|  | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | connie  | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 17:43 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 103 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Reading through most of the threads, I can not see if this will affect the 1
x 2 plate with stud (jumpers). Will these be merged?
Connie
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 17:45 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 80 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, connie writes:
| | Reading through most of the threads, I can not see if this will affect the 1
x 2 plate with stud (jumpers). Will these be merged?
Connie
|
dont they they are on the list so no
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | BricksOfFaith | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 17:45 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 92 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I understand a few parts, but others I really don’t. What if I want the actual
vintage parts and not the reissue?? I don’t want to be stuck with not having
any idea what I’m buying. And I feel like BL is just ignoring a lot of the members
begging you not to go through with this. Why make this the work BL programmers
need to work on when they can use this time to actually update the outdated site?!
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | connie | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 18:11 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| These vintage parts should all go into a vintage area on Bricklink. Put them
into a separate area. Should not be that hard to just move them.
connie
By the way, speaking of working on stuff that really doesn't need to be worked
on..........we were told a couple of years ago that once all the vat and sales
tax was added to the checkout that THEN they would fix it so that those with
a sales tax number would not have to pay the tax. Has this happened? NO!! Nothing
is more frustrating than having to pay tax on something bought internationally.
So stupid. This is more important to me than variation in parts being redone.
Connie
In Catalog, BricksOfFaith writes:
| | I understand a few parts, but others I really don’t. What if I want the actual
vintage parts and not the reissue?? I don’t want to be stuck with not having
any idea what I’m buying. And I feel like BL is just ignoring a lot of the members
begging you not to go through with this. Why make this the work BL programmers
need to work on when they can use this time to actually update the outdated site?!
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | BricksOfFaith | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 20:40 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | BricksOfFaith | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 20:47 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 72 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I really don’t understand why you are so against listening to your members???
I really wish I knew why you guys are so insistent in this. Buyers AND sellers
deserve way more than this. Why can’t your members have a
say what happens??? You guys aren’t the only ones who use/work on this site.
Why not simply
run a quick poll? This is a terrible decision, and you know that the majority
of us think so. Yet you guys don’t really care. This is not only a terrible decision
but a waste of resources and a waste of the work that your members and old team
put in to make these catalog entries. I’m sorry for sounding rude, I just really
think it’s ridiculous.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | BrickieSixx | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2024 13:22 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Follow the money. That is the answer and its not a good one for sellers on this
site.
In Catalog, BricksOfFaith writes:
| | I really don’t understand why you are so against listening to your members???
I really wish I knew why you guys are so insistent in this. Buyers AND sellers
deserve way more than this. Why can’t your members have a
say what happens??? You guys aren’t the only ones who use/work on this site.
Why not simply
run a quick poll? This is a terrible decision, and you know that the majority
of us think so. Yet you guys don’t really care. This is not only a terrible decision
but a waste of resources and a waste of the work that your members and old team
put in to make these catalog entries. I’m sorry for sounding rude, I just really
think it’s ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | here4bricks614 | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 19:40 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, connie writes:
| | These vintage parts should all go into a vintage area on Bricklink. Put them
into a separate area. Should not be that hard to just move them.
connie
By the way, speaking of working on stuff that really doesn't need to be worked
on..........we were told a couple of years ago that once all the vat and sales
tax was added to the checkout that THEN they would fix it so that those with
a sales tax number would not have to pay the tax. Has this happened? NO!! Nothing
is more frustrating than having to pay tax on something bought internationally.
So stupid. This is more important to me than variation in parts being redone.
Connie
In Catalog, BricksOfFaith writes:
| | I understand a few parts, but others I really don’t. What if I want the actual
vintage parts and not the reissue?? I don’t want to be stuck with not having
any idea what I’m buying. And I feel like BL is just ignoring a lot of the members
begging you not to go through with this. Why make this the work BL programmers
need to work on when they can use this time to actually update the outdated site?!
|
|
I’m still waiting on an update to a topic from May of 2022 that I was told would
only take a few weeks. That, and an update to another issue that’s been around
for many, many years that should have received an update back in December.
One can claim that sellers can simply “add a note” if they have a different variant
that doesn’t have its own entry, but the vast majority of sellers do not use
item notes, and I don’t think this is going to incentivize many sellers to start
using them. What does it matter, though? No discussion on a forum is going to
change this, because their minds were made up before this was even announced.
This was never up to the community.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | taxan | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 18:39 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 108 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
Some note from me.
Determined Entries for Very Common Parts
You are aware that what you are doing here, by removing the "with Groove"
text you are creating a “undetermined type” entry. That thing BL have
been working for years to get ride of. People that com her to chop can no longer
be sure what type they will get. Many seller that is to lacy to determent what
version they have will use this entry.
Blocked and Vented Studs
Why are you destroying the database that so many AFOLs have been help building
for years.
Adding a note to the listing are not going to help especial when we talking 100
of thousand notes that have to added and when Search engine like “Easy Bye”
doesn't even show notes when you using it.
And with the listing gone nobody will know where to add those notes.
Smooth slopes
Try to add a sticker to a rouge surface.
Sprue marks
Are the windows glass going to be rename/merged to ?
When people are building MOCs they want them to look good. A sprue mark are for
the most part something the doesn't want.
Torsos with ribs
Like people have been telling you if they wont the old Minifigur they don’t
want the new Torso, (and some of those Torso wont even survive a Leg assemble
from the wrong time period whiteout cracking).
X-shaped axle holes
+ and x shaped axle hole often have different use.
+ shape are for better and stronger connection and x is mostly for easy connection
and removing.
Blocked and vented studs
And here we are again. I have been here so long that I remember that BL at one
point even had it in its TOS that forbid the user to add Minifigs heads with
one of those.
Those are imported time reference for the Minifigs.
By doing this (and I think this it only the start) you are more or less killing
BrinkLink.
By destroying the database BL are removing many buyers reason to com here. They
need to go to other places to get the info they need and the going to buy what
they looking for there.
You didn’t even send a mail about this to the most important group on BL The
Buyers.
Whiteout buyer there will be no reason for seller to be here and you get no fee
to pay for everything.
Go through with and i give the site max 5 years before its gone.
I think the best thing to do is cancel the whole ting for now and start working
on an umbrella entry that can have more than one sub entry. That way you can
still have the best database and lacy (seller that don’t want to take
there time to sort out different molds or don’t know how to) sellers can list
the way they want.
