|
 |
| | | Author: | bje  | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 04:26 | | Subject: | Do not default new parts as weight bound | | Viewed: | 96 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| When new parts are added to the catalogue and these parts have only a catalogue
weight, please do not default the item to weight bound for packaging type. Just
as IC is not possible if the item does not have a weight entered for the catalogue,
it should be just as impossible for IC if the volume is patently a problem.
This seems to be the only workaround at this time to make the inventory search
function for "Instant Checkout Unavailable" useful.
Case in point this part, which do not appear on that list even though all of
the information to determine whether or not IC should be applied, is not provided:
* | | 67138 Aircraft Fuselage Forward Bottom Curved 6 x 24 x 1 1/3 with 4 x 21 Recessed Center and 12 x 6 Wings, 20 Holes
Parts: Aircraft |
This part qualifies for IC, will fit my requirements for medium letter by weight,
but is in fact a small packet due to its height, the cost difference is 250%.
The argument that IC is useful enough without being too precise is not valid
if BL do not give sellers the reporting tools required. Setting defaults with
the potential of causing sellers financial loss, without giving sellers the opportunity
to address the issue on listing the item, is not useful.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 04:50 | | Subject: | Re: Do not default new parts as weight bound | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, bje writes:
| | When new parts are added to the catalogue and these parts have only a catalogue
weight, please do not default the item to weight bound for packaging type. Just
as IC is not possible if the item does not have a weight entered for the catalogue,
it should be just as impossible for IC if the volume is patently a problem.
This seems to be the only workaround at this time to make the inventory search
function for "Instant Checkout Unavailable" useful.
Case in point this part, which do not appear on that list even though all of
the information to determine whether or not IC should be applied, is not provided:
* | | 67138 Aircraft Fuselage Forward Bottom Curved 6 x 24 x 1 1/3 with 4 x 21 Recessed Center and 12 x 6 Wings, 20 Holes
Parts: Aircraft |
This part qualifies for IC, will fit my requirements for medium letter by weight,
but is in fact a small packet due to its height, the cost difference is 250%.
The argument that IC is useful enough without being too precise is not valid
if BL do not give sellers the reporting tools required. Setting defaults with
the potential of causing sellers financial loss, without giving sellers the opportunity
to address the issue on listing the item, is not useful.
|
Hmm, I never really understood these "volume bound" and "weight bound" concepts
very well, so I'm not an expert, but I feel like parts that don't have
packing measurements entered should just have some kind of default large size.
If parts are going to disqualify IC entirely, it means they cannot be bought
in my store, and that's not a good user experience either. Someone pointed
out a set to me that IC didn't accept and it has been taking up space for
several years because it was impossible to buy it, and all that time I had no
idea.
Or maybe what you suggest is OK but then there should at least be
a warning for the seller or something like that.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 05:05 | | Subject: | Re: Do not default new parts as weight bound | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, bje writes:
|
snip
| |
Hmm, I never really understood these "volume bound" and "weight bound" concepts
very well,
|
Weight bound - measures for IC by weight only so if you have a volume/size restriction,
it gets ignored on checkout.
Volume bound: first checks for weight then for your volume/size restrictions.
If no packing dimensions, no IC, if packing dimensions are set, weight is ignored
at checkout insofar as the restrictions go, but not total package weight.
At issue is if the item is default to weight, it will ignore all of your volume
and size restrictions if you do not enter packing dimensions yourself. You have,
however, no way of knowing this, unless you manually check each listing in your
store.
| | so I'm not an expert, but I feel like parts that don't have
packing measurements entered should just have some kind of default large size.
|
Then you get to the issue again with instructions which are mostly just set to
be 1 cm high. Imagine your cart has 10 collectable minifig instructions in set
to a height of 10cm which is probably packet size... No good.
| | If parts are going to disqualify IC entirely, it means they cannot be bought
in my store, and that's not a good user experience either. Someone pointed
out a set to me that IC didn't accept and it has been taking up space for
several years because it was impossible to buy it, and all that time I had no
idea.
|
That is why you have the report on your inventory page which shows you the items
not qualifying for IC - you should run that once in awhile, it is an eye-opener.
