|
 |
| | | Author: | StormChaser  | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2018 20:09 | | Subject: | New Relationship Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 155 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| We have long needed a relationship match that shows items which fit together
and which are frequently used together. I have asked for this type of match
in the past and have gotten nowhere.
Instead, these kinds of matches were added as paired parts even though they did
not fit the spirit or definition of that match (and the sentence "Exceptions
to these definitions are determined at administrative discretion." was added
to the Item Relationships definitions page). Some examples of items currently
matched as paired parts:
* | | 44225 Technic Rotation Joint Disk with Large Pin and 3L Liftarm Thick
Parts: Technic |
* | | 44224 Technic Rotation Joint Disk with Large Pin Hole and 3L Liftarm Thick
Parts: Technic |
In my ongoing struggle to make the world a better place, generally speaking,
by addressing first-world problems of the lowest magnitude, we now have a new
relationship match:
Parts that Fit Together
Shows parts that naturally fit together which are designed to work together
and which are nearly always used together as a single unit.
If anyone sees where this definition could be improved, then please let me know.
Otherwise, start sending me some new item relationships and let's see how
well this works. I've added a few to get us started and here is one of them
so you can see how it looks:
See the project on the catalog roadmap:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476
See the new relationship match added and defined today:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRel.asp
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2018 21:08 | | Subject: | Re: New Relationship Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Parts that Fit Together
Shows parts that naturally fit together which are designed to work together
and which are nearly always used together as a single unit.
If anyone sees where this definition could be improved, then please let me know.
|
My suggestion:
Shows parts that were designed to naturally work with each other and are nearly
always used together as a single unit.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2018 21:23 | | Subject: | Re: New Relationship Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
Yes, I like it. Thanks! So, my original version:
Shows parts that naturally fit together which are designed to work together
and which are nearly always used together as a single unit.
Your revision:
Shows parts that were designed to naturally work with each other and are nearly
always used together as a single unit.
My revision of your revision (just cut two words and changed another word to
account for that):
Shows parts designed to naturally work with each other which are nearly always
used together as a single unit.
I've updated the guidelines with that last version.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | crazylegoman | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2018 22:32 | | Subject: | Re: New Relationship Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We have long needed a relationship match that shows items which fit together
and which are frequently used together. I have asked for this type of match
in the past and have gotten nowhere.
Instead, these kinds of matches were added as paired parts even though they did
not fit the spirit or definition of that match (and the sentence "Exceptions
to these definitions are determined at administrative discretion." was added
to the Item Relationships definitions page).
In my ongoing struggle to make the world a better place, generally speaking,
by addressing first-world problems of the lowest magnitude, we now have a new
relationship match:
Parts that Fit Together
Shows parts that naturally fit together which are designed to work together
and which are nearly always used together as a single unit.
If anyone sees where this definition could be improved, then please let me know.
Otherwise, start sending me some new item relationships and let's see how
well this works. I've added a few to get us started and here is one of them
so you can see how it looks:
|
I like this new relation type very much, but I wonder if the title will convey
the intended meaning. Few LEGO pieces are not parts that fit together.
Would Parts that Belong Together work better? I also like the
updated relationship definition.
David
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2018 22:48 | | Subject: | Re: New Relationship Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, crazylegoman writes:
| | I like this new relation type very much
|
OMG, I knew you would!! I was telling everyone, "Even if no one else likes this,
at least I know David will. In fact, I think he'll like it very much."
| | but I wonder if the title will convey the intended meaning.
|
I also brought up this concern in the intensive, three-week long meeting we had
when discussing this new relationship type. You're right . . . don't
most parts fit together? Unfortunately, the meeting ended before any of us could
manufacture a more appropriate title for this relationship.
| | Would Parts that Belong Together work better?
|
I think it would. I think it so strongly that I just changed everything to this
title. If anyone asks you, though, you must tell them that I alone came up with
the title. I will deny your involvement to my dying day.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | crazylegoman | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2018 17:54 | | Subject: | Re: New Relationship Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, crazylegoman writes:
| | Would Parts that Belong Together work better?
|
I think it would. I think it so strongly that I just changed everything to this
title. If anyone asks you, though, you must tell them that I alone came up with
the title. I will deny your involvement to my dying day.
|
Deal! 
