|
 |
| | | Author: | Stuart9  | | Posted: | Mar 20, 2022 13:07 | | Subject: | 41454 | | Viewed: | 128 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | | For: | Inventories Administrator | | Status: | Completed | |
|
| Delete 4532 x 1 Lime, add 4532b x 1 Lime.
From new set.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Mar 20, 2022 15:36 | | Subject: | Re: 41454 | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, Stellar writes:
Yes, but I must admit, it's sooooo an old style page 
That could be a point and click "I want to propose to change this" into "This"
while directly viewing the whole Inventory for this set...
Anyway.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Mar 20, 2022 16:08 | | Subject: | Re: 41454 | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, Stellar writes:
Yes, but I must admit, it's sooooo an old style page
That could be a point and click "I want to propose to change this" into "This"
while directly viewing the whole Inventory for this set...
Anyway.
|
I suspect that if they made change requests that easy, the admins would be flooded
with confused and incorrect submissions. It seems like half the stuff that goes
through could be avoided if people A) read to the bottom of the page, B) understood
how minifig inventories worked and C) submitted stickered counterparts to the
catalog instead of adding blank parts to the set inventory.
Anyway, it's better to know a bit about our catalog first. And that includes
learning where and how to submit a change.  It would indeed be great, however,
if the process had some checks to help people avoid common mistakes.
Jen
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Mar 20, 2022 16:25 | | Subject: | Re: 41454 | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, jennnifer writes:
| | […]
I suspect that if they made change requests that easy, the admins would be flooded
with confused and incorrect submissions. It seems like half the stuff that goes
through could be avoided if people A) read to the bottom of the page, B) understood
how minifig inventories worked and C) submitted stickered counterparts to the
catalog instead of adding blank parts to the set inventory.
Anyway, it's better to know a bit about our catalog first. And that includes
learning where and how to submit a change.
|
Hmm, I’m not sure if I should agree or if I should argue against the old saw
“let’s keek it complicated to keep the ignorant away” 
(We, French, know a lot about that: we call that orthographe.)
| | It would indeed be great, however,
if the process had some checks to help people avoid common mistakes.
Jen
|
Ah, then I agree 
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Mar 20, 2022 16:37 | | Subject: | Re: 41454 | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| | | I suspect that if they made change requests that easy, the admins would be flooded
with confused and incorrect submissions. It seems like half the stuff that goes
through could be avoided if people A) read to the bottom of the page, B) understood
how minifig inventories worked and C) submitted stickered counterparts to the
catalog instead of adding blank parts to the set inventory.
Anyway, it's better to know a bit about our catalog first. And that includes
learning where and how to submit a change. It would indeed be great, however,
if the process had some checks to help people avoid common mistakes.
Jen
|
Agreed on the "obscurity / learning curve" to refrain newbies to change all Technic
Pins with Friction to without Friction (or worse, the opposite).
But it then makes all (including educated people - like Stuart, OP) a hard work.
Personnaly, I'd like a simple way to post "This item weight 1.20g", because
I can easily have this date, and my balance is exact down to 0.05g, but I've
lost the page/process, and anyway it's very probably too complicated.
I think the solution should be easier, but to limit silly changes, only authorized
people could send a proposal for a change.
You could be authorized (for instance) after 50 or 100 feedbacks, or just requesting
the right to.
And if this user authorized posts silly requests, he's unauthorized by any
Catalog people. That wouldn't be a shame or anything like this, but just
he's to take some time to understand and apply later on...
In short, I don't see why a zero FB could post Inventory requests.
Anf then, the page(s) should be FAR easier.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Mar 20, 2022 16:51 | | Subject: | Re: 41454 | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, 1001bricks writes:
| | […]
In short, I don't see why a zero FB could post Inventory requests.
Anf then, the page(s) should be FAR easier.
|
I’ve seen wrong requests made by people with hundreds of FB and good requests
made by 0-FB people.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Mar 20, 2022 17:20 | | Subject: | Re: 41454 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, 1001bricks writes:
| | […]
In short, I don't see why a zero FB could post Inventory requests.
Anf then, the page(s) should be FAR easier.
|
I’ve seen wrong requests made by people with hundreds of FB and good requests
made by 0-FB people.
|
Sure! But 1/100 isn't maybe representative
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Mar 20, 2022 17:30 | | Subject: | Re: 41454 | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, 1001bricks writes:
| | […]
In short, I don't see why a zero FB could post Inventory requests.