Have a nice day.
taxan
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 20:13 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 172 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location:  USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
 |
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, taxan writes:
Thank you for the input.
| | Determined Entries for Very Common Parts
You are aware that what you are doing here, by removing the "with Groove"
text you are creating a “undetermined type” entry. That thing BL have
been working for years to get ride of. People that com her to chop can no longer
be sure what type they will get. Many seller that is to lacy to determent what
version they have will use this entry.
|
You are correct that normally we try to remove undetermined entries, and we did
go through a long period of correcting inventories with this part. Officially
they may be undetermined again, but they will be like 3001 and 3001old. This
subset (umbrella) relationship works well for super basic parts like this where
we don't want to burden every user of the site with the "with groove"
text.
The main reason why these and other related parts are being treated as an exception
is because of how old the original versions of the parts are. Tiles without groove
were last produced 50 years ago. They are relatively rare now and are mostly
in the realm of the collector. I have heard that some builders like them, but
then they can buy them from the "a" entry.
| | Blocked and Vented Studs
Why are you destroying the database that so many AFOLs have been help building
for years.
Adding a note to the listing are not going to help especial when we talking 100
of thousand notes that have to added and when Search engine like “Easy Bye”
doesn't even show notes when you using it.
And with the listing gone nobody will know where to add those notes.
|
I'll address this below.
| | Smooth slopes
Try to add a sticker to a rouge surface.
|
How smooth does a slope have to be to be considered a smooth slope on BrickLink?
This is the main problem with these types of entries. Listings for sale are subjective,
and the inventory records are subjective too. Take a look at all the sets these
"smooth" slopes are in, and then look at the ones they are not in - from
the same years. The data is almost meaningless.
| | Sprue marks
Are the windows glass going to be rename/merged to ?
|
No, they are not mainstream parts.
| | When people are building MOCs they want them to look good. A sprue mark are for
the most part something the doesn't want.
|
Exactly. So why do we have a dedicated entry for the version people DON'T
want? Nobody seems to have an answer for that, but that is the current system.
My advice for builders is, if you don't like the sprue mark, buy new chairs.
If the sprue is a problem, sellers should mark the lot as deficient in some way,
just like you would handle a batch of a color that was a little off, or bricks
that were heavily used.
| | Torsos with ribs
Like people have been telling you if they wont the old Minifigur they don’t
want the new Torso, (and some of those Torso wont even survive a Leg assemble
from the wrong time period whiteout cracking).
|
We will likely keep the torsos in the catalog and rename them to not refer to
the ribs. The real problem we're up against is the unwillingness to have
enough separate minifigure entries to handle all the permutations of variants.
Currently, this is not a problem with the torsos. But it could be if we start
adding torsos based on the ribs alone.
And just for the record, here again, the "vintage" entry is the umbrella
entry. No one is guaranteed an original minifigure when they buy under that entry.
If something is truly original, the seller really should mention this in the
notes.
| | X-shaped axle holes
+ and x shaped axle hole often have different use.
+ shape are for better and stronger connection and x is mostly for easy connection
and removing.
|
I'm sure there is a slight difference in performance between the two types,
but after having tried the x shape for a while, LEGO engineers have abandoned
that shape of hole. Functionally, they are considered equivalent, and the only
reason we would continue to distinguish them is for cosmetic reasons. Only the
1 x 2 brick with axle hole can really claim a cosmetic difference, but since
the version of the part that people want is so common now, it's hard to justify
the time sellers must take to sort them. Where is the market for parts with x-shaped
holes? Even as a collector you would be hard pressed to say a set only came with
the x-shaped hole. Look at the inventory data we have.
| | Blocked and vented studs
And here we are again. I have been here so long that I remember that BL at one
point even had it in its TOS that forbid the user to add Minifigs heads with
one of those.
|
Thank you for remembering this! And what we are doing now is reverting to Dan's
original policy, with the exception being made for solid stud heads, because
solid stud vs hollow stud is something the catalog recognizes everywhere now.
When the Hollow Stud minifigure heads started to come out, I felt it was a risky
thing to start distinguishing them in the catalog, and I refused to split other
parts on similar grounds. This one has an "undetermined" hollow stud:
But when the vented stud came out (and apparently there are two versions of the
vented stud as well) things were stretched too far. Now we were putting notes
in minifigure inventories and then adding the loose minifigure head as an alternate
item in the set with no matching Match ID.
For a while the case was made that because these parts involved minifigures,
it was worth all the fuss to separate the parts. But on the other hand, there
was no willingness at all to make enough minifigure entries to handle the true
number of permutations that were coming in sets.
People have suggested adding alternate parts for minifigure inventories, but
that goes against Dan's original plan for the site. He could have added alternates
to those inventories, but he chose not to. The reason is that when selling a
minifigure, if 1 out of 4 parts is the wrong type, that is a major problem. This
is why we police the minifigure listings for missing items. We take down hundreds
of them every week.
If the type of hollow stud really mattered to people, we could split the minifigure
listings accordingly. But the fact is that most people don't care about which
version of hollow head, because most minifigures have headgear or hairpieces,
and the stud type was never meant to have any meaning beyond the technical workings
of molding plastic. That's why there are over 1000 minifigure heads that
are exactly the same print, but have a different stud type.
What matters more is the printing on the head. This is what we need to spend
our time cataloging and filling up Item Names with. If minifigures were an edge
case like Clikits, we wouldn't prevent exhaustive catalog efforts to represent
everything to such a degree of fineness.
However, minifigure parts populate the very largest categories on BrickLink and
they continue to grow at a wild pace. Minifigures are VERY popular, they are
VERY mainstream, and they cannot be encumbered by excessive mold variations.
Of course, it's not just minifigure heads that are affected by this. Categorically,
BrickLink is unrecognizing the different hollow stud types in all parts - hollow,
blocked open, vented thin and vented thick.
| | Those are imported time reference for the Minifigs.
|
Yes, but the time reference is skewed by an inventory system that is incomplete,
and it can be replaced by a simple chart in a Help page that shows the approximate
years these various heads appeared. The BrickLink system can tell you no different
and no better.
| | By doing this (and I think this it only the start) you are more or less killing
BrinkLink.
By destroying the database BL are removing many buyers reason to com here. They
need to go to other places to get the info they need and the going to buy what
they looking for there.
|
In previous threads I have likened this move to pruning a garden. If the gardener
knew that pruning would destroy the garden, they wouldn't do it.
| | You didn’t even send a mail about this to the most important group on BL The
Buyers.