Or maybe what you suggest is OK but then there should at least be
| | a warning for the seller or something like that.
|
Flagging an item on listing, how would that work, an error message perhaps? Or
actually showing the current dimensions and weight on the listing page with big
red letters if there is nothing. That might be achievable. But I think they also
have to fix the reporting so items with errors actually show up.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 05:29 | | Subject: | Re: Do not default new parts as weight bound | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, bje writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, bje writes:
|
snip
| |
Hmm, I never really understood these "volume bound" and "weight bound" concepts
very well,
|
Weight bound - measures for IC by weight only so if you have a volume/size restriction,
it gets ignored on checkout.
Volume bound: first checks for weight then for your volume/size restrictions.
If no packing dimensions, no IC, if packing dimensions are set, weight is ignored
at checkout insofar as the restrictions go, but not total package weight.
At issue is if the item is default to weight, it will ignore all of your volume
and size restrictions if you do not enter packing dimensions yourself. You have,
however, no way of knowing this, unless you manually check each listing in your
store.
| | so I'm not an expert, but I feel like parts that don't have
packing measurements entered should just have some kind of default large size.
|
Then you get to the issue again with instructions which are mostly just set to
be 1 cm high. Imagine your cart has 10 collectable minifig instructions in set
to a height of 10cm which is probably packet size... No good.
| | If parts are going to disqualify IC entirely, it means they cannot be bought
in my store, and that's not a good user experience either. Someone pointed
out a set to me that IC didn't accept and it has been taking up space for
several years because it was impossible to buy it, and all that time I had no
idea.
|
That is why you have the report on your inventory page which shows you the items
not qualifying for IC - you should run that once in awhile, it is an eye-opener.
Or maybe what you suggest is OK but then there should at least be
| | a warning for the seller or something like that.
|
Flagging an item on listing, how would that work, an error message perhaps? Or
actually showing the current dimensions and weight on the listing page with big
red letters if there is nothing. That might be achievable. But I think they also
have to fix the reporting so items with errors actually show up.
|
Thanks, I didn't check that non IC search function before, it's quite
well hidden. I've got a poster that's got packing dimensions as if it's
unfolded. Hope that's not true for all posters in the catalog.
As for the warning, it could show up in the to-do items in the My Store menu.
I already have that green dot showing there permanently because it keeps telling
me to send notifications for parts which I simply don't want to do. It would
be good if those to-do items could be dismissed and the warning was clearer,
because now the green dot is just a fixed part of the interface for me that I
don't even pay attention to. If that function would work better and items
without dimensions would show up in the to do list, it may motivate people to
submit them.
I've submitted 2 packing dimensions a while ago and neither seems to have
been implemented so far. I guess if they will, I'll have motivation to measure
a couple more.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 05:49 | | Subject: | Re: Do not default new parts as weight bound | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, bje writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, bje writes:
|
|
|
snip
| |
Thanks, I didn't check that non IC search function before, it's quite
well hidden. I've got a poster that's got packing dimensions as if it's
unfolded. Hope that's not true for all posters in the catalog.
|
I think some posters get their dimensions off the catalogue dimensions, which
I believe are generally measured to open, not as it is when you receive it in
the box. The catalogue dimensions being something different to how you would
pack it of course.
| |
As for the warning, it could show up in the to-do items in the My Store menu.
I already have that green dot showing there permanently because it keeps telling
me to send notifications for parts which I simply don't want to do. It would
be good if those to-do items could be dismissed and the warning was clearer,
because now the green dot is just a fixed part of the interface for me that I
don't even pay attention to. If that function would work better and items
without dimensions would show up in the to do list, it may motivate people to
submit them.
|
I think it has to happen when you list or part out, but then the system of updating
them must also be a lot simpler. The current shortcut of just having something
to make another thing work in some manner is sort of weird.
| |
I've submitted 2 packing dimensions a while ago and neither seems to have
been implemented so far. I guess if they will, I'll have motivation to measure
a couple more.
|
THAT is a very very sore point - I picked up some from May this morning not done
yet. I don't think the issue is that members are not motivated, it is that
is so difficult to pick up on errors that most sellers just probably pad their
costs or restrictions or simply pay in and worry about it next time.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 05:32 | | Subject: | Re: Do not default new parts as weight bound | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | | | Hmm, I never really understood these "volume bound" and "weight bound" concepts
very well,
|
Weight bound - measures for IC by weight only so if you have a volume/size restriction,
it gets ignored on checkout.
Volume bound: first checks for weight then for your volume/size restrictions.
If no packing dimensions, no IC, if packing dimensions are set, weight is ignored
at checkout insofar as the restrictions go, but not total package weight.
|
I've also never really understood the need for weight bound. Surely volume
bound as described is best for all parts - check if the part size fits individually
into a particular shipping method, then collate the total volume and weight of
the order.
