|
 |
| | | Author: | infinibrix  | | Posted: | Aug 1, 2021 21:37 | | Subject: | Can someone please explain the logic of this? | | Viewed: | 346 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| A few days ago I submit a catalog request in the forum showing two parts with
inconsistencies along with suggested replacement descriptions for both parts
and am told by the person responsible for approving requests that I must instead
submit using the form and yet after doing so my request is rejected anyway and
so why ask someone to submit the request via a form if you know you are going
to reject it anyway??
Furthermore to me it seemed a more than reasonable and worthwhile request with
no obvious benefit to be gained from refusing such changes and therefore is it
really too much to ask to include a few keywords that people are likely to use
to find these items as I simply requested them to be changed as follows:-
Minifigure, Weapon Gun, Short Rifle with Tranquilizer/Scope Clip
Minifigure, Weapon Gun, Long Rifle with Tranquilizer/Scope Clip
Prior to my submission only one of the two guns already included Tranquilizer
in the description but now the complete opposite changes have been made with
neither including this key word? What is the point in removing key words that
are relevant to a type of gun when they are useful for helping people find what
they are looking for? Also Lego themselves describe them both as Rifles and so
why is one of them called a Blaster as this is primarily a Star Wars gun term?
Lastly I had already initially been mistaken for thinking that only one style
of this Tranquilizer rifle existed and so the addition of ‘short’ and ‘long’
rifle was intended to help draw attention to the fact that two similar Tranquilizer
Rifles exist but it seems that even this simple change request was too much to
ask?
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Aug 2, 2021 00:43 | | Subject: | Re: Can someone please explain the logic of this? | | Viewed: | 104 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Here is the logic.
If I am someone who has no idea what this is, what would I search for?
First I would search for "gun":
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/search.page?q=gun#T=P
In that list of results (of which there are 68 parts), I would find both of them
very easily.
Now let's say that that list is still a bit too long for me, and I wanted
to be a little more specific.
Now I would search for "gun with clip":
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/search.page?q=gun%20with%20clip#T=A
That search brings me two results, the exact two you are wanting to change.
Adding anything else beyond those generic search terms is just filler then, so
I can either keep the names simple (which they are) or complicate them with
unnecessary language. The extra terms "Blaster" and "Rifle" are to differentiate
between the two guns with clips, but nothing else is necessary.
The terms "long" and "short" that you want to add are relative. One of the longer-term
goals of the catalog is to get away from relative terms because they don't
mean anything. Therefore, they are pointless in adding them to these entries.
As far as the term "tranquilizer" goes, unless you knew the clip was used with
a syringe part in prior sets to make a tranquilizer gun, the term is again meaningless
because that is a *specific* use for a generic part. The goal is to make finding
things easier with more generic terms than more specific terms. I think you would
agree with me that "gun with clip" is about as generic as you can get for these
parts, and those key words bring up the two entries with no added fluff.
Having said all of that, I will consider adding a similar parts relationship
between the two. However, I think they are unique enough on their own and there
are too few gun entries in the catalog to begin with to require a relationship.
I am open to being convinced otherwise on this.
Cheers,
Randy
In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | A few days ago I submit a catalog request in the forum showing two parts with
inconsistencies along with suggested replacement descriptions for both parts
and am told by the person responsible for approving requests that I must instead
submit using the form and yet after doing so my request is rejected anyway and
so why ask someone to submit the request via a form if you know you are going
to reject it anyway??
Furthermore to me it seemed a more than reasonable and worthwhile request with
no obvious benefit to be gained from refusing such changes and therefore is it
really too much to ask to include a few keywords that people are likely to use
to find these items as I simply requested them to be changed as follows:-
Minifigure, Weapon Gun, Short Rifle with Tranquilizer/Scope Clip
Minifigure, Weapon Gun, Long Rifle with Tranquilizer/Scope Clip
Prior to my submission only one of the two guns already included Tranquilizer
in the description but now the complete opposite changes have been made with
neither including this key word? What is the point in removing key words that
are relevant to a type of gun when they are useful for helping people find what
they are looking for? Also Lego themselves describe them both as Rifles and so
why is one of them called a Blaster as this is primarily a Star Wars gun term?
