|
 |
| | | Author: | StormChaser  | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 23:44 | | Subject: | Head Category Split | | Viewed: | 119 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| I have split heads into two categories. Minifigure heads now exist in the original
category and a new category titled Minifigure, Head, Faceless:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?catType=P&catString=1010&itemBrand=1000
This category will be for any heads which do not have a minifigure face, whether
the heads are simply plain or have some non-face pattern. I have only moved
three low-impact heads right now to give everyone an idea of what it will look
like. If there are no objections, then I will move the remaining heads which
qualify.
This was necessary because in the past the practice for heads without a face
was to use the wording "Head with XXXX Pattern." The addition of the word "with"
forced faceless heads (but not plain, unprinted heads) to the bottom of the list
of heads when searching by title and thus grouped them in one place.
This was not a perfect solution, however, because it ignored unprinted heads
and caused confusion for members when titling heads. I just looked at the end
of the list and found several standard heads which used the "with" keyword (which
isn't really a keyword at all because you can't search for it).
Anyway, thoughts on this new category? If it's not the best idea, then I
can always move the three heads back to from where they came and we can pretend
this never happened.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Lauren_Luke | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 00:16 | | Subject: | Re: Head Category Split | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| [StormChaser] writes:
| | I have split heads into two categories. Minifigure heads now exist in the original
category and a new category titled Minifigure, Head, Faceless
|
I think this is great, not a perfect solution as you said, but great.
This is a moot point but a faceless head is not really a head at all, so the
actually the title is a bit silly if you think about it.
Also, I see that the term 'minifig' has been changed to 'minifigure'.
I remember in the forum that using the term 'minifigure' was frown upon.
I think it is something to do with TLG having the term 'minifigure' trademarked.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 01:14 | | Subject: | Re: Head Category Split | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | If it's not the best idea, then I can always move the three heads back to from where they came and we can pretend this never happened.
|
Meh. Gave it some thought and didn't like it and changed it back. I'm
just going to retitle these heads so that they're searchable and they'll
also show up near the top of the list of heads:
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 04:24 | | Subject: | Re: Head Category Split | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | If it's not the best idea, then I can always move the three heads back to from where they came and we can pretend this never happened.
|
Meh. Gave it some thought and didn't like it and changed it back. I'm
just going to retitle these heads so that they're searchable and they'll
also show up near the top of the list of heads:
|
"Without face" sounds really strange, especially the one you mention there (Blinky)
as it does have a face on the head, but also a body too.
How do you define a face? Is it two eyes and a mouth? Or at least one eye and
a mouth? Or two eyes and no mouth? Or does it depend on how the part is used
rather than what appears on it, so that if it appears in a minifig on top of
a torso it is a head.
For example:
this one has two eyes and is classed as a face.
this one has one eye and is not a face.
this one has a mouth but no eyes and is a face.
* | | 3626cpb1527 Minifigure, Head without Face with Large Bright Light Yellow Eye with Dark Red Veins and Orange Iris Pattern (Nexo Knights Sparkks) - Hollow Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
this one has just one eye, but is used as a face in a big figure, but is "without
face".
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 04:48 | | Subject: | Re: Head Category Split | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | "Without face" sounds really strange
|
Okay, so what suggestions do you have for something better? Keep in mind that
it needs to be something which will keep these heads about where they are (close
to the top, but just under the plain heads) in the entire list of heads when
you look at them by title, as well as something which will only return these
heads in searches.
Previously you couldn't find any of these heads without a minifigure face
in searches, BTW, and now you can find them by searching "without face." They're
the only things that come up if you search for them.
As for your question about what criteria I used to populate the list, I tried
to include every head which was self-evidently not a face and which was
also not used in a standard-size minifigure as a head. There are two exceptions
on the list, meaning two heads which are used in minifigures.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | sheppy02 | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 05:12 | | Subject: | Re: Head Category Split | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | "Without face" sounds really strange
|
Okay, so what suggestions do you have for something better? Keep in mind that
it needs to be something which will keep these heads about where they are (close
to the top, but just under the plain heads) in the entire list of heads when
you look at them by title, as well as something which will only return these
heads in searches.
