|
 |
| | | Author: | StormChaser  | | Posted: | Dec 22, 2019 22:21 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 4130 Red Door Frame 2 x 4 x 5
* Delete 1 Part 4131 Yellow Door 1 x 4 x 5
* Add 2 Part 4132c02 Red Window 2 x 4 x 3 Frame with Yellow Window 2 x 4 x 3 Pane (4132 / 4133)
* Delete 2 Part 4133 Yellow Window 2 x 4 x 3 Pane
* Delete 2 Part 4132 Red Window 2 x 4 x 3 Frame
* Delete 2 Part 4180c02 Black Brick, Modified 2 x 4 with Wheels, FreeStyle Red
* Delete 4 Part 3483 Black Tire 24mm D. x 8mm Offset Tread
* Add 1 Part 4180c02assy1 Black Brick, Modified 2 x 4 with Wheels, FreeStyle Red with Black Tires 24mm D. x 8mm Offset Tread (4180c02 / 3483)
* Change 1 Part Red 4130c03 Door Frame 2 x 4 x 5 with Yellow Door 1 x 4 x 5 (4130 / 4131) {Counterpart to Regular}
Comments from Submitter:
Changes will adjust part count to 281 parts, or one more than the 280 parts printed on set box. This is due to the brick separator being included, but not counted. Common for early '90s sets. The photos I'm about to add are not spectacular, but will suffice.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 22, 2019 22:25 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 4180c02assy1 Black Brick, Modified 2 x 4 with Wheels, FreeStyle Red with Black Tires 24mm D. x 8mm Offset Tread (4180c02 / 3483)
|
Oops. Please manually adjust that quantity to 2 once the request is approved.
Thank you.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 22, 2019 22:34 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | Someday someone is going to read an inventory change request I made and find the content intriguing. Then that person may look for more of my inventory requests to find more of what I've written. So, if that person is you, someday in the distant future, I have a message just for you.
|
| | Why? I mean, seriously, don't you have something more important to do? Or is the future so filled with leisure time that you actually don't? Haven't you got a new planet to colonize or something? We didn't colonize many planets back in my day, you know. Just the one. All our eggs in one basket. You, though, have no excuse.
|
| | Well, to be honest, we didn't either. We were just too lazy. Didn't want to put in the effort. And really, who could blame us? We couldn't even live wisely on the one planet we had. What business did we have spreading human shortcomings elsewhere?
|
| | But all of that is in your past now. I hope you're living a more productive life than humans did back in the old days of 2019. If you're reading this, though, probably not. 
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 22, 2019 23:00 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 4130 Red Door Frame 2 x 4 x 5
* Delete 1 Part 4131 Yellow Door 1 x 4 x 5
* Add 2 Part 4132c02 Red Window 2 x 4 x 3 Frame with Yellow Window 2 x 4 x 3 Pane (4132 / 4133)
* Delete 2 Part 4133 Yellow Window 2 x 4 x 3 Pane
* Delete 2 Part 4132 Red Window 2 x 4 x 3 Frame
* Delete 2 Part 4180c02 Black Brick, Modified 2 x 4 with Wheels, FreeStyle Red
* Delete 4 Part 3483 Black Tire 24mm D. x 8mm Offset Tread
* Add 1 Part 4180c02assy1 Black Brick, Modified 2 x 4 with Wheels, FreeStyle Red with Black Tires 24mm D. x 8mm Offset Tread (4180c02 / 3483)
* Change 1 Part Red 4130c03 Door Frame 2 x 4 x 5 with Yellow Door 1 x 4 x 5 (4130 / 4131) {Counterpart to Regular}
Comments from Submitter:
Changes will adjust part count to 281 parts, or one more than the 280 parts printed on set box. This is due to the brick separator being included, but not counted. Common for early '90s sets. The photos I'm about to add are not spectacular, but will suffice.
|
What evidence is there that the doors and windows came assembled in the package?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 22, 2019 23:06 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | What evidence is there that the doors and windows came assembled in the package?
|
There is no hard evidence at the moment for this set. The inventory administrators
can approve or not approve as desired.
However, some inventory changes are made based on knowledge of the parts in question
and how they were packaged in similar sets from the period. In fact, this happens
more often than you may realize. Is it right? Maybe so, maybe not. But I don't
approve requests, I only make them.
See the conversation here:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1170595
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 22, 2019 23:27 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | What evidence is there that the doors and windows came assembled in the package?
|
Or, to answer your question in a different way: what evidence is there that the
part shown below came preassembled in the set shown below?
If we can't see the set contents, then there is no evidence at all. However,
we do know that that part stopped coming preassembled in sets around 2006-2007.
Ever since then it has come in two pieces in every set for which it's been
included.
So the sensible approach when having no sealed contents would be to inventory
the part as two pieces in the set shown. And that's exactly where we are
with older inventories. We imagine that we have some knowledge because an inventory
exists and thus we don't want to change what we have already.
But the truth is that we should look at things exactly as we do in the example
above. Given no real knowledge of what is inside the box, what is the best guess
we can make? For set 1881, the smart money is on assembled doors and windows.
And also keep in mind that Dan altered some inventories from their original content
to align with his minimalist approach. For better or worse, that minimalist
approach has been shifting for years now to an approach where inventories reflect
the contents of a new set as closely as possible.
Having said all that, I don't support such arguments for part variants, or
at least not to the same extent. This approach is taken with variants, too,
and I've done it, but I really believe those kinds of requests should be
supported more firmly by evidence.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2019 01:20 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | What evidence is there that the doors and windows came assembled in the package?
|
Or, to answer your question in a different way: what evidence is there that the
part shown below came preassembled in the set shown below?
If we can't see the set contents, then there is no evidence at all. However,
we do know that that part stopped coming preassembled in sets around 2006-2007.
Ever since then it has come in two pieces in every set for which it's been
included.
So the sensible approach when having no sealed contents would be to inventory
the part as two pieces in the set shown. And that's exactly where we are
with older inventories. We imagine that we have some knowledge because an inventory
exists and thus we don't want to change what we have already.
But the truth is that we should look at things exactly as we do in the example
above. Given no real knowledge of what is inside the box, what is the best guess
we can make? For set 1881, the smart money is on assembled doors and windows.
And also keep in mind that Dan altered some inventories from their original content
to align with his minimalist approach. For better or worse, that minimalist
approach has been shifting for years now to an approach where inventories reflect
the contents of a new set as closely as possible.
Having said all that, I don't support such arguments for part variants, or
at least not to the same extent. This approach is taken with variants, too,
and I've done it, but I really believe those kinds of requests should be
supported more firmly by evidence.
|
But why do we feel the need to make a guess when we already know something for
certain?
The individual parts are known to be in the set. Although it is likely, it is
not known for certain that they came assembled. So this change is proposing we
replace something known with something unknown. How is that an improvement? The
current information is not wrong, it just may not conform to the recent change
in inventory policy.
