|
 |
| | | Author: | Admin_Russell  | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 02:57 | | Subject: | Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 1942 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location:  USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
 |
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| Hello again everyone,
My initial post on this subject earlier this month has garnered almost 700 replies,
which is right about the level of the BrickArms threads a few years ago. 
A New Thread
So I'm starting a new thread with some new information, and hopefully a few
links that will help you navigate through this complex discussion topic.
Here is the original post:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1447090
Here are three Help topics:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2629
Here is a list of my replies on this subject:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageList.asp?overTP=Y&q=variants&qS=Y&msgID=&uName=admin_russell&ID=&status=&v=c&max=50
If you don't wish to read all 700 replies in the previous thread, you can
at least look through some of these for answers to most of the questions that
have been raised.
************************************
The Responses
We sent an email out to all active sellers a couple days ago and we expected
a flood of responses in the Forum. As much as it may seem to be an overwhelming
response, we do appreciate all the members who have posted and shared their feelings
about this project. Keep them coming. 
So far I have seen two YouTube videos addressing this issue, and I'll post
in this new thread to respond directly (and completely) to what they are saying.
I will be answering directly several of the more detailed replies over the next
day or two in an effort to clear up any misunderstandings.
************************************
The Research
The following is an example of the some of the research that has been done to
help determine the course of action we are taking.
When it comes to Frosted Bricks, we took a look at the price guide, the inventories
that contained these special bricks, and we studied the nature of the bricks,
at least as far as we could.
What we found was that bricks listed under the normal (umbrella) entries sold
on average for over twice the price, and the volume of sales was 17 times of
bricks listed under the frosted entries. In addition, sellers listing under the
main entries didn’t have to spend the time sorting out their parts. So from a
marketplace standpoint, these frosted entries are simply an inefficiency (see
image below).
In the inventories, there was only spotty information about which sets these
bricks are in. This is likely the main reason for the lower sales volume, because
the BrickLink inventory system drives sales for vintage parts. We started adding
frosted entries to the catalog over 20 years ago, but they are only reflected
in 24 inventories to date.
When it comes to the bricks themselves, there were actually more variants than
what are currently shown on BrickLink. And we’ve never been able to settle on
a reason for these peculiar markings. Some have suggested they are simply the
same patterns one would find on solid color bricks of the same era. Whatever
they are, though, this type of variant is typically found only in sellers’ notes
and not reflected in standalone BrickLink entries.
In fact, it is a peculiar thing that these entries were only for Transparent
versions of the part. We don’t really do that on BrickLink. Normally, all the
colors are placed under one entry.
But perhaps the best reason for removing these entries is the lack of a real
use case for any of our members. For new users, these entries clutter up important
basic parts categories, and if they end up on a wanted list, they can certainly
cause problems.
For the seller who wants to fill out vintage sets, these entries do not solve
their need completely, because there are serious color matching issues with older
transparent parts. It is not “plug and play” with these variants, and truth be
told, it would be easier to obtain the necessary selection of parts by using
the main entries.
For the hard core collector looking for information, BrickLink has very little
to offer in the case of the frosted bricks. We don’t need separate entries to
add representative photos and comparison images of variants, and we were likely
to never complete the “collection” of these entries due to the large number of
different patterns.
In order to preserve what knowledge we have, we plan to release new Help pages
for certain variants covered in this project. Stay tuned.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 11:17 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 120 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| The frosted bricks I can understand, as I fully believe that they are the same
as the many variants of internal supports found on the opaque bricks, and yeah,
the data is simply not there even after 20 years. It becomes a more visually
noticeable in transparent bricks, but this is inconsistent treatment and frankly,
I don't think distinguishing these the way they are right now is all that
helpful as there's times more variety in these clear bricks due to the numerous
material changes that occurred in those eras, and that would be a nightmare to
catalogue -- where would one even begin with that?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 14:12 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | The frosted bricks I can understand, as I fully believe that they are the same
as the many variants of internal supports found on the opaque bricks, and yeah,
the data is simply not there even after 20 years. It becomes a more visually
noticeable in transparent bricks, but this is inconsistent treatment and frankly,
I don't think distinguishing these the way they are right now is all that
helpful as there's times more variety in these clear bricks due to the numerous
material changes that occurred in those eras, and that would be a nightmare to
catalogue -- where would one even begin with that?
|
That said -- I share the sentiment of StormChaser, and believe an umbrella
system would be the best approach. However, even if "frosted" bricks
were kept, I believe they would need to be re-evaluated to include opaque bricks
of the same variation.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 11:41 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 150 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | My initial post on this subject earlier this month has garnered almost 700 replies,
|
I would like an official response on why the website is choosing not to implement
the suggestion many have recommended for years. Many of us would like
to see a redesign of basic catalog functionality which allows everyone to be
served equally.
Selectable variants is a long-term solution which demonstrates there is a vision
for the future of this website and a care for all members. What are the difficulties
with implementing a visionary solution? Not enough money? Not enough staff?
Not enough vision at the top?
Looking forward to a quality response to this question which many of us have
asked.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 12:30 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 82 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | My initial post on this subject earlier this month has garnered almost 700 replies,
|
I would like an official response on why the website is choosing not to implement
the suggestion many have recommended for years. Many of us would like
to see a redesign of basic catalog functionality which allows everyone to be
served equally.
Selectable variants is a long-term solution which demonstrates there is a vision
for the future of this website and a care for all members. What are the difficulties
with implementing a visionary solution? Not enough money? Not enough staff?
Not enough vision at the top?
Looking forward to a quality response to this question which many of us have
asked.
|
I think that having a Parent / Umbrella entry would suit everyone and would be
something we all would agree upon.
That would give so much room for grouping parts such as 15712 with 2555 (furthermore
eventually splitting the latter into 2555a, 2555b etc, because it has variants
not catalogued) so buyers that don't care could save some bucks in the process.
The subject has been brought up many times but this is not something BrickLink/LEGO
seems to be pursuing right now.
Maybe it is not feasible with the current site.
Maybe one day, with a new site, we hope?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 13:01 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
| | it has variants not catalogued) so buyers that don't care could save some bucks in the process.
|
There are many variants not yet cataloged. I began the process of documenting
them with this list several years ago:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRelCat.asp?relID=24
All variants could be cataloged and documented properly with selectable
variants, which is another reason why this is clearly the correct solution to
the variant problem.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | DeLuca | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 13:26 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
| | it has variants not catalogued) so buyers that don't care could save some bucks in the process.
|
There are many variants not yet cataloged. I began the process of documenting
them with this list several years ago:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRelCat.asp?relID=24
All variants could be cataloged and documented properly with selectable
variants, which is another reason why this is clearly the correct solution to
the variant problem.
|
+1
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | hpoort | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 12:33 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | My initial post on this subject earlier this month has garnered almost 700 replies,
|
I would like an official response on why the website is choosing not to implement
the suggestion many have recommended for years. Many of us would like
to see a redesign of basic catalog functionality which allows everyone to be
served equally.
Selectable variants is a long-term solution which demonstrates there is a vision
for the future of this website and a care for all members. What are the difficulties
with implementing a visionary solution? Not enough money? Not enough staff?
Not enough vision at the top?
Looking forward to a quality response to this question which many of us have
asked.
|
+1
Exactly what I was trying to convey with my reply to the original post and the
suggestions to this end throughout the years.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 19:14 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 223 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | My initial post on this subject earlier this month has garnered almost 700 replies,
|
I would like an official response on why the website is choosing not to implement
the suggestion many have recommended for years. Many of us would like
to see a redesign of basic catalog functionality which allows everyone to be
served equally.
Selectable variants is a long-term solution which demonstrates there is a vision
for the future of this website and a care for all members. What are the difficulties
with implementing a visionary solution? Not enough money? Not enough staff?
Not enough vision at the top?
Looking forward to a quality response to this question which many of us have
asked.
|
We do have replatforming coming up soon and a better handling of variants is
definitely on the list of things we are looking to improve when it comes to core
catalog functionality.
Selectable variants (we have called this the Checkbox Solution internally) would
help in cases with medium level variants. We could implement this in both the
marketplace and the inventory system, at the very least.
However, there are many variants the catalog forces on the marketplace as a general
standard, and these are not optional. In the same way, there are many variants
that are so insignificant that BrickLink would never allow them to be distinguished
with a checkbox system.
So the answer is yes, in part.
But the variants we are merging as part of this current project would fall into
the last category. Maybe the "middle ground" could be expanded to include
them at some point, but from where I'm sitting now, I don't see that
happening.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Saitobricks.ca | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 19:33 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | My initial post on this subject earlier this month has garnered almost 700 replies,
|
I would like an official response on why the website is choosing not to implement
the suggestion many have recommended for years. Many of us would like
to see a redesign of basic catalog functionality which allows everyone to be
served equally.
Selectable variants is a long-term solution which demonstrates there is a vision
for the future of this website and a care for all members. What are the difficulties
with implementing a visionary solution? Not enough money? Not enough staff?
Not enough vision at the top?
Looking forward to a quality response to this question which many of us have
asked.
|
We do have replatforming coming up soon and a better handling of variants is
definitely on the list of things we are looking to improve when it comes to core
catalog functionality.
Selectable variants (we have called this the Checkbox Solution internally) would
help in cases with medium level variants. We could implement this in both the
marketplace and the inventory system, at the very least.
However, there are many variants the catalog forces on the marketplace as a general
standard, and these are not optional. In the same way, there are many variants
that are so insignificant that BrickLink would never allow them to be distinguished
with a checkbox system.
So the answer is yes, in part.
But the variants we are merging as part of this current project would fall into
the last category. Maybe the "middle ground" could be expanded to include
them at some point, but from where I'm sitting now, I don't see that
happening.
|
I like the sounds of a check box variant selection, but the thought of a replatforming
concerns me.
As far as I’m concerned the platform is fine as is. But a modern update could
be really bad.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Legorama | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 16:18 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | My initial post on this subject earlier this month has garnered almost 700 replies,
|
I would like an official response on why the website is choosing not to implement
the suggestion many have recommended for years. Many of us would like
to see a redesign of basic catalog functionality which allows everyone to be
served equally.
Selectable variants is a long-term solution which demonstrates there is a vision
for the future of this website and a care for all members. What are the difficulties
with implementing a visionary solution? Not enough money? Not enough staff?
Not enough vision at the top?
Looking forward to a quality response to this question which many of us have
asked.
|
We do have replatforming coming up soon and a better handling of variants is
definitely on the list of things we are looking to improve when it comes to core
catalog functionality.
Selectable variants (we have called this the Checkbox Solution internally) would
help in cases with medium level variants. We could implement this in both the
marketplace and the inventory system, at the very least.
However, there are many variants the catalog forces on the marketplace as a general
standard, and these are not optional. In the same way, there are many variants
that are so insignificant that BrickLink would never allow them to be distinguished
with a checkbox system.
So the answer is yes, in part.
But the variants we are merging as part of this current project would fall into
the last category. Maybe the "middle ground" could be expanded to include
them at some point, but from where I'm sitting now, I don't see that
happening.
|
So why has this project been touted as a "proposed change" (your words,
not mine) if it was always going to happen? Right from the jump, the initial
post on the forum received backlash to the proposal, and this was 2 weeks before
any intervention from YouTubers (who may have had some of their facts wrong).
Why has there been no sign of reassessment in the face of the overwhelmingly
negative response? You use phrases like "the variants we are merging as part
of this current project" as if to say there never was a proposal - it was
always a certainty.
Why feign community involvement if it was always going to be irrelevant to your
decision? And why the rush to push this through? It doesn't take an expert
to see that the community and the admin are not seeing eye to eye on this matter
at all.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 16:52 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 77 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | So why has this project been touted as a "proposed change" (your words,
not mine) if it was always going to happen? Right from the jump, the initial
post on the forum received backlash to the proposal, and this was 2 weeks before
any intervention from YouTubers (who may have had some of their facts wrong).
Why has there been no sign of reassessment in the face of the overwhelmingly
negative response? You use phrases like "the variants we are merging as part
of this current project" as if to say there never was a proposal - it was
always a certainty.
Why feign community involvement if it was always going to be irrelevant to your
decision? And why the rush to push this through? It doesn't take an expert
to see that the community and the admin are not seeing eye to eye on this matter
at all.
|
This was posted after robust questioning in the forum, before the youtubers posted
their thoughts.
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1448012
Nevertheless, and regardless of these arguments I am making, because of the
complaints
about this variant, I am flagging it for further discussion - the same as the
torsos. Maybe we can come up with a better solution for these items.
To me, that is a sign that they are taking notice of complaints, where appropriate.
Flagging something for further discussion is surely a sign of reassessment.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 17:10 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 137 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, Legorama writes:
| | So why has this project been touted as a "proposed change" (your words,
not mine) if it was always going to happen? Right from the jump, the initial
post on the forum received backlash to the proposal, and this was 2 weeks before
any intervention from YouTubers (who may have had some of their facts wrong).
Why has there been no sign of reassessment in the face of the overwhelmingly
negative response? You use phrases like "the variants we are merging as part
of this current project" as if to say there never was a proposal - it was
always a certainty.
Why feign community involvement if it was always going to be irrelevant to your
decision? And why the rush to push this through? It doesn't take an expert
to see that the community and the admin are not seeing eye to eye on this matter
at all.
|
It is billed as a proposed change because based on the reaction, the whole project
could be scrapped at any time. This is why we put the idea out in public, first
to the Forum, and then to the larger group of active sellers.
We are aware this is a "hard sell" situation. It is very difficult to
remove something from the catalog and have people happy about it. Consequently,
a lot of work was done in preparation for this project, to make sure just the
right entries were targeted and for the correct reasons.
What we are looking for in the responses are details we missed when doing research
and angles we had not thought about before. But personally I have not seen much
of that. Most of the responses from the email didn't really bring anything
to the conversation other than a general sentiment of "variants are important
- don't get rid of them" which by the way is a sentiment I also strongly
hold. But that's not what this conversation is about.
There are already several parts in the project that are currently on hold, and
they may not make it through. The wait time we have built into this project isn't
just to allow sellers to add notes if they wish. It's to give time for dialogue
and some exploration.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 17:58 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 69 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | My initial post on this subject earlier this month has garnered almost 700 replies,
|
I would like an official response on why the website is choosing not to implement
the suggestion many have recommended for years. Many of us would like
to see a redesign of basic catalog functionality which allows everyone to be
served equally.
Selectable variants is a long-term solution which demonstrates there is a vision
for the future of this website and a care for all members. What are the difficulties
with implementing a visionary solution? Not enough money? Not enough staff?
Not enough vision at the top?
Looking forward to a quality response to this question which many of us have
asked.
|
We do have replatforming coming up soon and a better handling of variants is
definitely on the list of things we are looking to improve when it comes to core
catalog functionality.
Selectable variants (we have called this the Checkbox Solution internally) would
help in cases with medium level variants. We could implement this in both the
marketplace and the inventory system, at the very least.
However, there are many variants the catalog forces on the marketplace as a general
standard, and these are not optional. In the same way, there are many variants
that are so insignificant that BrickLink would never allow them to be distinguished
with a checkbox system.
So the answer is yes, in part.
But the variants we are merging as part of this current project would fall into
the last category. Maybe the "middle ground" could be expanded to include
them at some point, but from where I'm sitting now, I don't see that
happening.
|
Good to hear that there are some ideas on how to better deal with variants.
From my point of view, the more details the catalog can provide about historically
correct inventories the better. I do however also recognise that there needs
to be a balance. I also think that the catalog will never be perfect for everyone.
For that, the mentioned difference between high/medium/low level variants is
interesting.
I assume that variants with functional differences are high level.
Personally, I think that every time LEGO introduces a new part number for a part
that should at least be medium level variants. Those are significant for
historic reasons.
Probably part versions that have a clear visual difference (but not functional)
when using them in building should be medium level also. Those are significant
for MOC builders.
Low level would be differences in mould details, that do not lead to visual
or functional differences.
Several of the variants that are now proposed for merger would fit the high level
(32064c, on hold) or medium level (7 or 9 teeth hinges, chair with/without sprue
mark, ...). With this proposed merger, we would lose information on these high/medium
level variants.
As I read the comments, the proposed merger of parts that would conform to my
definition of high and medium level variants gets a lot of resistance, and parts
that are more low level get less.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 18:07 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
|
I would be very interested to know if there are definitions of high/medium/low
level variations that are currently being used for the BrickLink catalog, as
guidance for accepting or rejecting new variants and for the proposed mergers.
Getting more clarity on those definitions and resulting policy could remove some
confusion (although there will always some discussion about how the classify
some parts).
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2024 22:46 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | a better handling of variants is definitely on the list of things we are looking to improve when it comes to core catalog functionality.
|
Thank you for the response. I do appreciate it.
| | However, there are many variants the catalog forces on the marketplace as a general
standard, and these are not optional.
|
Yep, that's the way things are now. But things do not have to be that way.
An undetermined variant is exactly that. Buy from a seller who doesn't distinguish
variants and you get what you get. This is just a confusion between how things
are now and how they could be.
| | there are many variants that are so insignificant that BrickLink would never allow them to be distinguished with a checkbox system.
|
That is a real problem. Here, again, the site is dictating the behavior of people
because it thinks it knows what's best. Would it take some work to design
a functional and easy-to-use catalog in which all possible variants could be
recognized? Sure it would.
But it is absolutely possible. BrickLink creating its own hierarchy of high,
medium, low, and non-recognized variants is the problem right now.
Why should an improved system have to inherit that critical flaw of this
website deciding which variants are important and which are not?
I have to return to my point that the site simply lacks long-term vision and
is pretty out of touch with its userbase. This does a real disservice to the
fan community who built the catalog and continue to contribute.
There is more to BrickLink than money and the marketplace.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 12:46 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 82 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| What am I missing? "We don't account for every single possible variance,
so we are doing away with what the community has collectively accounted for that
has worked for thousands upon thousands of sales?" How is this remotely forward-thinking?
Obviously, the distinctions that BL does currently make even in the case of frosted
bricks--which isn't on top of anyone's grievance with this--is
still useful to many BL users. So why remove it? If a seller does not want to
account for these differences, they can clearly state that on their Terms page,
as many do!
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | macebobo | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 13:21 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | BaronBlackbird | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 15:51 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 72 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Howdy,
I'll keep this brief.
If Bricklink is going to switch over in mere days this had to be something which
has been in discussion internally for some time; I would hope. Where is the harm
in a multi-billion dollar company waiting a few weeks or longer to implement
a change to a portion of their holdings which was originally maintained, in essence,
by a single individual...with community support.
