|
 |
| | | Author: | calsbricks  | | Posted: | Nov 4, 2021 03:18 | | Subject: | Please add Variant poicy to mandatory terms | | Viewed: | 127 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| To avoid issues such as what we mentioned yesterday why not get Bricklink to
add to the stores terms page a variant policy statement from the store. I am
sure we will see everything from no policy to a complete novel, but at least
it is something that can be looked at by potential buyers and it may even add
clarity to the current situation.
We very strongly believe this is a stores responsibility and not the buyers.
A buyer should have confidence in the fact they are getting what they ordered.
or a notice from the store to alert them they aren't.
Of course mistake can and will happen but if a policy statement is at least on
the mind of the store maybe it will help them to focus
I do agree that buyers, if concerned could ask for details but of 6 stores who
were asked none replied is not a good result.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Nov 4, 2021 03:50 | | Subject: | Re: Please add Variant poicy to mandatory terms | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | To avoid issues such as what we mentioned yesterday why not get Bricklink to
add to the stores terms page a variant policy statement from the store. I am
sure we will see everything from no policy to a complete novel, but at least
it is something that can be looked at by potential buyers and it may even add
clarity to the current situation.
We very strongly believe this is a stores responsibility and not the buyers.
A buyer should have confidence in the fact they are getting what they ordered.
or a notice from the store to alert them they aren't.
Of course mistake can and will happen but if a policy statement is at least on
the mind of the store maybe it will help them to focus
|
I don't know how this can be applied but as a prolific contributor, I parted
out
and badly failed to distinguish
from
I tried, I wanted, it was important for me, I then retried, took photos of what
I got, and all the way, I failed.
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1312042
There is still a (bad) comparison photo but for many parts, there is no comparison
photo.
| | I do agree that buyers, if concerned could ask for details but of 6 stores who
were asked none replied is not a good result.
|
These stores are annoying!
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Nov 4, 2021 07:03 | | Subject: | Re: Please add Variant poicy to mandatory terms | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | To avoid issues such as what we mentioned yesterday why not get Bricklink to
add to the stores terms page a variant policy statement from the store. I am
sure we will see everything from no policy to a complete novel, but at least
it is something that can be looked at by potential buyers and it may even add
clarity to the current situation.
We very strongly believe this is a stores responsibility and not the buyers.
A buyer should have confidence in the fact they are getting what they ordered.
or a notice from the store to alert them they aren't.
Of course mistake can and will happen but if a policy statement is at least on
the mind of the store maybe it will help them to focus
I do agree that buyers, if concerned could ask for details but of 6 stores who
were asked none replied is not a good result.
|
Any variant policy will need to define exactly what a variant is. Otherwise,
what does it apply to?
Concerning the 1x2 jumpers, the parts are:
Is 15573 a variant of the 3794 types? I think not, it is a different part entirely
that happens to look the same from above but not below. I don't think it
would be covered under a variant definition, since they are just similar and
not variants. Sellers sending 15573 instead of 3794/a/b are just doing a bad
job at part identification.
If they are variants, then what about these parts ...
They are similar in mould type to each other (and noted as such) but not really
variants of each other. There are many, many groups of similar parts in the catalogue.
Without defining these as variants rather than similar to, a variant policy doesn't
really help when sellers cannot tell the difference.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Nov 4, 2021 07:10 | | Subject: | Re: Please add Variant poicy to mandatory terms | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | To avoid issues such as what we mentioned yesterday why not get Bricklink to
add to the stores terms page a variant policy statement from the store. I am
sure we will see everything from no policy to a complete novel, but at least
it is something that can be looked at by potential buyers and it may even add
clarity to the current situation.
We very strongly believe this is a stores responsibility and not the buyers.
A buyer should have confidence in the fact they are getting what they ordered.
or a notice from the store to alert them they aren't.
Of course mistake can and will happen but if a policy statement is at least on
the mind of the store maybe it will help them to focus
I do agree that buyers, if concerned could ask for details but of 6 stores who
were asked none replied is not a good result.
|
Any variant policy will need to define exactly what a variant is. Otherwise,
what does it apply to?