I don't like that policy, as I have said before, so I imagine my question
will be taken as opposition. But I really just want us to be asking the question
of whether we are making changes to actually improve the usefulness of the catalog,
or are we just making changes for the sake of making changes.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2019 02:21 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | I don't like that policy, as I have said before, so I imagine my question
will be taken as opposition. But I really just want us to be asking the question
of whether we are making changes to actually improve the usefulness of the catalog,
or are we just making changes for the sake of making changes.
|
Read this (it is one of many):
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogInvChangeItem.asp?itemType=S&itemNo=1701-1&viewDate=Y&viewStatus=1
Your real objection, I suspect from lengthy conversations, is that the site is
becoming too oriented toward purists and historians.
I don't disagree with you. The original intent of the catalog was to serve
commerce, not to be a historical resource. Times have changed and now the BrickLink
catalog is the foremost repository of historical LEGO knowledge in the world.
I've said it before and I'll say it until it becomes a reality:
It is possible to satisfy everyone who uses the catalog.
We simply need some additional functionality for the catalog. It is my hope
that the new ownership will be able to fund the programmers who will create that
functionality.
Specifically:
(1) We need to be able to display historically accurate inventories for each
set, but also commercially viable inventories for each set (essentially new or
used inventories).
(2) We need to find some way around the part variant issue. Additional site
functionality would solve it.
(3) Both of the above need to be user-selectable. So if you don't care about
historical accuracy, you can turn that off. If you don't care about part
variants, you can ignore them. That requires features that don't exist yet.
I understand your objections to inventories being aligned for new-set accuracy.
Really, I do. And it remains to be seen what TLG will bring to the catalog
in terms of updates. But right now the die has been cast and inventories have
been moving in a certain direction for several years. It is not a recent thing,
but has been occurring steadily since roughly 2015.
If things go in the best possible direction, as I sincerely hope they will, then
you will be able to click a button and see inventories however you want. That's
what we need and what I'm hoping to see. Instead of carrying on the forlorn
fight against the direction things have been going for years, perhaps you will
join me in my call to the new owners for additional site functionality that will
make the site truly serve all users equally.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2019 08:02 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
...
| |
If things go in the best possible direction, as I sincerely hope they will, then
you will be able to click a button and see inventories however you want. That's
what we need and what I'm hoping to see. Instead of carrying on the forlorn
fight against the direction things have been going for years, perhaps you will
join me in my call to the new owners for additional site functionality that will
make the site truly serve all users equally.
|
I'm all in favor of additional functionality, but changes like this one I
do not think are in aid of that goal.
Let's imagine we can add the option for a user to view an inventory in their
choice of two ways, either "as packaged" (with pre-assembled parts appearing
as single parts, etc.) or as a list of all the individual parts. Then the inventory
will need to support the finest granularity of data, which is the individual
part list.
That level of granularity is now present in the 1881 inventory for the door/doorframe
assembly (but not for the windows, currently) as the parts are displayed both
as individual pieces (in the regular section) and as the assembly that (probably)
came in the package (as a counterpart).
However this proposed change removes that extra information that would be needed
to support the kind of functionality we are wishing for. It deletes the entries
for the individual parts and replaces them with an assembly. If the day comes
that we have the kind of functionality you imagine, this change will have to
be undone. Someone will have to go through and "part out" all the assemblies
so that those who wish can see them listed individually.
The same is true of the 1x1 round plates on a sprue and the pre-packaged accessory
sets. If we want to build a truly powerful database, then we need to be thinking
of something like a periodic table of elements. Then the user can choose to view
the data in any way he wants.
We perhaps have an example in front of us: the Stud.io parts menu. It is grouped
along the BL catalog, but it can be searched and organized into folders by the
user. You can view the contents of a set by importing it.
With future functionality in mind, we should be working toward increasing the
granularity of the data rather than decreasing it. We currently have the capability
to put individual parts in the regular section and assemblies in the counterparts,
but we do not have the converse capability - to display the assembly in the regular
section and the individual parts in a separate section.
So given the current constraints of the catalog, and assuming that we want to
move in the direction of more functionality and not less, the prudent thing to
do would be to put individual parts in the regular section and the assemblies
in the counterparts so we preserve the greatest granularity of data. By not doing
so, we are only creating work that will have to be undone in the future, and
that causes inconsistency and loss of clarity in the present.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Dino | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2019 08:57 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
...
| |
If things go in the best possible direction, as I sincerely hope they will, then
you will be able to click a button and see inventories however you want. That's
what we need and what I'm hoping to see. Instead of carrying on the forlorn
fight against the direction things have been going for years, perhaps you will
join me in my call to the new owners for additional site functionality that will
make the site truly serve all users equally.
|
I'm all in favor of additional functionality, but changes like this one I
do not think are in aid of that goal.
Let's imagine we can add the option for a user to view an inventory in their
choice of two ways, either "as packaged" (with pre-assembled parts appearing
as single parts, etc.) or as a list of all the individual parts. Then the inventory
will need to support the finest granularity of data, which is the individual
part list.
That level of granularity is now present in the 1881 inventory for the door/doorframe
assembly (but not for the windows, currently) as the parts are displayed both
as individual pieces (in the regular section) and as the assembly that (probably)
came in the package (as a counterpart).
However this proposed change removes that extra information that would be needed
to support the kind of functionality we are wishing for. It deletes the entries
for the individual parts and replaces them with an assembly. If the day comes
that we have the kind of functionality you imagine, this change will have to
be undone. Someone will have to go through and "part out" all the assemblies
so that those who wish can see them listed individually.
The same is true of the 1x1 round plates on a sprue and the pre-packaged accessory
sets. If we want to build a truly powerful database, then we need to be thinking
of something like a periodic table of elements. Then the user can choose to view
the data in any way he wants.
We perhaps have an example in front of us: the Stud.io parts menu. It is grouped
along the BL catalog, but it can be searched and organized into folders by the
user. You can view the contents of a set by importing it.
With future functionality in mind, we should be working toward increasing the
granularity of the data rather than decreasing it. We currently have the capability
to put individual parts in the regular section and assemblies in the counterparts,
but we do not have the converse capability - to display the assembly in the regular
section and the individual parts in a separate section.
So given the current constraints of the catalog, and assuming that we want to
move in the direction of more functionality and not less, the prudent thing to
do would be to put individual parts in the regular section and the assemblies
in the counterparts so we preserve the greatest granularity of data. By not doing
so, we are only creating work that will have to be undone in the future, and
that causes inconsistency and loss of clarity in the present.
|
+1
Remember TLG used the parts until they were used up. So both variants could have
been used in one set number.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2019 11:01 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 53 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, 62Bricks writes:
| | But why do we feel the need to make a guess when we already know something for
certain?
The individual parts are known to be in the set. Although it is likely, it is
not known for certain that they came assembled. So this change is proposing we
replace something known with something unknown. How is that an improvement? The
current information is not wrong, it just may not conform to the recent change
in inventory policy.