Lastly I had already initially been mistaken for thinking that only one style
of this Tranquilizer rifle existed and so the addition of ‘short’ and ‘long’
rifle was intended to help draw attention to the fact that two similar Tranquilizer
Rifles exist but it seems that even this simple change request was too much to
ask?
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Aug 2, 2021 02:24 | | Subject: | Re: Can someone please explain the logic of this? | | Viewed: | 85 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
May I ask for a precision: What makes a gun a “blaster”?
I get that “realistic” guns are “pistols” or “rifles” (though they could be smooth
bores… eh, they aren’t even bored!) or such, but there’s “space (ray) guns” and
“blasters” and I can’t see what separates them.
Is it the sound you make when you play with them?  
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Aug 2, 2021 03:47 | | Subject: | Re: Can someone please explain the logic of this? | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
May I ask for a precision: What makes a gun a “blaster”?
|
Concerning guns, isn't it a Star Wars term. I know Nerf now use the term
for some of their toy guns but I thought it was invented or at least popularised
by SW.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Aug 2, 2021 04:04 | | Subject: | Re: Can someone please explain the logic of this? | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
May I ask for a precision: What makes a gun a “blaster”?
|
Concerning guns, isn't it a Star Wars term. I know Nerf now use the term
for some of their toy guns but I thought it was invented or at least popularised
by SW.
|
Wiktionary [1] has quotes from Henry Kuttner (1938) and Jack Williamson (1939),
so it’s not a SW invention or popularisation in SF (both authors are SF classics)…
but the term in LEGO/BL might indeed have been introduced with SW sets.
Doesn’t help much in knowing which guns are blasters though….
[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/blaster
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Aug 2, 2021 04:14 | | Subject: | Re: Can someone please explain the logic of this? | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
May I ask for a precision: What makes a gun a “blaster”?
|
Concerning guns, isn't it a Star Wars term. I know Nerf now use the term
for some of their toy guns but I thought it was invented or at least popularised
by SW.
|
Wiktionary [1] has quotes from Henry Kuttner (1938) and Jack Williamson (1939),
so it’s not a SW invention or popularisation in SF (both authors are SF classics)…
but the term in LEGO/BL might indeed have been introduced with SW sets.
Doesn’t help much in knowing which guns are blasters though….
[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/blaster
|
I'd say no guns are blasters, unless introduced with Star Wars sets or meant
to represent a gun that shoots an energy pulse. Although as long as the word
gun is there, I don't care too much.
As Randy notes the relative lengths are not always so useful. For example, for
SW blasters, there are long, small and short. How do you know which is small
or short from the name only. You still need to look at images to confirm.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Aug 2, 2021 04:38 | | Subject: | Re: Can someone please explain the logic of this? | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | […]
I'd say no guns are blasters, unless introduced with Star Wars sets or meant
to represent a gun that shoots an energy pulse.
|
That’s why I asked: Some guns are “space guns” or “space ray guns,” so they are
“meant to represent a gun that shoots an energy pulse,” but they are not “blasters.”
And there’s some blasters that have never been in any SW set, like 24144, 44709,
17010 & 17011¹, so “introduced with SW sets” isn’t the reason they use “blaster”
either.
(¹ Also 23922 & 22487 but those are similar to other “Mini Blaster / Shooter”
parts.)
| | Although as long as the word
gun is there, I don't care too much.
|
Well, it isn’t (e.g. 17010 & 17011).
| | As Randy notes the relative lengths are not always so useful. For example, for
SW blasters, there are long, small and short. How do you know which is small
or short from the name only. You still need to look at images to confirm.
|
Which is also why I asked: I don’t know what differentiate a “space (ray) gun”
from a “blaster.” Their use seems the same as “short” & “small” except looking
at them doesn’t confirm or infirm anything.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Aug 2, 2021 05:02 | | Subject: | Re: Can someone please explain the logic of this? | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | |
Well, it isn’t (e.g. 17010 & 17011).
|
Yes and gun should be added to them for ease of searching. Having to have multiple
guesses at keywords does not make for a good search.