Anf then, the page(s) should be FAR easier.
|
I’ve seen wrong requests made by people with hundreds of FB and good requests
made by 0-FB people.
|
Sure! But 1/100 isn't maybe representative
|
Exactly my point
Except that you’re the one asking to add hurdles, so you’re the one who has to
prove they would really be useful (and not yet another task for the catmins)…
further than with anecdotes or biased memories.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Mar 20, 2022 17:37 | | Subject: | Re: 41454 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, 1001bricks writes:
| | […]
In short, I don't see why a zero FB could post Inventory requests.
Anf then, the page(s) should be FAR easier.
|
I’ve seen wrong requests made by people with hundreds of FB and good requests
made by 0-FB people.
|
Sure! But 1/100 isn't maybe representative
|
Exactly my point
|
No, the opposite, you LEGO Brick Head!
| | Except that you’re the one asking to add hurdles, so you’re the one who has to
prove they would really be useful (and not yet another task for the catmins)…
further than with anecdotes or biased memories.
|
I think (me, personnaly) that the Precious General BrickLink Catalog shouldn't
be "opened" to the very same day newcomers, without credentials, for security
reasons.
I also think, that for the ones who are allowed to (a majority), the system could
be EASIER.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Mar 20, 2022 18:30 | | Subject: | Re: 41454 | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, 1001bricks writes:
| | […]
No, the opposite, you LEGO Brick Head!
|
No need to resort to insult, however mild you think they are.
You said 0-FB people post “silly” requests and that there’s a need for a barrier
to prevent such requests (no talk about security then) and that 50- or 100-FB
people would be automatically authorized.
Both assumptions are false. The FB number doesn’t relate to the quality/“silliness”
of the requests.
Using the FB number as a barrier will add more work for the catmins (credential
requests and removals). And it wouldn’t remove the work to treat “silly” requests
because the “offenders” generally only do one: they get an answer explaining
why they are wrong and don’t do the same mistake again.
Current system: 0. Alice thinks something is wrong, 1. she makes a “silly” request,
2. she gets an explicative answer and 3. the catmins reject the request.
With your system: 0. Bob thinks something is wrong, 1. he sends a message to
get the right to make a request, 2. he gets authorized by the catmins, 3. he
makes his “silly” request, 4. a catmin explains to Bob why he’s wrong, 5. a catmin
rejects the request. — We already have 2 more actions (one from the catmins)
— 7. Bod is barred from making other requests… or not, because he just got explained
why it was wrong and we could assume he won’t do it again.
More, adding hurdles would also reduce the number of contributions (that are
already made by only a small part of the members).
Bob sees he has to asks to be able to make a request, he abandons.
Worse: Bob doesn’t see how he can make a request because it’s hidden from him
(like 90% of the features of, well, any site or application) and doesn’t even
try.
Besides, whatever you think, however it is explained when the move is made, and
however much it’s deserved, people will feel hurt when their credentials are
removed.
| | | | Except that you’re the one asking to add hurdles, so you’re the one who has to
prove they would really be useful (and not yet another task for the catmins)…
further than with anecdotes or biased memories.
|
I think (me, personnaly) that the Precious General BrickLink Catalog shouldn't
be "opened" to the very same day newcomers, without credentials, for security
reasons.
I also think, that for the ones who are allowed to (a majority), the system could
be EASIER.
|
As a general rule, the whole site could be more secure.
And that’s especially true if it’s made easier to flood.
That being said, fear (e.g. of a flooding that we’ve yet to see) should not be
the number one reason to prevent contributions and make the site generally harder
to use.
On the other other hand, if there’s serial offenders or flooders, a credential
system could be added… but (that would be the fourth hand) I still see no real
reasons to make it dependant on the buying/selling feedback.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Mar 20, 2022 18:41 | | Subject: | Re: 41454 | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, 1001bricks writes:
| | […]
No, the opposite, you LEGO Brick Head!
|
No need to resort to insult, however mild you think they are.
|
Sorry.
But I didn't say Mega Bloks Head, at least!!!
| | On the other other hand, if there’s serial offenders or flooders, a credential
system could be added… but (that would be the fourth hand) I still see no real
reasons to make it dependant on the buying/selling feedback.
|
Yes, sorry if I based this on feedbacks - but yes, ANY kind of credentials.
My initial message was: "How's that so complicated?".
The reply was: "It helps limiting people to propose nonsensical changes."