Isn't this exactly what a Beta is for...say a Beta Brinklink webpage (See:
'Switch to XP' button below).
As a collector & seller (IRL...person-to-person not so much here on Bricklink),
if two parts are physically different, I believe they should have separate entries
color not withstanding.
I know it isn't, but it would be like taking the original Goat & mixing in
the new Goat & giving them the same entry.
Change is good, but in this day & age when you can tick a box for an option why
are we limiting options instead of adding one?
Have a Lego day!
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | ghyde | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 15:57 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello again everyone,
My initial post on this subject earlier this month has garnered almost 700 replies,
which is right about the level of the BrickArms threads a few years ago.
A New Thread
So I'm starting a new thread with some new information, and hopefully a few
links that will help you navigate through this complex discussion topic.
Here is the original post:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1447090
Here are three Help topics:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2629
Here is a list of my replies on this subject:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageList.asp?overTP=Y&q=variants&qS=Y&msgID=&uName=admin_russell&ID=&status=&v=c&max=50
If you don't wish to read all 700 replies in the previous thread, you can
at least look through some of these for answers to most of the questions that
have been raised.
************************************
The Responses
We sent an email out to all active sellers a couple days ago and we expected
a flood of responses in the Forum. As much as it may seem to be an overwhelming
response, we do appreciate all the members who have posted and shared their feelings
about this project. Keep them coming.
So far I have seen two YouTube videos addressing this issue, and I'll post
in this new thread to respond directly (and completely) to what they are saying.
I will be answering directly several of the more detailed replies over the next
day or two in an effort to clear up any misunderstandings.
************************************
The Research
The following is an example of the some of the research that has been done to
help determine the course of action we are taking.
When it comes to Frosted Bricks, we took a look at the price guide, the inventories
that contained these special bricks, and we studied the nature of the bricks,
at least as far as we could.
What we found was that bricks listed under the normal (umbrella) entries sold
on average for over twice the price, and the volume of sales was 17 times of
bricks listed under the frosted entries. In addition, sellers listing under the
main entries didn’t have to spend the time sorting out their parts. So from a
marketplace standpoint, these frosted entries are simply an inefficiency (see
image below).
In the inventories, there was only spotty information about which sets these
bricks are in. This is likely the main reason for the lower sales volume, because
the BrickLink inventory system drives sales for vintage parts. We started adding
frosted entries to the catalog over 20 years ago, but they are only reflected
in 24 inventories to date.
When it comes to the bricks themselves, there were actually more variants than
what are currently shown on BrickLink. And we’ve never been able to settle on
a reason for these peculiar markings. Some have suggested they are simply the
same patterns one would find on solid color bricks of the same era. Whatever
they are, though, this type of variant is typically found only in sellers’ notes
and not reflected in standalone BrickLink entries.
In fact, it is a peculiar thing that these entries were only for Transparent
versions of the part. We don’t really do that on BrickLink. Normally, all the
colors are placed under one entry.
But perhaps the best reason for removing these entries is the lack of a real
use case for any of our members. For new users, these entries clutter up important
basic parts categories, and if they end up on a wanted list, they can certainly
cause problems.
For the seller who wants to fill out vintage sets, these entries do not solve
their need completely, because there are serious color matching issues with older
transparent parts. It is not “plug and play” with these variants, and truth be
told, it would be easier to obtain the necessary selection of parts by using
the main entries.
For the hard core collector looking for information, BrickLink has very little
to offer in the case of the frosted bricks. We don’t need separate entries to
add representative photos and comparison images of variants, and we were likely
to never complete the “collection” of these entries due to the large number of
different patterns.
In order to preserve what knowledge we have, we plan to release new Help pages
for certain variants covered in this project. Stay tuned.
|
Would it be possible for a representative from The LEGO Group to respond with
what their thoughts and insights on these bricks people thought were "frosted"
bricks? It seems like the LEGO community deserves an explanation as to what these
bricks really were. If they were just a mold variation or a worn out mold,
as would seem likely, then they should have been tracking and know when these
variants were produced.
LEGO has made many plastic elements, and if there was some tooling issue with
the molding process when cutting new molds for production runs, then the LEGO
community should know about it.
If at all possible, the periods during which these bricks would have made it
out to the general public should be made known, for tracking purposes. The LEGO
Group should make it clear what they considered these variants to be, and whether
they wish BrickLink to distinguish them or not.
There has been very little feedback from The LEGO Group themselves, and reiterating
what they're asking you to state starts discussions on what is actually meant.
If this thread is to be properly addressing these variants, you should clearly
state what is actually meant to be conveyed, in your replies.
Hopefully you can stop this thread from deteriorating into discussion of variants
that some forum users seem to like picking apart.
Just my opinions.
Cheers ...
ghyde
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | UTLF | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 16:01 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | ghyde | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 18:39 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, UTLF writes:
| | What is the plan if these changes cause more issues than before? I'm talking
about buyer/seller disputes and such, as not every seller puts notes in their
listings or answers messages inquiring about stuff
So, is there any possibility that Bricklink would roll back the merges if it's
more problematic than before?
|
Which would you be more comfortable with:
1. Buyer cannot file NSS if it is a part that has been merged.
2. Buyer can only file NSS if item does not exactly match description.
3. BrickLink no longer will do anything about merged parts and will cancel Buyer
NSS if found to be regarding a merged part.
4. Other, specify.
Please note that there might be other options for both the buyer and seller,
these are just a few obvious options off the top of my head.
Regarding 3 above, it could get interesting if wrong or incorrect parts were
also sent in the same order, and the buyer mentions the merged parts. BrickLink
admins would have to be careful to correctly interpret the part of the NSS filing
that is valid, and not invalidate a NSS if part of it is regarding merged bricks.
This seems like a lot of work for merging some entries, at least to me.
Just my opinions regarding options regarding filing of NSS and changes that would
affect what can be considered a valid NSS complaint.
Cheers ...
ghyde
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 16:49 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 94 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello again everyone,
My initial post on this subject earlier this month has garnered almost 700 replies,
which is right about the level of the BrickArms threads a few years ago.
|
Yup - that thread stopped at 748 posts. Only 41 to go!
Niek.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 17:41 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 120 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | And we’ve never been able to settle on
a reason for these peculiar markings. Some have suggested they are simply the
same patterns one would find on solid color bricks of the same era. Whatever
they are, though, this type of variant is typically found only in sellers’ notes
and not reflected in standalone BrickLink entries.
In fact, it is a peculiar thing that these entries were only for Transparent
versions of the part. We don’t really do that on BrickLink. Normally, all the
colors are placed under one entry.
|
The "frosted" appearance is caused by increased roughness of the inner
surface of the brick. During moulding, bricks can stick on the wrong half of
the mould when the mould opens and cause problems with the release of those parts.
The rough surface adds friction and helps to prevent that.
In some cases, moulds started out with a smooth surface and the inner surface
was modified during maintenance later. In other cases, moulds were made with
that rough inner surface from the start.
As far as I know, the frosting was included in the catalog only because of the
visual appearance. Smooth transparent bricks often look better.
Images:
- Two versions of 3001 brick with mould number 214-2
- Inner surface of a broken "brittle blue" brick.
Both these bricks would look "frosted" if they were transparent.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 18:50 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 150 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | And we’ve never been able to settle on
a reason for these peculiar markings. Some have suggested they are simply the
same patterns one would find on solid color bricks of the same era. Whatever
they are, though, this type of variant is typically found only in sellers’ notes
and not reflected in standalone BrickLink entries.
In fact, it is a peculiar thing that these entries were only for Transparent
versions of the part. We don’t really do that on BrickLink. Normally, all the
colors are placed under one entry.
|
The "frosted" appearance is caused by increased roughness of the inner
surface of the brick. During moulding, bricks can stick on the wrong half of
the mould when the mould opens and cause problems with the release of those parts.
The rough surface adds friction and helps to prevent that.
In some cases, moulds started out with a smooth surface and the inner surface
was modified during maintenance later. In other cases, moulds were made with
that rough inner surface from the start.
As far as I know, the frosting was included in the catalog only because of the
visual appearance. Smooth transparent bricks often look better.
Images:
- Two versions of 3001 brick with mould number 214-2
- Inner surface of a broken "brittle blue" brick.
Both these bricks would look "frosted" if they were transparent.
|
Thank you for contributing these details to the conversation! Do we have your
permission to use the images in a Help article?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 05:59 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | And we’ve never been able to settle on
a reason for these peculiar markings. Some have suggested they are simply the
same patterns one would find on solid color bricks of the same era. Whatever
they are, though, this type of variant is typically found only in sellers’ notes
and not reflected in standalone BrickLink entries.
In fact, it is a peculiar thing that these entries were only for Transparent
versions of the part. We don’t really do that on BrickLink. Normally, all the
colors are placed under one entry.
|
The "frosted" appearance is caused by increased roughness of the inner
surface of the brick. During moulding, bricks can stick on the wrong half of
the mould when the mould opens and cause problems with the release of those parts.
The rough surface adds friction and helps to prevent that.
In some cases, moulds started out with a smooth surface and the inner surface
was modified during maintenance later. In other cases, moulds were made with
that rough inner surface from the start.
As far as I know, the frosting was included in the catalog only because of the
visual appearance. Smooth transparent bricks often look better.
Images:
- Two versions of 3001 brick with mould number 214-2
- Inner surface of a broken "brittle blue" brick.
Both these bricks would look "frosted" if they were transparent.
|
Thank you for contributing these details to the conversation! Do we have your
permission to use the images in a Help article?
|
Yes.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 19:06 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | And we’ve never been able to settle on
a reason for these peculiar markings. Some have suggested they are simply the
same patterns one would find on solid color bricks of the same era. Whatever
they are, though, this type of variant is typically found only in sellers’ notes
and not reflected in standalone BrickLink entries.
In fact, it is a peculiar thing that these entries were only for Transparent
versions of the part. We don’t really do that on BrickLink. Normally, all the
colors are placed under one entry.
|
The "frosted" appearance is caused by increased roughness of the inner
surface of the brick. During moulding, bricks can stick on the wrong half of
the mould when the mould opens and cause problems with the release of those parts.
The rough surface adds friction and helps to prevent that.
In some cases, moulds started out with a smooth surface and the inner surface
was modified during maintenance later. In other cases, moulds were made with
that rough inner surface from the start.
As far as I know, the frosting was included in the catalog only because of the
visual appearance. Smooth transparent bricks often look better.
Images:
- Two versions of 3001 brick with mould number 214-2
- Inner surface of a broken "brittle blue" brick.
Both these bricks would look "frosted" if they were transparent.
|
Aren't the "frosted lines" like on 3004f2 just internal support structures,
though?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 07:12 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 69 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | And we’ve never been able to settle on
a reason for these peculiar markings. Some have suggested they are simply the
same patterns one would find on solid color bricks of the same era. Whatever
they are, though, this type of variant is typically found only in sellers’ notes
and not reflected in standalone BrickLink entries.
In fact, it is a peculiar thing that these entries were only for Transparent
versions of the part. We don’t really do that on BrickLink. Normally, all the
colors are placed under one entry.
|
The "frosted" appearance is caused by increased roughness of the inner
surface of the brick. During moulding, bricks can stick on the wrong half of
the mould when the mould opens and cause problems with the release of those parts.
The rough surface adds friction and helps to prevent that.
In some cases, moulds started out with a smooth surface and the inner surface
was modified during maintenance later. In other cases, moulds were made with
that rough inner surface from the start.
As far as I know, the frosting was included in the catalog only because of the
visual appearance. Smooth transparent bricks often look better.
Images:
- Two versions of 3001 brick with mould number 214-2
- Inner surface of a broken "brittle blue" brick.
Both these bricks would look "frosted" if they were transparent.
|
Aren't the "frosted lines" like on 3004f2 just internal support structures,
though?
|
Not exactly.
When you connect two bricks, the inner wall of a brick connects to the side of
a stud. When a brick clamps the studs on the brick beneath by connecting in at
least 3 places, a stable connection is formed.
The brick walls can be either "thick" or "thin".
Thick walls fill the entire distance between the side of a stud and the outside
surface of the brick.
I believe thin walls were introduced to save materials. (Possibly in response
to the oil crisis in the 1970s). The vertical ridges inside the walls make that
wall "locally thick" again, so the wall connects to the studs in those
places.
Because the thinner walls are more flexible (reducing clutch strength), these
thin walled bricks are usually designed with cross supports (increasing clutch
strength by reducing the amount of deformation of the wall). I believe the main
reason that the vertical ridges run the entire height from the top of the brick
to the bottom, is because of the moulding process. If this was not a continuous
shape, the brick would get stuck on the mould during production. They do add
some stiffness (internal support) though, helping to maintain clutch strength.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 11:48 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | And we’ve never been able to settle on
a reason for these peculiar markings. Some have suggested they are simply the
same patterns one would find on solid color bricks of the same era. Whatever
they are, though, this type of variant is typically found only in sellers’ notes
and not reflected in standalone BrickLink entries.
In fact, it is a peculiar thing that these entries were only for Transparent
versions of the part. We don’t really do that on BrickLink. Normally, all the
colors are placed under one entry.
|
The "frosted" appearance is caused by increased roughness of the inner
surface of the brick. During moulding, bricks can stick on the wrong half of
the mould when the mould opens and cause problems with the release of those parts.
The rough surface adds friction and helps to prevent that.
In some cases, moulds started out with a smooth surface and the inner surface
was modified during maintenance later. In other cases, moulds were made with
that rough inner surface from the start.
As far as I know, the frosting was included in the catalog only because of the
visual appearance. Smooth transparent bricks often look better.
Images:
- Two versions of 3001 brick with mould number 214-2
- Inner surface of a broken "brittle blue" brick.
Both these bricks would look "frosted" if they were transparent.
|
Aren't the "frosted lines" like on 3004f2 just internal support structures,
though?
|
Not exactly.
When you connect two bricks, the inner wall of a brick connects to the side of
a stud. When a brick clamps the studs on the brick beneath by connecting in at
least 3 places, a stable connection is formed.
The brick walls can be either "thick" or "thin".
Thick walls fill the entire distance between the side of a stud and the outside
surface of the brick.
I believe thin walls were introduced to save materials. (Possibly in response
to the oil crisis in the 1970s). The vertical ridges inside the walls make that
wall "locally thick" again, so the wall connects to the studs in those
places.
Because the thinner walls are more flexible (reducing clutch strength), these
thin walled bricks are usually designed with cross supports (increasing clutch
strength by reducing the amount of deformation of the wall). I believe the main
reason that the vertical ridges run the entire height from the top of the brick
to the bottom, is because of the moulding process. If this was not a continuous
shape, the brick would get stuck on the mould during production. They do add
some stiffness (internal support) though, helping to maintain clutch strength.
|
Ah, alright! That makes sense. That still would mean they are the same as the
"thin" wall opaque bricks, and so to be consistent, the opaque ones should
be sorted as such too...
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 12:03 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| |
Ah, alright! That makes sense. That still would mean they are the same as the
"thin" wall opaque bricks, and so to be consistent, the opaque ones should
be sorted as such too...
|
The visual difference is important for some builders, so separating them could
be a choice.
For consistency we could separate the thick and thin walled bricks, but the difference
only noticable when building using the transparent bricks. Separating them for
all colours might be to much of a burden for sellers while also most buyers would
not care.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 15:36 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| It is the same as the vertical ridges inside Duplo bricks. In this photo, you
can see how they match the position and size of the studs.
Because of their size, the Duplo bricks always have "thin" walls and
vertical ridges.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Emperor_Penguin | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 20:31 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Still love the variant changes, there's so many super-small changes in variants
that it fills the site with multiple listings with small # listings/sales that
it confuses both the buyers and sellers, with a lot of sellers mixing those variants
anyway.
The only one in the first mold-variant link posted I'm really mixed on is
the Part 3747b one, I feel like that's enough of a difference that it should
keep separate, otherwise 👍👍
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | tmtomh | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 20:53 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| |
In the inventories, there was only spotty information about which sets these
bricks are in. This is likely the main reason for the lower sales volume, because
the BrickLink inventory system drives sales for vintage parts.
|
Thank you for this follow-up post - much appreciated.
I think the above-quoted part of your post is the key issue that is not being
sufficiently considered here: as you write, "the BrickLink inventory system
drives sales for vintage parts."
You were writing about so-called frosted trans-clear bricks there. But when it
comes to other variants on the chopping block for merger, the set inventories
- which are based on the underlying BL database - are as you say the essential
source for informing and validating vintage set inventories. And that in turn
drives sales of vintage parts.
The logic of your argument for many of these mergers, then, is that once you
do the merger, that will magically make any variant of the part the "proper"
one for a vintage set, since the BL inventory will now only show the merged part.
From the point of view of BL set inventories, it will be as if the variants never
existed.
That's a strangely backwards way of "solving" the problem of the
mergers corrupting the inventories for vintage sets, and it's also a strangely
revisionist, almost "1984" way of changing vintage set inventories.
I have to agree with others who are pointing out that the correct way to accomplish
these mergers is to implement enhanced search and wantlist functionality that
allows users to select or ignore variants as they wish - not to remove existing
information from the database.
Finally, the argument that "our current database doesn't distinguish
between all the existing variants" is not a valid argument for eliminating
existing variant distinctions altogether. It's a slippery-slope argument
that can be used to justify the elimination of 100s more variants throughout
the database.
So I would respectfully urge you to address this issue by enhancing search and
wantlist functionality (which other platforms already have), instead of deleting
useful variant distinctions from the underlying database.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | DDSEnt | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 21:00 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 80 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| PHASE II
The removal of all discontinued parts regardless of mold variations as
"these entries clutter up important basic parts" for the new users.
This may sound crazy, but no more crazy to the majority of users then what is
currently planned for February 15th.
Who do the current changes benefit?
NOT the Legacy of Daniel Jesek or all of the volunteers who created the database
NOT the Lego Community: Loss of an incredible resource that is used by most of
us on a daily basis
NOT the Sellers: Except for a few who want to save time, but at what cost.
NOT the Buyer: Will make it much harder to find the parts needed. Both new and
old buyers have been navigating this system for years.
Probably NOT Admin: I would assume most are against this move and see the nightmare
ahead.
That leaves LEGO.COM: I left a lengthy post in the first thread about how and
why this might benefit LEGO.COM's revenue, but I deleted it right after posting.
I will leave this topic up to your own critical thinking.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 21:31 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 112 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, DDSEnt writes:
| | PHASE II
The removal of all discontinued parts regardless of mold variations as
"these entries clutter up important basic parts" for the new users.