I don't like that policy, as I have said before, so I imagine my question
will be taken as opposition. But I really just want us to be asking the question
of whether we are making changes to actually improve the usefulness of the catalog,
or are we just making changes for the sake of making changes.
|
These changes are designed to improve the usefulness - especially the commercial
usefulness - of the catalog. If they weren't, I wouldn't allow them to
happen.
Regarding pre-assembled parts, including this one:
* | | 8c01 (Inv) Plate, Modified 2 x 2 with Wheel Holder Bottom with Red Wheel with Black Tire 14mm D. x 4mm Smooth Small Single (8 / 3464c01)
Parts: Aircraft {Blue} |
...by placing these in the Regular section of the inventory, the site is encouraging
sellers and buyers to use this entry. It is the site's preference that these
be sold together.
Why? There are many reasons, and I have outlined them in detail if you wish to
read what I wrote on this subject. The new Dropbox links are added further down
in the thread:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1027443
Referring to what you said in another recent post about granularity - yes, there
are merits to reducing everything down to the subparts, because you will typically
have less selling units to deal with and therefore greater listing strength.
Also, in Dan's situation, he was trying to get as many one-to-one connections
with Peeron, and that's how they handled things.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2019 18:46 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | But why do we feel the need to make a guess when we already know something for
certain?
The individual parts are known to be in the set. Although it is likely, it is
not known for certain that they came assembled. So this change is proposing we
replace something known with something unknown. How is that an improvement? The
current information is not wrong, it just may not conform to the recent change
in inventory policy.
I don't like that policy, as I have said before, so I imagine my question
will be taken as opposition. But I really just want us to be asking the question
of whether we are making changes to actually improve the usefulness of the catalog,
or are we just making changes for the sake of making changes.
|
These changes are designed to improve the usefulness - especially the commercial
usefulness - of the catalog. If they weren't, I wouldn't allow them to
happen.
Regarding pre-assembled parts, including this one:
* | | 8c01 (Inv) Plate, Modified 2 x 2 with Wheel Holder Bottom with Red Wheel with Black Tire 14mm D. x 4mm Smooth Small Single (8 / 3464c01)
Parts: Aircraft {Blue} |
...by placing these in the Regular section of the inventory, the site is encouraging
sellers and buyers to use this entry. It is the site's preference that these
be sold together.
Why? There are many reasons, and I have outlined them in detail if you wish to
read what I wrote on this subject. The new Dropbox links are added further down
in the thread:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1027443
Referring to what you said in another recent post about granularity - yes, there
are merits to reducing everything down to the subparts, because you will typically
have less selling units to deal with and therefore greater listing strength.
Also, in Dan's situation, he was trying to get as many one-to-one connections
with Peeron, and that's how they handled things.
|
I'm curious what you mean by the "site's preference." Do you mean you?
The current part and inventory admins? Consensus of all the users? Aggregated
market data?
I have a feeling this is where my philosophy departs. I think if you give the
users all the data, the actual, real preferences will emerge. Opposite to my
philosophy is the idea that the data has to be wrangled and defined and rules
have to be written and rewritten and exceptions considered and so on and so on.
There is a very small subset of people who enjoy that kind of discussion, and
they are having an outsize effect on the catalog that is frequently disconnected
with actual established practice.
Deleting individual parts in inventories and replacing them with assemblies is
a prime example of this philosophy which seems to think that we should not be
shown all the data. Whenever you hear an admin talking about "clutter," you can
be sure they are of the school that thinks too much information is bad for us.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2019 20:31 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | Opposite to my philosophy is the idea that the data has to be wrangled and defined and rules have to be written and rewritten and exceptions considered and so on and so on.
|
I struggle to imagine that philosophy in practice.
Without rules, literally anything could be added to the catalog. So we have
a first rule: only LEGO products. Already that is against the philosophy.
Then there is a second rule: no random assemblies of parts. Without that rule,
the catalog would expand as close to infinity as several hundred thousand people
could accomplish until space ran out. So we have two necessary rules now and
the philosophy is weakened further.
I won't continue on, but I trust you get the point. Rules are necessary.
Where rules exist, there is always disagreement about them. All of this is
natural and inevitable regardless of what activity humans undertake together.
There is such a thing as too many rules and it seems you feel like that's
where we are now. But don't forget what we had just a few years ago: poorly-written
rules and unwritten rules that were enforced seemingly at random, resulting in
widespread inconsistency.
You may not be troubled by inconsistencies (except that I know you are), but
they make things confusing for everyone involved. Widespread inconsistencies
are not a desirable end result of cataloging 100K items and the only way to avoid
them is with rules.
Without written rules, it's all just the preference of whomever is doing
the approving. With written rules, you know. Written rules can be discussed,
debated, and changed as necessary, whereas unwritten rules can't. And we
know that no rules at all is simply anarchy.
Like I said, I struggle to imagine that rule-free philosophy in practice.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2019 22:10 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | Opposite to my philosophy is the idea that the data has to be wrangled and defined and rules have to be written and rewritten and exceptions considered and so on and so on.
|
I struggle to imagine that philosophy in practice.
Without rules, literally anything could be added to the catalog. So we have
a first rule: only LEGO products. Already that is against the philosophy.
Then there is a second rule: no random assemblies of parts. Without that rule,
the catalog would expand as close to infinity as several hundred thousand people
could accomplish until space ran out. So we have two necessary rules now and
the philosophy is weakened further.
I won't continue on, but I trust you get the point. Rules are necessary.
Where rules exist, there is always disagreement about them. All of this is
natural and inevitable regardless of what activity humans undertake together.
There is such a thing as too many rules and it seems you feel like that's
where we are now. But don't forget what we had just a few years ago: poorly-written
rules and unwritten rules that were enforced seemingly at random, resulting in
widespread inconsistency.
You may not be troubled by inconsistencies (except that I know you are), but
they make things confusing for everyone involved. Widespread inconsistencies
are not a desirable end result of cataloging 100K items and the only way to avoid
them is with rules.
Without written rules, it's all just the preference of whomever is doing
the approving. With written rules, you know. Written rules can be discussed,
debated, and changed as necessary, whereas unwritten rules can't. And we
know that no rules at all is simply anarchy.
Like I said, I struggle to imagine that rule-free philosophy in practice.
|
I'm not calling for anarchy. I'm not even calling for fewer rules. I
am calling for simpler rules that do not include or exclude information
based on shifting criteria (such as the way Lego chooses to package or count
its parts).
The individual pieces are the elements of the Lego system. They are the atoms.
These are what the catalog should be built on, and if that were Rule #1, so many
other things would fall into place.
If that were rule #1, then a set inventory would be defined by the elements included
in it. If, either in the course of assembling the set or already in the package,
some of those elements are combined to create stable molecules (like two halves
of a hinge, a door in a frame, a sticker on a tile) that information can also
be included in a separate section (counterparts) and also given its own entry
so it can be bought and sold as a molecule. What constitutes a stable molecule
is rule #2 - two or more parts designed to be used together as a single
unit. Simple.