Or maybe subcategories of types of weapons (guns, spears, blades, ...) if titles
are too long.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Aug 2, 2021 08:27 | | Subject: | Re: Can someone please explain the logic of this? | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | | | Although as long as the word
gun is there, I don't care too much.
|
Well, it isn’t (e.g. 17010 & 17011).
|
Thank you for mentioning those. I have updated the names to place them in guns.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Aug 2, 2021 08:15 | | Subject: | Re: Can someone please explain the logic of this? | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
May I ask for a precision: What makes a gun a “blaster”?
|
Honestly, I have no idea. I didn't name it that.
| | I get that “realistic” guns are “pistols” or “rifles” (though they could be smooth
bores… eh, they aren’t even bored!) or such, but there’s “space (ray) guns” and
“blasters” and I can’t see what separates them.
Is it the sound you make when you play with them?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Aug 2, 2021 14:43 | | Subject: | Re: Can someone please explain the logic of this? | | Viewed: | 95 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | Here is the logic.
If I am someone who has no idea what this is, what would I search for?
First I would search for "gun":
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/search.page?q=gun#T=P
In that list of results (of which there are 68 parts), I would find both of them
very easily.
|
And you think that list of guns will always remain 68 matches? Have you heard
of the term future proofing? Besides you’re not considering how people will search
for the part for the very first time and so are they more likely to try ‘Gun’
on their first attempt or the word ‘Rifle’ after all that is what Lego describe
it as and what it actually looks like?
Failed attempts to find items within a first or second attempt are actually catalog
flaws especially when they can very easily be reduced and fixed by adding key
words that people are likely to search for?
An efficient catalog is one where the majority of people find their item within
the first attempt of trying. If people are having to search for lots of different
parts for a second or third time that is an inefficient waste of peoples time
and completely illogical?
| | Now let's say that that list is still a bit too long for me, and I wanted
to be a little more specific.
Now I would search for "gun with clip":
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/search.page?q=gun%20with%20clip#T=A
That search brings me two results, the exact two you are wanting to change.
Adding anything else beyond those generic search terms is just filler then, so
I can either keep the names simple (which they are) or complicate them with
unnecessary language.
|
Yes but your working on the assumption that people already know that the word
clip is part of the description? Most won’t have a clue about that and yes I
do think the majority will be searching based on how they’ve seen the weapon
in pics/sets which is as a tranquilizer rifle?
Filler would be adding words like ‘Plasma’, ‘Pulse’ whereas ‘Tranquilizer’,
‘Rifle’ are very much relevant key words for the way in which this weapon is
commonly portrayed
| | The extra terms "Blaster" and "Rifle" are to differentiate
between the two guns with clips, but nothing else is necessary.
The terms "long" and "short" that you want to add are relative. One of the longer-term
goals of the catalog is to get away from relative terms because they don't
mean anything. Therefore, they are pointless in adding them to these entries.
|
So even though they are both Rifles not blasters you’re going with the word blaster
over Rilfe for one of the guns for no other reason that just to differentiate
it with the other Rifle? and yet have you not considered that when someone searches
‘Rifle’ they will only see the one Tranquilizer rifle and be under the misconception
that this must be the only Tranquilizer rifle that exists? Either way nobody
is going to search for that weapon with blaster and so yes ‘Short’ and ‘long’
Rifle are far better options besides if two guns are very similar and one is
longer than the other of course relative terms are still relevant as it’s no
different from needing the use of ‘short’ to help differentiate between short
and standard legs?
| | As far as the term "tranquilizer" goes, unless you knew the clip was used with
a syringe part in prior sets to make a tranquilizer gun, the term is again meaningless
because that is a *specific* use for a generic part. The goal is to make finding
things easier with more generic terms than more specific terms. I think you would
agree with me that "gun with clip" is about as generic as you can get for these
parts, and those key words bring up the two entries with no added fluff.
|
How can it be easier to find things when you are limited to searching with the
most basic of search criteria. This is only useful if you've already been
fortunate to enough to of stumbled accross the parts and remember how they are
described in the catalog?
Removing key words especially ones that previously existed is a very short sighted
approach as it does'nt help anyone other than those that already know the
catalog inside out!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | psusaxman2000 | | Posted: | Aug 2, 2021 16:22 | | Subject: | Re: Can someone please explain the logic of this? | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | Here is the logic.