This may sound crazy, but no more crazy to the majority of users then what is
currently planned for February 15th.
Who do the current changes benefit?
NOT the Legacy of Daniel Jesek or all of the volunteers who created the database
NOT the Lego Community: Loss of an incredible resource that is used by most of
us on a daily basis
NOT the Sellers: Except for a few who want to save time, but at what cost.
NOT the Buyer: Will make it much harder to find the parts needed. Both new and
old buyers have been navigating this system for years.
Probably NOT Admin: I would assume most are against this move and see the nightmare
ahead.
That leaves LEGO.COM: I left a lengthy post in the first thread about how and
why this might benefit LEGO.COM's revenue, but I deleted it right after posting.
I will leave this topic up to your own critical thinking.
|
My personal opinion is that this is all being driven by the LEGO group due to
the BDP and MOC Pop-up Store beta program. Those two programs are absolutely
essential for BrickLink to drive profit growth, and the LEGO Group obviously
wants BrickLink to make more profit. Dumbing down the catalog makes it fundamentally
easier to support these two programs, because those two programs lean _exclusively_
or _heavily_ on modern parts that are currently in production or can be obtained
through their own PaB site. Thus, the LEGO Group wants to drive more business
to the products it is currently making and _not_ the vintage, second-hand market.
It actually makes perfect sense from a business standpoint, and many of us knew
this was coming when the LEGO group originally bought BrickLink. A true fan-based
community based around a product needs to be mutually exclusive from the company
that makes the product, and BrickLink is unfortunately no longer that place.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 04:37 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | |
My personal opinion is that this is all being driven by the LEGO group due to
the BDP and MOC Pop-up Store beta program. Those two programs are absolutely
essential for BrickLink to drive profit growth, and the LEGO Group obviously
wants BrickLink to make more profit. Dumbing down the catalog makes it fundamentally
easier to support these two programs, because those two programs lean _exclusively_
or _heavily_ on modern parts that are currently in production or can be obtained
through their own PaB site. Thus, the LEGO Group wants to drive more business
to the products it is currently making and _not_ the vintage, second-hand market.
|
The same goes for the modern second hand market for new parts. Although PAB is
also starting to undermine their own set sales too. So many people these days
are just buying (unlicensed) minifigs direct and not buying the sets they come
in.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | DDSEnt | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 09:01 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Yes, I believe it is this and more, but all to the same purpose. Thank you for
your contribution
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | sampo | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 22:22 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 78 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I'm sure that this has been said here before, but REPEAT is sometimes the
only that can do and hope that somebody would listen.
PLEASE: If this kind of merging of variants is neccessary, just make toggle buttons
people and stores if they want or not want to use this kind of merging of variants.
It's after all relatively simple and short amount of code.
If done like planned now, this will be nightmare for collectors and often very
serious problem for (moc) builders for many reasons mentioned many times for
sure on previous replies in this or earlier thread.
If things go like this, I can only hope that somebody will "re-launch"
new bricklink that will slowly (maybe taking decades) collectively build again
place that can appreciate the variants and history of bricks. (I'm pretty
sure that if gives devil the finger, it will take the whole hand: i.e. for example
soon all different thin/thinc o/u clips are merged as well as cones with or without
grooves, and it wont stop until this site is totally useless for many, maybe
majority, of us.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello again everyone,
My initial post on this subject earlier this month has garnered almost 700 replies,
which is right about the level of the BrickArms threads a few years ago.
A New Thread
So I'm starting a new thread with some new information, and hopefully a few
links that will help you navigate through this complex discussion topic.
Here is the original post:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1447090
Here are three Help topics:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2629
Here is a list of my replies on this subject:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageList.asp?overTP=Y&q=variants&qS=Y&msgID=&uName=admin_russell&ID=&status=&v=c&max=50
If you don't wish to read all 700 replies in the previous thread, you can
at least look through some of these for answers to most of the questions that
have been raised.
************************************
The Responses
We sent an email out to all active sellers a couple days ago and we expected
a flood of responses in the Forum. As much as it may seem to be an overwhelming
response, we do appreciate all the members who have posted and shared their feelings
about this project. Keep them coming.
So far I have seen two YouTube videos addressing this issue, and I'll post
in this new thread to respond directly (and completely) to what they are saying.
I will be answering directly several of the more detailed replies over the next
day or two in an effort to clear up any misunderstandings.
************************************
The Research
The following is an example of the some of the research that has been done to
help determine the course of action we are taking.
When it comes to Frosted Bricks, we took a look at the price guide, the inventories
that contained these special bricks, and we studied the nature of the bricks,
at least as far as we could.
What we found was that bricks listed under the normal (umbrella) entries sold
on average for over twice the price, and the volume of sales was 17 times of
bricks listed under the frosted entries. In addition, sellers listing under the
main entries didn’t have to spend the time sorting out their parts. So from a
marketplace standpoint, these frosted entries are simply an inefficiency (see
image below).
In the inventories, there was only spotty information about which sets these
bricks are in. This is likely the main reason for the lower sales volume, because
the BrickLink inventory system drives sales for vintage parts. We started adding
frosted entries to the catalog over 20 years ago, but they are only reflected
in 24 inventories to date.
When it comes to the bricks themselves, there were actually more variants than
what are currently shown on BrickLink. And we’ve never been able to settle on
a reason for these peculiar markings. Some have suggested they are simply the
same patterns one would find on solid color bricks of the same era. Whatever
they are, though, this type of variant is typically found only in sellers’ notes
and not reflected in standalone BrickLink entries.
In fact, it is a peculiar thing that these entries were only for Transparent
versions of the part. We don’t really do that on BrickLink. Normally, all the
colors are placed under one entry.
But perhaps the best reason for removing these entries is the lack of a real
use case for any of our members. For new users, these entries clutter up important
basic parts categories, and if they end up on a wanted list, they can certainly
cause problems.
For the seller who wants to fill out vintage sets, these entries do not solve
their need completely, because there are serious color matching issues with older
transparent parts. It is not “plug and play” with these variants, and truth be
told, it would be easier to obtain the necessary selection of parts by using
the main entries.
For the hard core collector looking for information, BrickLink has very little
to offer in the case of the frosted bricks. We don’t need separate entries to
add representative photos and comparison images of variants, and we were likely
to never complete the “collection” of these entries due to the large number of
different patterns.
In order to preserve what knowledge we have, we plan to release new Help pages
for certain variants covered in this project. Stay tuned.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | leopard37 | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 23:51 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | If things go like this, I can only hope that somebody will "re-launch"
new bricklink that will slowly (maybe taking decades) collectively build again
place that can appreciate the variants and history of bricks.
|
This place already exists and has most major sellers present there with their
same inventory already. Do some web searches.
Tyson.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 23:55 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 83 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, sampo writes:
| | If things go like this, I can only hope that somebody will "re-launch"
new bricklink that will slowly (maybe taking decades) collectively build again
place that can appreciate the variants and history of bricks.
|
This is absolutely the only way forward. It will just have to be done correctly
this time.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | dsimpsonugcs | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 04:47 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | We sent an email out to all active sellers a couple days ago and we expected
a flood of responses in the Forum. As much as it may seem to be an overwhelming
response, we do appreciate all the members who have posted and shared their feelings
about this project. Keep them coming.
|
You do realize this proposed change affects not only sellers, but buyers and
catalog browsers as well. What attempts have been made to contact other affected
users and solicit their feedback? Did you even consider emailing users with
affected items in their wanted lists? That's still not everyone affected,
but it is an entire category of users that you so far couldn't even be bothered
to let know of an important proposed change that directly affects them. They
might have something to say and many likely have no idea this change is even
a possibility. I'm only here because I saw a random comment in a Brickset
post and wondered what it was about.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | dsimpsonugcs | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 06:04 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | The Research
The following is an example of the some of the research that has been done to
help determine the course of action we are taking.
When it comes to Frosted Bricks, we took a look at the price guide, the inventories
that contained these special bricks, and we studied the nature of the bricks,
at least as far as we could.
What we found was that bricks listed under the normal (umbrella) entries sold
on average for over twice the price, and the volume of sales was 17 times of
bricks listed under the frosted entries. In addition, sellers listing under the
main entries didn’t have to spend the time sorting out their parts. So from a
marketplace standpoint, these frosted entries are simply an inefficiency (see
image below).
|
There are some clear errors in your research data. You are counting the sales
of the standard variants of the bricks multiple times. For instance, there are
three frosted variants of 3005. For each of those variants you attribute 3911
sales of the standard variant. You should count the sales of each standard variant
only once, but in your spreadsheet, you do it three times. The total sales of
the standard variants should be 20184, not 38150. The ratio of sales is actually
closer to 9:1, not 17:1.
In any case, I wouldn't agree with your analysis that this disparity in sales
volumes merely shows an inefficiency. If we look at 3005 again, the frosted
variants have a total sale of 212 vs. 3911 for the standard. Thats 1:18.45.
Now compare that to the number of sets frosted vs. standard appear in. Standard
is in, coincidently, 212 sets. Frosted in 1. 1:212. To me that says, sales
of frosted bricks are actually quite robust as they outpunch their expected sales
by 11.5x. (I do realize that set appearance count may be a bad proxy, but it's
the only data I have to look at). Heck, frosted 3010 outsell their standard
counterpart (501 vs 480).
As a practical matter, I don't actually like the frosted variants. If I
ordered a large lot of clear bricks, I'd be upset to find some of them are
frosted. Your proposed change would allow -- actually encourage -- that
to happen. Today, frosted variants get culled out and sold separately. Like
they should be.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | dsimpsonugcs | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2024 04:08 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 69 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, dsimpsonugcs writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | The Research
The following is an example of the some of the research that has been done to
help determine the course of action we are taking.
When it comes to Frosted Bricks, we took a look at the price guide, the inventories
that contained these special bricks, and we studied the nature of the bricks,
at least as far as we could.
What we found was that bricks listed under the normal (umbrella) entries sold
on average for over twice the price, and the volume of sales was 17 times of
bricks listed under the frosted entries. In addition, sellers listing under the
main entries didn’t have to spend the time sorting out their parts. So from a
marketplace standpoint, these frosted entries are simply an inefficiency (see
image below).
|
There are some clear errors in your research data. You are counting the sales
of the standard variants of the bricks multiple times. For instance, there are
three frosted variants of 3005. For each of those variants you attribute 3911
sales of the standard variant. You should count the sales of each standard variant
only once, but in your spreadsheet, you do it three times. The total sales of
the standard variants should be 20184, not 38150. The ratio of sales is actually
closer to 9:1, not 17:1.
|
TL;DR Definite errors in data presented by BL admin, likely much of the data
is bad too. Conclusions can't be trusted.
I may have misunderstood the comparison of sales of parts in the variant listings
vs. those in the standard listing. Are sales in the standard listing limited
to only those with descriptions of "frosted" or some such? If not, what
exactly was counted? And if so, what exactly was searched for when collecting
the data?
I ask because if the search was just "frosted" then I suspect you are
overcounting quite substantially as you are counting different types of fruit.
Old transparent parts become less transparent over time and as such are described
as "frosted." These are properly listed in the standard listing as they
aren't variants. They are standard bricks with age related quality issues.
Variants are different due to manufacturing. A new one would look different
than a new standard brick. I searched some of the standard types for "frosted"
descriptions. Some of them are indeed for a variant (e.g. "frosted with
vertical lines" ), but most were not. Others were for mixed lots where there's
no way to know how many deviants might be included. Are the ones that aren't
actually variants being counted? They shouldn't be, but I suspect all of
these are being counted. Can you please clarify the criteria for inclusion in
the counts?
The counts were already way off due to the incorrect double and triple counting
of sales from the standard listings I previously mentioned, but if the above
is also true, then they are much further off.
Also, taking the average of the price ratios is an incorrect operation. You
can't take the average (arithmetic mean) of ratios. You have to take the
geomean. Quick math example! The inverse of a ratio of 4:1 (4) is 1:4 (0.25).
Logically the "average" of 4:1 and 1:4 should be 1 (geomean of 4 and
0.25), not 2.125 (arithmetic mean of 4 and 0.25). Please use the geomean as
the average you posted (2.12) is wrong and misleading. FYI, the geomean of the
provided data is 1.47. However, if the counts are wrong, that means the average
prices are also wrong, and thus the ratios, and finally the geomean are wrong
as well. Garbage in, garbage out.
The research you've done and the data you've collected is being used
to make decisions, or at least provide evidence those decisions are based on
something real. The data, at least in this case, are highly suspect. The analysis
of that data definitely has errors. If you collected similar data for the other
proposed changes, I would guess they contain similar errors. It is improper
to draw conclusions given the current bad state of the data and its analysis.
Are you going to go back, correct the errors, and better validate the data?
For those more visually inclined here are known errors in the given data set
highlighted in red:
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StarBrick | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2024 07:55 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | Thanks for pointing to the stastical errors in the listings..... |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2024 21:43 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 140 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, dsimpsonugcs writes:
| | | | There are some clear errors in your research data. You are counting the sales
of the standard variants of the bricks multiple times. For instance, there are
three frosted variants of 3005. For each of those variants you attribute 3911
sales of the standard variant. You should count the sales of each standard variant
only once, but in your spreadsheet, you do it three times. The total sales of
the standard variants should be 20184, not 38150. The ratio of sales is actually
closer to 9:1, not 17:1.
|
|
Ok, let's dive in.
| | TL;DR Definite errors in data presented by BL admin, likely much of the data
is bad too. Conclusions can't be trusted.
|
All of the data in my chart comes from the publicly available 6-month price guide.
You are welcome to use this data to produce your own statistics. I would be curious
to see if you come to any different overall conclusions about frosted bricks
as a result.
| | I may have misunderstood the comparison of sales of parts in the variant listings
vs. those in the standard listing. Are sales in the standard listing limited
to only those with descriptions of "frosted" or some such? If not, what
exactly was counted? And if so, what exactly was searched for when collecting
the data?
|
My chart is a comparison between the data in all frosted entries and the data
in the standard entries (e.g. Item No. 3010). Because the frosted bricks are
a subset of regular bricks, we are basically seeing how they fare on their own
vs. mixed together will regular bricks. Keep in mind that for some of these cases,
there is no "regular" version - or another way of saying it is, the regular
version and the frosted version are the same thing.
Because this is publicly available data, I did not search sellers' notes.
One of the drawbacks of our price guide is that value can change drastically
depending on what a seller types into that field. Some of the ones sold for a
penny, for example, could have been filler (junk) bricks, but the data is mixed
in with the rest.
| | I ask because if the search was just "frosted" then I suspect you are
overcounting quite substantially as you are counting different types of fruit.
Old transparent parts become less transparent over time and as such are described
as "frosted." These are properly listed in the standard listing as they
aren't variants. They are standard bricks with age related quality issues.
Variants are different due to manufacturing. A new one would look different
than a new standard brick. I searched some of the standard types for "frosted"
descriptions. Some of them are indeed for a variant (e.g. "frosted with
vertical lines" ), but most were not. Others were for mixed lots where there's
no way to know how many deviants might be included. Are the ones that aren't
actually variants being counted? They shouldn't be, but I suspect all of
these are being counted. Can you please clarify the criteria for inclusion in
the counts?
|
Everything is counted. It's a comparison between what gets sold under one
class of entries (frosted) vs. what gets sold under another class of entries
(regular/undetermined), and then of course filtered by the Transparent-Clear
color and "Used" as a condition. I also used the regular average, not
the quantity average.
| | The counts were already way off due to the incorrect double and triple counting
of sales from the standard listings I previously mentioned, but if the above
is also true, then they are much further off.
|
If you take a look at the data, you will see I divided the real numbers by 2
or 3 depending on how many variants will merge to a single regular entry. So
for the 3010, there are 3 frosted entries which map to a single regular entry.
The number of total used sales as of today is 1481 (see first image below), divided
by 3 is 494, a little higher than the 480 from the other day that you see in
my chart. Maybe the extra attention has motivated people to buy them!
| | Also, taking the average of the price ratios is an incorrect operation. You
can't take the average (arithmetic mean) of ratios. You have to take the
geomean. Quick math example! The inverse of a ratio of 4:1 (4) is 1:4 (0.25).
Logically the "average" of 4:1 and 1:4 should be 1 (geomean of 4 and
0.25), not 2.125 (arithmetic mean of 4 and 0.25). Please use the geomean as
the average you posted (2.12) is wrong and misleading. FYI, the geomean of the
provided data is 1.47. However, if the counts are wrong, that means the average
prices are also wrong, and thus the ratios, and finally the geomean are wrong
as well. Garbage in, garbage out.
|
2.12 is indeed the correct average of those numbers. I will concede that the
geometric mean is better at handling ratios and outliers in general (of which
there are several in this data that I did not remove), but the arithmetic mean
is calculated correctly.
And I calculated the geometric mean to be 1.47, which is the same figure you
have. It still proves the point that the prices are better under the standard
entries.
However, a much truer comparison can be shown by taking the entire sales volume
of both entry types and dividing them by the number of items sold. This will
give you the average price per part in each section, which by a quick estimate
(not getting today's data or using the quantity average prices) shows $0.10
per brick under the frosted entries and $0.12 per brick under the regular entries
(see second image below).
This is still an improvement, and together with the sales volume, it still shows
that it would be better for selling if everyone listed under the regular entries.
| | The research you've done and the data you've collected is being used
to make decisions, or at least provide evidence those decisions are based on
something real. The data, at least in this case, are highly suspect. The analysis
of that data definitely has errors. If you collected similar data for the other
proposed changes, I would guess they contain similar errors. It is improper
to draw conclusions given the current bad state of the data and its analysis.
Are you going to go back, correct the errors, and better validate the data?
|
Like I mentioned above, the public data is there for anyone to use. I would welcome
any differing research, especially when it comes to conclusions that can be drawn
as a result.
By the way, data used to make decisions internally is pulled internally and represents
a much truer and broader picture, although with the BrickLink price guide, it
really is only a guide because of all the irregularities it has to account for.
There are different taxes (some are included and some not), there are canceled
orders, problem orders, and variability due to notes. Like the inventory system,
the price guide is meant to be an indicator, not scientific proof. But it's
what we have, so we use it with a grain of salt.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | dsimpsonugcs | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 04:48 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, dsimpsonugcs writes:
All of the data in my chart comes from the publicly available 6-month price guide.
You are welcome to use this data to produce your own statistics. I would be curious
to see if you come to any different overall conclusions about frosted bricks
as a result.
|
I see our posts have unfortunately crossed as I just posted another one with
my own data! I do appreciate you've taken the time to reply here though.