Previously you couldn't find any of these heads without a minifigure face
in searches, BTW, and now you can find them by searching "without face." They're
the only things that come up if you search for them.
As for your question about what criteria I used to populate the list, I tried
to include every head which was self-evidently not a face and which was
also not used in a standard-size minifigure as a head. There are two exceptions
on the list, meaning two heads which are used in minifigures.
|
Hi,
To stick with the trend of all other pieces - makes it easier for new members,
shouldn't it be :-
mini figures, heads
mini figures, heads decorated
then the description differentiates the design printed on the piece, - would
be helpful with Goatleg too!!
Alex
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 05:42 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 05:48 | | Subject: | Re: Head Category Split | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, sheppy02 writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | "Without face" sounds really strange
|
Okay, so what suggestions do you have for something better? Keep in mind that
it needs to be something which will keep these heads about where they are (close
to the top, but just under the plain heads) in the entire list of heads when
you look at them by title, as well as something which will only return these
heads in searches.
Previously you couldn't find any of these heads without a minifigure face
in searches, BTW, and now you can find them by searching "without face." They're
the only things that come up if you search for them.
As for your question about what criteria I used to populate the list, I tried
to include every head which was self-evidently not a face and which was
also not used in a standard-size minifigure as a head. There are two exceptions
on the list, meaning two heads which are used in minifigures.
|
Hi,
To stick with the trend of all other pieces - makes it easier for new members,
shouldn't it be :-
mini figures, heads
mini figures, heads decorated
then the description differentiates the design printed on the piece, - would
be helpful with Goatleg too!!
Alex
|
I like your idea but would go further:
Minifig, Head
Minifig, Head, Decorated (Face)*
Minifig, Head, Decorated (No Face)
*Eventually a bit further yet:
Minifig, Head, Decorated (Face, Single)
Minifig, Head, Decorated (Face, Dual)
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 05:50 | | Subject: | Re: Head Category Split | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | | | "Without face" sounds really strange
|
Okay, so what suggestions do you have for something better? Keep in mind that
it needs to be something which will keep these heads about where they are (close
to the top, but just under the plain heads) in the entire list of heads when
you look at them by title, as well as something which will only return these
heads in searches.
|
I don't know, as it is defining what isn't on the part rather than what
is on it.
And that makes me wonder if people would actually search for minifigure heads
that don't have a face. And what they would expect to get if they did.
This part again:
If I knew it existed but not which set it came in and wanted to find it, I would
probably search for:
Blinky (fail)
Simpsons fish (fail)
Fish bowl (fail)
Then give up searching and either look through all Simpsons sets, or do a search
in just minifigure heads for fish. I would never have thought it doesn't
have a face on it, so search for "without face".
Other similar ones are not too bad, for example:
* | | 3626cpb1527 Minifigure, Head without Face with Large Bright Light Yellow Eye with Dark Red Veins and Orange Iris Pattern (Nexo Knights Sparkks) - Hollow Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
all include the name ... Sparkks, Death Star, Sauron, .. so you can search for
what it is rather than what it isn't.
Also plain ones don't have a face, which is what I would immediately think
of if someone said a minifigure head without a face. But these are not "without
face".
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 13:40 | | Subject: | Re: Head Category Split | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | "Without face" sounds really strange
|
Okay, so what suggestions do you have for something better? Keep in mind that
it needs to be something which will keep these heads about where they are (close
to the top, but just under the plain heads) in the entire list of heads when
you look at them by title, as well as something which will only return these
heads in searches.
Previously you couldn't find any of these heads without a minifigure face
in searches, BTW, and now you can find them by searching "without face." They're
the only things that come up if you search for them.
As for your question about what criteria I used to populate the list, I tried
to include every head which was self-evidently not a face and which was
also not used in a standard-size minifigure as a head. There are two exceptions
on the list, meaning two heads which are used in minifigures.
|
In one context, these are only heads because that is the greatest use case. They
are actually Cylinders and Cylinders, Decorated. A Minifigure Head is but one
use case for a Cylinder of this shape and dimensions. The non-decorated parts
(and/or not face like decorated) have been used by TLG for other purposes.