Now we have a set of rules (and exceptions) that say some molecules are treated
like molecules sometimes and atoms at other times, depending on how Lego treated
them. And those who realize that this creates confusion and inconsistency are
calling for even more complicated rules and more complicated ways to define when
a molecule is or is not a molecule. It just does not need to be that way at all.
Instead, we should look for the simplest possible rule, which is to stick to
the basic elements. Those will not change, they will only increase in number.
We would not need to add any functionality to the present catalog to do this,
we would just have to abandon this fruitless path. All of the information
that is desired - how a set was packaged and all of the individual elements in
it - could be included in set inventories today even with the current site design.
The reason it is not is because the policies currently in place are preventing
it, and the philosophy is to follow the pole star of Lego's shifting practices
rather than the practices of the users of Bricklink.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2019 22:40 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | I'm not calling for anarchy. I'm not even calling for fewer rules. I
am calling for simpler rules that do not include or exclude information
based on shifting criteria (such as the way Lego chooses to package or count
its parts).
|
Thank you for explaining in further detail. I understand your position better
now.
| | The individual pieces are the elements of the Lego system. They are the atoms.
These are what the catalog should be built on, and if that were Rule #1, so many
other things would fall into place.
|
Yes, that is undoubtedly the simplest rule. I'm not sure if you made it
over to Dropbox to read what Russell had to say on this, but he does make some
good points. I'll quote him directly at length:
"For example, to really get down to basic elements, the axles in the early small wheel assemblies should
be listed separately. Yes, the early types did come apart easily before Lego added little loops to hold the
axles in place. And the wheels DO come off the axles with a little work. So why weren’t these changed
along with removing tires from all the wheels?
And the motorcycles from the eighties are currently not listed separately. Why? Because this would be
pedantic and impractical. They never came disassembled to begin with, and most buyers and sellers wish
to only deal with the *whole* assembly.
Motors are not broken apart into screws and casings, minifig arms are not separated from the torso,
hinges are not dismantled, nor are winches, claws, or electrical cables. It’s just the practical thing to do to
leave things in their normal, intended state."
| | Now we have a set of rules (and exceptions) that say some molecules are treated
like molecules sometimes and atoms at other times, depending on how Lego treated
them.
|
I see now what you're talking about. But your simple system, taken to the
extremes that Russell points out, would be a little much.
| | All of the information
that is desired - how a set was packaged and all of the individual elements in
it - could be included in set inventories today even with the current site design.
|
Could it? Possibly, by using the Counterparts section as you mention. But wow,
inventories would look so different. Especially when we consider reducing all
electronic parts to their lowest user-separable components.
And how, precisely, could I look at a 150 piece set with the current inventory
system, see that the box count was 89 pieces, and have any way of judging the
accuracy of the inventory? Please explain how the current inventory system functions
well enough to solve that issue.
| | The reason it is not is because the policies currently in place are preventing
it, and the philosophy is to follow the pole star of Lego's shifting practices
rather than the practices of the users of Bricklink.
|
Actually, I would argue that in the case of some things, old motorcycles for
example, BrickLink does follow the practices of BrickLink users. Who
really completely disassembles one of these?
And I've had several old tricycles and never even attempted to end up with
this:
You'll notice, by the way, that those don't sell very well.
I get what you're saying now, but I also see what Russell is saying. Your
system would be simpler, no doubt. I'm just not sure how workable or desirable
it would be with the current functionality of inventories.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2019 08:24 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
Since you and Russell raised the same points, I replied once under Russell's
post
...
| |
And how, precisely, could I look at a 150 piece set with the current inventory
system, see that the box count was 89 pieces, and have any way of judging the
accuracy of the inventory? Please explain how the current inventory system functions
well enough to solve that issue.
|
How do you know what is meant by "89 pieces?" It means something different today
than it did ten years ago. And ten years ago it meant something different that
it did 30 years ago. And for much of Lego's history, for much of the world,
there was no "89 pieces" printed anywhere on the box or in catalogs.
For that matter, when Lego tells you a part is "brick yellow" and Bricklink tells
you it's "tan," how can you be sure it's accurate?
Bricklink was built by fans, not by Lego. We depart from Lego's "official"
information in many ways. It should not scare us to do the same with inventories.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2019 22:57 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 46 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, 62Bricks writes:
| | Instead, we should look for the simplest possible rule, which is to stick to
the basic elements. Those will not change, they will only increase in number.
We would not need to add any functionality to the present catalog to do this,
we would just have to abandon this fruitless path. All of the information
that is desired - how a set was packaged and all of the individual elements in
it - could be included in set inventories today even with the current site design.
The reason it is not is because the policies currently in place are preventing
it, and the philosophy is to follow the pole star of Lego's shifting practices
rather than the practices of the users of Bricklink.
|
I have rewritten that last sentence for you:
"...the philosophy is to follow the pole star of the LEGO Group's practices
(which seldom ever shift) rather than the personal listing whims of Bricklink
sellers."
I am wondering now whether you read my "reasons.pdf" document I referred to earlier.
In that document, I argue both sides. I have copied this section below:
Reasons to keep separate:
As an organizational principle, every assembly should be reduced to its basic
elements.
I honestly think if this theory had been practical, it would have
been implemented throughout the inventory system long ago. But the fact is,
it’s not practical, and even a cursory observation will show that we are dealing
with a continuum on BL, not an absolute one way or the other.
For example, to really get down to basic elements, the axles in the early small
wheel assemblies should be listed separately. Yes, the early types did come apart
easily before Lego added little loops to hold the axles in place. And the wheels
DO come off the axles with a little work. So why weren’t these changed along
with removing tires from all the wheels?
And the motorcycles from the eighties are currently not listed separately. Why?
Because this would be pedantic and impractical. They never came disassembled
to begin with, and most buyers and sellers wish to only deal with the *whole*
assembly.
Motors are not broken apart into screws and casings, minifig arms are not
separated from the torso, hinges are not dismantled, nor are winches, claws,
or electrical cables. It’s just the practical thing to do to leave things in
their normal, intended state.
But small wheels [today read: elementary window parts] have somehow been made
an exception of.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2019 08:09 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | Instead, we should look for the simplest possible rule, which is to stick to
the basic elements. Those will not change, they will only increase in number.
We would not need to add any functionality to the present catalog to do this,
we would just have to abandon this fruitless path. All of the information
that is desired - how a set was packaged and all of the individual elements in
it - could be included in set inventories today even with the current site design.
The reason it is not is because the policies currently in place are preventing
it, and the philosophy is to follow the pole star of Lego's shifting practices
rather than the practices of the users of Bricklink.
|
I have rewritten that last sentence for you:
"...the philosophy is to follow the pole star of the LEGO Group's practices
(which seldom ever shift) rather than the personal listing whims of Bricklink
sellers."
|
I disagree. There are numerous examples, and neither you nor I can see the future.