As I state in the other post, I did eventually realize your data source was the
price guide. I do wish you had stated that up front, but water under the bridge
at this point. Sorry for my misunderstandings in any case.
| | Keep in mind that for some of these cases,
there is no "regular" version - or another way of saying it is, the regular
version and the frosted version are the same thing.
|
Which of these is that true for? My reading of the catalog names is that the
main variant isn't frosted at all, while the variants each come slightly
or entirely frosted in different ways. That's been my experience with seeing
and using these bricks as well. If there are indeed variants visually the same
as the main brick, I could certainly get behind their merger.
| | 2.12 is indeed the correct average of those numbers. I will concede that the
geometric mean is better at handling ratios and outliers in general (of which
there are several in this data that I did not remove), but the arithmetic mean
is calculated correctly.
|
I never said you calculated the average incorrectly, only that it is incorrect
in this case to use it. I don't think you fully understand the difference.
Ratios do not have a linear relationship. They have a geometric one. It isn't
"better" to use the geomean. It is absolutely necessary to do so, mathematically
speaking. To be fair, I've seen this mistake made countless times, so please
use this as a learning experience.
Here's a simple example of why using the average is wrong and can be used
to mislead:
Part 1 has a frosted price of $0.20 and a main variant price of $0.80.
Part 2 has a frosted price of $0.60 and a main variant price of $0.15.
(See below for the spreadsheet as I can't get the formatting to work here)
First, let's compare the main variant prices against the frosted (m:f) and
take the average.
Conclusion: Main parts sell at an average price 2.13x of frosted parts!
Now let's use the same data, but instead compare the frosted variant price
against the main (f:m) and calculate the average.
Conclusion: Frosted parts sell at an average price 2.13x of main parts!
Same data, exactly opposite conclusions. You CAN NOT use the arithmetic mean
with geometric data and get useable information.
| | And I calculated the geometric mean to be 1.47, which is the same figure you
have. It still proves the point that the prices are better under the standard
entries.
|
It does indeed show the prices to be higher in that set of data. It is however
highly misleading as the figure itself can fluctuate wildly based only upon a
small amount of data, which itself is highly volatile due to the high variability
of BL prices.
The 1.47 value has already come down to 1.29 with today's data based almost
entirely on a recent sale of two 3037f for $0.17 each. I also think it is better
to use quantity average price as it accurately represents the average of prices
paid across all pieces. I'm not sure why you chose the lot average price.
That brings the value down to 1.21 using today's data. Now, if someone
were to happen to buy two 3008f1 for $3.07 (this is a real listing), that would
further reduce the value to 1.08. Those are huge movements based on very little
change. To be perfectly blunt, you should not be making decisions based upon
results that can change drastically because of the purchasing whims of only a
very few users.
Oh. I just added all of the sales data for colors other than trans-clear. That
brings the geomean from 1.21 down to 0.98. You're below 1.00 with the complete
data.
| | This is still an improvement
|
Not anymore.
| | and together with the sales volume, it still shows
that it would be better for selling if everyone listed under the regular entries.
|
It does not. Even if the data set was large enough to give stable results and
those results showed a clear price differentiation, it still really only says
that slightly different items have different prices. It says nothing about what
would happen to pricing if suddenly those item types were merged. You are reading
more into the data than is there. Data is cold and uncaring. You need to respect
them as such.
I pulled down all of the last 6 months of used sales data for type 3004 parts.
(Since you're here, there is data older than 6 months hanging around on
the price guide. For example, under used trans-clear for 3004 there is some
data from March 2023, May 2022, Nov 2019, etc. What's up with that?). Average
lot price is $0.1478. Standard deviation is $0.2811. Wow! Prices are highly
varied. I expected that given pricing is highly dependent on external factors
unrelated to the underlying parts themselves, such as shipping and regional availability.
For 3004f1, the average lot price is $0.0751 and the standard deviation is $0.0403.
The price difference may in fact be real here, but 100% of all f1 (and f2) variants
are comfortably within the standard deviation of the main 3004 parts. In other
words, if the frosted variants were instead sold as main variants, there would
be no surprise if they sold at their exact same price that they sold at as frosted
variants, statistically speaking. Interestingly, 3004f1 has a much more stable
price point than main 3004. I don't know why that is.
Now, I don't actually believe you can entirely compare pricing of 3004 and
3004f1 (and other variants). While they are nearly similar, at the end of the
day, they are still different parts. As such, they have different demands and
ultimately different pricing. It could be that any lower prices which may exist
for frosted variants is simply because buyers value them less.
Let's look at the two cases that would happen when entries are merged.
In the first, lots are moved from the frosted entry to the main entry and a comment
is added describing them as such. Why would you expect prices to go up? There
is no magical mechanism at work here to push prices up. These are the same pieces,
described (hopefully) the same, but in a different place. It stands to reason
they would retain the same pricing. They were previously differentiated by catalog
entry. They would remain differentiated by description. Pricing will remain
different as well.
In the second case, frosted lots are combined with main variant lots, or new
lots are created that haven't been sorted and are thus mixed. What happens
to pricing? In the short term, probably not much as it takes time for the market
to adapt. Sellers would make a bit more money from their frosted parts now mixed
in with main variants. Long term, it stands to reason prices would be slightly
depressed (all else being equal). Why? Because, if as you say, the data does
indeed show frosted parts go for a lower price, then mixed lots will eventually
reflect that they contain parts that are valued less. I'll tell you this
though, even if you're right and prices of frosted pieces do go up, there
is no way you'll ever be able to measure that. BL has no data on the composition
of mixed lots, and even if you did, it would be impossible to isolate the effect
you're looking for from everything else that affects price, like inflation,
other reasons for picking a particular seller, etc.
In actuality, you may find the price go down for mixed lots for the simple reason
they are mixed. These pieces do look different, even if subtly so. Lots entirely
of one type or another (as they are today) could go for the same prices as today,
while mixed lots go for less as overall, I expect them to be less desirable on
the whole. Sure, most probably won't care, but some will. Less is still
less. There's a real probability, this proposed merge will depress prices
overall.
As I stated in my other post, even if everything you say about the upside is
true, it only comes out to about $0.50/day for all sellers. I'll happily
pay that $0.50/day for the next year if instead of going forward with these proposed
merges the BL team commits and starts work on design and implementation of the
check mark system for variants. I'd also happily provide feedback or suggestions
on such a feature.
| | Like I mentioned above, the public data is there for anyone to use. I would welcome
any differing research, especially when it comes to conclusions that can be drawn
as a result.
|
I appreciate that chance and as you can see, I've taken it. I do hope you
take seriously my additions, corrections, and further analysis of the sales data
you originally put together. It really doesn't backup any of the purported
benefits of the proposed merge as you originally claimed, or at least it would
be irresponsible to claim that it did. Nor does it show there would be negative
consequences. I, as well others, have previously expressed our concerns (This
is an UX issue, not an issue with too much information).
| | By the way, data used to make decisions internally is pulled internally and represents
a much truer and broader picture, although with the BrickLink price guide, it
really is only a guide because of all the irregularities it has to account for.
There are different taxes (some are included and some not), there are canceled
orders, problem orders, and variability due to notes. Like the inventory system,
the price guide is meant to be an indicator, not scientific proof. But it's
what we have, so we use it with a grain of salt.
|
Understood and is how I've always approached data with unknown provenance.
Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 08:44 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, dsimpsonugcs writes:
| | […]
Which of these is that true for? My reading of the catalog names is that the
main variant isn't frosted at all, while the variants each come slightly
or entirely frosted in different ways. That's been my experience with seeing
and using these bricks as well. If there are indeed variants visually the same
as the main brick, I could certainly get behind their merger.
|
Well, that’s the crux of the problem: Is “slightly different” different enough?
Is the difference intentional (unlike 4070’s slot)? How far is splitting manageable
/ useful?
In the long list of unrecognized variants (https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRelList.asp?relID=24
), plate 1x1 and brick 1x1 are missing and all the plates/bricks are only remarking
on the differences to the underside. But there’s the (ugly) PIP mark on the
side of older plates/bricks.
Should these differences be added? Should the entries be split?
Completists would say yes.
But, from comments here and in other threads, even 3001 collectors seem okay
with lumping all the 3001old together and using comments to find / sell them
while you can go up to, what?, 30 or 40 different variants just for 3001old?
So, effectively, it’s the whole question here: Are these entries on the wrong
side of the line in the sand? Was it an error to split them and should that
be corrected? Did splitting create an artificial difference? How can we determine
all that?
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | the.yet | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 12:58 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| The focus on streamlining the site, since it was acquired by the LEGO group I
find troubling. I do understand attempting to make site easier for sellers to
use; however, as an example demonstrated in YouTube video by R.R. Slugger 'There's
a BAD Bricklick Update Coming...' there seems to be no feedback from buyers.
As brought up in R.R. Slugger's video, as LEGO has changed and updated LEGO
pieces over the years, this action will interfere with collectors properly parting
out classic out of print sets. The Bricklick administration should look to a
better update plan.
I have give feedback at various times since I created my account, with Bricklink
and Stud.io, and I always have stated the catalogs should include all LEGO parts,
current and out of production. This announcement from Bricklink, make me wonder
why they ask for feedback when they do not seem to listen to buyers and collectors.
Sellers, do add value to the site, yet as R.R. Slugger stated, 'there are
many place to buy LEGO online' removing the added value of the accumulated
information of the site, will reduce the value of the site as well. The community
accumulated information, that was already gathered when the LEGO group acquired
Bricklink, should not be so easily thrown away.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 13:30 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 80 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, the.yet writes:
| | The focus on streamlining the site, since it was acquired by the LEGO group I
find troubling. I do understand attempting to make site easier for sellers to
use; however, as an example demonstrated in YouTube video by R.R. Slugger 'There's
a BAD Bricklick Update Coming...' there seems to be no feedback from buyers.
As brought up in R.R. Slugger's video, as LEGO has changed and updated LEGO
pieces over the years, this action will interfere with collectors properly parting
out classic out of print sets. The Bricklick administration should look to a
better update plan.
|
You seem to be one of his followers and so presumably believe everything he says.
But. Not everything he says is correct. His video contained a lot of speculation,
misunderstandings about parts, and other errors. Same of the points are valid
but, for me, they get lost in the basic inaccuracies. Whereas for his disciples,
no doubt the inaccuracies go unnoticed.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 16:36 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | You seem to be one of his followers and so presumably believe everything he says.
But. Not everything he says is correct. His video contained a lot of speculation,
misunderstandings about parts, and other errors. Same of the points are valid
but, for me, they get lost in the basic inaccuracies. Whereas for his disciples,
no doubt the inaccuracies go unnoticed.
|
I do not know what your beef with R.R. Slugger is but unless you are for this
change wouldn't the sentiment of his video take priority over he interpreted
one sentance wrong. His example is actually really easily adaptable to say smooth
sloopes vs textured slopes. It seems to me like you are just throwing rocks in
glasshouses right now.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 16:57 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Tarkur writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | You seem to be one of his followers and so presumably believe everything he says.
But. Not everything he says is correct. His video contained a lot of speculation,
misunderstandings about parts, and other errors. Same of the points are valid
but, for me, they get lost in the basic inaccuracies. Whereas for his disciples,
no doubt the inaccuracies go unnoticed.
|
I do not know what your beef with R.R. Slugger is but unless you are for this
change wouldn't the sentiment of his video take priority over he interpreted
one sentance wrong. His example is actually really easily adaptable to say smooth
sloopes vs textured slopes. It seems to me like you are just throwing rocks in
glasshouses right now.
|
Someone getting something really quite basic wrong doesn't give much confidence
that they know what they are talking about.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 17:01 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Someone getting something really quite basic wrong doesn't give much confidence
that they know what they are talking about.
|
Maybe, check out the rest of his content and reassess your stance. This Slugger
does his homework. I don't agree with him on everything he says but I have
to give it to him he does his research.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 17:08 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Tarkur writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Someone getting something really quite basic wrong doesn't give much confidence
that they know what they are talking about.
|
Maybe, check out the rest of his content and reassess your stance. This Slugger
does his homework. I don't agree with him on everything he says but I have
to give it to him he does his research.
|
Why should I? I've seen one, and he made really basic errors, and clearly
not researched it first. I prefer to watch more knowledgeable people that know
what they are talking about.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 17:31 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Why should I? I've seen one, and he made really basic errors, and clearly
not researched it first. I prefer to watch more knowledgeable people that know
what they are talking about.
|
Because slander is generally frowned upon in most cultures. No but seriously
might want to check out a video or two by him outside the one about the bricklink
update to provide a more nuanced opinon of his character. Not all youtubers are
Mandr
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 17:41 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Tarkur writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Why should I? I've seen one, and he made really basic errors, and clearly
not researched it first. I prefer to watch more knowledgeable people that know
what they are talking about.
|
Because slander is generally frowned upon in most cultures. No but seriously
might want to check out a video or two by him outside the one about the bricklink
update to provide a more nuanced opinon of his character. Not all youtubers are
Mandr
|
What slander? He doesn't know that the two hinges have the same range of
angles. He states they have different functionality. Proof is in the video. A
few minutes of research would have avoided that error. He doesn't understand
what is happening with tiles. It was already clarified in the original thread,
way before the video was made.
Videos like that could be useful if they are well researched and reasoned. But
making silly mistakes means they are easy to dismiss, both by viewers and bricklink
staff. Putting out incorrect statements misleads his viewers, especiallyif the
believe and trust everything he says.
And first opinions matter.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 17:44 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| First opinion/impressions is a poor judge of character and generally the basis
of slander as your opinion is founded in an idea rather than the reality. Maybe
this is why the world looks like it does today. We don't care about changing
our stand points even if they have foundations of sand
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | The_Boyz_Bricks | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 13:08 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello again everyone,
My initial post on this subject earlier this month has garnered almost 700 replies,
which is right about the level of the BrickArms threads a few years ago.
A New Thread
So I'm starting a new thread with some new information, and hopefully a few
links that will help you navigate through this complex discussion topic.
Here is the original post:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1447090
Here are three Help topics:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2629
Here is a list of my replies on this subject:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageList.asp?overTP=Y&q=variants&qS=Y&msgID=&uName=admin_russell&ID=&status=&v=c&max=50
If you don't wish to read all 700 replies in the previous thread, you can
at least look through some of these for answers to most of the questions that
have been raised.
************************************
The Responses
We sent an email out to all active sellers a couple days ago and we expected
a flood of responses in the Forum. As much as it may seem to be an overwhelming
response, we do appreciate all the members who have posted and shared their feelings
about this project. Keep them coming.
So far I have seen two YouTube videos addressing this issue, and I'll post
in this new thread to respond directly (and completely) to what they are saying.
I will be answering directly several of the more detailed replies over the next
day or two in an effort to clear up any misunderstandings.
************************************
The Research
The following is an example of the some of the research that has been done to
help determine the course of action we are taking.
When it comes to Frosted Bricks, we took a look at the price guide, the inventories
that contained these special bricks, and we studied the nature of the bricks,
at least as far as we could.
What we found was that bricks listed under the normal (umbrella) entries sold
on average for over twice the price, and the volume of sales was 17 times of
bricks listed under the frosted entries. In addition, sellers listing under the
main entries didn’t have to spend the time sorting out their parts. So from a
marketplace standpoint, these frosted entries are simply an inefficiency (see
image below).
In the inventories, there was only spotty information about which sets these
bricks are in. This is likely the main reason for the lower sales volume, because
the BrickLink inventory system drives sales for vintage parts. We started adding
frosted entries to the catalog over 20 years ago, but they are only reflected
in 24 inventories to date.
When it comes to the bricks themselves, there were actually more variants than
what are currently shown on BrickLink. And we’ve never been able to settle on
a reason for these peculiar markings. Some have suggested they are simply the
same patterns one would find on solid color bricks of the same era. Whatever
they are, though, this type of variant is typically found only in sellers’ notes
and not reflected in standalone BrickLink entries.
In fact, it is a peculiar thing that these entries were only for Transparent
versions of the part. We don’t really do that on BrickLink. Normally, all the
colors are placed under one entry.
But perhaps the best reason for removing these entries is the lack of a real
use case for any of our members. For new users, these entries clutter up important
basic parts categories, and if they end up on a wanted list, they can certainly
cause problems.
For the seller who wants to fill out vintage sets, these entries do not solve
their need completely, because there are serious color matching issues with older
transparent parts. It is not “plug and play” with these variants, and truth be
told, it would be easier to obtain the necessary selection of parts by using
the main entries.
For the hard core collector looking for information, BrickLink has very little
to offer in the case of the frosted bricks. We don’t need separate entries to
add representative photos and comparison images of variants, and we were likely
to never complete the “collection” of these entries due to the large number of
different patterns.
In order to preserve what knowledge we have, we plan to release new Help pages
for certain variants covered in this project. Stay tuned.
|
Will these variants be marked for deletion or be removed from the catalog completely?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 13:15 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Will these variants be marked for deletion or be removed from the catalog completely?
|
Since they will be merged there won’t be anything to mark for deletion presumably
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | The_Boyz_Bricks | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 14:20 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | | | Will these variants be marked for deletion or be removed from the catalog completely?
|
Since they will be merged there won’t be anything to mark for deletion presumably
|
Ok, so how do I edit my inventory to fit these changes?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 14:22 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, The_Boyz_Bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | | | Will these variants be marked for deletion or be removed from the catalog completely?
|
Since they will be merged there won’t be anything to mark for deletion presumably
|
Ok, so how do I edit my inventory to fit these changes?
|
this is a page sylvian made
http://slswww.free.fr/bl_changes_feb24.html
of all the changes if you want to add notes. if not then just wait till the merge
is done select the non-unique items checkbox and then consolidate your lots after
the merge
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | The_Boyz_Bricks | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 14:28 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, The_Boyz_Bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | | | Will these variants be marked for deletion or be removed from the catalog completely?
|
Since they will be merged there won’t be anything to mark for deletion presumably
|
Ok, so how do I edit my inventory to fit these changes?
|
this is a page sylvian made
http://slswww.free.fr/bl_changes_feb24.html
of all the changes if you want to add notes. if not then just wait till the merge
is done select the non-unique items checkbox and then consolidate your lots after
the merge
|
Ok, thanks so much!
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | zorbanj | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 15:45 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| This is what I did:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1450598
In Catalog, The_Boyz_Bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | | | Will these variants be marked for deletion or be removed from the catalog completely?
|
Since they will be merged there won’t be anything to mark for deletion presumably
|
Ok, so how do I edit my inventory to fit these changes?