Weights are additive. It doesn't really matter if one part is 1g and another
100g. The order is 101g. And while volumes are (approximately) additive if all
the parts individually fit into a certain box size, individual part dimensions
cannot necessarily be warped. A 5x5x5 cm part is not the same as a 1x5x25 cm
part, even though the volume is the same. If the total parcel size doesn't
matter, the seller need not have a restriction and all parts will pass that size
check. Whereas if the parcel size does matter, then the size check is necessary.
Are there situations where weight bound is important?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 05:40 | | Subject: | Re: Do not default new parts as weight bound | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | | | | | Hmm, I never really understood these "volume bound" and "weight bound" concepts
very well,
|
Weight bound - measures for IC by weight only so if you have a volume/size restriction,
it gets ignored on checkout.
Volume bound: first checks for weight then for your volume/size restrictions.
If no packing dimensions, no IC, if packing dimensions are set, weight is ignored
at checkout insofar as the restrictions go, but not total package weight.
|
I've also never really understood the need for weight bound. Surely volume
bound as described is best for all parts - check if the part size fits individually
into a particular shipping method, then collate the total volume and weight of
the order.
Weights are additive. It doesn't really matter if one part is 1g and another
100g. The order is 101g. And while volumes are (approximately) additive if all
the parts individually fit into a certain box size, individual part dimensions
cannot necessarily be warped. A 5x5x5 cm part is not the same as a 1x5x25 cm
part, even though the volume is the same. If the total parcel size doesn't
matter, the seller need not have a restriction and all parts will pass that size
check. Whereas if the parcel size does matter, then the size check is necessary.
Are there situations where weight bound is important?
|
When IC was launched we sent a message to BL development asking why they had
not included weight/volume as a packaging method and were told that did not fit
the design. That is because they used the US postal system as their focus., and
this is why we have always suggested that a regional based system would have
been better - taken longer for sure, and more complicated, of course, but much
better for those that want to automate their checkout.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 05:45 | | Subject: | Re: Do not default new parts as weight bound | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | | | | | Hmm, I never really understood these "volume bound" and "weight bound" concepts
very well,
|
Weight bound - measures for IC by weight only so if you have a volume/size restriction,
it gets ignored on checkout.
Volume bound: first checks for weight then for your volume/size restrictions.
If no packing dimensions, no IC, if packing dimensions are set, weight is ignored
at checkout insofar as the restrictions go, but not total package weight.
|
I've also never really understood the need for weight bound. Surely volume
bound as described is best for all parts - check if the part size fits individually
into a particular shipping method, then collate the total volume and weight of
the order.
Weights are additive. It doesn't really matter if one part is 1g and another
100g. The order is 101g. And while volumes are (approximately) additive if all
the parts individually fit into a certain box size, individual part dimensions
cannot necessarily be warped. A 5x5x5 cm part is not the same as a 1x5x25 cm
part, even though the volume is the same. If the total parcel size doesn't
matter, the seller need not have a restriction and all parts will pass that size
check. Whereas if the parcel size does matter, then the size check is necessary.
Are there situations where weight bound is important?
|
When IC was launched we sent a message to BL development asking why they had
not included weight/volume as a packaging method and were told that did not fit
the design. That is because they used the US postal system as their focus., and
this is why we have always suggested that a regional based system would have
been better - taken longer for sure, and more complicated, of course, but much
better for those that want to automate their checkout.
|
Yes, I remember this big thread from three years ago.
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=227194
I find it works quite well for most parts. But whenever I list a large part that
is more than about 20mm thick, I tend to check it is set to volume bound, then
input my own thickness data to be 30mm, so I know for sure it will not be classed
as a large letter.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 05:58 | | Subject: | Re: Do not default new parts as weight bound | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| |
Weights are additive. It doesn't really matter if one part is 1g and another
100g. The order is 101g. And while volumes are (approximately) additive if all
the parts individually fit into a certain box size, individual part dimensions
cannot necessarily be warped. A 5x5x5 cm part is not the same as a 1x5x25 cm
part, even though the volume is the same. If the total parcel size doesn't
matter, the seller need not have a restriction and all parts will pass that size
check. Whereas if the parcel size does matter, then the size check is necessary.