Those little pre-packaged accessory packs are a fairly recent example how Lego
changed its production process
| |
I am wondering now whether you read my "reasons.pdf" document I referred to earlier.
In that document, I argue both sides. I have copied this section below:
Reasons to keep separate:
As an organizational principle, every assembly should be reduced to its basic
elements.
I honestly think if this theory had been practical, it would have
been implemented throughout the inventory system long ago. But the fact is,
it’s not practical, and even a cursory observation will show that we are dealing
with a continuum on BL, not an absolute one way or the other.
For example, to really get down to basic elements, the axles in the early small
wheel assemblies should be listed separately. Yes, the early types did come apart
easily before Lego added little loops to hold the axles in place. And the wheels
DO come off the axles with a little work. So why weren’t these changed along
with removing tires from all the wheels?
And the motorcycles from the eighties are currently not listed separately. Why?
Because this would be pedantic and impractical. They never came disassembled
to begin with, and most buyers and sellers wish to only deal with the *whole*
assembly.
Motors are not broken apart into screws and casings, minifig arms are not
separated from the torso, hinges are not dismantled, nor are winches, claws,
or electrical cables. It’s just the practical thing to do to leave things in
their normal, intended state.
But small wheels [today read: elementary window parts] have somehow been made
an exception of.
|
Lego is a system of parts that are designed to be interchangeable and interlocking
with each other. (How's that for pedantic?)
Describing that system should be our pole star. If it were, then there would
be a bright line on the continuum you describe - are the parts connected using
a "system" connection? Then they should be broken out.
Yes, that would mean motorcycle chassis and wheels (and tires) separately, with
the complete assembly in the counterparts.
I don't understand the shock that seems to cause in people. I think, based
on Rob's comment in his response, it may stem from the desire to have the
part count number on the BL inventory match the one Lego sometimes puts on the
box. But if the parts themselves are our focus, we should stop worrying about
that.
The definition of a "system" connection is all we need to worry about, then.
This is mostly obvious - a screw in a motor casing is not a Lego system connection,
so those parts are not broken out. I think the only refinement needed would be
to include connections that are unique to one particular part form - such as
minifig arms and legs.
The intended use of Lego parts is that they be assembled and reassembled using
a system of interlocking connections. The motorcycle is packaged as one possible
configuration for that particular set, but you can swap the red wheels for clear
ones, the tread tires for smooth ones, or take the wheels off and make a hoverbike.
You can also take the wheels off and attach them to a different type of piece
(the 2x2 plate, a Fabuland trailer). Yes, you can remove a minifig arm from a
torso, but then what else can you attach it to? Only another torso. They are
technically interchangeable with one another, but the type of connection is unique
and not integrated in the system.
So the inventories should reduce assemblies to the point where the parts are
usable within the system. That means taking the 1x1 plates off the sprues and
opening the tool accessory bags. It does not mean prying apart minifig torsos.
The corollary to when to break things down is when to enter them as counterpart
assemblies. Parts that came assembled or attached in the box, but that have
system components which are broken out in the inventory, should be counterpart
assemblies. So should assemblies that are created during the building of the
set which use non-system connections - like stickers on tiles.
It really does not need to be any more complex.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Dino | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2019 11:41 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | Instead, we should look for the simplest possible rule, which is to stick to
the basic elements. Those will not change, they will only increase in number.
We would not need to add any functionality to the present catalog to do this,
we would just have to abandon this fruitless path. All of the information
that is desired - how a set was packaged and all of the individual elements in
it - could be included in set inventories today even with the current site design.
The reason it is not is because the policies currently in place are preventing
it, and the philosophy is to follow the pole star of Lego's shifting practices
rather than the practices of the users of Bricklink.
|
I have rewritten that last sentence for you:
"...the philosophy is to follow the pole star of the LEGO Group's practices
(which seldom ever shift) rather than the personal listing whims of Bricklink
sellers."
|
I disagree. There are numerous examples, and neither you nor I can see the future.
Those little pre-packaged accessory packs are a fairly recent example how Lego
changed its production process
| |
I am wondering now whether you read my "reasons.pdf" document I referred to earlier.
In that document, I argue both sides. I have copied this section below:
Reasons to keep separate:
As an organizational principle, every assembly should be reduced to its basic
elements.
I honestly think if this theory had been practical, it would have
been implemented throughout the inventory system long ago. But the fact is,
it’s not practical, and even a cursory observation will show that we are dealing
with a continuum on BL, not an absolute one way or the other.
For example, to really get down to basic elements, the axles in the early small
wheel assemblies should be listed separately. Yes, the early types did come apart
easily before Lego added little loops to hold the axles in place. And the wheels
DO come off the axles with a little work. So why weren’t these changed along
with removing tires from all the wheels?
And the motorcycles from the eighties are currently not listed separately. Why?
Because this would be pedantic and impractical. They never came disassembled
to begin with, and most buyers and sellers wish to only deal with the *whole*
assembly.
Motors are not broken apart into screws and casings, minifig arms are not
separated from the torso, hinges are not dismantled, nor are winches, claws,
or electrical cables. It’s just the practical thing to do to leave things in
their normal, intended state.
But small wheels [today read: elementary window parts] have somehow been made
an exception of.
|
Lego is a system of parts that are designed to be interchangeable and interlocking
with each other. (How's that for pedantic?)
Describing that system should be our pole star. If it were, then there would
be a bright line on the continuum you describe - are the parts connected using
a "system" connection? Then they should be broken out.
Yes, that would mean motorcycle chassis and wheels (and tires) separately, with
the complete assembly in the counterparts.
I don't understand the shock that seems to cause in people. I think, based
on Rob's comment in his response, it may stem from the desire to have the
part count number on the BL inventory match the one Lego sometimes puts on the
box. But if the parts themselves are our focus, we should stop worrying about
that.
The definition of a "system" connection is all we need to worry about, then.
This is mostly obvious - a screw in a motor casing is not a Lego system connection,
so those parts are not broken out. I think the only refinement needed would be
to include connections that are unique to one particular part form - such as
minifig arms and legs.
The intended use of Lego parts is that they be assembled and reassembled using
a system of interlocking connections. The motorcycle is packaged as one possible
configuration for that particular set, but you can swap the red wheels for clear
ones, the tread tires for smooth ones, or take the wheels off and make a hoverbike.
You can also take the wheels off and attach them to a different type of piece
(the 2x2 plate, a Fabuland trailer). Yes, you can remove a minifig arm from a
torso, but then what else can you attach it to? Only another torso. They are
technically interchangeable with one another, but the type of connection is unique
and not integrated in the system.
So the inventories should reduce assemblies to the point where the parts are
usable within the system. That means taking the 1x1 plates off the sprues and
opening the tool accessory bags. It does not mean prying apart minifig torsos.