Nita Rae
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 05:38 | | Subject: | Re: Head Category Split | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | If it's not the best idea, then I can always move the three heads back to from where they came and we can pretend this never happened.
|
Meh. Gave it some thought and didn't like it and changed it back. I'm
just going to retitle these heads so that they're searchable and they'll
also show up near the top of the list of heads:
|
"Without face" sounds really strange, especially the one you mention there (Blinky)
as it does have a face on the head, but also a body too.
How do you define a face? Is it two eyes and a mouth? Or at least one eye and
a mouth? Or two eyes and no mouth? Or does it depend on how the part is used
rather than what appears on it, so that if it appears in a minifig on top of
a torso it is a head.
For example:
this one has two eyes and is classed as a face.
|
Billy Idol called. He suggests to call it Eyes Without A Face
| |
this one has one eye and is not a face.
this one has a mouth but no eyes and is a face.
* | | 3626cpb1527 Minifigure, Head without Face with Large Bright Light Yellow Eye with Dark Red Veins and Orange Iris Pattern (Nexo Knights Sparkks) - Hollow Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
this one has just one eye, but is used as a face in a big figure, but is "without
face".
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Captain_Q | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 10:31 | | Subject: | Re: Head Category Split | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | If it's not the best idea, then I can always move the three heads back to from where they came and we can pretend this never happened.
|
Meh. Gave it some thought and didn't like it and changed it back. I'm
just going to retitle these heads so that they're searchable and they'll
also show up near the top of the list of heads:
|
Maybe you could utilize something like ( NON-figure ) or something to that extent.
Or the ones that are not associated with figures could be moved over to ( brick,
round, decorated ) to help differentiate?
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 09:34 | | Subject: | Re: Head Category Split | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Before you go much further with any of the renaming and recategorizing and other
rearranging of the deck chairs here on the Titanic, I'd sincerely suggest
you read "Don't Make Me Think" by Steve Krug. That may be into the nth revision
by now, but it's a book about UI design. It's a quick read; you can get
through it in an afternoon.
Not all of it will be specifically relevant to your endeavors here, but you are
dabbling in interface design. The description is the interface and the sequence
of words within that interface is the design. Anyway, in a grander sense, I believe
it will aid in the way you approach the problems you face.
Then I think you ought to back up your planning. While generally headed in the
right direction, I tend to think you need to back up one level in your "design".
There are instances where you appear to understand there is an issue, and are
attacking a localized portion of the problem, but are not dealing with the root.
I want to suggest a strategy in general here, an overall concept, which is subject
to consideration and revision, but...a starting point.
Consistency is key to everything.
Starting with the categories, make a decision on how to present them. Either
all categories should be separated into "decorated" and "not-decorated" or none
of them should be separated.
Next define a specific methodology for classifying decorated parts: eg: stickered,
molded, printed, whatever.
Next define a specific methodology for describing the application of the decoration:
eg: one-side, two-side, etc.
Next define specific language to further classify items: eg: reversible head,
plain head, not-head-head, etc.
...and continue on until you come to the end of needing to break down the design.
Then define a sequence for presentation of the components of classification.
You need an overall systemic application of rules to guide the process. The librarian
on the board here may be able to help, but if you stop and think about it I think
the breakdown of the elements ought to be more or less apparent.
Once that process is done, it needs to be written down where it can be found
by anyone and referred to by everyone.
If a specific procedure is in place and is readily accessible and plainly articulated
it should ease the process going forward.
On the topic of some of the search language being used, the concept of "with"
and "without" has been brought up. I don't believe that these terms are necessary
at all. "With" and "Without" and other articles and prepositions make the description
more "human readable" but not necessarily more searchable. As you can't change
how the search mechanism works...
and it works differently depending on which search tool you happen to use on
the site
...and off the top of my head I can think of at least three search boxes, none
of which work in the same manner
...the only real option available to you is to craft the description with consistency.
People will react to what is in front of them. People will react to "with" and
aren't going to react to "without". How many folks are going to search for
a minifig head "without nose" or "without ears"? People will react to "smile"
and "eyebrows" as those are features that ARE present. It makes no sense to construct
the search parameters on what attributes a thing doesn't have.
