) who it was that
confirmed one of my submissions.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jul 3, 2018 20:22 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback on Rejected Catalog Submissions | | Viewed: | 82 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location:  USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
 |
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Suggestions, axaday writes:
| | In Suggestions, todeluca writes:
| | | | That DOES make more sense. I thought you just felt the order of words should
be switched around !
|
The ‘catmin’ obviously did, though - hence my confusion!
|
That is not obvious to me, but might actually be a case in a different point
for you. See, there are two of them. If seems likely that you floated one out
and ran it into a Catmin who felt there was no point in making a change. You
then second guessed yourself and tried it a little different and ran it into
the other Catmin who may actually have been willing to accept your original submission
just as happily as the second. And then you also have to recall that Russell
and Jaclyn (and Cheyne?) are also able to step into that role. I have sometimes
been curious (though I'm not sure there is a need to know) who it was that
confirmed one of my submissions.
|
I do some catalog work myself, especially the new sets/parts and a lot of the
replacement images. Jaclyn and Cheyne have auto approval, which they use from
time to time, but they do not approve other people's submissions.
Generally speaking, there is so much that gets approved and changed every day
that even with only one person it would be difficult to be completely consistent.
But we have the ability to change something again, or bring up an old issue,
so we hope that is sufficient to handle any areas of conflict.
I am planning this coming year to codify a lot more of the catalog policies so
people know in advance how to submit items, but there are so many cases that
don't fit neatly into little square policy boxes, I don't know if we'll
ever get to the place where somebody isn't surprised once in a while by a
rejection.
Something to keep in mind, however - there are few admins but many contributors,
and it takes effort on both sides to have good communication. And our current
messaging system has a lot of limitations as well. We have plans to upgrade that
at some point.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | DeLuca | | Posted: | Jul 3, 2018 21:18 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback on Rejected Catalog Submissions | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Suggestions, axaday writes:
| | In Suggestions, todeluca writes:
| | | | That DOES make more sense. I thought you just felt the order of words should
be switched around !
|
The ‘catmin’ obviously did, though - hence my confusion!
|
That is not obvious to me, but might actually be a case in a different point
for you. See, there are two of them. If seems likely that you floated one out
and ran it into a Catmin who felt there was no point in making a change. You
then second guessed yourself and tried it a little different and ran it into
the other Catmin who may actually have been willing to accept your original submission
just as happily as the second. And then you also have to recall that Russell
and Jaclyn (and Cheyne?) are also able to step into that role. I have sometimes
been curious (though I'm not sure there is a need to know) who it was that
confirmed one of my submissions.
|
I am planning this coming year to codify a lot more of the catalog policies so people know in advance how to submit items, but there are so many cases that don't fit neatly into little square policy boxes, I don't know if we'll ever get to the place where somebody isn't surprised once in a while by a rejection.
Something to keep in mind, however - there are few admins but many contributors, and it takes effort on both sides to have good communication.
|
I feel that this post does not address the issue at hand.
Would a feedback section on rejected Catalog Submissions be considered as a part
of the improvement of communication and of the Catalog system?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | DeLuca | | Posted: | Jul 3, 2018 21:01 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback on Rejected Catalog Submissions | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, axaday writes:
| | In Suggestions, todeluca writes:
| | | | That DOES make more sense. I thought you just felt the order of words should
be switched around !
|
The ‘catmin’ obviously did, though - hence my confusion!
|
If seems likely that you floated one out and ran it into a Catmin who felt there was no point in making a change. You then second guessed yourself and tried it a little different and ran it into the other Catmin who may actually have been willing to accept your original submission just as happily as the second.
|
Ah, OK. That makes sense. 👍
Which Catmin is a pedantic Star Wars fan? 😄
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | therobo | | Posted: | Jul 5, 2018 08:21 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback on Rejected Catalog Submissions | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, todeluca writes:
| | In Suggestions, axaday writes:
| | In Suggestions, todeluca writes:
| | | | That DOES make more sense. I thought you just felt the order of words should
be switched around !
|
The ‘catmin’ obviously did, though - hence my confusion!
|
If seems likely that you floated one out and ran it into a Catmin who felt there was no point in making a change. You then second guessed yourself and tried it a little different and ran it into the other Catmin who may actually have been willing to accept your original submission just as happily as the second.
|
Ah, OK. That makes sense. 👍
Which Catmin is a pedantic Star Wars fan? 😄
|
Name changes of licensed (SW, Superheroes, etc.) or story-based (Ninjago) minifigs
are always critical:
BrickLink mostly always uses the names as written on the boxes or (if not available)
from the set descriptions of s@h.
If figs with different part inventories share the same name by LEGO, additional
identifiers are attached to the name(s) to distinguish them.