Whiteout buyer there will be no reason for seller to be here and you get no fee
to pay for everything.
Go through with and i give the site max 5 years before its gone.
|
I'm not going to get into which group on BrickLink is most important. We're
doing this for the greater good, and that includes members from every different
group.
| | I think the best thing to do is cancel the whole ting for now and start working
on an umbrella entry that can have more than one sub entry. That way you can
still have the best database and lacy (seller that don’t want to take
there time to sort out different molds or don’t know how to) sellers can list
the way they want.
|
We may cancel a few of these variant merges, but I do believe most of them will
go through. And I am 100% behind any effort to give us better tools to handle
variants and the different audiences that we have. But these particular variants
I don't imagine will ever be handled by a separate system. They are just
too obscure. Most people wouldn't even know they exist without the BrickLink
entries.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | helge | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 02:11 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 89 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | |
We may cancel a few of these variant merges, but I do believe most of them will
go through. And I am 100% behind any effort to give us better tools to handle
variants and the different audiences that we have. But these particular variants
I don't imagine will ever be handled by a separate system. They are just
too obscure. Most people wouldn't even know they exist without the BrickLink
entries.
|
I am fully behind this merge plan; thank you for the good work. I totally agree
that this will be good for the great majority of Bricklinks users, while a small
loud minority may not like it.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | LeeGo73 | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 07:48 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, helge writes:
| | | |
We may cancel a few of these variant merges, but I do believe most of them will
go through. And I am 100% behind any effort to give us better tools to handle
variants and the different audiences that we have. But these particular variants
I don't imagine will ever be handled by a separate system. They are just
too obscure. Most people wouldn't even know they exist without the BrickLink
entries.
|
I am fully behind this merge plan; thank you for the good work. I totally agree
that this will be good for the great majority of Bricklinks users, while a small
loud minority may not like it.
|
I'm curious to see how small this loud minority is. A poll about this upcoming
change would give a lot of insight.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 08:01 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, LeeGo73 writes:
| | In Catalog, helge writes:
| | | |
We may cancel a few of these variant merges, but I do believe most of them will
go through. And I am 100% behind any effort to give us better tools to handle
variants and the different audiences that we have. But these particular variants
I don't imagine will ever be handled by a separate system. They are just
too obscure. Most people wouldn't even know they exist without the BrickLink
entries.
|
I am fully behind this merge plan; thank you for the good work. I totally agree
that this will be good for the great majority of Bricklinks users, while a small
loud minority may not like it.
|
I'm curious to see how small this loud minority is. A poll about this upcoming
change would give a lot of insight.
|
Only if everyone was forced to vote, after taking a test to make sure they understand
what would be changing.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | helge | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 08:16 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, LeeGo73 writes:
| | In Catalog, helge writes:
| | | |
We may cancel a few of these variant merges, but I do believe most of them will
go through. And I am 100% behind any effort to give us better tools to handle
variants and the different audiences that we have. But these particular variants
I don't imagine will ever be handled by a separate system. They are just
too obscure. Most people wouldn't even know they exist without the BrickLink
entries.
|
I am fully behind this merge plan; thank you for the good work. I totally agree
that this will be good for the great majority of Bricklinks users, while a small
loud minority may not like it.
|
I'm curious to see how small this loud minority is. A poll about this upcoming
change would give a lot of insight.
|
The problem is how to make a poll that give a fair result. The majority of Bricklink
users do not read the forum. In my personal dealings with buyers and builders,
I have met a lot of people who are frustrated with too many part variants in
the BL catalogue, but I cannot recall I have ever met anyone in person that has
advocated for more variants. We have many local* buyers who pick up their BL
order in person in our shop, many of those express frustration about BL being
too complicated, and all the part variants are something that comes up often.
I do not think that those kind of buyers are even aware of there being a discussion
forum on Bricklink, and if they do, will not bother to neither read nor take
part in this discussion. And I do not think many of those would bother to answer
a poll if they were asked.
Anyway I think that this is something that Bricklink admins must decide. Briclink
is not a democracy after all. I have in the past been quite negative about certain
things that Bricklink has done, but in this case I agree completely. So if I
complain when I disagree, I think that I also should say it when I agree.
*Local as in within 1+ hour drive
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 08:47 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | The problem is how to make a poll that give a fair result. The majority of Bricklink
users do not read the forum.
|
An even bigger problem is that many people don't know what is proposed but
might be against it as it is change and they don't want change. The youtube
videos show what can happen when a video is produced without understanding what
is happening and then seen by others so they also then don't understand what
is happening. Some of the comments elsewhere about merging colours or merging
all the 1x2 jumper plates, etc, show that people don't take the time to research
what is proposed.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | LeeGo73 | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 09:11 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, helge writes:
| | In Catalog, LeeGo73 writes:
| | In Catalog, helge writes:
| | | |
We may cancel a few of these variant merges, but I do believe most of them will
go through. And I am 100% behind any effort to give us better tools to handle
variants and the different audiences that we have. But these particular variants
I don't imagine will ever be handled by a separate system. They are just
too obscure. Most people wouldn't even know they exist without the BrickLink
entries.
|
I am fully behind this merge plan; thank you for the good work. I totally agree
that this will be good for the great majority of Bricklinks users, while a small
loud minority may not like it.
|
I'm curious to see how small this loud minority is. A poll about this upcoming
change would give a lot of insight.
|
The problem is how to make a poll that give a fair result. The majority of Bricklink
users do not read the forum. In my personal dealings with buyers and builders,
I have met a lot of people who are frustrated with too many part variants in
the BL catalogue, but I cannot recall I have ever met anyone in person that has
advocated for more variants. We have many local* buyers who pick up their BL
order in person in our shop, many of those express frustration about BL being
too complicated, and all the part variants are something that comes up often.
I do not think that those kind of buyers are even aware of there being a discussion
forum on Bricklink, and if they do, will not bother to neither read nor take
part in this discussion. And I do not think many of those would bother to answer
a poll if they were asked.
Anyway I think that this is something that Bricklink admins must decide. Briclink
is not a democracy after all. I have in the past been quite negative about certain
things that Bricklink has done, but in this case I agree completely. So if I
complain when I disagree, I think that I also should say it when I agree.