As far as head descriptions go, if I were starting this from scratch, I'd
probably think about a convention that starts at the top of the head and works
down. So the order of elements would be hair, eyebrows, eyes, mouth, scars/bruises/moles,
etc. whiskers. Something like that, anyway.
Regarding the non-head heads, I would suggest the best approach to these items
is to poll the collective for search terms that they would use for each of these
items. This approach needs to be viewed with a sense of awareness that the suggestions
will be coming from people familiar with the product. So those suggestions need
to be tempered with consideration of those unfamiliar with the product. Somebody
may know "rememberall" but others may not understand the reference and be more
likely to use "gold band" or something of that nature.
Anyway, the more input you can get from more perspectives likely leads to a better
picture of the situation. But go item-by-item and not as-a-group. I can see already
running into an issue with "face" as the pumpkin heads have "faces" but none
of them are "heads."
You also face the issue of how to position the non-head heads...within the "heads
decorated" category...or within a "heads" category at all...and what to call
them as a group. I don't have anything to suggest, but whatever the conclusion
you come to, it would be appreciated if an explanation of the thought process
was detailed and posted along with the other classification methodologies.
If indeed there is a "tag system" coming...and I don't know what that means...but
if "tag system" is an open field where individual descriptive words are to be
stored...you may just want to wait for that to become a reality. If it is coming
and you go ahead now and start rewording a bunch of things, it's pretty much
guaranteed you're going to have to go back and re-reword them all to fit
into the new scheme, otherwise there'll be redundancy and inconsistency working
its way back into the system.
Anyway, I appreciate your efforts and enthusiasm. I'd like to see those qualities
not turn into dissatisfaction and burnout as it has for a parade of your predecessors.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 11:59 | | Subject: | Re: Head Category Split | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
I am glad that I did not have to type all of that out, and I just get to agree
with it! 
After the topic came up yesterday about these heads, I have been trying to put
my thoughts together on how to respond. As a UI/UX designer in a former life,
you have hit on the essence of the problem, and I really think that you have
described perfectly what needs to be done. Very sage advice, and I hope that
it is heeded.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | hpoort | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 12:46 | | Subject: | Re: Head Category Split | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I agree on all your arguments and approach as well, but:
| | [...] It makes no sense to construct
the search parameters on what attributes a thing doesn't have.
|
True, but it does sometimes make sense to search for an attribute a thing shouldn't
have - as opposed to the part you have at hand that does have this unwanted property
or as opposed to a property the part commonly has, such as
which is distinguished from all other 1x2 bricks just because it does not have
a pin at the bottom. (pin =?= tube ? another discussion)
---
| | You also face the issue of how to position the non-head heads...within the "heads
decorated" category...or within a "heads" category at all...and what to call
them as a group.
|
The original introduced in 1975 was often used as non-head as early
as in 1977, in larger numbers, such as in . Growing up in the eighties,
those non-printed balls where never in my mind used as heads but always as balls,
boulders, finials, cabin footers, lamp posts or other decorations.
Suggestion:
- Head, decorated
- Head, face
- Head, dual face
And the entries for 3626a, 3626b and 3626c (plain) could be included in the head,
decorated as it is only one part in three variants. People don't browse categories
that consist of hundreds of entries to find the plain ones.
---
| |
If indeed there is a "tag system" coming...and I don't know what that means...but
if "tag system" is an open field where individual descriptive words are to be
stored...you may just want to wait for that to become a reality. If it is coming
and you go ahead now and start rewording a bunch of things, it's pretty much
guaranteed you're going to have to go back and re-reword them all to fit
into the new scheme, otherwise there'll be redundancy and inconsistency working
its way back into the system.
|
Agreed.
But, the title field is already used as an advanced tag system since the search
engine allows efficient searching through it and in the database there probably
is an index behind it that indexes for each word separately (except the 'stop
words'. The interface only does not show each word as a separate tag to
the user. I don't know why a new tag system would be needed if only because
people are so used to the interface of other websites where each keyword is displayed
in its own colored box.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 14:34 | | Subject: | Re: Head Category Split | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | True, but it does sometimes make sense to search for an attribute a thing shouldn't
have - as opposed to the part you have at hand that does have this unwanted property
or as opposed to a property the part commonly has, such as
which is distinguished from all other 1x2 bricks just because it does not have
a pin at the bottom. (pin =?= tube ? another discussion)
|
Well, sort of.