The corollary to when to break things down is when to enter them as counterpart
assemblies. Parts that came assembled or attached in the box, but that have
system components which are broken out in the inventory, should be counterpart
assemblies. So should assemblies that are created during the building of the
set which use non-system connections - like stickers on tiles.
It really does not need to be any more complex.
|
+1
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 26, 2019 08:27 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | But why do we feel the need to make a guess when we already know something for
certain?
The individual parts are known to be in the set. Although it is likely, it is
not known for certain that they came assembled. So this change is proposing we
replace something known with something unknown. How is that an improvement? The
current information is not wrong, it just may not conform to the recent change
in inventory policy.
I don't like that policy, as I have said before, so I imagine my question
will be taken as opposition. But I really just want us to be asking the question
of whether we are making changes to actually improve the usefulness of the catalog,
or are we just making changes for the sake of making changes.
|
These changes are designed to improve the usefulness - especially the commercial
usefulness - of the catalog. If they weren't, I wouldn't allow them to
happen.
Regarding pre-assembled parts, including this one:
* | | 8c01 (Inv) Plate, Modified 2 x 2 with Wheel Holder Bottom with Red Wheel with Black Tire 14mm D. x 4mm Smooth Small Single (8 / 3464c01)
Parts: Aircraft {Blue} |
...by placing these in the Regular section of the inventory, the site is encouraging
sellers and buyers to use this entry. It is the site's preference that these
be sold together.
Why? There are many reasons, and I have outlined them in detail if you wish to
read what I wrote on this subject. The new Dropbox links are added further down
in the thread:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1027443
Referring to what you said in another recent post about granularity - yes, there
are merits to reducing everything down to the subparts, because you will typically
have less selling units to deal with and therefore greater listing strength.
Also, in Dan's situation, he was trying to get as many one-to-one connections
with Peeron, and that's how they handled things.
|
I'm curious what you mean by the "site's preference." Do you mean you?
The current part and inventory admins? Consensus of all the users? Aggregated
market data?
|
I would still like to know how you are defining the "site's preference."
And I know I won't shut up about it, but it seems to me that any talk of
putting assemblies together to "improve the site's usefulness" goes right
out the window when you look at this part:
[p=4073c01]
Run this part through the series of questions you pose in favor of keeping the
airplane wheel assemblies together.
Does taking them apart damage them? No.
Are they often found assembled in used lots? No.
Is it how sellers prefer to sell them? No.
Does separating them move them to different parts of the inventory list? No.
Do they align with parts lists and instructions? No.
Do they align with "official" part counts? No.
So why are they put together in the inventories?
Worse than inconsistency in the catalog inventories and entries is inconsistency
in applying an organizational principle. The 4073c01 being listed in inventories,
in my opinion, is completely ridiculous. It completely abandons what I think
is the obvious intention of the toy.
I just cannot believe that usefulness is currently a guiding principal. If putting
the assembly in the regular section means it is the "site's preference" that
the assembly be bought and sold that way, then "the site" is encouraging us to
sell this useless part?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Dec 26, 2019 11:15 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 42 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, 62Bricks writes:
| | I would still like to know how you are defining the "site's preference."
|
It means "what the administration determines is in the best commercial interests
of the site."
| | And I know I won't shut up about it, but it seems to me that any talk of
putting assemblies together to "improve the site's usefulness" goes right
out the window when you look at this part:
[p=4073c01]
Run this part through the series of questions you pose in favor of keeping the
airplane wheel assemblies together.
Does taking them apart damage them? No.
Are they often found assembled in used lots? No.
Is it how sellers prefer to sell them? No.
Does separating them move them to different parts of the inventory list? No.
Do they align with parts lists and instructions? No.
Do they align with "official" part counts? No.
So why are they put together in the inventories?
|
Those are sprues, not assemblies. Different category, different rules. These
are added as complete sprues because they were the lone exception to the rule.
All other sprues are treated in the same manner, which is also how stickers are
handled.
But of course, you already know this, because you have in the past participated
in several threads where the reason for this was expounded in great detail.
[p=3742c01]
| | Worse than inconsistency in the catalog inventories and entries is inconsistency
in applying an organizational principle. The 4073c01 being listed in inventories,
in my opinion, is completely ridiculous. It completely abandons what I think
is the obvious intention of the toy.
I just cannot believe that usefulness is currently a guiding principal. If putting
the assembly in the regular section means it is the "site's preference" that
the assembly be bought and sold that way, then "the site" is encouraging us to
sell this useless part?
|
Absolutely. Many collectors do not see a sprued part as useless. It adds value
to the used set if it kept intact, or if part of the sprue is kept with the set.
We want all users (both buyers and sellers) to know that these parts originally
came on a sprue in these sets, and we want to create a good market for the special
unseparated sprue part for sellers that have them. If the whole sprue isn't
in the inventory, the catalog entry is orphaned.
Whereas, the individual 4073 parts are NOT orphaned. They are inventoried in
the 4073c01 part and have complete color, set, and year information in the catalog.
Another thing that has not been brought up (recently, at least) is that the sprued
version of 4073 has the sprue mark on the side, and the LEGO logo is perfect
on these parts, unmarred by a top sprue mark like modern 4073s are.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 26, 2019 11:29 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | I would still like to know how you are defining the "site's preference."
|
It means "what the administration determines is in the best commercial interests
of the site."
| | And I know I won't shut up about it, but it seems to me that any talk of
putting assemblies together to "improve the site's usefulness" goes right
out the window when you look at this part:
[p=4073c01]
Run this part through the series of questions you pose in favor of keeping the
airplane wheel assemblies together.
Does taking them apart damage them? No.
Are they often found assembled in used lots? No.
Is it how sellers prefer to sell them? No.
Does separating them move them to different parts of the inventory list? No.
Do they align with parts lists and instructions? No.
Do they align with "official" part counts? No.
So why are they put together in the inventories?
|
Those are sprues, not assemblies. Different category, different rules. These
are added as complete sprues because they were the lone exception to the rule.
All other sprues are treated in the same manner, which is also how stickers are
handled.
But of course, you already know this, because you have in the past participated
in several threads where the reason for this was expounded in great detail.
[p=3742c01]
| | Worse than inconsistency in the catalog inventories and entries is inconsistency
in applying an organizational principle. The 4073c01 being listed in inventories,
in my opinion, is completely ridiculous. It completely abandons what I think
is the obvious intention of the toy.
I just cannot believe that usefulness is currently a guiding principal. If putting
the assembly in the regular section means it is the "site's preference" that
the assembly be bought and sold that way, then "the site" is encouraging us to
sell this useless part?
|
Absolutely. Many collectors do not see a sprued part as useless. It adds value
to the used set if it kept intact, or if part of the sprue is kept with the set.
We want all users (both buyers and sellers) to know that these parts originally
came on a sprue in these sets, and we want to create a good market for the special
unseparated sprue part for sellers that have them. If the whole sprue isn't
in the inventory, the catalog entry is orphaned.