These identifiers typically refer to the differences of headgear, neckgear, heads
or other parts of the figs.
Another identifier can be set the number the figs comes in (if unique) in brackets
- not very meaningful, but in a first place sufficient until someone comes with
something better.
On SW and Ninjago figs also the subcategory (EP.8, Rebooted, etc.) can be used
as identifier.
All these identifiers should allow people to better find figs.
What we typically *not* approve, and that's what you try to establish with
your change requests, is *changing* official fig names to what character or character
types some figs are "supposed" to represent according to more or less accurate
online encyclopedias.
If you try to change an Imperial Hovertank Pilot (official name from the box)
to Imperial Tank Trooper, it will be rejected because nobody will find it anymore
when searching the official name.
Your final try to change it to Imperial Hovertank Pilot (Imperial Tank Trooper)
however was accepted because it does not harm the offical name.
The official fig name should be always written in the first place, no idea why
you permanently try to change that to something else.
We all know that LEGO notoriously is not accurate with some of their fig names,
but hey, they are selling toys and not reference products trying to 100% representing
characters, ships, scenes or whatever.
Seriously, additional *information* is always useful, but that does not mean
that any fig with a clear official name needs more identifiers unless the same
name is shared among two or more figs. Sometimes even less is more when it comes
to prevent clutter on the names when looking at lists in the catalog.
Please do no expect us to cross-check with non-LEGO sites whether official LEGO
fig names don't match film or comic encyclopedias.
Bricklink is not a copy of wookieepedia or whatever and we cannot know if informations
from non-LEGO sites are correct, will change sometimes and if or how they are
adaptable to any LEGO products.
So please limit your change requests to correct mistakes or adding information
if the existing information is not sufficient to identify items in the catalog.
Anything else makes the catalog administration less effective.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Jul 3, 2018 18:41 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback on Rejected Catalog Submissions | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, todeluca writes:
| | I think that you misunderstood what happened. I submitted two changes for the
“AT-DP Pilot”: “Imperial Combat Driver (AT-DP Pilot)”, and “AT-DP Pilot (Imperial
Combat Driver)” - The former was rejected, while the latter was accepted.
My comments are generally sourcing information (quotes from Wookieepedia, for
example), so I am not sure how one could “disagree” with them. 😕
|
I expect it usually falls into the same category as my minifig weights that got
rejected. They feel that the change is not important and what is currently there
is sufficient.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Jul 3, 2018 15:27 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback on Rejected Catalog Submissions | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, todeluca writes:
| | Would it be possible to include a section on a rejected Catalog Submission (similar
to the 'Note for Catalog Administrator' section) that explains the reason
that a certain change was rejected?
I ask, because I have noticed that some submissions have been rejected, only
to be approved after I changed the format slightly. Other changes have been rejected,
but accepted when I have resubmitted them.
Having feedback on rejected Catalog Submissions will prevent confusion over the
reason for the rejection, and will help others to improve their Submissions.
|
This has been suggested before. I think the message below from a catalog admin
explains his opinion on the matter. I think it is unfortunate that someone in
this role has such a dismissive attitude toward community members trying to make
improvements in good faith. He apparently sees his role differently than I do.
Being a volunteer does not absolve a person from accountability to the community.
I have hope that the new organizational moves at Bricklink will bring improvements
in this area in particular.
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=956239
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | DeLuca | | Posted: | Jul 3, 2018 15:53 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback on Rejected Catalog Submissions | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, 62Bricks writes:
It expresses his opinion, but it does not explain it. I find it
odd that therobo would repeatedly state that feedback on rejected Catalog Submissions
is not helpful, but then proceed not to explain why. 😕
Perhaps he would be willing to join the discussion here, in order to better articulate
his views? I am genuinely curious.
| | I have hope that the new organizational moves at Bricklink will bring improvements in this area in particular.
|
I share your hope that improvements will be made to the Catalog system - both
to the general interface, and to the process of compilation.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jul 3, 2018 16:10 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback on Rejected Catalog Submissions | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, todeluca writes:
| | I find it odd that therobo would repeatedly state that feedback on rejected Catalog Submissions is not helpful
|
Actually, you're misrepresenting what he said just a little. He said (emphasis
added):
"I think it's not helpful to publicly indicate why items are not approved."
That doesn't necessarily mean that he disagrees with telling the submitter
why changes/additions were not approved. In fact, he clarifies his position
later in the same thread:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=956274
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | DeLuca | | Posted: | Jul 3, 2018 16:48 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback on Rejected Catalog Submissions | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, StormChaser writes:
| | In Suggestions, todeluca writes:
| | I find it odd that therobo would repeatedly state that feedback on rejected Catalog Submissions is not helpful
|
Actually, you're misrepresenting what he said just a little. He said (emphasis
added):
"I think it's not helpful to publicly indicate why items are not approved."