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | DeLuca | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 13:25 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I am not sure that there is anything I can say that has not already been said;
merging significant part variants makes the Catalog more confusing and less comprehensive
(and will inevitably lead to unpleasant buying/selling experiences). It also
feels like the beginning of the end for BrickLink as a useful database of LEGO
element history.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | j1t1 | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 14:26 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I am in agreement that the pieces should be kept separate to ensure that there
is accuracy and consistency within the website. Without these distinctions, some
older parts could leave customers dissatisfied or confused when their part is
not as anticipated, or have a variety of different parts of the same "design"
which could lead to unnecessary questions as to why there is a difference in
the first place.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 16:54 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, j1t1 writes:
| | I am in agreement that the pieces should be kept separate to ensure that there
is accuracy and consistency within the website. Without these distinctions, some
older parts could leave customers dissatisfied or confused when their part is
not as anticipated, or have a variety of different parts of the same "design"
which could lead to unnecessary questions as to why there is a difference in
the first place.
|
Sorry but why don't you post with your main account on BrickLink?
Or you're here for 4 years, never made any transaction, and complain
on BrickLink that selling on eBay will be more difficult?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 16:59 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | Or you're here for 4 years, never made any transaction, and complain
on BrickLink that selling on eBay will be more difficult?
|
Maybe, they use bricklink for other purposes than buying or selling. The wealth
of knowledge stored in the catalog mayhaps? the very one this update will undermine.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 16:51 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I can't for the life of me understand how this clarifies or adresses any
of the concerns from the last thread unless you've just chery-picked examples
from those who already agree with you. Your stubborness and adamant nature about
needing to make this change is also giving way very weird vibes(Forgive my gen
z slang). Perhaps this is an executive decision you job depends on? Don't
know, want feedback that actually address everyones concerns. Just not a subsection
of a subsection of the entirety of the community
I'm all against this change and my position has not changed. Bricklink may
not be complete but its the best we got so why ruin a good thing?
How much longer until the Technic ball socket connectors used in all major constraction
sets from the late 90s and early 2010s are merged? They may all be functionally
identical but man they aren't equal in mold or part quality. Merging any
variants at all feels like a slippery slope of well we got away with it once
let's do it again until any part only have a listing each and that is for
its latest counterpart. Sounds like a nightmare having to manage all orders that
have even the slightest of problems.
//Tarkur
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 17:26 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Just thought of some extra speculative questions regarding this update.
1. So models in future designer programs will not be allowed to use any of the
following variants you are removing? So for example someone uses part 30389b
or 30389c with an axel through it for structural integrity of the model. Will
Bricklink in this case police them to remove this at the cost of stability or
the models apperance?
2. Will we see more updates of this type in the future? depending on the answer
bricklink may lose users in the future.
3. Will this diminish buyers ability to report issues with their orders in cases
where the seller didn't use the notes feature on a merged item?
5. How will this update affect buyers wanted lists? Will items in those lists
be merged or just deleted? Will buyers get a notice for changing their wanted
lists?
6. What will happen to colors of parts that only exist for one variant?
7. Are you going to remove variants within stud.io as well after this change?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 18:36 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 138 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, Tarkur writes:
| | Just thought of some extra speculative questions regarding this update.
|
Some excellent questions, thank you!
| | 1. So models in future designer programs will not be allowed to use any of the
following variants you are removing? So for example someone uses part 30389b
or 30389c with an axel through it for structural integrity of the model. Will
Bricklink in this case police them to remove this at the cost of stability or
the models apperance?
|
Designers for BDP must use bricks that are in the official building palette associated
with that round of the program. These are by definition only the newest versions
of the part. Questions of stability and part availability are handled case-by-case
by our BDP staff who take each model through several rounds of scrutiny.
| | 2. Will we see more updates of this type in the future? depending on the answer
bricklink may lose users in the future.
|
Probably nothing this big. If we get a checkbox system there would be further
large updates for sure, but they would be of a different nature.
| | 3. Will this diminish buyers ability to report issues with their orders in cases
where the seller didn't use the notes feature on a merged item?
|
No. Buyers can always bring any concern to us - but hopefully to the seller first.
We get very few complaints about variants, actually.
| | 5. How will this update affect buyers wanted lists? Will items in those lists
be merged or just deleted? Will buyers get a notice for changing their wanted
lists?
|
After the merges, when the buyer tries to use their wanted list, it will prompt
them to correct any duplicate lots they may have. No lot will be deleted. At
that point they may wish to make adjustments or simply consolidate their lists.
| | 6. What will happen to colors of parts that only exist for one variant?
|
They will appear in the resulting merged part. Images will transfer over - plus
the price guide, wanted lists, my collection, etc.
| | 7. Are you going to remove variants within stud.io as well after this change?
|
Studio does not recognize all variants anyway, but we will be giving them a list
of changes so they can update their indexes. I have a feeling it will simply
be a matter of changing a few Item Numbers. They might lose a few parts, but
I would be surprised.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2024 08:14 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | […]
| | 7. Are you going to remove variants within stud.io as well after this change?
|
Studio does not recognize all variants anyway, but we will be giving them a list
of changes so they can update their indexes. I have a feeling it will simply
be a matter of changing a few Item Numbers. They might lose a few parts, but
I would be surprised.
|
Surprise! 😁
Studio actually has all the 7 & 9 teeth couples, 3734b & b, 32064 & b &c, 2454
& 46212, 4032 & b, 553a & b & c & 3262, all the heads…
It also has 4079 & b, but it uses the same 3 model for both. It was just to
follow the catalogue: LDraw doesn’t show sprue marks.
What it doesn’t have is DUPLO (though a lot of people would want them), frosted
bricks, smooth slopes, and a few axle hole variants.
The merge will make parts disappear from the Main palette. They should become
importable from LDraw and from older Studio files.
For the heads, there’s actually a few errors between the three “hollow” studs:
3D model showing b/c/vented, especially vented, instead of another variant.
The merge will make them disappear.
Mostly, it’ll be transparent.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 17:56 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 280 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | So far I have seen two YouTube videos addressing this issue, and I'll post
in this new thread to respond directly (and completely) to what they are saying.
|
The two YouTube videos I have seen are these:
R.R. Slugger: There's a BAD Bricklink Update Coming...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGRxNX8Cg_o
DuckBricks: Why Would Bricklink Do This? Is Bricklink Stupid?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk47Wb18ibg
In this post I will address the second one:
I'll begin with a quote from Chris which he used as part of the introduction:
“I decided to take down every single one of my wall displays and actually
consolidate them to be a lot better, neater, tighter, and more concise to allow
myself to be able to put up even more stuff.”
What Chris is doing with his collection is, in a way, similar to what we are
doing with the BrickLink catalog.
I do actually agree with the overall sentiment from this video. However, there
are several points I would like to challenge:
Quote from the video: “from the beginning, the catalog has just been
continuing to grow and grow."
Not completely true. There have been major corrections like this in the past,
and we make minor corrections regularly. One of the things that is often missed
by the average BrickLink member is that we reject the overwhelming majority of
variants. That means that the BrickLink catalog only grows to the extent that
we let it grow, and there are considerable restraints even now on the number
of variants we will accept.
2 x 2 Hinge Brick – this is a merge between 30389c and 30389b. It does
not involve the hinge brick without axle hole 30389a.
[p=30389c]
* | | 30389b Hinge Brick 2 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger Vertical and Axle Hole
Parts: Hinge |
* | | 30389a Hinge Brick 2 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger Vertical without Axle Hole
Parts: Hinge |
While we are talking about this early brick that many of you are excited to distinguish,
I will point out that we are missing inventory information in 15 Sets and 1 Gear
Item:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemIn.asp?P=30389&in=S
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemIn.asp?P=30389&in=G
The determined version is only in 10 sets currently. If this variant matters
to you, please help us fill out the data in the BrickLink inventory system.
A correction concerning the 2 x 2 hinge brick:
“As a correction to the video, it has become clear that one of the examples
I mentioned, the 2x2 brick with click joint, is NOT being consolidated when it
comes to axle hole versus no hole - just the specific molding type of axle hole.
However, all other examples mentioned are accurate, and from a database point
of view, I still stand by my original sentiments in the video that this change
ideally should not be happening.”
However, there are indeed issues with the other examples:
Click Hinges –The number of teeth does not affect the number of locking
positions. A lot of people think that when they see the distinction in the catalog,
but it’s actually not true. This misunderstanding is one reason we want to remove
this distinction. These are simply cosmetic differences on a part that is not
typically used for cosmetic purposes.
[p=50340]
1 x 4 Clear Bricks – The 1 x 4 frosted bricks will be merged with the
1 x 4 standard brick (3010), not the specialty brick without tubes underneath
(3066).
[p=3010f3]
Smooth Slopes – there was a comment in the video that the result of a
merge will be a “random hodgepodge” where buyers may receive slopes that don’t
match each other. But this is actually the condition of the marketplace now,
pre-merge.
The oldest slopes had a very heavy texture (see photo below), whereas newer ones
have much less texture. And in addition to the slopes that seemingly have no
texture, real-life listings contain everything in between.
The presence of “Smooth” entries in the catalog gives the illusion that there
are only two grades of texture, but the reality is that listings based on subjective
criteria will produce subjective results. In fact, I’m pretty sure that much
of the Smooth Slope data we see in the set inventories is also subjective depending
on the experience of the contributor.
Community Poll – We don’t base our decisions on polls because if we did,
the collector community on BrickLink would have their agenda completely wiped
out by the majority who don’t care about picky details. Instead, we appoint very
detail oriented admins who represent the collector community and they are the
ones making the calls on variants on a day-to-day basis.
Date - Feb 1 or Feb 15 – Feb 1 was the original date we were going to
begin changes, but due to delays with the list of changes and requests to extend
the time a little, we pushed the date to Feb 15. However, the name and number
changes to tiles and the 1 x 1 round brick will start on Feb 1. Since these are
not merges, they will not affect listings in the same way.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Saitobricks.ca | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 18:40 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | So far I have seen two YouTube videos addressing this issue, and I'll post
in this new thread to respond directly (and completely) to what they are saying.
|
The two YouTube videos I have seen are these:
R.R. Slugger: There's a BAD Bricklink Update Coming...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGRxNX8Cg_o
DuckBricks: Why Would Bricklink Do This? Is Bricklink Stupid?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk47Wb18ibg
In this post I will address the second one:
I'll begin with a quote from Chris which he used as part of the introduction:
“I decided to take down every single one of my wall displays and actually
consolidate them to be a lot better, neater, tighter, and more concise to allow
myself to be able to put up even more stuff.”
What Chris is doing with his collection is, in a way, similar to what we are
doing with the BrickLink catalog.
I do actually agree with the overall sentiment from this video. However, there
are several points I would like to challenge:
Quote from the video: “from the beginning, the catalog has just been
continuing to grow and grow."
Not completely true. There have been major corrections like this in the past,
and we make minor corrections regularly. One of the things that is often missed
by the average BrickLink member is that we reject the overwhelming majority of
variants. That means that the BrickLink catalog only grows to the extent that
we let it grow, and there are considerable restraints even now on the number
of variants we will accept.
2 x 2 Hinge Brick – this is a merge between 30389c and 30389b. It does
not involve the hinge brick without axle hole 30389a.
[p=30389c]
* | | 30389b Hinge Brick 2 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger Vertical and Axle Hole
Parts: Hinge |
* | | 30389a Hinge Brick 2 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger Vertical without Axle Hole
Parts: Hinge |
While we are talking about this early brick that many of you are excited to distinguish,
I will point out that we are missing inventory information in 15 Sets and 1 Gear
Item:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemIn.asp?P=30389&in=S
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemIn.asp?P=30389&in=G
The determined version is only in 10 sets currently. If this variant matters
to you, please help us fill out the data in the BrickLink inventory system.
A correction concerning the 2 x 2 hinge brick:
“As a correction to the video, it has become clear that one of the examples
I mentioned, the 2x2 brick with click joint, is NOT being consolidated when it
comes to axle hole versus no hole - just the specific molding type of axle hole.
However, all other examples mentioned are accurate, and from a database point
of view, I still stand by my original sentiments in the video that this change
ideally should not be happening.”
However, there are indeed issues with the other examples:
Click Hinges –The number of teeth does not affect the number of locking
positions. A lot of people think that when they see the distinction in the catalog,
but it’s actually not true. This misunderstanding is one reason we want to remove
this distinction. These are simply cosmetic differences on a part that is not
typically used for cosmetic purposes.
[p=50340]
1 x 4 Clear Bricks – The 1 x 4 frosted bricks will be merged with the
1 x 4 standard brick (3010), not the specialty brick without tubes underneath
(3066).
[p=3010f3]
Smooth Slopes – there was a comment in the video that the result of a
merge will be a “random hodgepodge” where buyers may receive slopes that don’t
match each other. But this is actually the condition of the marketplace now,
pre-merge.
The oldest slopes had a very heavy texture (see photo below), whereas newer ones
have much less texture. And in addition to the slopes that seemingly have no
texture, real-life listings contain everything in between.
The presence of “Smooth” entries in the catalog gives the illusion that there
are only two grades of texture, but the reality is that listings based on subjective
criteria will produce subjective results. In fact, I’m pretty sure that much
of the Smooth Slope data we see in the set inventories is also subjective depending
on the experience of the contributor.
Community Poll – We don’t base our decisions on polls because if we did,
the collector community on BrickLink would have their agenda completely wiped
out by the majority who don’t care about picky details. Instead, we appoint very
detail oriented admins who represent the collector community and they are the
ones making the calls on variants on a day-to-day basis.
Date - Feb 1 or Feb 15 – Feb 1 was the original date we were going to
begin changes, but due to delays with the list of changes and requests to extend
the time a little, we pushed the date to Feb 15. However, the name and number
changes to tiles and the 1 x 1 round brick will start on Feb 1. Since these are
not merges, they will not affect listings in the same way.
|
From my experience with the click hinges, the newer ones seen to be less weight
tolerant than the fully toothed variant. The ones with fewer teeth, when you
position the respective counterpart in the position with no teeth, (the bare
spot with the teeth only on the outside and not on the inside) the weight tolerance
is much less than the fully toothed variant. Where the teeth can support from
the inside and the outside.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 19:06 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 83 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | We don’t base our decisions on polls
|
Clearly.
BrickLink is convinced that it knows what is best for members. That level of
arrogance and condescension will inevitably lead to irrelevance for this website.
BrickLink will not remain the community's database of choice forever, not
even with the backing of the LEGO Group. Many may laugh at those words now,
but time will prove me correct.
BrickLink will eventually join its peer group (LUGNET and Peeron) in the dustbin
of history, which is a shame. Things did not have to end this way.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | UTLF | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 19:16 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 19:32 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | We don’t base our decisions on polls
|
Clearly.
BrickLink is convinced that it knows what is best for members. That level of
arrogance and condescension...
|
Or maybe... you?
What do you know in terms of worldwide stats, public, age, number of parts, sets,
gears bought or sold, for tens of years? Do you have BrickLink and LEGO stats?
Are you working with 25000 employees (+ 50 on BrickLink) in the same exact domain?
But based on your data they're all wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 20:09 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
I know whatever you have decided that I know.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | UTLF | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 20:19 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 20:30 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, UTLF writes:
| | | | Do you have BrickLink and LEGO stats?
Are you working with 25000 employees (+ 50 on BrickLink) in the same exact domain?
|
Oh yeah, because data and research is always 100% accurate, right?
All this research and data put together is why Lego has had a handful of themes
fail over the past 10 years, and a ton of D2C sets that were put on discount
a few months after release due to poor sales right?
Data so good that they now rely on Disney IPs to keep them afloat & they'll
go under if they stop pumping out Marvel & Star Wars sets, right?
It's also why it took them years to finally go back to making Clone Wars-based
sets after ignoring a large part of the Star Wars fanbase in favor of the Original
Trilogy boomers, right? Because the data and research put together by number-crunching
nerds was more reliable than listening to what people are begging for?
You can have all the research and data in the world, but it doesn't always
convert to reality; a large amount of it is based on assumptions, like assuming
anyone with half a brain would want to use a VR app when playing with Lego, as
if they don't have 5 video game consoles in the living room next to them
This is another assumption; assuming sellers are punching the air every time
they have to figure out what version of the piece they have is, or assuming that
every seller will put the variant in item notes, or assuming that every seller
will reply to messages sent by customers asking about what variant they've
listed
There are a ton of other issues with this site that need to be addressed, this
is NOT one of them; how about they update the site so it's not strictly based
on EST, or implement a dark mode, or improve the search function so people can
actually FIND what variant they want?
Nope! Just dumb it all down, lump different variants together and call it a day;
then when it comes time to walk back the changes, they'll get to show daddy
Lego how much progress they've made over the past year (which would look
like a lot, but in reality they're just walking in circles)
I love Bricklink, I use it more than any other site on the internet, but the
changes being made don't make much sense to me & it really grinds my gears
(if you can't tell)
I don't want to have to assume I'll be getting the variant I want, I
don't want to gamble, be out the money and have no recourse because the seller
has zero responsibility to provide a specific variant; I also don't want
to have to assume they'll even reply to my message(s) asking
Assuming only makes an... well, you know the rest; this is entire post is based
on me assuming the worst anyways 
|
+1
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 21:23 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, UTLF writes:
| | | | Do you have BrickLink and LEGO stats?
Are you working with 25000 employees (+ 50 on BrickLink) in the same exact domain?
|
Oh yeah, because data and research is always 100% accurate, right?
|
At least they have data and research.
An opinion based on people we know, at the age we are, + a mix of personal bias/preference
and some "common sense"... doesn't make either reliable stats.
| | All this research and data put together is why Lego has had a handful of themes
fail over the past 10 years
|
It's totally different.
Projecting a set will be sold, at this price, to this groups, in those countries,
with this design, box size and ads, at this period of the year, etc - is like
Meteo if you wish, there are so many parameters, they make (apparently) stupid
mistakes.
Tomorrows's shiny! Boom - it rains.
Ah those guys at the Meteo, they're all too much paid clowns.
| | You can have all the research and data in the world, but it doesn't always
convert to reality; a large amount of it is based on assumptions
|
Yes/no.
Take all the "3333a" Part of the world, stats for all colors sold for
20 years.
On multiple platforms, worldwide.
Compare to the other versions.
All data you don't have.
See how the volume and ratio changes every year.
A decision on this would be "an assumption"?