Concerning the 1x2 jumpers, the parts are:
Is 15573 a variant of the 3794 types? I think not, it is a different part entirely
that happens to look the same from above but not below. I don't think it
would be covered under a variant definition, since they are just similar and
not variants. Sellers sending 15573 instead of 3794/a/b are just doing a bad
job at part identification.
If they are variants, then what about these parts ...
They are similar in mould type to each other (and noted as such) but not really
variants of each other. There are many, many groups of similar parts in the catalogue.
Without defining these as variants rather than similar to, a variant policy doesn't
really help when sellers cannot tell the difference.
|
Don't disagree with what you say. But if Bricklink list it as a variant then
it should belong within a policy statement. So if 15573 is classed as a 3794
variant then that is a Bricklink issue not a store issue. (By the way we agree
with you on that one).
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Nov 4, 2021 07:23 | | Subject: | Re: Please add Variant poicy to mandatory terms | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | Don't disagree with what you say. But if Bricklink list it as a variant then
it should belong within a policy statement. So if 15573 is classed as a 3794
variant then that is a Bricklink issue not a store issue. (By the way we agree
with you on that one).
|
Thsi is why a definition of what a variant is or is not is needed before you
can have a policy on variants. Does being in a list of "similar to" something
mean it is a variant? After all, some parts, such as this ...
have known variants, as indicated by the note "Part has a variant in which the
two end studs on top are partially hollow."
Or
has variants (and two numbers) "This part has variants with noticeable appearance
differences. Part 53968 has around half of the top indented."
Rather than having a variant policy that can vary from store to store, I think
it might be better to have a site wide policy such as listing 3794 as an undetermined
1x2 jumper, with a list of parts that you might get if you buy it. Catalogue
admins can decide whether that is 3794a and 3794b only or whether or not to also
include 15573. Then anyone listing as 3794a must check they are listing the right
part there. If they don't distinguish types, then they should put them into
the undetermined part type 3794.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StephenB76 | | Posted: | Nov 4, 2021 07:44 | | Subject: | Re: Please add Variant poicy to mandatory terms | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | | | Don't disagree with what you say. But if Bricklink list it as a variant then
it should belong within a policy statement. So if 15573 is classed as a 3794
variant then that is a Bricklink issue not a store issue. (By the way we agree
with you on that one).
|
Thsi is why a definition of what a variant is or is not is needed before you
can have a policy on variants. Does being in a list of "similar to" something
mean it is a variant? After all, some parts, such as this ...
have known variants, as indicated by the note "Part has a variant in which the
two end studs on top are partially hollow."
|
Or
| |
has variants (and two numbers) "This part has variants with noticeable appearance
differences. Part 53968 has around half of the top indented."
Rather than having a variant policy that can vary from store to store, I think
it might be better to have a site wide policy such as listing 3794 as an undetermined
1x2 jumper, with a list of parts that you might get if you buy it. Catalogue
admins can decide whether that is 3794a and 3794b only or whether or not to also
include 15573. Then anyone listing as 3794a must check they are listing the right
part there. If they don't distinguish types, then they should put them into
the undetermined part type 3794.
|
One issue I could see with that is when people are searching using their wanted
lists, especially if they have added items through the set inventory as those
are now removing the undetermined types from them. This would then mean that
although stores may have ones that could be used they wouldn't necessarily
show up when searching. I have had this the opposite way round where I was searching
for an undetermined type as that what was in the set inventory at the time I
added it and I could never find it when searching using my wanted list.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Nov 4, 2021 08:27 | | Subject: | Re: Please add Variant poicy to mandatory terms | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, StephenB76 writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | | | Don't disagree with what you say. But if Bricklink list it as a variant then
it should belong within a policy statement. So if 15573 is classed as a 3794
variant then that is a Bricklink issue not a store issue. (By the way we agree
with you on that one).
|
Thsi is why a definition of what a variant is or is not is needed before you
can have a policy on variants. Does being in a list of "similar to" something
mean it is a variant? After all, some parts, such as this ...
have known variants, as indicated by the note "Part has a variant in which the
two end studs on top are partially hollow."
|
Or
| |
has variants (and two numbers) "This part has variants with noticeable appearance
differences. Part 53968 has around half of the top indented."