*Local as in within 1+ hour drive
|
I get why your customers would not be interested in the variants. I don't
know if you sold used parts in the past, but currently your store is 99.99% new
items. The merge will have zero impact on your store. But there are stores more
focused on the buyers who are looking for the vintage pieces to complete the
set according to the original state. A shinny new brick is probably not what
they are looking for.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 09:21 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | I get why your customers would not be interested in the variants. I don't
know if you sold used parts in the past, but currently your store is 99.99% new
items. The merge will have zero impact on your store. But there are stores more
focused on the buyers who are looking for the vintage pieces to complete the
set according to the original state. A shinny new brick is probably not what
they are looking for.
|
I imagine many are looking to complete it according to the BL inventory, which
may or may not be the same as the original state.
If the BL inventory is changed after a few non-functional variant parts are merged,
will people still want what was in the old version of the inventory, or will
they go with the current inventory as their guideline as to what should be in
the set.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | LeeGo73 | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 09:40 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | I get why your customers would not be interested in the variants. I don't
know if you sold used parts in the past, but currently your store is 99.99% new
items. The merge will have zero impact on your store. But there are stores more
focused on the buyers who are looking for the vintage pieces to complete the
set according to the original state. A shinny new brick is probably not what
they are looking for.
|
I imagine many are looking to complete it according to the BL inventory, which
may or may not be the same as the original state.
If the BL inventory is changed after a few non-functional variant parts are merged,
will people still want what was in the old version of the inventory, or will
they go with the current inventory as their guideline as to what should be in
the set.
|
I cannot speak for others, but I follow the BL inventory, which is as close to
original as can be after all the contributions over the years from the members.
If non-functional parts are merged the inventory will most likely not get closer
to original, but further away from it. Some people will care, some won't.
But the information will be lost after the merge if I understand the upcoming
change correctly.
Personally I don't think the non-functional variant is a good argument. For
example; what is the functional difference between a black 3001, 3001old and
3001special? Should they be merged?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | tmtomh | | Posted: | Feb 2, 2024 17:57 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | I get why your customers would not be interested in the variants. I don't
know if you sold used parts in the past, but currently your store is 99.99% new
items. The merge will have zero impact on your store. But there are stores more
focused on the buyers who are looking for the vintage pieces to complete the
set according to the original state. A shinny new brick is probably not what
they are looking for.
|
I imagine many are looking to complete it according to the BL inventory, which
may or may not be the same as the original state.
If the BL inventory is changed after a few non-functional variant parts are merged,
will people still want what was in the old version of the inventory, or will
they go with the current inventory as their guideline as to what should be in
the set.
|
To me, this last point is where the argument in favor of these merger goes right
over the bend: if the BL inventories for vintage sets become inaccurate because
certain old part variants that originally came in those sets are no longer recognized
in the BL database, the dumbed-down inventory will become the official inventory
- and in a 1984-style bit of historical revisionism, 1980s or 1990s part molds
will magically become proper, authentic elements for 1960s and 1979s sets. At
that level, the argument is IMHO just crazy at best, and unethical at worst l,
given that we all know there is a large vintage Lego collector community worldwide,
just as there are large and equally detail-oriented collector communities fur
most other toys and most kinds of hobby items in general.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | BrickieSixx | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2024 13:37 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Exactly. The purpose is as clear as day to me: Muddy the waters, destroy information,
make discontinued molds accurate to retired sets too troublesome to reliably
acquire from the biggest (quasi)third party part-selling site in the world.
Lego makes more profit per sale for parts when users turn more to lego direct
for parts. It all comes down to promoting new parts (which can be had from Lego)
vs older parts (which cannot). Its painfully transparent. In my view, at least.
Follow da money!
In Catalog, tmtomh writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | I get why your customers would not be interested in the variants. I don't
know if you sold used parts in the past, but currently your store is 99.99% new
items. The merge will have zero impact on your store. But there are stores more
focused on the buyers who are looking for the vintage pieces to complete the
set according to the original state. A shinny new brick is probably not what
they are looking for.
|
I imagine many are looking to complete it according to the BL inventory, which
may or may not be the same as the original state.
If the BL inventory is changed after a few non-functional variant parts are merged,
will people still want what was in the old version of the inventory, or will
they go with the current inventory as their guideline as to what should be in
the set.
|
To me, this last point is where the argument in favor of these merger goes right
over the bend: if the BL inventories for vintage sets become inaccurate because
certain old part variants that originally came in those sets are no longer recognized
in the BL database, the dumbed-down inventory will become the official inventory
- and in a 1984-style bit of historical revisionism, 1980s or 1990s part molds
will magically become proper, authentic elements for 1960s and 1979s sets. At
that level, the argument is IMHO just crazy at best, and unethical at worst l,
given that we all know there is a large vintage Lego collector community worldwide,
just as there are large and equally detail-oriented collector communities fur
most other toys and most kinds of hobby items in general.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2024 13:49 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Yes, this is clearly the long-term agenda--the next batch of mergers will
have less opposition and make it even easier for TLG to sideline BL sellers.
Of course, this doesn't make sense for the merged parts where even Lego will
continue to make the distinction--like in the 1x2x5 bricks with or without
side support, which are plainly different parts that shouldn't be merged.
It's ridiculous every source, including Lego, will continue to draw a distinction
between these parts EXCEPT Bricklink.
In Catalog, BrickieSixx writes:
| | Exactly. The purpose is as clear as day to me: Muddy the waters, destroy information,
make discontinued molds accurate to retired sets too troublesome to reliably
acquire from the biggest (quasi)third party part-selling site in the world.
Lego makes more profit per sale for parts when users turn more to lego direct
for parts. It all comes down to promoting new parts (which can be had from Lego)
vs older parts (which cannot). Its painfully transparent. In my view, at least.
Follow da money!
In Catalog, tmtomh writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | I get why your customers would not be interested in the variants. I don't
know if you sold used parts in the past, but currently your store is 99.99% new
items. The merge will have zero impact on your store. But there are stores more
focused on the buyers who are looking for the vintage pieces to complete the
set according to the original state. A shinny new brick is probably not what
they are looking for.
|
I imagine many are looking to complete it according to the BL inventory, which
may or may not be the same as the original state.