Sorry, but at one level statistics are the reality.
| | There are a ton of other issues with this site that need to be addressed, this
is NOT one of them; how about they update the site so it's not strictly based
on EST, or implement a dark mode, or improve the search function so people can
actually FIND what variant they want?
|
100% agreed with all this.
| | I love Bricklink, I use it more than any other site on the internet, but the
changes being made don't make much sense to me & it really grinds my gears
|
Someone asked me my perception of BrickLink, and I replied it has an history,
and people seem to have a love & hate relationship with it.
It's everything but a "clean" "neutral" website.
I don't know you, but me I like this aspect of it.
Even if yes, the date always showing New Brunswick Time (or such who cares) is
ridiculous.
| | I don't want to have to assume I'll be getting the variant I want, I
don't want to gamble, be out the money and have no recourse because the seller
has zero responsibility to provide a specific variant; I also don't want
to have to assume they'll even reply to my message(s) asking
|
Right now it's the same!?
I've talked to a seller who sells 100+ 3068a witch are neither "a"
and very probably not new.
No computer code will change human nature.
Sorry, exhausted, I'm off.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | dsimpsonugcs | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2024 04:22 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | At least they have data and research.
|
Except for the fact the data they've presented has errors, uses bad math,
and probably uses data comparing two different things. It appears to be garbage
and any conclusions drawn from it are garbage as well.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Yo_Yo_Flamingo | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2024 12:02 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | So far I have seen two YouTube videos addressing this issue, and I'll post
in this new thread to respond directly (and completely) to what they are saying.
|
The two YouTube videos I have seen are these:
R.R. Slugger: There's a BAD Bricklink Update Coming...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGRxNX8Cg_o
DuckBricks: Why Would Bricklink Do This? Is Bricklink Stupid?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk47Wb18ibg
In this post I will address the second one:
I'll begin with a quote from Chris which he used as part of the introduction:
“I decided to take down every single one of my wall displays and actually
consolidate them to be a lot better, neater, tighter, and more concise to allow
myself to be able to put up even more stuff.”
What Chris is doing with his collection is, in a way, similar to what we are
doing with the BrickLink catalog.
I do actually agree with the overall sentiment from this video. However, there
are several points I would like to challenge:
Quote from the video: “from the beginning, the catalog has just been
continuing to grow and grow."
Not completely true. There have been major corrections like this in the past,
and we make minor corrections regularly. One of the things that is often missed
by the average BrickLink member is that we reject the overwhelming majority of
variants. That means that the BrickLink catalog only grows to the extent that
we let it grow, and there are considerable restraints even now on the number
of variants we will accept.
2 x 2 Hinge Brick – this is a merge between 30389c and 30389b. It does
not involve the hinge brick without axle hole 30389a.
[p=30389c]
* | | 30389b Hinge Brick 2 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger Vertical and Axle Hole
Parts: Hinge |
* | | 30389a Hinge Brick 2 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger Vertical without Axle Hole
Parts: Hinge |
While we are talking about this early brick that many of you are excited to distinguish,
I will point out that we are missing inventory information in 15 Sets and 1 Gear
Item:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemIn.asp?P=30389&in=S
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemIn.asp?P=30389&in=G
The determined version is only in 10 sets currently. If this variant matters
to you, please help us fill out the data in the BrickLink inventory system.
A correction concerning the 2 x 2 hinge brick:
“As a correction to the video, it has become clear that one of the examples
I mentioned, the 2x2 brick with click joint, is NOT being consolidated when it
comes to axle hole versus no hole - just the specific molding type of axle hole.
However, all other examples mentioned are accurate, and from a database point
of view, I still stand by my original sentiments in the video that this change
ideally should not be happening.”
However, there are indeed issues with the other examples:
Click Hinges –The number of teeth does not affect the number of locking
positions. A lot of people think that when they see the distinction in the catalog,
but it’s actually not true. This misunderstanding is one reason we want to remove
this distinction. These are simply cosmetic differences on a part that is not
typically used for cosmetic purposes.
[p=50340]
1 x 4 Clear Bricks – The 1 x 4 frosted bricks will be merged with the
1 x 4 standard brick (3010), not the specialty brick without tubes underneath
(3066).
[p=3010f3]
Smooth Slopes – there was a comment in the video that the result of a
merge will be a “random hodgepodge” where buyers may receive slopes that don’t
match each other. But this is actually the condition of the marketplace now,
pre-merge.
The oldest slopes had a very heavy texture (see photo below), whereas newer ones
have much less texture. And in addition to the slopes that seemingly have no
texture, real-life listings contain everything in between.
The presence of “Smooth” entries in the catalog gives the illusion that there
are only two grades of texture, but the reality is that listings based on subjective
criteria will produce subjective results. In fact, I’m pretty sure that much
of the Smooth Slope data we see in the set inventories is also subjective depending
on the experience of the contributor.
Community Poll – We don’t base our decisions on polls because if we did,
the collector community on BrickLink would have their agenda completely wiped
out by the majority who don’t care about picky details. Instead, we appoint very
detail oriented admins who represent the collector community and they are the
ones making the calls on variants on a day-to-day basis.
Date - Feb 1 or Feb 15 – Feb 1 was the original date we were going to
begin changes, but due to delays with the list of changes and requests to extend
the time a little, we pushed the date to Feb 15. However, the name and number
changes to tiles and the 1 x 1 round brick will start on Feb 1. Since these are
not merges, they will not affect listings in the same way.
|
This pretty much sums up the issue.
To reiterate- if you order a dozen 7 or 9 tooth parts right now from different
sellers, or even worse a dozen "smooth" or "not smooth" slope,
there is an almost certainty that you'll get a mixed bag based on your expectations.
That is, if you even cared enough in the first place, and didn't just select
the first listing that matched the part you're looking for.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Familybuild | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 06:58 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | So far I have seen two YouTube videos addressing this issue, and I'll post
in this new thread to respond directly (and completely) to what they are saying.
|
The two YouTube videos I have seen are these:
R.R. Slugger: There's a BAD Bricklink Update Coming...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGRxNX8Cg_o
DuckBricks: Why Would Bricklink Do This? Is Bricklink Stupid?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk47Wb18ibg
In this post I will address the second one:
I'll begin with a quote from Chris which he used as part of the introduction:
“I decided to take down every single one of my wall displays and actually
consolidate them to be a lot better, neater, tighter, and more concise to allow
myself to be able to put up even more stuff.”
What Chris is doing with his collection is, in a way, similar to what we are
doing with the BrickLink catalog.
I do actually agree with the overall sentiment from this video. However, there
are several points I would like to challenge:
Quote from the video: “from the beginning, the catalog has just been
continuing to grow and grow."
Not completely true. There have been major corrections like this in the past,
and we make minor corrections regularly. One of the things that is often missed
by the average BrickLink member is that we reject the overwhelming majority of
variants. That means that the BrickLink catalog only grows to the extent that
we let it grow, and there are considerable restraints even now on the number
of variants we will accept.
2 x 2 Hinge Brick – this is a merge between 30389c and 30389b. It does
not involve the hinge brick without axle hole 30389a.
[p=30389c]
* | | 30389b Hinge Brick 2 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger Vertical and Axle Hole
Parts: Hinge |
* | | 30389a Hinge Brick 2 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger Vertical without Axle Hole
Parts: Hinge |
While we are talking about this early brick that many of you are excited to distinguish,
I will point out that we are missing inventory information in 15 Sets and 1 Gear
Item:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemIn.asp?P=30389&in=S
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemIn.asp?P=30389&in=G
The determined version is only in 10 sets currently. If this variant matters
to you, please help us fill out the data in the BrickLink inventory system.
A correction concerning the 2 x 2 hinge brick:
“As a correction to the video, it has become clear that one of the examples
I mentioned, the 2x2 brick with click joint, is NOT being consolidated when it
comes to axle hole versus no hole - just the specific molding type of axle hole.
However, all other examples mentioned are accurate, and from a database point
of view, I still stand by my original sentiments in the video that this change
ideally should not be happening.”
However, there are indeed issues with the other examples:
Click Hinges –The number of teeth does not affect the number of locking
positions. A lot of people think that when they see the distinction in the catalog,
but it’s actually not true. This misunderstanding is one reason we want to remove
this distinction. These are simply cosmetic differences on a part that is not
typically used for cosmetic purposes.
[p=50340]
1 x 4 Clear Bricks – The 1 x 4 frosted bricks will be merged with the
1 x 4 standard brick (3010), not the specialty brick without tubes underneath
(3066).
[p=3010f3]
Smooth Slopes – there was a comment in the video that the result of a
merge will be a “random hodgepodge” where buyers may receive slopes that don’t
match each other. But this is actually the condition of the marketplace now,
pre-merge.
The oldest slopes had a very heavy texture (see photo below), whereas newer ones
have much less texture. And in addition to the slopes that seemingly have no
texture, real-life listings contain everything in between.
The presence of “Smooth” entries in the catalog gives the illusion that there
are only two grades of texture, but the reality is that listings based on subjective
criteria will produce subjective results. In fact, I’m pretty sure that much
of the Smooth Slope data we see in the set inventories is also subjective depending
on the experience of the contributor.
Community Poll – We don’t base our decisions on polls because if we did,
the collector community on BrickLink would have their agenda completely wiped
out by the majority who don’t care about picky details. Instead, we appoint very
detail oriented admins who represent the collector community and they are the
ones making the calls on variants on a day-to-day basis.
Date - Feb 1 or Feb 15 – Feb 1 was the original date we were going to
begin changes, but due to delays with the list of changes and requests to extend
the time a little, we pushed the date to Feb 15. However, the name and number
changes to tiles and the 1 x 1 round brick will start on Feb 1. Since these are
not merges, they will not affect listings in the same way.
|
Just state honestly its about moving people towards PAB..
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | brickerking | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2024 16:12 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | So far I have seen two YouTube videos addressing this issue, and I'll post
in this new thread to respond directly (and completely) to what they are saying.
|
The two YouTube videos I have seen are these:
R.R. Slugger: There's a BAD Bricklink Update Coming...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGRxNX8Cg_o
DuckBricks: Why Would Bricklink Do This? Is Bricklink Stupid?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk47Wb18ibg
In this post I will address the second one:
I'll begin with a quote from Chris which he used as part of the introduction:
“I decided to take down every single one of my wall displays and actually
consolidate them to be a lot better, neater, tighter, and more concise to allow
myself to be able to put up even more stuff.”
What Chris is doing with his collection is, in a way, similar to what we are
doing with the BrickLink catalog.
I do actually agree with the overall sentiment from this video. However, there
are several points I would like to challenge:
Quote from the video: “from the beginning, the catalog has just been
continuing to grow and grow."
Not completely true. There have been major corrections like this in the past,
and we make minor corrections regularly. One of the things that is often missed
by the average BrickLink member is that we reject the overwhelming majority of
variants. That means that the BrickLink catalog only grows to the extent that
we let it grow, and there are considerable restraints even now on the number
of variants we will accept.
2 x 2 Hinge Brick – this is a merge between 30389c and 30389b. It does
not involve the hinge brick without axle hole 30389a.
[p=30389c]
* | | 30389b Hinge Brick 2 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger Vertical and Axle Hole
Parts: Hinge |
* | | 30389a Hinge Brick 2 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger Vertical without Axle Hole
Parts: Hinge |
While we are talking about this early brick that many of you are excited to distinguish,
I will point out that we are missing inventory information in 15 Sets and 1 Gear
Item:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemIn.asp?P=30389&in=S
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemIn.asp?P=30389&in=G
The determined version is only in 10 sets currently. If this variant matters
to you, please help us fill out the data in the BrickLink inventory system.
A correction concerning the 2 x 2 hinge brick:
“As a correction to the video, it has become clear that one of the examples
I mentioned, the 2x2 brick with click joint, is NOT being consolidated when it
comes to axle hole versus no hole - just the specific molding type of axle hole.
However, all other examples mentioned are accurate, and from a database point
of view, I still stand by my original sentiments in the video that this change
ideally should not be happening.”
However, there are indeed issues with the other examples:
Click Hinges –The number of teeth does not affect the number of locking
positions. A lot of people think that when they see the distinction in the catalog,
but it’s actually not true. This misunderstanding is one reason we want to remove
this distinction. These are simply cosmetic differences on a part that is not
typically used for cosmetic purposes.
[p=50340]
1 x 4 Clear Bricks – The 1 x 4 frosted bricks will be merged with the
1 x 4 standard brick (3010), not the specialty brick without tubes underneath
(3066).
[p=3010f3]
Smooth Slopes – there was a comment in the video that the result of a
merge will be a “random hodgepodge” where buyers may receive slopes that don’t
match each other. But this is actually the condition of the marketplace now,
pre-merge.
The oldest slopes had a very heavy texture (see photo below), whereas newer ones
have much less texture. And in addition to the slopes that seemingly have no
texture, real-life listings contain everything in between.
The presence of “Smooth” entries in the catalog gives the illusion that there
are only two grades of texture, but the reality is that listings based on subjective
criteria will produce subjective results. In fact, I’m pretty sure that much
of the Smooth Slope data we see in the set inventories is also subjective depending
on the experience of the contributor.
Community Poll – We don’t base our decisions on polls because if we did,
the collector community on BrickLink would have their agenda completely wiped
out by the majority who don’t care about picky details. Instead, we appoint very
detail oriented admins who represent the collector community and they are the
ones making the calls on variants on a day-to-day basis.
Date - Feb 1 or Feb 15 – Feb 1 was the original date we were going to
begin changes, but due to delays with the list of changes and requests to extend
the time a little, we pushed the date to Feb 15. However, the name and number
changes to tiles and the 1 x 1 round brick will start on Feb 1. Since these are
not merges, they will not affect listings in the same way.
|
OH, I FINALLY GET IT! This is a new sellers tool! Finally!
BL is consolidating parts to make it easier to sell! Not quite the seller tool
anyone was asking for, but at least it's something!
So... if the trend continues... it's going to be super easy to sell on BL!
Eventually, BL will consolidate down to just ONE PART! That means sellers just
have to list ONE PART!!! That will be super easy to list!!!
So when a buyers orders from my store, they will have just have ONE PART to choose
from and we, sellers, just send them whatever we have one hand! SUPER EASY!!!!
I GET IT NOW! Thank you BL!
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 21:41 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| As I thought "a tough tackle"
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1447093
With most matters that have been kicked-down-the-road, coalitions of perceived
consensus are created over time around the 'issue' Just the nature of
procrastination, especially with such things. The longer the timespan of inaction,
the more calcified positions become. But these will be won over at some point
too, at least in part.
Keep at it...
-popsicle
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 21:42 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 78 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I just made some photos of the hinges with 7 and 9 teeth. They show why they
click into the same positions.
I read a comment here on the forum that the 9 teeth hinge might be able to carry
more weight, as it makes a better connection.
The design change was intentional, LEGO introduced new part numbers for it.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2024 04:02 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | The design change was intentional, LEGO introduced new part numbers for it.
|
The same is true for other parts where there is an obvious difference and LEGO
have used a new number, yet they are merged.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2024 06:09 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 69 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | The design change was intentional, LEGO introduced new part numbers for it.
|
The same is true for other parts where there is an obvious difference and LEGO
have used a new number, yet they are merged.
|
True.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2024 07:32 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | I read a comment here on the forum that the 9 teeth hinge might be able to carry
more weight, as it makes a better connection.
|
I tried to do this earlier setting up a rig and hanging some kitchen weights
from the end of a Technic brick attached to another one attached to the hinge,
so 32L long. Either there is huge variability between hinges or variability
comes through the connections between all the parts. Switching the partner part
in the hinge also changed the tipping point but then switching it back also did.
I think there are too many variables to be absolutely sure. Plus all my 9 teeth
hinges are used, which may be an issue. Although they held up just fine for what
I would consider a normal weight in a typical build.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | brickbiters | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2024 14:51 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| sorry, your excuses won't change my mind. to sellers who are crying about
it taking too long to pull orders, they just want to make an easy buck and probably
won't even last long here.
there is an option to say whether you are a store that catalogs by variant or
not so that buyers know what kind of store they're dealing with...a professional
or a "hobby" store.
and as a moc builder, these variants are so precise that a tile with a lip
or no lip can make the difference between a build working or not. not to mention
a specific aesthetic or texture.
but most importantly, over the years that bricklink has been around, the catalog
is a record of the community's hard work and dedication to the HISTORY of
the brick and it's many changes. when you wipe these things out you might
as well just list everything as a 2x4 red brick and only allow bulk orders.
at this point i think anybody who is trying to run a professional store that
actually cares about the hobby should seriously consider other platforms if this
goes through.
good luck with your frosted bricks.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello again everyone,
My initial post on this subject earlier this month has garnered almost 700 replies,
which is right about the level of the BrickArms threads a few years ago.
A New Thread
So I'm starting a new thread with some new information, and hopefully a few
links that will help you navigate through this complex discussion topic.
Here is the original post:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1447090
Here are three Help topics:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2629
Here is a list of my replies on this subject:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageList.asp?overTP=Y&q=variants&qS=Y&msgID=&uName=admin_russell&ID=&status=&v=c&max=50
If you don't wish to read all 700 replies in the previous thread, you can
at least look through some of these for answers to most of the questions that
have been raised.
************************************
The Responses
We sent an email out to all active sellers a couple days ago and we expected
a flood of responses in the Forum. As much as it may seem to be an overwhelming
response, we do appreciate all the members who have posted and shared their feelings
about this project. Keep them coming.
So far I have seen two YouTube videos addressing this issue, and I'll post
in this new thread to respond directly (and completely) to what they are saying.
I will be answering directly several of the more detailed replies over the next
day or two in an effort to clear up any misunderstandings.
************************************
The Research
The following is an example of the some of the research that has been done to
help determine the course of action we are taking.
When it comes to Frosted Bricks, we took a look at the price guide, the inventories
that contained these special bricks, and we studied the nature of the bricks,
at least as far as we could.
What we found was that bricks listed under the normal (umbrella) entries sold
on average for over twice the price, and the volume of sales was 17 times of
bricks listed under the frosted entries. In addition, sellers listing under the
main entries didn’t have to spend the time sorting out their parts. So from a
marketplace standpoint, these frosted entries are simply an inefficiency (see
image below).
In the inventories, there was only spotty information about which sets these
bricks are in. This is likely the main reason for the lower sales volume, because
the BrickLink inventory system drives sales for vintage parts. We started adding
frosted entries to the catalog over 20 years ago, but they are only reflected
in 24 inventories to date.