The issue is to come up with the codex for labelling things. Then things can
be labelled consistently. If you presume that all blocks have tubes or pins or
whatever, then it kind of makes sense to note if "no pin" is the deviation from
the standard. I would argue that the standard is "nothing" and then when a thing
has an attribute it is noted as such. This way variations are simply labelled
as an addition to the norm. If you go the other way, then you end up with multiple
deviations. Assuming the norm is with "pins" then you have to have a positive
deviation with "tubes" or a negative deviation (or potentially double negative
deviation) with "not pins" and "not tubes". It's simpler to define what something
has as opposed to what something doesn't have, because there's no end
to what things don't have.
Logically you want to have ANDs, not ORs and not AND/ORs and not DOESN'T
HAVE ands ANDs and ORs. Not because those can't be parsed, but it's unnecessarily
complex.
| | But, the title field is already used as an advanced tag system
|
Quite the contrary. The title field is being used as a non-advanced tag system.
| | since the search engine allows efficient searching through it
|
There are queries to the database which are restricted by the programming and
the returned results are limited to the restrictions of the programming combined
with the search parameter(s) and the associated field data. "Search Engine" is
a colloquialism...a shorthand way to describe this group of coordinated but discrete
pieces.
All aspects of the "search engine", if you will, are outdated. It was probably
fine fifteen years ago, but the complexity of the data stored within the system
has outgrown the original design of the system.
Once upon a time there was a glass slipper. It was created for one specific foot.
Along came many ugly sisters whose feet didn't fit the glass slipper, but
all feet get crammed into it whether or not they fit. So the ugly sisters
have pain in the feet. The ugly sisters would like their own shoes, but, no.
There is only one size glass slipper and everyone has to wear that one regardless
of how big or small their feet may be.
So, no, the "search engine" does not allow efficient searching through it. It's
anything but efficient. Or consistent in results.
| | I don't know why a new tag system would be needed if only because
people are so used to the interface of other websites where each keyword is displayed
in its own colored box.
|
The problem is calling this a "tag system". There is no "tag system" in database
design. You have a field, and that field has specific attributes assigned to
it for data storage. A field then gets populated with data (or not), and the
data is then subject to queries and interpretation dependent on the attributes
of the field.
The reason for additional fields is to refine the results set.
Now there are fields for Description/Title, Color, and Category (among others).
So, for example, if the Color field was not there, that information presumably
would need to be stored in one of the other fields. Right now the Description
field is the catch-all for any bit of information for which there is not a dedicated
field. Without a discrete Color field, and color being part of the description
field, searching for "yellow" would yield yellow parts, yellow stickers, yellow
patterns, yellow the word, and whatever other "yellow" there may be in the description.
So you'd be getting a lot of irrelevant results.
An additional field (the tag field) would allow further refinement of a search.
Defining what the contents of the tag field might be is a question yet to be
considered.
But another example, if the additional field was "sticker colors" and you queried
yellow in the sticker color field in combination with a dedicated part Color
field, that would thin out the results considerably.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | wahiggin | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 21:23 | | Subject: | Re: Head Category Split | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | Well thought out and well said. |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 14:08 | | Subject: | Re: Head Category Split | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I think two catagories is appropriate. And the thing that distinguishes them
is some perfect definition of what is a face. It's whether the piece is
intended to be used as a head. Could the ones that aren't intended to be
used as heads be round bricks?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Pretty_Pieces | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 23:54 | | Subject: | Re: Head Category Split | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| What about Minifig head, blank?
And without being in a different category:
Minifig head, decorated, fish
Minifig head, decorated, pineapple
Ones with faces get “with”
Minifig head with dimple
This should alphebetize the list as desired, right?
Dawn
Pretty_Pieces
|
|
|
|
|
USA, Oklahoma
Australia, Queensland
United Kingdom, England
United Kingdom, Wales
Portugal
Netherlands, Groningen
Canada, Alberta