If I am someone who has no idea what this is, what would I search for?
First I would search for "gun":
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/search.page?q=gun#T=P
In that list of results (of which there are 68 parts), I would find both of them
very easily.
|
And you think that list of guns will always remain 68 matches? Have you heard
of the term future proofing? Besides you’re not considering how people will search
for the part for the very first time and so are they more likely to try ‘Gun’
on their first attempt or the word ‘Rifle’ after all that is what Lego describe
it as and what it actually looks like?
Failed attempts to find items within a first or second attempt are actually catalog
flaws especially when they can very easily be reduced and fixed by adding key
words that people are likely to search for?
An efficient catalog is one where the majority of people find their item within
the first attempt of trying. If people are having to search for lots of different
parts for a second or third time that is an inefficient waste of peoples time
and completely illogical?
| | Now let's say that that list is still a bit too long for me, and I wanted
to be a little more specific.
Now I would search for "gun with clip":
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/search.page?q=gun%20with%20clip#T=A
That search brings me two results, the exact two you are wanting to change.
Adding anything else beyond those generic search terms is just filler then, so
I can either keep the names simple (which they are) or complicate them with
unnecessary language.
|
Yes but your working on the assumption that people already know that the word
clip is part of the description? Most won’t have a clue about that and yes I
do think the majority will be searching based on how they’ve seen the weapon
in pics/sets which is as a tranquilizer rifle?
Filler would be adding words like ‘Plasma’, ‘Pulse’ whereas ‘Tranquilizer’,
‘Rifle’ are very much relevant key words for the way in which this weapon is
commonly portrayed
| | The extra terms "Blaster" and "Rifle" are to differentiate
between the two guns with clips, but nothing else is necessary.
The terms "long" and "short" that you want to add are relative. One of the longer-term
goals of the catalog is to get away from relative terms because they don't
mean anything. Therefore, they are pointless in adding them to these entries.
|
So even though they are both Rifles not blasters you’re going with the word blaster
over Rilfe for one of the guns for no other reason that just to differentiate
it with the other Rifle? and yet have you not considered that when someone searches
‘Rifle’ they will only see the one Tranquilizer rifle and be under the misconception
that this must be the only Tranquilizer rifle that exists? Either way nobody
is going to search for that weapon with blaster and so yes ‘Short’ and ‘long’
Rifle are far better options besides if two guns are very similar and one is
longer than the other of course relative terms are still relevant as it’s no
different from needing the use of ‘short’ to help differentiate between short
and standard legs?
| | As far as the term "tranquilizer" goes, unless you knew the clip was used with
a syringe part in prior sets to make a tranquilizer gun, the term is again meaningless
because that is a *specific* use for a generic part. The goal is to make finding
things easier with more generic terms than more specific terms. I think you would
agree with me that "gun with clip" is about as generic as you can get for these
parts, and those key words bring up the two entries with no added fluff.
|
How can it be easier to find things when you are limited to searching with the
most basic of search criteria. This is only useful if you've already been
fortunate to enough to of stumbled accross the parts and remember how they are
described in the catalog?
Removing key words especially ones that previously existed is a very short sighted
approach as it does'nt help anyone other than those that already know the
catalog inside out!
|
While I think the premise of this discussion, I will say that in the US, I'm
not sure that I've ever heard it ever referenced as a "tranquilizer rifle".
Oddly enough, already has the word rifle in it and would be already
be found by that simple search. Is the word "tranquilizer" imperative to the
search terms at all? Might the amount of "guns" grow over time, sure, but even
it there was 100 or 150, that's a page and a half at max to scroll through
on the max view of 100 per page. The simple terms are already there and I don't
think that anyone would be at a loss without other terms.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Aug 2, 2021 17:50 | | Subject: | Re: Can someone please explain the logic of this? | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, psusaxman2000 writes:
| |
While I think the premise of this discussion, I will say that in the US, I'm
not sure that I've ever heard it ever referenced as a "tranquilizer rifle".