Are there situations where weight bound is important?
|
When IC was launched we sent a message to BL development asking why they had
not included weight/volume as a packaging method and were told that did not fit
the design. That is because they used the US postal system as their focus., and
this is why we have always suggested that a regional based system would have
been better - taken longer for sure, and more complicated, of course, but much
better for those that want to automate their checkout.
|
We recently went from no volume restrictions for postage to freight restrictions
with additional restrictions on top of that. Freight has always used the volume
restrictions with those 5 000 factors, so for domestic, we've never had a
purely weight bound system. The USA changed over to a volume system last year.
So personally, I do not see any reason for any shipping method with only a weight
restriction.
As a buyer, I do have a forwarder which use a weight only system, but of course
it still has to be shipped in the country of origin, so again, even where the
extraordinary circumstance exists, it is negated by the fact that the regional
setting would need to be applied first and foremost.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 06:13 | | Subject: | Re: Do not default new parts as weight bound | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, bje writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| |
Weights are additive. It doesn't really matter if one part is 1g and another
100g. The order is 101g. And while volumes are (approximately) additive if all
the parts individually fit into a certain box size, individual part dimensions
cannot necessarily be warped. A 5x5x5 cm part is not the same as a 1x5x25 cm
part, even though the volume is the same. If the total parcel size doesn't
matter, the seller need not have a restriction and all parts will pass that size
check. Whereas if the parcel size does matter, then the size check is necessary.
Are there situations where weight bound is important?
|
When IC was launched we sent a message to BL development asking why they had
not included weight/volume as a packaging method and were told that did not fit
the design. That is because they used the US postal system as their focus., and
this is why we have always suggested that a regional based system would have
been better - taken longer for sure, and more complicated, of course, but much
better for those that want to automate their checkout.
|
We recently went from no volume restrictions for postage to freight restrictions
with additional restrictions on top of that. Freight has always used the volume
restrictions with those 5 000 factors, so for domestic, we've never had a
purely weight bound system. The USA changed over to a volume system last year.
So personally, I do not see any reason for any shipping method with only a weight
restriction.
As a buyer, I do have a forwarder which use a weight only system, but of course
it still has to be shipped in the country of origin, so again, even where the
extraordinary circumstance exists, it is negated by the fact that the regional
setting would need to be applied first and foremost.
|
Software design is more critical to development tnan any other aspect. Over the
years people have tried sophisticated design and farm the programming out to
the masses as well as solid design and fewer more experienced programmers who
have an element of system design in them. What works for one doesn't always
work for all and, of course, there is a cost both in monetary terms as well as
time to consider. I don't believe any of that was taken into consideration
for IC, with all due respect the shipping methods element is deeply flawed, the
dimensions should have been a prerequisite , with the community being much more
heavily involved than they have been - and there were volunteers for this.
Hindsight always has 20/20 vision in these matters but we believe all of this
should have been dealt with pre the release of IC, as well as extended sandbox
evaluation.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bricksinbins | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 08:49 | | Subject: | Re: Do not default new parts as weight bound | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
I don't believe any of that was taken into consideration
| | for IC, with all due respect the shipping methods element is deeply flawed, the
dimensions should have been a prerequisite , with the community being much more
heavily involved than they have been - and there were volunteers for this.
Hindsight always has 20/20 vision in these matters but we believe all of this
should have been dealt with pre the release of IC, as well as extended sandbox
evaluation.
|
And all this was pointed out to BL at the time but as always, was for deaf ears
and promptly ignored.
This is also exactly the reason why we can't enable IC for everything. The
system is simply not reliable and can't be trusted to do it right. If it
calculates it wrong it can mean a magnitude difference in shipping cost or we
cancel the order. Both bad options.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | paulvdb | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 05:40 | | Subject: | Re: Do not default new parts as weight bound | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | | | | | Hmm, I never really understood these "volume bound" and "weight bound" concepts
very well,
|
Weight bound - measures for IC by weight only so if you have a volume/size restriction,
it gets ignored on checkout.
Volume bound: first checks for weight then for your volume/size restrictions.
If no packing dimensions, no IC, if packing dimensions are set, weight is ignored
at checkout insofar as the restrictions go, but not total package weight.
|
I've also never really understood the need for weight bound. Surely volume
bound as described is best for all parts - check if the part size fits individually
into a particular shipping method, then collate the total volume and weight of
the order.