When it comes to the bricks themselves, there were actually more variants than
what are currently shown on BrickLink. And we’ve never been able to settle on
a reason for these peculiar markings. Some have suggested they are simply the
same patterns one would find on solid color bricks of the same era. Whatever
they are, though, this type of variant is typically found only in sellers’ notes
and not reflected in standalone BrickLink entries.
In fact, it is a peculiar thing that these entries were only for Transparent
versions of the part. We don’t really do that on BrickLink. Normally, all the
colors are placed under one entry.
But perhaps the best reason for removing these entries is the lack of a real
use case for any of our members. For new users, these entries clutter up important
basic parts categories, and if they end up on a wanted list, they can certainly
cause problems.
For the seller who wants to fill out vintage sets, these entries do not solve
their need completely, because there are serious color matching issues with older
transparent parts. It is not “plug and play” with these variants, and truth be
told, it would be easier to obtain the necessary selection of parts by using
the main entries.
For the hard core collector looking for information, BrickLink has very little
to offer in the case of the frosted bricks. We don’t need separate entries to
add representative photos and comparison images of variants, and we were likely
to never complete the “collection” of these entries due to the large number of
different patterns.
In order to preserve what knowledge we have, we plan to release new Help pages
for certain variants covered in this project. Stay tuned.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2024 15:02 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, brickbiters writes:
| | sorry, your excuses won't change my mind. to sellers who are crying about
it taking too long to pull orders, they just want to make an easy buck and probably
won't even last long here.
there is an option to say whether you are a store that catalogs by variant or
not so that buyers know what kind of store they're dealing with...a professional
or a "hobby" store.
|
Your terms
I do not refund for lost, stolen or damaged goods incurred during shipping.
I highly suggest you purchase insurance at your cost if you are concerned with
any of these issues.
indicate an unprofessional one.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | brickbiters | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2024 15:36 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 98 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| i'm sorry, you must be new.
not to egg on a troll but, that is standard fair for shipping. once it's
shipped you give out a tracking number and you're done.
if of course there is any problem with the order such as missing parts etc i'd
be happy to work that out. the rest is with the postal service.
if you're concerned about any of those things happening then pay for insurance.
that's what it's there for. maybe the post works different in the uk
but that's how things are done here in the USA.
if something is lost, stolen or damaged, there's nothing a store can do about
it and again that's why you'd pay for insurance if you want your order
covered.
i'd say that's pretty professional to me.
and of course, if you don't agree with my stores terms you're always
welcome to patronize any of the other stores on bricklink. i think you'll
find they have similar terms, which is why it's always a good idea to read
them.
what isn't professional is bogarting another store's comments on a public
forum to criticize their terms and bring focus to your own store (off topic i
might add). but hey, that's on you.
good day to you sir.
In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, brickbiters writes:
| | sorry, your excuses won't change my mind. to sellers who are crying about
it taking too long to pull orders, they just want to make an easy buck and probably
won't even last long here.
there is an option to say whether you are a store that catalogs by variant or
not so that buyers know what kind of store they're dealing with...a professional
or a "hobby" store.
|
Your terms
I do not refund for lost, stolen or damaged goods incurred during shipping.
I highly suggest you purchase insurance at your cost if you are concerned with
any of these issues.
indicate an unprofessional one.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2024 17:03 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| That would be illegal here.
You, as seller and sender, are resposible for the delivery of the goods that
your customer ordered and paid for.
You are the person who contracted the postal service for that delivery. You are
responsible to resolve matters if the postal service cannot fullfill their contract
with you, causing you not to fullfill your contract with your buyer. As sender,
you have to refund your buyer and can then try to claim reimbursement from the
postal service.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Yo_Yo_Flamingo | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2024 17:03 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, brickbiters writes:
| | i'm sorry, you must be new.
not to egg on a troll but, that is standard fair for shipping. once it's
shipped you give out a tracking number and you're done.
if of course there is any problem with the order such as missing parts etc i'd
be happy to work that out. the rest is with the postal service.
if you're concerned about any of those things happening then pay for insurance.
that's what it's there for. maybe the post works different in the uk
but that's how things are done here in the USA.
if something is lost, stolen or damaged, there's nothing a store can do about
it and again that's why you'd pay for insurance if you want your order
covered.
i'd say that's pretty professional to me.
and of course, if you don't agree with my stores terms you're always
welcome to patronize any of the other stores on bricklink. i think you'll
find they have similar terms, which is why it's always a good idea to read
them.
what isn't professional is bogarting another store's comments on a public
forum to criticize their terms and bring focus to your own store (off topic i
might add). but hey, that's on you.
good day to you sir.
In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, brickbiters writes:
| | sorry, your excuses won't change my mind. to sellers who are crying about
it taking too long to pull orders, they just want to make an easy buck and probably
won't even last long here.
there is an option to say whether you are a store that catalogs by variant or
not so that buyers know what kind of store they're dealing with...a professional
or a "hobby" store.
|
Your terms
I do not refund for lost, stolen or damaged goods incurred during shipping.
I highly suggest you purchase insurance at your cost if you are concerned with
any of these issues.
indicate an unprofessional one.
|
|
Oh boy. Who's gonna tell him?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2024 17:08 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Yo_Yo_Flamingo writes:
| | In Catalog, brickbiters writes:
| | i'm sorry, you must be new.
|
|
| | Oh boy. Who's gonna tell him?
|
Ah for once I didn't say anything!
But you should hear me thinking
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | zorbanj | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2024 21:20 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, brickbiters writes:
| | i'm sorry, you must be new.
|
Your entire post is full of inaccuracies. You don't know what you're
talking about.
| | not to egg on a troll but, that is standard fair for shipping. once it's
shipped you give out a tracking number and you're done.
|
Wrong. Seller is responsible for the intact delivery of the package. If the package
is lost, the seller pays, per PayPal policy. You will eventually ship a package
that is lost or damaged and find this out the hard way.
| | if of course there is any problem with the order such as missing parts etc i'd
be happy to work that out. the rest is with the postal service.
|
Wrong. See above.
| | if you're concerned about any of those things happening then pay for insurance.
that's what it's there for. maybe the post works different in the uk
but that's how things are done here in the USA.
|
PayPal buyer protection = buyer's insurance. Purchasing insurance is to protect
the seller, not the buyer. That's how things are done here in the USA.
| | if something is lost, stolen or damaged, there's nothing a store can do about
it and again that's why you'd pay for insurance if you want your order
covered.
|
Wrong. See above.
| | i'd say that's pretty professional to me.
and of course, if you don't agree with my stores terms you're always
welcome to patronize any of the other stores on bricklink. i think you'll
find they have similar terms, which is why it's always a good idea to read
them.
|
Any store with terms like yours doesn't know how this works either. Sell
long enough and you will find out.
| | what isn't professional is bogarting another store's comments on a public
forum to criticize their terms and bring focus to your own store (off topic i
might add). but hey, that's on you.
|
What isn't professional is the condescending tone of your post and using
a faddish slang word like "bogarting". BTW, you used the word "bogarting"
incorrectly.
Learn your responsibilities as a seller here before it costs you time, money
and negative feedbacks.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2024 20:17 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 74 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | My initial post on this subject earlier this month has garnered almost 700 replies,
which is right about the level of the BrickArms threads a few years ago.
|
Yes, there was strong objection from members to adding BrickArms. But the site
added these items to the catalog anyway. Not too terribly long thereafter, the
site removed BrickArms products. It took a long time to clean up the mess, as
I recall.
I think there's some wise saying about learning from history, but I can't
remember just how it goes . . .
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | dsimpsonugcs | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2024 21:45 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | The Research
The following is an example of the some of the research that has been done to
help determine the course of action we are taking.
When it comes to Frosted Bricks, we took a look at the price guide, the inventories
that contained these special bricks, and we studied the nature of the bricks,
at least as far as we could.
What we found was that bricks listed under the normal (umbrella) entries sold
on average for over twice the price, and the volume of sales was 17 times of
bricks listed under the frosted entries. In addition, sellers listing under the
main entries didn’t have to spend the time sorting out their parts. So from a
marketplace standpoint, these frosted entries are simply an inefficiency (see
image below).
|
Apologies for the multiple long posts. I finally figured out on my own how the
BL admins collected and analyzed their posted research data. It isn't as
bad as I thought, though it does still contain a glaring math error that heavily
skews the results. In any case, I don't believe the provided data can support
the conclusions the BL admins are pushing. Actually, I'd caution against
taking nearly any conclusions away from strictly looking at this data. It is
generally low quality due to the fairly small number of sales and the very high
variability of sales prices. The underlying data is what it is and BL's
high pricing variability is well known.
So, the data is actually just gathered from the pricing guides. Anybody can
collect it, so I grabbed the latest for all of the frosted and main variants
in trans-clear.
The sales counts listed are for all completed sales of each listed type over
the last 6 months (except there seems to be a bug that leaves around a small
number of sales older than 6 months). The BL admins split the sales of the main
variant across each frosted variant of the same type. I list them together once.
So, total sales volume of the main variants is 15.88x the frosted variants.
Conclusion: common parts outsell rarer parts. Not exactly enlightening. I don't
know the prevalence of these frosted variants amongst all these trans-cleat parts
in existence, but if it less than 1 in 6, then I'd say sales of the frosted
variants are doing quite well on their own. They are not a minor market "inefficiency."
For the pricing the admins used the lot average price. I think the quantity
average price is more appropriate to use, but I included both for completeness.
The admins then calculate the average of the ratios of the average frosted vs
main lot prices. This is mathematically incorrect, and the result is wrong and
misleading. I correctly use the geomean. Prices of the main variants are about
1.21x of the frosted variants (range is 1.11x-1.31 due to rounding of average
prices). The geomean of the data from the admins is 1.47x. The biggest difference
between the two is a single sale of two 3037f for $0.17 each. The data is low
quality. It is not safe to draw price related conclusions from it.
I think the admins are trying to push the idea with their data analysis that
selling variant frosted parts under the main catalog entry would net additional
revenue for sellers (i.e. they will sell for more at higher volumes!). That
analysis is flawed, but even if it were true, the difference is quite minimal.
If every frosted variant sold during the last six months was sold at the average
main variant price the difference would be $90.13 (+/- 11.94 due to rounding).
That's a total of $0.50/day across all sellers. Shall we take up a collection
platter?
BTW, I'm all for sellers not sorting out frosted variants if they don't
want to but removing them from the catalog is not the correct answer. The admins
seem to think it is and have provided data to help justify their decision. That
data is bunk and the glaring math errors bring into question any other data they
may be using but haven't shared with everyone.
The better plan would be to solve this as part of the UX. More specifically,
to list variants under the main entry (the checkbox system). The use of variants
would then be opt-in for both buyers and sellers. After such a system is nearing
completion, then the decision of which variants should be recognized or not can
be revisited.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | BUC | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2024 21:54 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 79 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Instead of merging, why not bring back the "undetermined type" entries
for those who don't care about distinguishing variants? The 'parent id'
for the UT then a, b, etc for the variants.
If the goal is to streamline inventories, the UT can be listed in the inventory
with variants listed in the Alternate section.
When wanted lists have the UT listed, all variants should be returned as well
[this functionality would likely need to be built tho].
Added bonus - having "undetermined type" listed in the item description
would indicate that variants of the part exist. Anytime a new variant is identified,
"undetermined type" could be added to the now "parent" entry
and this would automatically CYA the seller who is unaware of (or doesn't
care to separate) the variant, while also allowing those who do care, the option
of now differentiating them.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2024 22:08 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 77 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, BUC writes:
| | Instead of merging, why not bring back the "undetermined type" entries
for those who don't care about distinguishing variants?
|
That's what many of us would like to see. Russell answered your question
here:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1450855
The short version: maybe they'd consider doing that in the future. But they
(the site) would still decide which variants can be included in the umbrella
entry. And none of the ones being merged now would be allowed.
So the future will be no better than the present. The website still thinks they
know what is best for their ignorant children (meaning us, the members). And
they will think that in the future, too, no matter if improvements happen or
not.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | BUC | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2024 22:22 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
Kinda yes. But the "checkbox solution" Russell references would require
time and new coding. Using "undetermined type" utilizes an existing method
that would be a quick and easy fix to this so-called problem.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 04:39 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, BUC writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
Kinda yes. But the "checkbox solution" Russell references would require
time and new coding. Using "undetermined type" utilizes an existing method
that would be a quick and easy fix to this so-called problem.
|
Undetermined doesn't help at all. It adds another catalogue entry to search.
If there is part Xa and Xb, and buyers don't care which they get then there
are two items to search or add to wants lists. Introduce part X (Undetermined)
and there are now three. It doesn't solve the problem at all.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 07:26 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 77 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Undetermined doesn't help at all. It adds another catalogue entry to search.
If there is part Xa and Xb, and buyers don't care which they get then there
are two items to search or add to wants lists.
|
This is a misunderstanding of how a selectable variant system would work. In
such a system, the only entries in the catalog are undetermined entries.
So it reduces the total number of entries instead of adding to them.
The variants would be sub-entries attached to the undetermined entry. No variant
would receive its own catalog entry.
Such a system could be used to improve the catalog in several quite productive
ways unrelated to variants.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 07:48 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Undetermined doesn't help at all. It adds another catalogue entry to search.
If there is part Xa and Xb, and buyers don't care which they get then there
are two items to search or add to wants lists.
|
This is a misunderstanding of how a selectable variant system would work. In
such a system, the only entries in the catalog are undetermined entries.
So it reduces the total number of entries instead of adding to them.
The variants would be sub-entries attached to the undetermined entry. No variant
would receive its own catalog entry.
Such a system could be used to improve the catalog in several quite productive
ways unrelated to variants.
|
You’re arguing for a real umbrella system while Yorbrick was answering BUC who’s
arguing for using a supplementary Undetermined entry “in the meantime.”
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 08:04 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Undetermined doesn't help at all. It adds another catalogue entry to search.
If there is part Xa and Xb, and buyers don't care which they get then there
are two items to search or add to wants lists.
|
This is a misunderstanding of how a selectable variant system would work. In
such a system, the only entries in the catalog are undetermined entries.
So it reduces the total number of entries instead of adding to them.
The variants would be sub-entries attached to the undetermined entry. No variant
would receive its own catalog entry.
Such a system could be used to improve the catalog in several quite productive
ways unrelated to variants.
|
You’re arguing for a real umbrella system while Yorbrick was answering BUC who’s
arguing for using a supplementary Undetermined entry “in the meantime.”
|
Indeed, the suggestion I was replying to clearly suggests that no new coding
would be needed, and so would be using the existing undetermined parts method.
But the "checkbox solution" Russell references would require time
and new coding. Using "undetermined type" utilizes an existing
method that would be a quick and easy fix to this so-called problem.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 08:14 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | You’re arguing for a real umbrella system while Yorbrick was answering BUC who’s
arguing for using a supplementary Undetermined entry “in the meantime.”
|
Indeed, the suggestion I was replying to clearly suggests that no new coding
would be needed, and so would be using the existing undetermined parts method.
But the "checkbox solution" Russell references would require time
and new coding. Using "undetermined type" utilizes an existing
method that would be a quick and easy fix to this so-called problem.
|
I'm going to jump in here and say that the site's current 'undetermined
type' system is not a good solution overall. (Even in the meantime.)
Our set inventories need to have the correct variant listed as using undetermined
parts there would water down our info. Therefore, the undetermined parts would
all be orphaned...ie not showing in the Known Colors or Appears In lists. This
means people creating wanted lists or parting out sets would have to know to
go and switch to the undetermined listing if they did not care to shop for or
list that specific element.
Without the 'umbrella' coding, it would create a lot of duplication and
confusion in the Marketplace.
Thanks,
~Jen
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | hpoort | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 08:35 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | You’re arguing for a real umbrella system while Yorbrick was answering BUC who’s
arguing for using a supplementary Undetermined entry “in the meantime.”
|
Indeed, the suggestion I was replying to clearly suggests that no new coding
would be needed, and so would be using the existing undetermined parts method.
But the "checkbox solution" Russell references would require time
and new coding. Using "undetermined type" utilizes an existing
method that would be a quick and easy fix to this so-called problem.
|
I'm going to jump in here and say that the site's current 'undetermined
type' system is not a good solution overall. (Even in the meantime.)
Our set inventories need to have the correct variant listed as using undetermined
parts there would water down our info. Therefore, the undetermined parts would
all be orphaned...ie not showing in the Known Colors or Appears In lists. This
means people creating wanted lists or parting out sets would have to know to
go and switch to the undetermined listing if they did not care to shop for or
list that specific element.
Without the 'umbrella' coding, it would create a lot of duplication and
confusion in the Marketplace.
Thanks,
~Jen
|
So if I conclude correctly, the only proper way forward is to START with the
'umbrella coding' - that have been asked for since many years.
Can anyone point me to a post of admin Russell where he has acknowledged that
any site enhancement regarding variants is actually taken up? (Meaning the coding,
not the database contents). In my mind he has never responded to any of the suggestions
to enhance the handling of variants.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 08:43 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | You’re arguing for a real umbrella system while Yorbrick was answering BUC who’s
arguing for using a supplementary Undetermined entry “in the meantime.”
|
Indeed, the suggestion I was replying to clearly suggests that no new coding
would be needed, and so would be using the existing undetermined parts method.
But the "checkbox solution" Russell references would require time
and new coding. Using "undetermined type" utilizes an existing
method that would be a quick and easy fix to this so-called problem.
|
I'm going to jump in here and say that the site's current 'undetermined
type' system is not a good solution overall. (Even in the meantime.)
Our set inventories need to have the correct variant listed as using undetermined
parts there would water down our info. Therefore, the undetermined parts would
all be orphaned...ie not showing in the Known Colors or Appears In lists. This
means people creating wanted lists or parting out sets would have to know to
go and switch to the undetermined listing if they did not care to shop for or
list that specific element.
Without the 'umbrella' coding, it would create a lot of duplication and
confusion in the Marketplace.
Thanks,
~Jen
|
So if I conclude correctly, the only proper way forward is to START with the
'umbrella coding' - that have been asked for since many years.
Can anyone point me to a post of admin Russell where he has acknowledged that
any site enhancement regarding variants is actually taken up? (Meaning the coding,
not the database contents). In my mind he has never responded to any of the suggestions
to enhance the handling of variants.
|
This post?
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1450855
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | cartman1 | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 10:07 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | You’re arguing for a real umbrella system while Yorbrick was answering BUC who’s
arguing for using a supplementary Undetermined entry “in the meantime.”
|
Indeed, the suggestion I was replying to clearly suggests that no new coding
would be needed, and so would be using the existing undetermined parts method.