Whereas, the individual 4073 parts are NOT orphaned. They are inventoried in
the 4073c01 part and have complete color, set, and year information in the catalog.
Another thing that has not been brought up (recently, at least) is that the sprued
version of 4073 has the sprue mark on the side, and the LEGO logo is perfect
on these parts, unmarred by a top sprue mark like modern 4073s are.
|
Putting sprue parts in the counterparts would attach them to that set inventory.
They would not be orphaned. So that is not a valid reason.
And if the pip location is important enough to justify a separate entry we need
a lot more variant entries in the catalog to encourage that market.
No, despite all the supposed explanations, I am no more clear on the reason behind
this part being in the regular inventory than before. Or rather, despite all
the explanations, it seems confirmed to me that the only reason is a foolish
consistency that treats Lego as the source of canon law whenever possible.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Dec 26, 2019 19:16 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | I would still like to know how you are defining the "site's preference."
|
It means "what the administration determines is in the best commercial interests
of the site."
| | And I know I won't shut up about it, but it seems to me that any talk of
putting assemblies together to "improve the site's usefulness" goes right
out the window when you look at this part:
[p=4073c01]
Run this part through the series of questions you pose in favor of keeping the
airplane wheel assemblies together.
Does taking them apart damage them? No.
Are they often found assembled in used lots? No.
Is it how sellers prefer to sell them? No.
Does separating them move them to different parts of the inventory list? No.
Do they align with parts lists and instructions? No.
Do they align with "official" part counts? No.
So why are they put together in the inventories?
|
Those are sprues, not assemblies. Different category, different rules. These
are added as complete sprues because they were the lone exception to the rule.
All other sprues are treated in the same manner, which is also how stickers are
handled.
But of course, you already know this, because you have in the past participated
in several threads where the reason for this was expounded in great detail.
[p=3742c01]
| | Worse than inconsistency in the catalog inventories and entries is inconsistency
in applying an organizational principle. The 4073c01 being listed in inventories,
in my opinion, is completely ridiculous. It completely abandons what I think
is the obvious intention of the toy.
I just cannot believe that usefulness is currently a guiding principal. If putting
the assembly in the regular section means it is the "site's preference" that
the assembly be bought and sold that way, then "the site" is encouraging us to
sell this useless part?
|
Absolutely. Many collectors do not see a sprued part as useless. It adds value
to the used set if it kept intact, or if part of the sprue is kept with the set.
We want all users (both buyers and sellers) to know that these parts originally
came on a sprue in these sets, and we want to create a good market for the special
unseparated sprue part for sellers that have them. If the whole sprue isn't
in the inventory, the catalog entry is orphaned.
Whereas, the individual 4073 parts are NOT orphaned. They are inventoried in
the 4073c01 part and have complete color, set, and year information in the catalog.
Another thing that has not been brought up (recently, at least) is that the sprued
version of 4073 has the sprue mark on the side, and the LEGO logo is perfect
on these parts, unmarred by a top sprue mark like modern 4073s are.
|
Putting sprue parts in the counterparts would attach them to that set inventory.
They would not be orphaned. So that is not a valid reason.
And if the pip location is important enough to justify a separate entry we need
a lot more variant entries in the catalog to encourage that market.
No, despite all the supposed explanations, I am no more clear on the reason behind
this part being in the regular inventory than before. Or rather, despite all
the explanations, it seems confirmed to me that the only reason is a foolish
consistency that treats Lego as the source of canon law whenever possible.
|
I personally prefer to see the inventory of a set in its initial state, so seeing
sprues, pre-assemblies,...and I think I am not alone, but I would also love to
have the option to see it after the set is built. (no sprues, stickers applied,...)
Hopefully we can have both soon, everybody happy.
It is interesting that TLG also gave some credits to sprues. Not only it appears
on the printed partlist on the box of some sets, I have one example where it
appears in the instructions: iconic set
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 26, 2019 19:54 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | I would still like to know how you are defining the "site's preference."
|
It means "what the administration determines is in the best commercial interests
of the site."
| | And I know I won't shut up about it, but it seems to me that any talk of
putting assemblies together to "improve the site's usefulness" goes right
out the window when you look at this part:
[p=4073c01]
Run this part through the series of questions you pose in favor of keeping the
airplane wheel assemblies together.
Does taking them apart damage them? No.
Are they often found assembled in used lots? No.
Is it how sellers prefer to sell them? No.
Does separating them move them to different parts of the inventory list? No.
Do they align with parts lists and instructions? No.
Do they align with "official" part counts? No.
So why are they put together in the inventories?
|
Those are sprues, not assemblies. Different category, different rules. These
are added as complete sprues because they were the lone exception to the rule.
All other sprues are treated in the same manner, which is also how stickers are
handled.
But of course, you already know this, because you have in the past participated
in several threads where the reason for this was expounded in great detail.
[p=3742c01]
| | Worse than inconsistency in the catalog inventories and entries is inconsistency
in applying an organizational principle. The 4073c01 being listed in inventories,
in my opinion, is completely ridiculous. It completely abandons what I think
is the obvious intention of the toy.
I just cannot believe that usefulness is currently a guiding principal. If putting
the assembly in the regular section means it is the "site's preference" that
the assembly be bought and sold that way, then "the site" is encouraging us to
sell this useless part?
|
Absolutely. Many collectors do not see a sprued part as useless. It adds value
to the used set if it kept intact, or if part of the sprue is kept with the set.
We want all users (both buyers and sellers) to know that these parts originally
came on a sprue in these sets, and we want to create a good market for the special
unseparated sprue part for sellers that have them. If the whole sprue isn't
in the inventory, the catalog entry is orphaned.
Whereas, the individual 4073 parts are NOT orphaned. They are inventoried in
the 4073c01 part and have complete color, set, and year information in the catalog.
Another thing that has not been brought up (recently, at least) is that the sprued
version of 4073 has the sprue mark on the side, and the LEGO logo is perfect
on these parts, unmarred by a top sprue mark like modern 4073s are.
|
Putting sprue parts in the counterparts would attach them to that set inventory.
They would not be orphaned. So that is not a valid reason.
And if the pip location is important enough to justify a separate entry we need
a lot more variant entries in the catalog to encourage that market.
No, despite all the supposed explanations, I am no more clear on the reason behind
this part being in the regular inventory than before. Or rather, despite all
the explanations, it seems confirmed to me that the only reason is a foolish
consistency that treats Lego as the source of canon law whenever possible.
|
I personally prefer to see the inventory of a set in its initial state, so seeing
sprues, pre-assemblies,...and I think I am not alone, but I would also love to
have the option to see it after the set is built. (no sprues, stickers applied,...)
Hopefully we can have both soon, everybody happy.
It is interesting that TLG also gave some credits to sprues. Not only it appears
on the printed partlist on the box of some sets, I have one example where it
appears in the instructions: iconic set
|
An interesting example, as this is from the era when minifigs were packaged with
the heads and torso assemblies assembled. These partial assemblies were sometimes
pictured assembled on parts lists on the box, appeared assembled in instructions
(as in the page you show) and were counted as a single piece in the part count
on the box.