Weights are additive. It doesn't really matter if one part is 1g and another
100g. The order is 101g. And while volumes are (approximately) additive if all
the parts individually fit into a certain box size, individual part dimensions
cannot necessarily be warped. A 5x5x5 cm part is not the same as a 1x5x25 cm
part, even though the volume is the same. If the total parcel size doesn't
matter, the seller need not have a restriction and all parts will pass that size
check. Whereas if the parcel size does matter, then the size check is necessary.
Are there situations where weight bound is important?
|
I think it was primarily introduced in the beginning to get IC working for most
parts. Since many don't (or at least didn't) have dimensions it would
be almost impossible to use IC. But in my opinion the goal should have been to
get dimensions for all parts in the catalog and then gid rid of weight bound.
Of course that would have required additional programming effort to make it easier
to submit missing dimensions. It's taking a lot of work to post these in
the forum and then wait for someone at BL to manually add them. There really
should have been shipping dimension fields in the add and change item forms so
that we could submit them there like most other changes to the catalog.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 05:48 | | Subject: | Re: Do not default new parts as weight bound | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | Of course that would have required additional programming effort to make it easier
to submit missing dimensions. It's taking a lot of work to post these in
the forum and then wait for someone at BL to manually add them. There really
should have been shipping dimension fields in the add and change item forms so
that we could submit them there like most other changes to the catalog.
|
I totally agree, and I notice a number of people are doing good work here. It
is easy to spot missing dimensions when parting out and just add them as manual
for my store (which I admit I tend to do) and I imagine a number of other sellers
do this as there is no obvious way to report the missing data for the global
site.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 05:56 | | Subject: | Re: Do not default new parts as weight bound | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, paulvdb writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | | | | | Hmm, I never really understood these "volume bound" and "weight bound" concepts
very well,
|
Weight bound - measures for IC by weight only so if you have a volume/size restriction,
it gets ignored on checkout.
Volume bound: first checks for weight then for your volume/size restrictions.
If no packing dimensions, no IC, if packing dimensions are set, weight is ignored
at checkout insofar as the restrictions go, but not total package weight.
|
I've also never really understood the need for weight bound. Surely volume
bound as described is best for all parts - check if the part size fits individually
into a particular shipping method, then collate the total volume and weight of
the order.
Weights are additive. It doesn't really matter if one part is 1g and another
100g. The order is 101g. And while volumes are (approximately) additive if all
the parts individually fit into a certain box size, individual part dimensions
cannot necessarily be warped. A 5x5x5 cm part is not the same as a 1x5x25 cm
part, even though the volume is the same. If the total parcel size doesn't
matter, the seller need not have a restriction and all parts will pass that size
check. Whereas if the parcel size does matter, then the size check is necessary.
Are there situations where weight bound is important?
|
I think it was primarily introduced in the beginning to get IC working for most
parts. Since many don't (or at least didn't) have dimensions it would
be almost impossible to use IC. But in my opinion the goal should have been to
get dimensions for all parts in the catalog and then gid rid of weight bound.
Of course that would have required additional programming effort to make it easier
to submit missing dimensions. It's taking a lot of work to post these in
the forum and then wait for someone at BL to manually add them. There really
should have been shipping dimension fields in the add and change item forms so
that we could submit them there like most other changes to the catalog.
|
Agreed - totally.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 06:02 | | Subject: | Re: Do not default new parts as weight bound | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, paulvdb writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
|
snip
| |
I think it was primarily introduced in the beginning to get IC working for most
parts. Since many don't (or at least didn't) have dimensions it would
be almost impossible to use IC. But in my opinion the goal should have been to
get dimensions for all parts in the catalog and then gid rid of weight bound.
|
If you look at the dimensions you have in your store, you will see there was
a huge bunch of them done right when IC started, and then a trickle afterwards.
You'll probably find that most decorated parts, torso, legs assys and heads
are wither missing or wrong.
| |
Of course that would have required additional programming effort to make it easier
to submit missing dimensions. It's taking a lot of work to post these in
the forum and then wait for someone at BL to manually add them. There really
should have been shipping dimension fields in the add and change item forms so
that we could submit them there like most other changes to the catalog.
|
Yes please. Mooted some months ago already and since then no news.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 06:04 | | Subject: | Re: Do not default new parts as weight bound | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | Are there situations where weight bound is important?
|
Weight is the only thing that goes into my IC. Beyond 2 lb it just doesn't
let you instant checkout, but I haven't had problems getting an order to
fit some mailer up to that. Now an then someone checks out Priority Flat Rate
Mailer and I have to use a box, but most of my orders are considerably under
half a pound and come out perfectly. And I don't want to have to set thousands
of incoming parts to weight bound manually.