Rather than having a variant policy that can vary from store to store, I think
it might be better to have a site wide policy such as listing 3794 as an undetermined
1x2 jumper, with a list of parts that you might get if you buy it. Catalogue
admins can decide whether that is 3794a and 3794b only or whether or not to also
include 15573. Then anyone listing as 3794a must check they are listing the right
part there. If they don't distinguish types, then they should put them into
the undetermined part type 3794.
|
One issue I could see with that is when people are searching using their wanted
lists, especially if they have added items through the set inventory as those
are now removing the undetermined types from them. This would then mean that
although stores may have ones that could be used they wouldn't necessarily
show up when searching. I have had this the opposite way round where I was searching
for an undetermined type as that what was in the set inventory at the time I
added it and I could never find it when searching using my wanted list.
|
Yes, of course, and that problem happens now. I think all you can do is decide
for yourself if you are happy with functional variants for a particular build
and either search for all variants and manually amend wants lists, or pick one
type and stick with that. Personally, even if I don't mind which type out
of two variants I use, I tend to stick to using just one type in a design even
though I could use both. Better still would be if BL had an option to search
across variants in a wants list but I doubt they will do that.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Nov 4, 2021 08:08 | | Subject: | Re: Please add Variant poicy to mandatory terms | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | To avoid issues such as what we mentioned yesterday why not get Bricklink to
add to the stores terms page a variant policy statement from the store. I am
sure we will see everything from no policy to a complete novel, but at least
it is something that can be looked at by potential buyers and it may even add
clarity to the current situation.
We very strongly believe this is a stores responsibility and not the buyers.
A buyer should have confidence in the fact they are getting what they ordered.
or a notice from the store to alert them they aren't.
Of course mistake can and will happen but if a policy statement is at least on
the mind of the store maybe it will help them to focus
I do agree that buyers, if concerned could ask for details but of 6 stores who
were asked none replied is not a good result.
|
The problem with this suggestion, is how do you handle backwards compatibility
?
If a part exists in the Catalog, as a singular unitary definition ... and then
one day it becomes recognized that variants exist ... how do you go back and
tell all those sellers you need to go thru your parts and divide them up by
variant ? You can't.
With the existing paradigm (of how the catalog works), there is no way but to
make the old catalog entry locked (for additions), schedule it for removal, and
then create all new variant based catalog entries. That bifurcates existing listings,
and is non-optimal in the long run. It does recognize the existence of variants,
but it does not solve the issue of previous un-specified inventory.
Nita Rae
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Nov 4, 2021 08:41 | | Subject: | Re: Please add Variant poicy to mandatory terms | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | To avoid issues such as what we mentioned yesterday why not get Bricklink to
add to the stores terms page a variant policy statement from the store. I am
sure we will see everything from no policy to a complete novel, but at least
it is something that can be looked at by potential buyers and it may even add
clarity to the current situation.
We very strongly believe this is a stores responsibility and not the buyers.
A buyer should have confidence in the fact they are getting what they ordered.
or a notice from the store to alert them they aren't.
Of course mistake can and will happen but if a policy statement is at least on
the mind of the store maybe it will help them to focus
I do agree that buyers, if concerned could ask for details but of 6 stores who
were asked none replied is not a good result.
|
The problem with this suggestion, is how do you handle backwards compatibility
?
If a part exists in the Catalog, as a singular unitary definition ... and then
one day it becomes recognized that variants exist ... how do you go back and
tell all those sellers you need to go thru your parts and divide them up by
variant ? You can't.
With the existing paradigm (of how the catalog works), there is no way but to
make the old catalog entry locked (for additions), schedule it for removal, and
then create all new variant based catalog entries. That bifurcates existing listings,
and is non-optimal in the long run. It does recognize the existence of variants,
but it does not solve the issue of previous un-specified inventory.
Nita Rae
|
Hmm - this would all have to be date based then and that means development work
on the catalogue - not a good idea unless it becomes a re-write and that is not
going to happen anytime soon. LOts of things need adding or changing there but
not on the schedule or outwardly under discussion. Pity really
|
|
|
|
|
|
United Kingdom, England
Canada, British Columbia
USA, Florida