If the BL inventory is changed after a few non-functional variant parts are merged,
will people still want what was in the old version of the inventory, or will
they go with the current inventory as their guideline as to what should be in
the set.
|
To me, this last point is where the argument in favor of these merger goes right
over the bend: if the BL inventories for vintage sets become inaccurate because
certain old part variants that originally came in those sets are no longer recognized
in the BL database, the dumbed-down inventory will become the official inventory
- and in a 1984-style bit of historical revisionism, 1980s or 1990s part molds
will magically become proper, authentic elements for 1960s and 1979s sets. At
that level, the argument is IMHO just crazy at best, and unethical at worst l,
given that we all know there is a large vintage Lego collector community worldwide,
just as there are large and equally detail-oriented collector communities fur
most other toys and most kinds of hobby items in general.
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | BrickieSixx | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2024 14:21 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Yes, and equally clear to me is that if the management truly had improving the
site for its users as their priority- A fifth grade education could tell you
the fastest and most effective way of driving sales and site traffic would be
to modernize the site cosmetically. Which would very much easier than this (imo)
sabotage.
In Catalog, oukexergon writes:
| | Yes, this is clearly the long-term agenda--the next batch of mergers will
have less opposition and make it even easier for TLG to sideline BL sellers.
Of course, this doesn't make sense for the merged parts where even Lego will
continue to make the distinction--like in the 1x2x5 bricks with or without
side support, which are plainly different parts that shouldn't be merged.
It's ridiculous every source, including Lego, will continue to draw a distinction
between these parts EXCEPT Bricklink.
In Catalog, BrickieSixx writes:
| | Exactly. The purpose is as clear as day to me: Muddy the waters, destroy information,
make discontinued molds accurate to retired sets too troublesome to reliably
acquire from the biggest (quasi)third party part-selling site in the world.
Lego makes more profit per sale for parts when users turn more to lego direct
for parts. It all comes down to promoting new parts (which can be had from Lego)
vs older parts (which cannot). Its painfully transparent. In my view, at least.
Follow da money!
In Catalog, tmtomh writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | I get why your customers would not be interested in the variants. I don't
know if you sold used parts in the past, but currently your store is 99.99% new
items. The merge will have zero impact on your store. But there are stores more
focused on the buyers who are looking for the vintage pieces to complete the
set according to the original state. A shinny new brick is probably not what
they are looking for.
|
I imagine many are looking to complete it according to the BL inventory, which
may or may not be the same as the original state.
If the BL inventory is changed after a few non-functional variant parts are merged,
will people still want what was in the old version of the inventory, or will
they go with the current inventory as their guideline as to what should be in
the set.
|
To me, this last point is where the argument in favor of these merger goes right
over the bend: if the BL inventories for vintage sets become inaccurate because
certain old part variants that originally came in those sets are no longer recognized
in the BL database, the dumbed-down inventory will become the official inventory
- and in a 1984-style bit of historical revisionism, 1980s or 1990s part molds
will magically become proper, authentic elements for 1960s and 1979s sets. At
that level, the argument is IMHO just crazy at best, and unethical at worst l,
given that we all know there is a large vintage Lego collector community worldwide,
just as there are large and equally detail-oriented collector communities fur
most other toys and most kinds of hobby items in general.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2024 14:41 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, BrickieSixx writes:
| | Exactly. The purpose is as clear as day to me: Muddy the waters, destroy information,
make discontinued molds accurate to retired sets too troublesome to reliably
acquire from the biggest (quasi)third party part-selling site in the world.
Lego makes more profit per sale for parts when users turn more to lego direct
for parts. It all comes down to promoting new parts (which can be had from Lego)
vs older parts (which cannot). Its painfully transparent. In my view, at least.
|
And... at no moment you could realize the majority isn't interested at
all in Tiles Without Groove?
Or a Minifigure Head with this or that Smile, or this fictionnal character, but
not about Vented, Blocked, Opened?
Strange.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2024 15:06 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, BrickieSixx writes:
|
| | And... at no moment you could realize the majority isn't interested at
all in Tiles Without Groove?
Or a Minifigure Head with this or that Smile, or this fictionnal character, but
not about Vented, Blocked, Opened?
|
And how would you know that, exactly? I can guarantee you that 100% of people
looking for specific historic variants do want the specific historic variants
to continue being separated on this site. You sell new parts, good for you, this
has no impact on you or your buyers. Nice to see you arguing with those it
does impact like a broken record. Of course, this will eventually, down the years,
impact your bottom line as well, not that you'll see it at this moment since
you want to just argue circularly about why this doesn't matter to "the
majority" even with zero evidence. You'll be affected because there won't
be a reason to shop at BL if BL gets rid of more and more historic parts, there
will eventually be no reason for BL at all.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2024 15:18 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 78 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, oukexergon writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, BrickieSixx writes:
|
| | And... at no moment you could realize the majority isn't interested at
all in Tiles Without Groove?
Or a Minifigure Head with this or that Smile, or this fictionnal character, but
not about Vented, Blocked, Opened?
|
And how would you know that, exactly?
|
Because 17 yrs on BrickLink, 40,000 buyers, 70,000 orders, selling Used, Versions,
New, tried everything and made stats?
Plus checking my own usage of parts and the hundreds person I've met and
still build (in collaboration) with, like every week?
Plus some questionning like "Who's mainly buying LEGO"?
Kids, parents and family for kids, young adults (Licences), LEGO more or less
all time fans, to play and build.
Ah, and a very few collectors.
Of course, any POV can be different - but this is how I know.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2024 16:39 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | Ah, and a very few collectors.
|
Incredibly, those are the only people this would directly affect by necessity
(of course the repercussions will eventually affect everyone). The rest you mentioned
cannot possibly tell you the information you claim to know. Even if you had all
those stats about who is buying what and how often, you would not know if they
would or would not prefer to keep the catalog as-is. That's the point, you
are claiming to know something you do not know just from your experience. Everyone
can speak from experience.
To further illustrate, I'm a collector of old sets, I do buy old set parts
all the time to complete those sets. Look for the specific variants on those,
and sometimes specifically note them in messages to ensure it's the exact
one I'm looking for. Of course, if you don't sell those variants to begin
with, we'll never run into each other--ever, no matter how many years
your store is up. Because your listing won't include the parts I'm looking
for. Your experience will be: I do not exist.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2024 17:54 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, oukexergon writes:
| | To further illustrate, I'm a collector of old sets, I do buy old set parts
all the time to complete those sets.
|
It's for sure fine and interesting, can't deny, but you're a minority
to practice this Sport.