So, I said: "Then make it easier but limit who can propose changes."
Whatever your examples above (snipped) are/were, I still maintain it should be
EASIER but LIMITED to avoid security breaches or simply stupid proposals that
flood Catalog people.
And I agree with me!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Mar 20, 2022 16:57 | | Subject: | Re: 41454 | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | I suspect that if they made change requests that easy, the admins would be flooded
with confused and incorrect submissions. It seems like half the stuff that goes
through could be avoided if people A) read to the bottom of the page, B) understood
how minifig inventories worked and C) submitted stickered counterparts to the
catalog instead of adding blank parts to the set inventory.
Anyway, it's better to know a bit about our catalog first. And that includes
learning where and how to submit a change. It would indeed be great, however,
if the process had some checks to help people avoid common mistakes.
Jen
|
Agreed on the "obscurity / learning curve" to refrain newbies to change all Technic
Pins with Friction to without Friction (or worse, the opposite).
But it then makes all (including educated people - like Stuart, OP) a hard work.
Personnaly, I'd like a simple way to post "This item weight 1.20g", because
I can easily have this date, and my balance is exact down to 0.05g, but I've
lost the page/process, and anyway it's very probably too complicated.
I think the solution should be easier, but to limit silly changes, only authorized
people could send a proposal for a change.
You could be authorized (for instance) after 50 or 100 feedbacks, or just requesting
the right to.
And if this user authorized posts silly requests, he's unauthorized by any
Catalog people. That wouldn't be a shame or anything like this, but just
he's to take some time to understand and apply later on...
In short, I don't see why a zero FB could post Inventory requests.
Anf then, the page(s) should be FAR easier.
|
I see what you are getting after, but I've worked with many low feedback
members who were excellent contributors. (I can think of one excellent admin
as well!) I like how our catalog is open to contributors. I was just saying that
I think it's okay for there to be some level of difficulty to begin the process.
Thanks,
Jen
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Mar 20, 2022 17:27 | | Subject: | Re: 41454 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| | | I see what you are getting after, but I've worked with many low feedback
members who were excellent contributors. (I can think of one excellent admin
as well!)
|
I never said the opposite.
But that simply they'd have to ask to be allowed to do so.
| | I like how our catalog is open to contributors.
|
Me too - but I can see no reason why a 0 FB account made of today could propose
a change to an Inventory (apart if he gets some authorization, which can be removed
without hassle, see above).
I also imagine someone could right now create a dummy account and automate say
a few thousands of random changes that would take a couple of hours for Catalog
people or even Admins or Devs to destroy.
Now you've also a security problem.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Mar 20, 2022 19:05 | | Subject: | Re: 41454 | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | I see what you are getting after, but I've worked with many low feedback
members who were excellent contributors. (I can think of one excellent admin
as well!)
|
I never said the opposite.
But that simply they'd have to ask to be allowed to do so.
| | I like how our catalog is open to contributors.
|
Me too - but I can see no reason why a 0 FB account made of today could propose
a change to an Inventory (apart if he gets some authorization, which can be removed
without hassle, see above).
|
I don't feel that there should be any barriers to entry for those who want
to start contributing to the catalog. The catalog is enormous and needs a constant
stream of contributors that can keep it up to date, keep improving it, and keep
looking for ways to streamline it. I welcome any help we can get, from the newest
member to the oldest.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Mar 20, 2022 19:11 | | Subject: | Re: 41454 | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | I see what you are getting after, but I've worked with many low feedback
members who were excellent contributors. (I can think of one excellent admin
as well!)
|
I never said the opposite.
But that simply they'd have to ask to be allowed to do so.
| | I like how our catalog is open to contributors.
|
Me too - but I can see no reason why a 0 FB account made of today could propose
a change to an Inventory (apart if he gets some authorization, which can be removed
without hassle, see above).
|
I don't feel that there should be any barriers to entry for those who want
to start contributing to the catalog. The catalog is enormous and needs a constant
stream of contributors that can keep it up to date, keep improving it, and keep
looking for ways to streamline it. I welcome any help we can get, from the newest
member to the oldest.
|
Which I agree, but as per my original post, it should be easier:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1333458
But if because it's complicated it helps refrain silly changes, then limit
the ones who can propose changes, by any credentials system.
In short; I don't wish it to be limited, but easier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
United Kingdom, England
Spain, Comunidad Valenciana
France, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur
USA, Illinois