Instant Checkout is what 2 or 3 years old now? I may be reacting to the title
rather than a more specific sense in the suggestion itself, but I really, really
don't want to stop defaulting new parts as weight bound. The only ones that
would be giving volume bound people trouble are specific cases of large parts,
right? And in that case it is the same problem that I have in reverse with CMF.
They default to volume bound and I always get a few manual checkout orders before
I remember that I need to set them all to weight bound. But I guess that they
are set that way for a reason, so I just go and fix them myself.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 06:11 | | Subject: | Re: Do not default new parts as weight bound | | Viewed: | 15 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | Instant Checkout is what 2 or 3 years old now? I may be reacting to the title
rather than a more specific sense in the suggestion itself, but I really, really
don't want to stop defaulting new parts as weight bound. The only ones that
would be giving volume bound people trouble are specific cases of large parts,
right? And in that case it is the same problem that I have in reverse with CMF.
They default to volume bound and I always get a few manual checkout orders before
I remember that I need to set them all to weight bound. But I guess that they
are set that way for a reason, so I just go and fix them myself.
|
What is the problem for CMFs? Don't they have to have a weight for IC to
work?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 07:53 | | Subject: | Re: Do not default new parts as weight bound | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | | | Instant Checkout is what 2 or 3 years old now? I may be reacting to the title
rather than a more specific sense in the suggestion itself, but I really, really
don't want to stop defaulting new parts as weight bound. The only ones that
would be giving volume bound people trouble are specific cases of large parts,
right? And in that case it is the same problem that I have in reverse with CMF.
They default to volume bound and I always get a few manual checkout orders before
I remember that I need to set them all to weight bound. But I guess that they
are set that way for a reason, so I just go and fix them myself.
|
What is the problem for CMFs? Don't they have to have a weight for IC to
work?
|
No. CMF sets are SETS, so they default to volume bound. I don't know if
they have to have weights to instant checkout. It is almost always me that sets
their weights and I always do it, so I don't hit that snag. But then I list
them in my store and the first day I get a bunch of orders that don't instant
checkout because my IC is weight bound they default volume bound. I always have
to go fix the others after I am reminded of this.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 08:55 | | Subject: | Re: Do not default new parts as weight bound | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | No. CMF sets are SETS, so they default to volume bound. I don't know if
they have to have weights to instant checkout. It is almost always me that sets
their weights and I always do it, so I don't hit that snag. But then I list
them in my store and the first day I get a bunch of orders that don't instant
checkout because my IC is weight bound they default volume bound. I always have
to go fix the others after I am reminded of this.
|
So is the issue that the sizes are missing but they are volume bound, so that
check fails even though the weights are entered? If so, I see the issue.
And they'd still fail for volume defined postage rates, as volumes are missing.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 06:18 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 17 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | bricksinbins | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 08:37 | | Subject: | Re: Do not default new parts as weight bound | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | Hmm, I never really understood these "volume bound" and "weight bound" concepts
very well, so I'm not an expert, but I feel like parts that don't have
packing measurements entered should just have some kind of default large size.
If parts are going to disqualify IC entirely, it means they cannot be bought
in my store, and that's not a good user experience either. Someone pointed
out a set to me that IC didn't accept and it has been taking up space for
several years because it was impossible to buy it, and all that time I had no
idea.
|
Or maybe what you suggest is OK but then there should at least be
| | a warning for the seller or something like that.
|
The root of the problem here is that the BL people came up with this idea that
volume/dimensions don't really matter. That every part can basically conform
to a sheet/pile of sand. They don't seem to understand that dimensions AND
weight matters in most of the world when it comes to shipping things. BO does
not have this problem, there it "just works".
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 09:03 | | Subject: | Re: Do not default new parts as weight bound | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | The root of the problem here is that the BL people came up with this idea that
volume/dimensions don't really matter. That every part can basically conform
to a sheet/pile of sand. They don't seem to understand that dimensions AND
weight matters in most of the world when it comes to shipping things. BO does
not have this problem, there it "just works".
|
Plus they already had dimensions for lots of parts ... just that they were measured
in studs instead of real units, and different LEGO systems have different definitions
of what a stud means in terms of real units.
|
|
|
|
|
South Africa, Western Cape
Netherlands, Utrecht
United Kingdom, England
Finland, Pohjanmaa
USA, Oklahoma