While this, millions are bothered by the Tiles Without Groove in Studio (and
were couple days ago in BrickLink) in 2024!?
I give up, I stop here 
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | UTLF | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2024 19:20 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2024 20:55 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, oukexergon writes:
| | To further illustrate, I'm a collector of old sets, I do buy old set parts
all the time to complete those sets.
|
It's for sure fine and interesting, can't deny, but you're a minority
to practice this Sport.
While this, millions are bothered by the Tiles Without Groove in Studio (and
were couple days ago in BrickLink) in 2024!?
I give up, I stop here
|
Just wait until they introduce the Tile 1 x 1 with Grooves on 2 Sides, Adjacent
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | helge | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 10:03 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 79 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | |
I get why your customers would not be interested in the variants. I don't
know if you sold used parts in the past, but currently your store is 99.99% new
items. The merge will have zero impact on your store. But there are stores more
focused on the buyers who are looking for the vintage pieces to complete the
set according to the original state. A shinny new brick is probably not what
they are looking for.
|
No, the merge will have positive impact on my store.
Yes, of course I understand the all do not agree with this, but I can only speak
from my experience, and what I hear from my buyers.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 08:07 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, helge writes:
| | | |
We may cancel a few of these variant merges, but I do believe most of them will
go through. And I am 100% behind any effort to give us better tools to handle
variants and the different audiences that we have. But these particular variants
I don't imagine will ever be handled by a separate system. They are just
too obscure. Most people wouldn't even know they exist without the BrickLink
entries.
|
I am fully behind this merge plan; thank you for the good work. I totally agree
that this will be good for the great majority of Bricklinks users, while a small
loud minority may not like it.
|
I echo this and particularly look forward to the merger of the minifig heads
which will have a positive influence in how people view/buy using the minfig
breakdowns.
As Russell put it... most just want the correct head print and really don't
care about the stud type hidden away under the headgear and I believe the same
is true for most of those other parts too!
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | JulieK | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 18:52 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 19:00 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello again everyone.  This is the latest update on the variants project.
|
Hi I made a specific entry concerning 46212 the 1x2x5 brick without side supports.
Would appreciate consideration.
Merging Part 46212 functional difference
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 21:32 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, oukexergon writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello again everyone. This is the latest update on the variants project.
|
Hi I made a specific entry concerning 46212 the 1x2x5 brick without side supports.
Would appreciate consideration.
Merging Part 46212 functional difference
|
And the link:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1451755
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 20:13 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 78 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Its so good that we have admins who are so adamant about listening and communicating
with both sellers and buyers alike. Without even the slightest bit of controversy
being sparked. What's that a 858 post long thread with several people repulsed
by the idea of this update. What a bunch hippie dippy baloney. No way we could
have ever had such a thread.
I hope all bricklink scalpers are happy now
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Tarkur | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 20:31 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | calebfishn | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 15:05 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Tarkur writes:
| | Its so good that we have admins who are so adamant about listening and communicating
with both sellers and buyers alike. Without even the slightest bit of controversy
being sparked. What's that a 858 post long thread with several people repulsed
by the idea of this update. What a bunch hippie dippy baloney. No way we could
have ever had such a thread.
I hope all bricklink scalpers are happy now
|
Yes, it is amazing that several repulsed people managed to generate a 858 post
thread.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | zorbanj | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 20:15 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 112 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello again everyone. This is the latest update on the variants project.
Important update to the sellers' correction list:
We have added an XML download to help sellers more easily see which lots in their
store may be affected by these changes. Also see the image attached below:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2629
|
I didn't know how to do this, so I am posting my notes.
How to import an XML file into a Bricklink Wanted List (Windows Users):
Download the XML file.
Open the XML file with Notepad.
Right click, select all and copy all text.
Hover over the heart-shaped “Want” link at the top right of the BL homepage.
Select "Upload".
Select "Upload Bricklink XML format" tab.
Select "Create New Wanted List" from the "Add to" pulldown and
enter a Wanted List Name.
Right click and paste all previously copied text into the "Copy and paste
here" box.
Click "Proceed to verify items".
Click "Add to Wanted List" at the bottom of the page.
Done.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | tigger77 | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 20:41 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Good to see you're just going full steam ahead and ignoring the substantial
community backlash from this. Bodes well for the future of this site as a historical
catalogue.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | thebrickmonster | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 23:12 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 85 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Glad to see bricklink priorities is not with the consumers at all. Glad to know
where the admins stand. Its not with the users of the site.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | rtzx9r | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 00:16 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, thebrickmonster writes:
| | Glad to see bricklink priorities is not with the consumers at all. Glad to know
where the admins stand. Its not with the users of the site.
|
How many threads of upset customers on this site does admin need to realize just
mayyyyyybe this isnt the right choice? I understand change but this feels like
we’re erasing history.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | UTLF | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 01:11 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 07:01 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 79 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
.....
What a mess. Why does Bricklink never keep its own promises? Russell please....
don't do it like this, this is chaos. I have been a seller here for a very
long time, I have paid thousands of dollars to you guys and I really don't
want to close shop but you're really forcing my hand here. I simply cannot
manage my inventory if changes are randomly happening on random days over a course
of MONTHS.
The change was scheduled for 1 Feb. We sent out a newsletter to our customers
about the date. Then it was 15 Feb. That's ok, at least more time to prepare.
I've spent a full day writing software to handle the transition form old
to new item IDs. But now it turns out that the changes are going to be all over
the place between basically today and MAY. And even THAT is not
sure...?
Why wasn't it possible to simply set a date, announce it, and stick to that
plan? Why can't Bricklink go offline for maintenance on the set date of 15
Feb and come back up with the changes in place? It's a real shame that Bricklink
really doesn't seem to take these changes seriously and try to understand
the implications.... Does it really take that long to come up with new numbers?
And if it does, can you at least update them all at once by then, and announce
it properly?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | helge | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 07:07 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | |
The change was scheduled for 1 Feb. We sent out a newsletter to our customers
about the date. Then it was 15 Feb. That's ok, at least more time to prepare.
I've spent a full day writing software to handle the transition form old
to new item IDs. But now it turns out that the changes are going to be all over
the place between basically today and MAY. And even THAT is not
sure...?
|
Just curious and asking because I am afraid that I have missed something:
Why do you need to write software to handle the transition?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 07:11 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, helge writes:
| | | |
The change was scheduled for 1 Feb. We sent out a newsletter to our customers
about the date. Then it was 15 Feb. That's ok, at least more time to prepare.