|
If you read my op you will know that that is not how I worded my catalog request
description even though these key words are still relevant and widely used to
describe the part online:-
https://www.google.com/search?q=lego+tranquilizer+rifle&rlz=1C1RNPN_enGB433&sxsrf=ALeKk01OxYtXPqt6Wm8153KzZEi7DQfr4g:1627936765532&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwir7YCFmZPyAhVGUMAKHR-eDtkQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&cshid=1627936800103079&biw=1412&bih=906
| | Oddly enough, already has the word rifle in it and would be already
be found by that simple search.
|
Yes and again if you read my post properly you will see that the other one does'nt
They both need to appear within the search results for rifle as having just one
of them appear makes no sense!?
| | Is the word "tranquilizer" imperative to the
search terms at all? Might the amount of "guns" grow over time, sure, but even
it there was 100 or 150, that's a page and a half at max to scroll through
on the max view of 100 per page. The simple terms are already there and I don't
think that anyone would be at a loss without other terms.
|
Everyone uses different methods to find their items and so any keywords that
help people find their items first time is worthwhile. Why make people have to
search a second or third attempt and why make people scroll and click around
more than they need to? Same goes for all parts!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | psusaxman2000 | | Posted: | Aug 2, 2021 20:59 | | Subject: | Re: Can someone please explain the logic of this? | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Yes and again if you read my post properly you will see that the other one does'nt
They both need to appear within the search results for rifle as having just one
of them appear makes no sense!?
|
But this isn't a rifle. A rifle is defined by having a long barrel intended
for greater accuracy over long distances. This is merely a smaller gun used
for shorter distances....IMO
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Aug 3, 2021 02:14 | | Subject: | Re: Can someone please explain the logic of this? | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, psusaxman2000 writes:
| | | | Yes and again if you read my post properly you will see that the other one does'nt
They both need to appear within the search results for rifle as having just one
of them appear makes no sense!?
|
But this isn't a rifle. A rifle is defined by having a long barrel intended
for greater accuracy over long distances. This is merely a smaller gun used
for shorter distances....IMO
|
and yet Lego call them both Rifle? Besides your now getting too technical nothing
is to scale with Lego toy parts and with it including a tranquilizer dart clip
its almost certainly intended as some form of Rifle as used in the Jurrasic World
movies and it needs to be described the same as the other one. Besides how can
Blaster be a more appropriate word for it compared with Rifle?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Aug 3, 2021 14:43 | | Subject: | Re: Can someone please explain the logic of this? | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | In Catalog, psusaxman2000 writes:
| | | | Yes and again if you read my post properly you will see that the other one does'nt
They both need to appear within the search results for rifle as having just one
of them appear makes no sense!?
|
But this isn't a rifle. A rifle is defined by having a long barrel intended
for greater accuracy over long distances. This is merely a smaller gun used
for shorter distances....IMO
|
and yet Lego call them both Rifle?
|
How often do we name a part after what LEGO calls it? Here is a hint: very rarely.
BrickLink is it's own database. Although LEGO owns it now, there has been
almost no talk about harmonizing the data on BrickLink with the data from LEGO,
*especially* with the way things are named. LEGO sees the database here as a
huge resource made by the fans for the fans, and they do not want to overwrite
the work that has been done here.
| | Besides your now getting too technical
|
And you aren't getting "technical" by wanting to call it a "tranquilizer"?
That's rich.
| | Besides how can Blaster be a more appropriate word for it compared with Rifle?
|
A rifle has a long barrel and usually a stock for firing the gun from the shoulder.
The part above has neither, so it isn't a rifle, and it won't be named
one. Case closed. The word blaster was chosen by the original submitter and accepted
into the catalog as such. It is as good a term as any beyond just "gun", and
I see no reason to change it.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Aug 4, 2021 05:04 | | Subject: | Re: Can someone please explain the logic of this? | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| |
How often do we name a part after what LEGO calls it? Here is a hint: very rarely.
|
And does that make it a good enough reason to go out of our way not to use one
of Lego’s more sensible descriptions?
| | LEGO sees the database here as a huge resource made by the fans for the fans, and they do not want to overwrite the work that has been done here.
|
And yet you already did by removing an existing keyword ‘Tranquilizer’ from a
description which has had the word included since day one as created by yes a
FAN!
| |
And you aren't getting "technical" by wanting to call it a "tranquilizer"?