Yet they are not cataloged or inventoried as single parts. According to the written
policies on regular items, they should be. It is probably just one of those unwritten
exceptions that are the result of overwrought rule-making. It is not the "display
purpose" exception. The display sections usually also had the hat or helmet in
the assembly. The head/torso assemblies were in the bags with other parts, and
also in sets that did not have display boxes.
If we're in the business of applying current policies retroactively to old
sets, someone should start fixing these minifig inventories.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 26, 2019 20:00 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | If we're in the business of applying current policies retroactively to old
sets, someone should start fixing these minifig inventories.
|
Right now nearly all inventories are incorrect when it comes to figures. The
figures should be reflected in inventories as they came. However, they are not
shown that way currently because of a lack of functionality in the inventories
system.
Again, I believe that additional inventory functionality would solve some things.
I'm willing to admit the possibility that I'm wrong, though.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 26, 2019 20:02 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | If we're in the business of applying current policies retroactively to old
sets, someone should start fixing these minifig inventories.
|
Right now nearly all inventories are incorrect when it comes to figures. The
figures should be reflected in inventories as they came. However, they are not
shown that way currently because of a lack of functionality in the inventories
system.
Again, I believe that additional inventory functionality would solve some things.
I'm willing to admit the possibility that I'm wrong, though.
|
Minifig inventories support assembled part entries. Every hips/legs combo and
torso/arms torso, for example. It's not a functionality issue.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 26, 2019 21:52 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | If we're in the business of applying current policies retroactively to old
sets, someone should start fixing these minifig inventories.
|
Right now nearly all inventories are incorrect when it comes to figures. The
figures should be reflected in inventories as they came. However, they are not
shown that way currently because of a lack of functionality in the inventories
system.
Again, I believe that additional inventory functionality would solve some things.
I'm willing to admit the possibility that I'm wrong, though.
|
Minifig inventories support assembled part entries. Every hips/legs combo and
torso/arms torso, for example. It's not a functionality issue.
|
At any rate, I wonder what would/will happen should we start applying the rules
to minifig inventories. It doesn't surprise me that nobody else is too riled
up about 1x1 round plates or assembled windows and frames, but I suspect if we
start changing minifig inventories people will squawk. That may be the reason
it has not been tackled yet, or why an exception is being made.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 26, 2019 22:46 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | Minifig inventories support assembled part entries. Every hips/legs combo and
torso/arms torso, for example. It's not a functionality issue.
|
I am aware that figure inventories may contain assemblies. I was speaking about
the functionality of inventories when they interact with other features like
wanted lists and set part-outs. There was a good explanation of this posted
some time ago in the forum, but I cannot now locate it.
| | At any rate, I wonder what would/will happen should we start applying the rules
to minifig inventories.
|
Nothing would happen because figure inventories would not change. What would
change is how sets are inventoried. Figure parts would be included in the set
inventory and figures themselves would be essentially counterparts like all other
assemblies.
| | I suspect if we
start changing minifig inventories people will squawk.
|
I confess that I have never heard a human squawk. I would be interested in experiencing
this sonic delight.
Figure inventories are very rarely changed for a number of reasons. Those reasons
don't derive much from the noises people utter, but instead the reasons they
produce those sounds. If a figure inventory needs to be changed, the standard
practice is to mark that catalog entry for deletion and create a new catalog
entry which is given a correct inventory.
| | That may be the reason
it has not been tackled yet, or why an exception is being made.
|
No, I don't think so. There was a great fear in the past of disturbing the
masses, which is one of the reasons why known catalog/inventory problems were
not addressed. I believe the philosophy is somewhat different now, or is at
least changing as time goes by.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 27, 2019 05:44 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | Minifig inventories support assembled part entries. Every hips/legs combo and
torso/arms torso, for example. It's not a functionality issue.
|
I am aware that figure inventories may contain assemblies. I was speaking about
the functionality of inventories when they interact with other features like
wanted lists and set part-outs. There was a good explanation of this posted
some time ago in the forum, but I cannot now locate it.
|
Every minifig (that is, every minifig of the classic form) already has assemblies
in its inventory and they interact fine with the part out and want list functions.
The net effect of making the changes would be to remove one single part entry
(the head) and include it with an assembly. It would not affect functionality
at all.
And if it does, then is a rule that breaks the site functionality a good rule?
Because there is no doubt the rules apply here.
| |
| | At any rate, I wonder what would/will happen should we start applying the rules
to minifig inventories.
|
Nothing would happen because figure inventories would not change. What would
change is how sets are inventoried. Figure parts would be included in the set
inventory and figures themselves would be essentially counterparts like all other
assemblies.
|
I'm suggesting that if the current policy of inventorying everything that
can be inventoried as it was packaged, then some minifig inventories should be
changed to reflect the way they were packaged. The head and torso assembly entries
would be replaced by a new part assembly with the head, torso, arms and hands
assembled as they came in the box.
That's if we were following the rules as they stand now. But we aren't.
I understand this may simply be because nobody has proposed the changes yet.
Or it may be for the reasons I suspect, which is that a decision was made at
some point not to. I think that's what the "display only" exception may have
been intended to forestall, but it does not apply.
But you understand I am arguing against the rules as they stand now, and
I am using this as an illustration of how the rules may be creating unintended
exceptions needlessly. If it were my catalog, then you are correct - figure parts
would be separate in the inventories and the figures could be counterparts, no
different than others. They could still be bought and sold as single units and
have their own names and section of the catalog.
Which would also get rid of that little bit of mental math one has to do if one
is concerned with reconciling the BL part count with the Lego part count by parting
out the minifigs. Since you and others like to use this as a kind of checksum
to verify the accuracy of the inventory, I'd think the idea would have some
support.
| |
| | I suspect if we
start changing minifig inventories people will squawk.
|
I confess that I have never heard a human squawk. I would be interested in experiencing
this sonic delight.
Figure inventories are very rarely changed for a number of reasons. Those reasons
don't derive much from the noises people utter, but instead the reasons they
produce those sounds. If a figure inventory needs to be changed, the standard
practice is to mark that catalog entry for deletion and create a new catalog
entry which is given a correct inventory.
| | That may be the reason
it has not been tackled yet, or why an exception is being made.
|
No, I don't think so. There was a great fear in the past of disturbing the
masses, which is one of the reasons why known catalog/inventory problems were
not addressed. I believe the philosophy is somewhat different now, or is at
least changing as time goes by.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 27, 2019 05:23 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1881-1 | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | What evidence is there that the doors and windows came assembled in the package?
|
Just for the sake of being informative, note that in set 6166 these parts did
not come assembled. Sealed bag photo attached. You can see that the windows
came in a separate bag altogether and the door is clearly not attached to the
yellow door frame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
)
)
Luxembourg
Canada, British Columbia