I've spent a full day writing software to handle the transition form old
to new item IDs. But now it turns out that the changes are going to be all over
the place between basically today and MAY. And even THAT is not
sure...?
|
Just curious and asking because I am afraid that I have missed something:
Why do you need to write software to handle the transition?
|
Sorry, since the message was directed to Russell and I mentioned it before I
omitted it here - our sync system works based on item IDs. If they change randomly,
it will break our sync a little bit many times, at random moments, and it will
be hard to repair without understanding clearly what changed into what.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | helge | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 07:15 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | | | Why do you need to write software to handle the transition?
|
Sorry, since the message was directed to Russell and I mentioned it before I
omitted it here - our sync system works based on item IDs. If they change randomly,
it will break our sync a little bit many times, at random moments, and it will
be hard to repair without understanding clearly what changed into what.
|
Thanks, I thought it was something like that. Luckily we are not as advanced
as you
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 07:16 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | In Catalog, helge writes:
| | | |
The change was scheduled for 1 Feb. We sent out a newsletter to our customers
about the date. Then it was 15 Feb. That's ok, at least more time to prepare.
I've spent a full day writing software to handle the transition form old
to new item IDs. But now it turns out that the changes are going to be all over
the place between basically today and MAY. And even THAT is not
sure...?
|
Just curious and asking because I am afraid that I have missed something:
Why do you need to write software to handle the transition?
|
Sorry, since the message was directed to Russell and I mentioned it before I
omitted it here - our sync system works based on item IDs. If they change randomly,
it will break our sync a little bit many times, at random moments, and it will
be hard to repair without understanding clearly what changed into what.
|
It would be easier to just monitor this page daily with your software to automate
making the changes accordingly:
https://www.bricklink.com/btchglog.asp
https://www.bricklink.com/btchglog.asp?viewHelp=Y
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 07:28 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 69 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | In Catalog, helge writes:
| | | |
The change was scheduled for 1 Feb. We sent out a newsletter to our customers
about the date. Then it was 15 Feb. That's ok, at least more time to prepare.
I've spent a full day writing software to handle the transition form old
to new item IDs. But now it turns out that the changes are going to be all over
the place between basically today and MAY. And even THAT is not
sure...?
|
Just curious and asking because I am afraid that I have missed something:
Why do you need to write software to handle the transition?
|
Sorry, since the message was directed to Russell and I mentioned it before I
omitted it here - our sync system works based on item IDs. If they change randomly,
it will break our sync a little bit many times, at random moments, and it will
be hard to repair without understanding clearly what changed into what.
|
It would be easier to just monitor this page daily with your software to automate
making the changes accordingly:
https://www.bricklink.com/btchglog.asp
https://www.bricklink.com/btchglog.asp?viewHelp=Y
|
Thanks for the suggestion! Didn't know about this list. I already made somewhere
that compares our old and new inventory to identify changes, I will keep this
list in mind and it might come in handy at some point. But as for making changes
gradually: Technical details aside, manual changes are slow and annoying in our
system (not as high tech as Helge thinks  ), and doing it on separate moments
for our 600+ head lots wouldn't be workable I'm afraid. At this point
closing shop and coming back in May seems the best solution unless Bricklink
can make the changes in a clean way.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | hpoort | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 07:16 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | We have a meeting on Monday (Feb 5) with our catalog admins to go through the
rest of the list and make final decisions. After that meeting, a schedule will
be made for the merges. Due to the large number of minifigure heads in the catalog,
the merge process is likely to not be complete until the end of May.
|
.....
What a mess. Why does Bricklink never keep its own promises? Russell please....
don't do it like this, this is chaos. I have been a seller here for a very
long time, I have paid thousands of dollars to you guys and I really don't
want to close shop but you're really forcing my hand here. I simply cannot
manage my inventory if changes are randomly happening on random days over a course
of MONTHS.
The change was scheduled for 1 Feb. We sent out a newsletter to our customers
about the date. Then it was 15 Feb. That's ok, at least more time to prepare.
I've spent a full day writing software to handle the transition form old
to new item IDs. But now it turns out that the changes are going to be all over
the place between basically today and MAY. And even THAT is not
sure...?
Why wasn't it possible to simply set a date, announce it, and stick to that
plan? Why can't Bricklink go offline for maintenance on the set date of 15
Feb and come back up with the changes in place? It's a real shame that Bricklink
really doesn't seem to take these changes seriously and try to understand
the implications.... Does it really take that long to come up with new numbers?
And if it does, can you at least update them all at once by then, and announce
it properly?
|
I think what Russell said before was that he is going to do each mutation manually
through the user interface on their back end. This to ensure that all change
logs are filled normally, same as with any change. Doing it the other way - by
a bulk update directly in their database - they seem to lack the ability to keep
all logs updated as well.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 13:56 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 74 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
.....
What a mess. Why does Bricklink never keep its own promises? Russell please....
don't do it like this, this is chaos. I have been a seller here for a very
long time, I have paid thousands of dollars to you guys and I really don't
want to close shop but you're really forcing my hand here. I simply cannot
manage my inventory if changes are randomly happening on random days over a course
of MONTHS.
The change was scheduled for 1 Feb. We sent out a newsletter to our customers
about the date. Then it was 15 Feb. That's ok, at least more time to prepare.
I've spent a full day writing software to handle the transition form old
to new item IDs. But now it turns out that the changes are going to be all over
the place between basically today and MAY. And even THAT is not
sure...?
Why wasn't it possible to simply set a date, announce it, and stick to that
plan? Why can't Bricklink go offline for maintenance on the set date of 15
Feb and come back up with the changes in place? It's a real shame that Bricklink
really doesn't seem to take these changes seriously and try to understand
the implications.... Does it really take that long to come up with new numbers?
And if it does, can you at least update them all at once by then, and announce
it properly?
|
So I see the first changes are made and are already causing inconsistencies.
VERY disappointed that my calls are ignored and that bricklink goes about this
in this very amateuristic way.
Sad that Bricklink never keeps its own promises. I will now close my store.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Saitobricks.ca | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 09:42 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 81 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
Quick question, did you address the slugger video yet? Or was it just the duck
bricks video? If so can you please link it?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | macebobo | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 13:25 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 78 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Saitobricks.ca writes:
| | Quick question, did you address the slugger video yet? Or was it just the duck
bricks video? If so can you please link it?
|
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1451024
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Legorama | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 14:26 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, macebobo writes:
I haven't fully addressed the video by R.R. Slugger yet, but I plan to in
the next day or two.
|
If you do, you may wish to take the pinned comment under this video into account.