That's rich.
|
Not really because Tranquilizer is the primary intended use for the gun and so
I’m just pointing out the blatantly obvious and so in what way am I being technical?
I’m certainly not the one talking about Barrel length and shoulder stock for
something that is a non to scale plastic toy gun?
| |
The word blaster was chosen by the original submitter and accepted
into the catalog as such. It is as good a term as any
|
Tranquilizer was also chosen by the original submitter and accepted for the other
Rifle?? plus you have already previously said that you only settled for Blaster
because it was the only way to differentiate it with the other Rifle. However
my suggestion for Long and Short Rifle already tackles that issue and yet you
still haven’t managed to explain why it’s acceptable to allow this for the Short
and Long Star Wars blasters but not for these Rifles? Therefore if you’re going
to refuse requests at least be consistent about it? The term Blaster is very
much centred around the Star Wars universe!
When it all comes down to it the thing that you don’t quite seem to get is that
people search in all manner of different ways and not just from within Bricklink
but the internet as a whole. Keywords are imperative for helping people stumble
across not just the part they need but Bricklink itself? But why should I expect
you to understand that as your solely a buyer and you’re decision making appears
to be centred around your own buying needs and activities!
Either way it’s interesting that you should choose to reply to this more trivial
part of the thread whilst skipping and not providing a single answer to any of
my more relevant points here:-
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1297749
But let’s be honest about all this Randy your lack of reason here has come about
because you didn’t like what I had to say in the previous thread to the point
that in this instance your actually serving your own ego rather than properly
serving the community?
The fact you took it upon yourself to message me directly to attempt to make
your case rather than reply publicly in the forum says a lot
Perhaps in future when people give their time to submit catalog requests in the
forum be a bit more appreciative, understanding and helpful with your response?
Because when I simply ask why the status has been changed to something that makes
absolutely no sense I don’t expect a snooty response where I’m told it means
“Resubmit via the form!” only for my submissions to then be rejected anyway??
Why didn’t you just reject them in the first instance in the forum? Something
you still haven’t quite managed to explain? But this again shows your unnecessary
regimented approach to things where you appear to get a kick out of making others
jump through hoops, simply because you can?
However you know the really sad part.... When submitting one of my requests
you knew very well that I copied the existing description for one of the Rifles
where it already had ‘Tranquilizer’ however I added the all-important ‘with clip’
part which was the main purpose for that particular change and yet because you
couldn’t bare the idea of having to accept one of my requests you sneakily added
this key word to the description and then went on to reject my overall submission?
Which is somewhat petty, however you should know that I do not care for submission
credits I simply do it for the benefit of the catalog!
What I find illogical is that you seem to have gone out of your way to fight
a case as to why these changes are not required without being able to give a
single, sensible and logical reason as to why the inclusion of these few key
words is such a big issue? Do the additional keywords have any detrimental impact
on the catalog? No, none whatsoever! and yet their presence assists people with
finding their items both within and outside of Bricklink and so it really is
a no brainer?!
But you know what Randy when it comes down to it I can live with those changes
not being approved. What I struggle with is knowing that the person with the
power to approve such changes is allowing other factors to get in the way of
their decision making that I find the issue?
With that in mind I don’t think I will bother submitting any further catalog
requests via the form at least not while you remain at the helm (I expect you
will be please about that?) as I see no point wasting any further time submitting
request only to find uneccessary obstacles fired in my direction!
I will simply point out any catalog anomalies in the forum and leave it to others
to submit them themselves should they wish to that’s assuming I don’t end up
banned from the forum for speaking out against one of Bricklinks so called ‘Community’
volunteers? and don’t worry your welcome to have any last final word as I don’t
plan on entering into any further discussion within this thread as to do so would
be futile!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Aug 4, 2021 12:58 | | Subject: | Re: Can someone please explain the logic of this? | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
I don't take any of the decisions that I make in my role for the site personally
or with emotion. I try to think about the good of the catalog as a whole with
objectivity and reason. In this case, you have taken the rejection of your idea
personally, and I cannot control what you feel.