But the "checkbox solution" Russell references would require time
and new coding. Using "undetermined type" utilizes an existing
method that would be a quick and easy fix to this so-called problem.
|
I'm going to jump in here and say that the site's current 'undetermined
type' system is not a good solution overall. (Even in the meantime.)
Our set inventories need to have the correct variant listed as using undetermined
parts there would water down our info. Therefore, the undetermined parts would
all be orphaned...ie not showing in the Known Colors or Appears In lists. This
means people creating wanted lists or parting out sets would have to know to
go and switch to the undetermined listing if they did not care to shop for or
list that specific element.
Without the 'umbrella' coding, it would create a lot of duplication and
confusion in the Marketplace.
Thanks,
~Jen
|
So if I conclude correctly, the only proper way forward is to START with the
'umbrella coding' - that have been asked for since many years.
Can anyone point me to a post of admin Russell where he has acknowledged that
any site enhancement regarding variants is actually taken up? (Meaning the coding,
not the database contents). In my mind he has never responded to any of the suggestions
to enhance the handling of variants.
|
This post?
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1450855
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | hpoort | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 10:20 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, cartman1 writes:
| | In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | In Catalog, hpoort writes:
|
|
| | | | | | Can anyone point me to a post of admin Russell where he has acknowledged that
any site enhancement regarding variants is actually taken up? (Meaning the coding,
not the database contents). In my mind he has never responded to any of the suggestions
to enhance the handling of variants.
|
This post?
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1450855
|
|
Yeah, that's the only one I've seen that comes close. At least they have
given it a name internally, although 'Checkbox solution' does not inspire
too much confidence yet.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 11:00 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | although 'Checkbox solution' does not inspire
too much confidence yet.
|
It inspires more confidence than 'checkbox problem'!
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 11:30 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | although 'Checkbox solution' does not inspire
too much confidence yet.
|
It inspires more confidence than 'checkbox problem'!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 11:53 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | although 'Checkbox solution' does not inspire
too much confidence yet.
|
It inspires more confidence than 'checkbox problem'!
|
|
Well, “problem” and “solution” always go together: solutions solve problems.
So, it stands to reason that if there’s a ‘checkbox solution’ then there’s (or
there was) a ‘checkbox problem’ to be solved.
The best is when there’s no solution: because that then means there’s no problem!
(Well, that’s what the Shadoks said.)
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 12:12 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | although 'Checkbox solution' does not inspire
too much confidence yet.
|
It inspires more confidence than 'checkbox problem'!
|
|
Well, “problem” and “solution” always go together: solutions solve problems.
So, it stands to reason that if there’s a ‘checkbox solution’ then there’s (or
there was) a ‘checkbox problem’ to be solved.
The best is when there’s no solution: because that then means there’s no problem!
(Well, that’s what the Shadoks said.)
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 12:18 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | although 'Checkbox solution' does not inspire
too much confidence yet.
|
It inspires more confidence than 'checkbox problem'!
|
|
Well, “problem” and “solution” always go together: solutions solve problems.
So, it stands to reason that if there’s a ‘checkbox solution’ then there’s (or
there was) a ‘checkbox problem’ to be solved.
The best is when there’s no solution: because that then means there’s no problem!
(Well, that’s what the Shadoks said.)
|
There are problems where there are no solutions.
But my point was more about confidence based on how they are looking at it. If
they are talking of a solution, at least they appear to be focusing on solving
the problem. Whereas if they talk about it as a problem, they have a more negative
focus.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 12:32 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | […]
| | The best is when there’s no solution: because that then means there’s no problem!
(Well, that’s what the Shadoks said.)
|
There are problems where there are no solutions.
|
Well, of course you’d contradict the Shadoks: you’re a Gibi!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 11:26 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | Another empty post by a 0 (or -1) feeeback super Weird how often that happens |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 18:30 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | You’re arguing for a real umbrella system while Yorbrick was answering BUC who’s
arguing for using a supplementary Undetermined entry “in the meantime.”
|
Indeed, the suggestion I was replying to clearly suggests that no new coding
would be needed, and so would be using the existing undetermined parts method.
But the "checkbox solution" Russell references would require time
and new coding. Using "undetermined type" utilizes an existing
method that would be a quick and easy fix to this so-called problem.
|
I'm going to jump in here and say that the site's current 'undetermined
type' system is not a good solution overall. (Even in the meantime.)
Our set inventories need to have the correct variant listed as using undetermined
parts there would water down our info. Therefore, the undetermined parts would
all be orphaned...ie not showing in the Known Colors or Appears In lists. This
means people creating wanted lists or parting out sets would have to know to
go and switch to the undetermined listing if they did not care to shop for or
list that specific element.
Without the 'umbrella' coding, it would create a lot of duplication and
confusion in the Marketplace.
Thanks,
~Jen
|
So if I conclude correctly, the only proper way forward is to START with the
'umbrella coding' - that have been asked for since many years.
Can anyone point me to a post of admin Russell where he has acknowledged that
any site enhancement regarding variants is actually taken up? (Meaning the coding,
not the database contents). In my mind he has never responded to any of the suggestions
to enhance the handling of variants.
|
I think he hasn't officially acknowledged it because its nothing he wants
to be botvered doing he just wants this update done. I know he has saud he doesn't
like the removal of variants on here before but how he presents things as a done
deal. It does ring a bit hollow and comes of as very insincere.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 08:58 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | […]
I'm going to jump in here and say that the site's current 'undetermined
type' system is not a good solution overall. (Even in the meantime.)
Our set inventories need to have the correct variant listed as using undetermined
parts there would water down our info. Therefore, the undetermined parts would
all be orphaned...ie not showing in the Known Colors or Appears In lists. This
means people creating wanted lists or parting out sets would have to know to
go and switch to the undetermined listing if they did not care to shop for or
list that specific element.
Without the 'umbrella' coding, it would create a lot of duplication and
confusion in the Marketplace.
|
Good point(s). No “Known Colors” would also be a nightmare for Studio: it’s
what it uses for colour availability (and we already have to explain that from
time to time).
Hmm 🤔, I’m wondering how Studio, or even a ‘simple’ Wanted List for a MOC, could
work with an umbrella system. Should BL propose to change the variants to cheaper
ones / more recent ones? How to know if they (functionally) work in the build?
Distributing a parts list with some parts in colour ‘N/A’ (Any) is already confusing
for some (got the question 3-4 times for my MOCs on RB).
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | hpoort | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 09:18 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
|
[...]
| |
Hmm 🤔, I’m wondering how Studio, or even a ‘simple’ Wanted List for a MOC, could
work with an umbrella system. Should BL propose to change the variants to cheaper
ones / more recent ones? How to know if they (functionally) work in the build?
|
How about to split the database field 'item number' into two subfields,
at every place where a part type is described:
(1) the base part number
(2) a set of which variants are acceptable
Ad (1): this would be the unbrella entry
Ad (2):
For stock inventories ('items for sale' : which variants could this be
/ are not distinguished (= by default: all)
For set inventories: which variants were found during the lifespan of this set
(= by default: the latest)
For wanted lists ('wanted items': which variants would you accept (=
by default: all)
In Studio: which variant to show (by default: the latest) + which variants would
work (= by default: all)
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 09:43 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, hpoort writes:
That’s the UI/UX problem I was wondering about: “by default” means you need both
to be aware the option exists and there’s a(n easy) way to change it.
My MOCs are free on RB, so I don’t have much feedback to work on, only a few
comments.
What they showed me is that (besides that people want the PDFs), the No/Any colour
option in the parts list for hidden parts isn’t obvious for everyone.
So I’m not sure how it would work for variants.
Also on RB, when you upload / create a parts list for a MOC, it proposes to ‘upgrade’
the parts to the newest variants. AFAIU, it’s all or nothing. (The MOCs I publish
is for people to build/play, so I want modern/easy-to-find parts and didn’t dig
too much.)
It’s better/simpler/easier when it’s the designer who does the job of checking
which variants work / which are the cheapest, but it’s not always possible or
it can become inaccurate/obsolete with time. Then the work falls on the buyer.
Anyway, my point wasn’t “it’s impossible!” but “hmm, it can be complicated /
not newbie-friendly” but then, LEGO IS complicated
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 14:17 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, hpoort writes:
That’s the UI/UX problem I was wondering about: “by default” means you need both
to be aware the option exists and there’s a(n easy) way to change it.
My MOCs are free on RB, so I don’t have much feedback to work on, only a few
comments.
What they showed me is that (besides that people want the PDFs), the No/Any colour
option in the parts list for hidden parts isn’t obvious for everyone.
So I’m not sure how it would work for variants.
Also on RB, when you upload / create a parts list for a MOC, it proposes to ‘upgrade’
the parts to the newest variants. AFAIU, it’s all or nothing. (The MOCs I publish
is for people to build/play, so I want modern/easy-to-find parts and didn’t dig
too much.)
It’s better/simpler/easier when it’s the designer who does the job of checking
which variants work / which are the cheapest, but it’s not always possible or
it can become inaccurate/obsolete with time. Then the work falls on the buyer.
Anyway, my point wasn’t “it’s impossible!” but “hmm, it can be complicated /
not newbie-friendly” but then, LEGO IS complicated
|
And so is software development.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 14:35 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | […]
| | Anyway, my point wasn’t “it’s impossible!” but “hmm, it can be complicated /
not newbie-friendly” but then, LEGO IS complicated
|
And so is software development.
|
Nah, software development is easy, it’s like using LEGO… er, oops?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2024 14:02 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | You’re arguing for a real umbrella system while Yorbrick was answering BUC who’s
arguing for using a supplementary Undetermined entry “in the meantime.”
|
Indeed, the suggestion I was replying to clearly suggests that no new coding
would be needed, and so would be using the existing undetermined parts method.
But the "checkbox solution" Russell references would require time
and new coding. Using "undetermined type" utilizes an existing
method that would be a quick and easy fix to this so-called problem.
|
I'm going to jump in here and say that the site's current 'undetermined
type' system is not a good solution overall. (Even in the meantime.)
Our set inventories need to have the correct variant listed as using undetermined
parts there would water down our info. Therefore, the undetermined parts would
all be orphaned...ie not showing in the Known Colors or Appears In lists. This
means people creating wanted lists or parting out sets would have to know to
go and switch to the undetermined listing if they did not care to shop for or
list that specific element.
Without the 'umbrella' coding, it would create a lot of duplication and
confusion in the Marketplace.
Thanks,
~Jen
|
+1
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 08:34 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 81 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Indeed, the suggestion I was replying to clearly suggests that no new coding
would be needed
|
I apologize for my misunderstanding of your post.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | SnarkBricks | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 14:38 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
These variants ALL have different price points. Some are vital to re-creating
the authenticity of the older sets. Merging would be a MISTAKE!
Not only that, BUT Brick Link is a platform for sellers to sell by the "penny",
in merging and removing these specific parts....you call upon the seller to be
MORE communicative and invest more time for these same "pennies". Not
cool!
I think a BETTER way to implement is to discontinue the items...all of them...
Then, no one can add the item into the catalog and it would force a notice in
the "ACTION ITEMS" for all sellers who list these specific items and
give them the option to slowly merge them into the desirable variants should
they CHOOSE to.... That way the select parts that DO have a higher valuation,
due to seller purchase point or rarity can remain. We should be able to control
our stores not backward manage them...
Give this post a +1 if you agree in part or in whole....
Snark Bricks
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello again everyone,
My initial post on this subject earlier this month has garnered almost 700 replies,
which is right about the level of the BrickArms threads a few years ago.
A New Thread
So I'm starting a new thread with some new information, and hopefully a few
links that will help you navigate through this complex discussion topic.
Here is the original post:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1447090
Here are three Help topics:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2629
Here is a list of my replies on this subject:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageList.asp?overTP=Y&q=variants&qS=Y&msgID=&uName=admin_russell&ID=&status=&v=c&max=50
If you don't wish to read all 700 replies in the previous thread, you can
at least look through some of these for answers to most of the questions that
have been raised.
************************************
The Responses
We sent an email out to all active sellers a couple days ago and we expected
a flood of responses in the Forum. As much as it may seem to be an overwhelming
response, we do appreciate all the members who have posted and shared their feelings
about this project. Keep them coming.
So far I have seen two YouTube videos addressing this issue, and I'll post
in this new thread to respond directly (and completely) to what they are saying.
I will be answering directly several of the more detailed replies over the next
day or two in an effort to clear up any misunderstandings.
************************************
The Research
The following is an example of the some of the research that has been done to
help determine the course of action we are taking.
When it comes to Frosted Bricks, we took a look at the price guide, the inventories
that contained these special bricks, and we studied the nature of the bricks,
at least as far as we could.
What we found was that bricks listed under the normal (umbrella) entries sold
on average for over twice the price, and the volume of sales was 17 times of
bricks listed under the frosted entries. In addition, sellers listing under the
main entries didn’t have to spend the time sorting out their parts. So from a
marketplace standpoint, these frosted entries are simply an inefficiency (see
image below).
In the inventories, there was only spotty information about which sets these
bricks are in. This is likely the main reason for the lower sales volume, because
the BrickLink inventory system drives sales for vintage parts. We started adding
frosted entries to the catalog over 20 years ago, but they are only reflected
in 24 inventories to date.
When it comes to the bricks themselves, there were actually more variants than
what are currently shown on BrickLink. And we’ve never been able to settle on
a reason for these peculiar markings. Some have suggested they are simply the
same patterns one would find on solid color bricks of the same era. Whatever
they are, though, this type of variant is typically found only in sellers’ notes
and not reflected in standalone BrickLink entries.
In fact, it is a peculiar thing that these entries were only for Transparent
versions of the part. We don’t really do that on BrickLink. Normally, all the
colors are placed under one entry.
But perhaps the best reason for removing these entries is the lack of a real
use case for any of our members. For new users, these entries clutter up important
basic parts categories, and if they end up on a wanted list, they can certainly
cause problems.
For the seller who wants to fill out vintage sets, these entries do not solve
their need completely, because there are serious color matching issues with older
transparent parts. It is not “plug and play” with these variants, and truth be
told, it would be easier to obtain the necessary selection of parts by using
the main entries.
For the hard core collector looking for information, BrickLink has very little
to offer in the case of the frosted bricks. We don’t need separate entries to
add representative photos and comparison images of variants, and we were likely
to never complete the “collection” of these entries due to the large number of
different patterns.
In order to preserve what knowledge we have, we plan to release new Help pages
for certain variants covered in this project. Stay tuned.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 15:00 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 103 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | These variants ALL have different price points. Some are vital to re-creating
the authenticity of the older sets.
|
How's so many people in forum have forgotten LEGO is a Toy; also used by
adults to play, build, create and being their expression in this pretty oppressive
world we've got?
You'll still be able to use it your specific way.
But don't forget the majority of users who don't give a stud of rare
versions.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | thebrickmonster | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2024 17:15 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Wow this update is way worse than anticipated. This has made google search useless
and to top it off Studio pointless. I literally cant find anything about a 1x2
tile
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2024 17:26 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | I literally cant find anything about a 1x2 tile
|
Yep, because of the oooooooold 3069a - what 40 years ago?
Now it's corrected, it'll be fine soon for people who need a 1x2 Tile
nowadays, don't worry!
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2024 18:09 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | I literally cant find anything about a 1x2 tile
|
Yep, because of the oooooooold 3069a - what 40 years ago?
Now it's corrected, it'll be fine soon for people who need a 1x2 Tile
nowadays, don't worry!
|
The current problems in Studio all stems from BL forgetting everything about
the -b parts.
That means there’s no price & no colour availability.
That, in turn, means that if you’re filtering parts by colours, poof, the -b
parts don’t show… but the -a can.
Also, you can’t directly upload to a Wanted List, and all the older parts lists
have to be edited (even if through BrickStore).
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2024 18:16 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | I literally cant find anything about a 1x2 tile
|
Yep, because of the oooooooold 3069a - what 40 years ago?
Now it's corrected, it'll be fine soon for people who need a 1x2 Tile
nowadays, don't worry!
|
The current problems in Studio all stems from BL forgetting everything about
the -b parts.
That means there’s no price & no colour availability.
That, in turn, means that if you’re filtering parts by colours, poof, the -b
parts don’t show… but the -a can.
Also, you can’t directly upload to a Wanted List, and all the older parts lists
have to be edited (even if through BrickStore).
|
Agree with all this.
What I say is that it's an old problem who could've been corrected 10
years ago, but not.
So right now we're facing difficulties, it's just normal.
A bit like when people was still looking for the Brick with Headlights with Slot
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2024 18:24 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | […]
So right now we're facing difficulties, it's just normal.
|
No, it’s not “normal.” But, unfortunately, it’s usual.
The database changelog should be automatically checked every day/week/whatever
and should automatically trigger a parts update for Studio.
Even if they don’t want to let a parts update go without checking (and I don’t
see why because they sure let small errors go through, like, every time), they
knew the change was coming, they knew the date.
It’s not obscure parts that were changed. It’s hard to find a set or MOC without
any 1x1, 1x2, or 2x2 tile in it.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2024 18:45 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | […]
So right now we're facing difficulties, it's just normal.
|
No, it’s not “normal.” But, unfortunately, it’s usual.
|
I'm talking about BrickLink's normality of course.
It'd be a car manufacturer, they were in the tonight News.
| | The database changelog should be automatically checked every day/week/whatever
and should automatically trigger a parts update for Studio.
Even if they don’t want to let a parts update go without checking (and I don’t
see why because they sure let small errors go through, like, every time), they
knew the change was coming, they knew the date.
It’s not obscure parts that were changed. It’s hard to find a set or MOC without
any 1x1, 1x2, or 2x2 tile in it.
|
I know. I'm confident they'll fix it.
After and later, see above.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2024 19:04 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | […]
I'm talking about BrickLink's normality of course.
|
Sometimes, one gets tired with some “normality.”
| | It'd be a car manufacturer, they were in the tonight News.
|
Well, not sure about that. Newsies don’t have time for all the companies that
do mistakes, they are too busy with the “short sentence du jour” and social network
drama.
| | […]
I know. I'm confident they'll fix it.
|
Yeah, I’m sure they will. I’m just upset they let it pass (and don’t have anything
automated).
| | After and later, see above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sweden, Örebro
Portugal
Netherlands, Groningen
Canada, Ontario
United Kingdom, England
Australia, Queensland
)
)
Finland, Etelä-Karjala
)
)
)
)
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
)
)
Spain, Comunidad Valenciana