That doesn't necessarily mean that he disagrees with telling the submitter
why changes/additions were not approved. In fact, he clarifies his position
later in the same thread:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=956274
|
My idea was to have a form attached to each change (similar to the “Note for
Catalog Admins” section), wherein an Admin can write why a certain change was
not approved - not to have an Admin send a message (or other form of private
communication) for every rejected submission. Additionally, I do want
the reasons for rejecting a given Subnission to be public (the logs already are),
so that others can improve their Changes (since there seem to be some
little-known rules regarding Catalog Submissions - See my above photos for one
example). As such, therobo is opposed to my idea. I apologise for any confusion
caused, due to this not being conveyed properly in my previous post.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Jul 3, 2018 18:13 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback on Rejected Catalog Submissions | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, StormChaser writes:
| | In Suggestions, todeluca writes:
| | I find it odd that therobo would repeatedly state that feedback on rejected Catalog Submissions is not helpful
|
Actually, you're misrepresenting what he said just a little. He said (emphasis
added):
"I think it's not helpful to publicly indicate why items are not approved."
That doesn't necessarily mean that he disagrees with telling the submitter
why changes/additions were not approved. In fact, he clarifies his position
later in the same thread:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=956274
|
I don't think he's clarifying the difference between making the information
public or not.
What he is antagonistic toward is any kind of discussion of why an entry
is rejected. He says, "But besides notes on the pending submissions...there are
no resources to discuss every potential rejection."
This is incorrect. Rejected items are also visible in the logs, and just as with
pending submissions four or five words could be added to indicate why they were
rejected. No discussion is necessary. Therobo apparently opposes doing this,
even though the time involved would be minimal. There have been 28 rejections
in the past 30 days. A five-word note in each rejected submission log would require
140 words. At an average typing rate of 40 words per minute, that's 3.5 minutes
per month. We don't have the resources?
On the other hand, we currently have open discussions on every inventory
change request - rather, there is a forum post generated and discussion is possible.
Not all of them generate discussion because the information is straightforward
or documented or accepted by consensus. When a request is not approved, the reasoning
is usually spelled out in the thread.
If it's good for inventories, it's good for parts. It would educate the
community and it would not necessarily mean every new entry is debated or every
rejection challenged.
I do not base my opinion on a single post in a single thread. Therobo has made
his position pretty clear for a long time in many different ways. He doesn't
want to have to give anyone a reason for rejecting a submission, publicly or
otherwise. I think there are many users who feel the admins should have more
accountability.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | DeLuca | | Posted: | Jul 3, 2018 18:55 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback on Rejected Catalog Submissions | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, StormChaser writes:
| | In Suggestions, todeluca writes:
| | I find it odd that therobo would repeatedly state that feedback on rejected Catalog Submissions is not helpful
|
Actually, you're misrepresenting what he said just a little. He said (emphasis
added):
"I think it's not helpful to publicly indicate why items are not approved."
That doesn't necessarily mean that he disagrees with telling the submitter
why changes/additions were not approved. In fact, he clarifies his position
later in the same thread:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=956274
|
I don't think he's clarifying the difference between making the information
public or not.
What he is antagonistic toward is any kind of discussion of why an entry
is rejected. He says, "But besides notes on the pending submissions...there are
no resources to discuss every potential rejection."
|
I would be appreciative if therobo would clarify his views here, so that we do
not have to speculate upon/attempt to interpret them.
| | Rejected items are also visible in the logs, and just as with pending submissions four or five words could be added to indicate why they were rejected. . . the time involved would be minimal.
|
Agreed. 👍
| | On the other hand, we currently have open discussions on every inventory
change request - rather, there is a forum post generated and discussion is possible.
Not all of them generate discussion because the information is straightforward
or documented or accepted by consensus. When a request is not approved, the reasoning
is usually spelled out in the thread.
If it's good for inventories, it's good for parts. It would educate the
community and it would not necessarily mean every new entry is debated or every
rejection challenged.
|
I had forgotten about the discussions on inventories - that makes the argument
for feedback on Catalog Submissions even stronger. Thank you. 👍
| | I do not base my opinion on a single post in a single thread. Therobo has made
his position pretty clear for a long time in many different ways. He doesn't
want to have to give anyone a reason for rejecting a submission, publicly or
otherwise. I think there are many users who feel the admins should have more
accountability.
|
Again, if therobo would simply state his views (and the rationale behind them)
in this thread, much of this conflict could potentially be resolved. 😕
|
|
|
|
|
|
United Kingdom, England
)
)
Germany, Berlin