I asked you nicely at the beginning of the thread to submit your ideas for consideration
using the proper forms. You took offense to that. I don't know why, but,
once again, I cannot control what you feel. After that, you made it a point to
come after me, and I have tried to remain civilized with you. I even took the
discussion off of the forums to try and put the issue to rest. But that was not
enough for you.
After you submitted the changes using the form, I took the same amount of time
to consider them along with all other requests that I go through. I also took
everything that you had posted into consideration. After that, I decided on a
course of action. It was not personal. It was what I was put into my role to
do. The fact that you do not like the outcome is also out of my control, and
I don't know why you think that I have a personal vendetta against you.
Unfortunately, if you cannot move past your emotions and decide to not contribute
to the catalog, then the site will have lost your passion. However, your passion
is also your hindrance to be able see past your own feelings.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Tracyd | | Posted: | Aug 4, 2021 13:13 | | Subject: | Re: Can someone please explain the logic of this? | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
I don't take any of the decisions that I make in my role for the site personally
or with emotion. I try to think about the good of the catalog as a whole with
objectivity and reason. In this case, you have taken the rejection of your idea
personally, and I cannot control what you feel.
I asked you nicely at the beginning of the thread to submit your ideas for consideration
using the proper forms. You took offense to that. I don't know why, but,
once again, I cannot control what you feel. After that, you made it a point to
come after me, and I have tried to remain civilized with you. I even took the
discussion off of the forums to try and put the issue to rest. But that was not
enough for you.
After you submitted the changes using the form, I took the same amount of time
to consider them along with all other requests that I go through. I also took
everything that you had posted into consideration. After that, I decided on a
course of action. It was not personal. It was what I was put into my role to
do. The fact that you do not like the outcome is also out of my control, and
I don't know why you think that I have a personal vendetta against you.
Unfortunately, if you cannot move past your emotions and decide to not contribute
to the catalog, then the site will have lost your passion. However, your passion
is also your hindrance to be able see past your own feelings.
|
Perfect answer, some people just can't take no for an answer.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Aug 4, 2021 13:42 | | Subject: | Re: Can someone please explain the logic of this? | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
I don't take any of the decisions that I make in my role for the site personally
or with emotion. I try to think about the good of the catalog as a whole with
objectivity and reason. In this case, you have taken the rejection of your idea
personally, and I cannot control what you feel.
I asked you nicely at the beginning of the thread to submit your ideas for consideration
using the proper forms. You took offense to that. I don't know why, but,
once again, I cannot control what you feel. After that, you made it a point to
come after me, and I have tried to remain civilized with you. I even took the
discussion off of the forums to try and put the issue to rest. But that was not
enough for you.
After you submitted the changes using the form, I took the same amount of time
to consider them along with all other requests that I go through. I also took
everything that you had posted into consideration. After that, I decided on a
course of action. It was not personal. It was what I was put into my role to
do. The fact that you do not like the outcome is also out of my control, and
I don't know why you think that I have a personal vendetta against you.
Unfortunately, if you cannot move past your emotions and decide to not contribute
to the catalog, then the site will have lost your passion. However, your passion
is also your hindrance to be able see past your own feelings.
|
This very measured response shows how capable and professional you are as admin.
Keep up the good work. We appreciate your leadership in your role here on BrickLink.
Jen
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Aug 2, 2021 11:18 | | Subject: | Can someone please explain the logic of this? | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| After reading through some of the replies of this thread, I'm going with
Joel Cohen's quote
“It’s a fool that looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart”
https://youtu.be/WQeh132J7gE?t=9
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | runner.caller | | Posted: | Aug 3, 2021 15:23 | | Subject: | Re: Can someone please explain the logic of this? | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
I also searched the catalog multiple times for "tranquilizer" to find these and
no results would appear before I finally remembered to just search, "gun, clip"
and boom. I wouldn't mind seeing tranquilizer, but I can live without it.
We might not always agree with how things are cataloged, but the best we can
do is remember how to find stuff quickly.
What pisses me off is when I go out of my way to learn a key word to find something
and then that word gets removed by a change request.
|
|
|
|
|
United Kingdom, England
USA, Ohio
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