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2018 02:08 | | Subject: | Re: New Relationship Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We have long needed a relationship match that shows items which fit together
and which are frequently used together. I have asked for this type of match
in the past and have gotten nowhere.
Instead, these kinds of matches were added as paired parts even though they did
not fit the spirit or definition of that match (and the sentence "Exceptions
to these definitions are determined at administrative discretion." was added
to the Item Relationships definitions page). Some examples of items currently
matched as paired parts:
* | | 44225 Technic Rotation Joint Disk with Large Pin and 3L Liftarm Thick
Parts: Technic |
* | | 44224 Technic Rotation Joint Disk with Large Pin Hole and 3L Liftarm Thick
Parts: Technic |
In my ongoing struggle to make the world a better place, generally speaking,
by addressing first-world problems of the lowest magnitude, we now have a new
relationship match:
Parts that Fit Together
Shows parts that naturally fit together which are designed to work together
and which are nearly always used together as a single unit.
If anyone sees where this definition could be improved, then please let me know.
Otherwise, start sending me some new item relationships and let's see how
well this works. I've added a few to get us started and here is one of them
so you can see how it looks:
See the project on the catalog roadmap:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476
See the new relationship match added and defined today:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRel.asp
|
So I tried adding a new relationship for and and got an error.
Should I have modified the existing relationship instead?
Josh
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2018 03:58 | | Subject: | Re: New Relationship Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | So I tried adding a new relationship for P=3937 and P=6134 and got an error.
Should I have modified the existing relationship instead?
|
Well, there's a problem with this new relationship type. It works great
if you only have two items, but it doesn't work well if there are multiple
items (unless they all only work with each other). So for now just send in items
which only work with each other and perhaps we can figure something out for other
things later.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Lauren_Luke | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2018 08:25 | | Subject: | Re: New Relationship Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| [StormChaser] writes:
| | Well, there's a problem with this new relationship type. It works great
if you only have two items, but it doesn't work well if there are multiple
items (unless they all only work with each other).
|
So I guess during the "three-week long meeting" ( uh? not 'meetings'
- did you camp out in the office through the nights? 😁 ) there was no DBA (Database
Administrator) present asking the question of whether you want a one-to-one relationship
or a one-to-many relationship (or even a many-to-many relationship in this case)!
😀🙄
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | bb1237701 | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2018 18:36 | | Subject: | Re: New Relationship Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We have long needed a relationship match that shows items which fit together
and which are frequently used together. I have asked for this type of match
in the past and have gotten nowhere.
Instead, these kinds of matches were added as paired parts even though they did
not fit the spirit or definition of that match (and the sentence "Exceptions
to these definitions are determined at administrative discretion." was added
to the Item Relationships definitions page). Some examples of items currently
matched as paired parts:
* | | 44225 Technic Rotation Joint Disk with Large Pin and 3L Liftarm Thick
Parts: Technic |
* | | 44224 Technic Rotation Joint Disk with Large Pin Hole and 3L Liftarm Thick
Parts: Technic |
|
As we know, 3937 works with all canopies.
| |
In my ongoing struggle to make the world a better place, generally speaking,
by addressing first-world problems of the lowest magnitude, we now have a new
relationship match:
Parts that Fit Together
Shows parts that naturally fit together which are designed to work together
and which are nearly always used together as a single unit.
If anyone sees where this definition could be improved, then please let me know.
Otherwise, start sending me some new item relationships and let's see how
well this works. I've added a few to get us started and here is one of them
so you can see how it looks:
See the project on the catalog roadmap:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476
See the new relationship match added and defined today:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRel.asp
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2018 18:45 | | Subject: | Re: New Relationship Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, dkillgore writes:
| | As we know, 3937 works with all canopies.
|
It does. However, this item relationship match is not capable of handling complex
relationships consisting of all the parts with which an individual part will
fit and work together. It is another limitation of the system over which I have
no control.
|
|
|
|
|
USA, Oklahoma
Australia, Queensland