It offers some corrections to the details of the video and expands upon some
of the points raised.
https://youtu.be/aGRxNX8Cg_o?si=tGwVLTnMzh6s_Ka6
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Alfiesbricks | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 19:53 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, macebobo writes:
I haven't fully addressed the video by R.R. Slugger yet, but I plan to in
the next day or two.
|
So, meanwhile I read a lot about pros and cons of the upcoming merge.
I am very surprised though. We all are familiar with the warnings that indicated
the removal of an undetermined type. Then this happened. I honoustly did not
see this coming.
Personally I sell a lot of vintage LEGO of different era's to customers that
realy appreciate to have sets with their original bricks as possible. One of
the abilities that was still missing was for instance the pat. Pend. Variation
is pretty ordinary bricks. I had to write this in the comments. I assumed for
a long time that this would be solved. Customers don't read that well. Reading
store terms for most of them is already to much. 😂 So only a few will read these
comments. And worse, don't expect them to effectively search these comments
for certain variations.
I can see what will be coming. And this thing what is coming is going to cost
us sellers an awful lot of time. Because why would you read a comment on an item
if you can ask? What I mean is that in the future we will have to awnser loads
of questions that will look somewhat like this:" The yellow minifigure head
with the silver shades that you sell, does it have a closed/blocked or vented
stud?" Now imagine these questions being asked by all those people who aren't
proficient writers of the English language.. There will be a lot of confusion
coming up.
Hahaha, I forsee... A lot of.... Plain Horror. 🙈 Now as a seller I have to get
creative and find a way to deal with this in order to keep selling LEGOparts
fun. 😉
Don't fix things that ain't broke. That was what my mentor in IT used
to say. Everything when we attempted to mend things that didn't really needed
mending.
I suggest that you bring back "undetermined type" for the "noobs"
and leave the determined types untouched for collectors and those who can and
are willing to do some "determination". But I guess, it's too late.
The wise men already decided. So now it has to be done.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Saitobricks.ca | | Posted: | Feb 5, 2024 22:07 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 84 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Saitobricks.ca writes:
| | Quick question, did you address the slugger video yet? Or was it just the duck
bricks video? If so can you please link it?
|
I haven't fully addressed the video by R.R. Slugger yet, but I plan to in
the next day or two.
|
Sorry man but it’s been 5 days and I’m starting to think that you are just avoiding
slugger.
First time you said you were going to address the YouTube videos ( Message 1450622
) stated on Jan 26 that you would address the YouTube videos.
Next day you acknowledged 2 videos but only addressed one.
(ps. That was the duckbricks video, and if I know him the video was most likely
trash just so he could show off his collection again)
(also, loved how easy it was for you to deconstruct that video.  ) Video
that was addressed was the duckbricks and that gave me hope that if slugger was
wrong you would set the record straight.
So I waited, hoping that that was so.
But now it’s Feb 1! Still no sign of any kind of statement on sluggers video.
So I asked if I maybe missed something. Message 1451941 .
“Quick question, did you address the slugger video yet? Or was it just the duck
bricks video? If so can you please link it?” And you graciously answered my question.
Message 1451968 , “I haven't fully addressed the video by R.R. Slugger yet,
but I plan to in the next day or two.” (From Admin_ Russell himself.) message
was posted on Feb 1. No problem I thought, now if he is wrong we will be shown
and we will learn.
But now it is Feb 5! Nothing.
Really other than nitpicking on Sluggers EXAMPLE there has been nothing, leading
me to believe that R.R. Slugger was 100% right, as always. (sad but true (for
the variants))
So if you could prove me and Slugger wrong and tell us otherwise that what we
have learned is wrong, that would be great.
https://youtu.be/aGRxNX8Cg_o?si=L7hWuz6awyMkNxfT
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | UTLF | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2024 02:04 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 87 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Saitobricks.ca | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2024 09:25 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| You’re unfortunately right. 
They know that slugger was 100 and 10 % right! That’s why they haven’t said anything
about his video.
If I didn’t respect Admin_Russell for all of his hard work I would call him a
traitor.
I wish that it was not so. 
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Tracyd | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2024 11:44 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 79 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Saitobricks.ca writes:
| | You’re unfortunately right.
They know that slugger was 100 and 10 % right! That’s why they haven’t said anything
about his video.
If I didn’t respect Admin_Russell for all of his hard work I would call him a
traitor.
I wish that it was not so.
|
Sluggo is wrong. Bricklink is a Marketplace site, Dan created the site to facilitate
buying and selling Lego. The catalog grew out of necessity to standardize and
make searching for what you wanted easier than scrolling through all the stores
one by one. An offshoot of this was the variants listings. Bricklink was never
intended to be a history of Lego, or an all-inclusive catalog of every permutation
of bricks manufactured by TLG. It was never intended to be the Rosetta Stone
for sets. You are entitled to your opinions, but this site was not born from
your opinion. Nor mine. If you read all the information available and talk to
the people who knew Dan you will realize his dream wasn't a catalog of variations,
but a site to facilitate people's ability to obtain what they need. You
can argue how do they know what they need without the variants. Most won't
care about the variant if it works. Too many variants' bogs things down,
it is like walking into an ice cream shop and ordering a vanilla ice cream cone
and they ask you which of the 15 vanilla flavors you want.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2024 12:08 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 115 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Tracyd writes:
| | In Catalog, Saitobricks.ca writes:
| | You’re unfortunately right.
They know that slugger was 100 and 10 % right! That’s why they haven’t said anything
about his video.
If I didn’t respect Admin_Russell for all of his hard work I would call him a
traitor.
I wish that it was not so.
|
Sluggo is wrong. Bricklink is a Marketplace site, Dan created the site to facilitate
buying and selling Lego.
|
^ this
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Ringtail | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 22:53 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Saitobricks.ca writes:
| | Quick question, did you address the slugger video yet? Or was it just the duck
bricks video? If so can you please link it?
|
From what I can tell he's only addressed it to debunk the grooved tile thing
Slugger got wrong and the reasons for merging some other pieces, and hasn't
acknowledged the issues people have with this wiping out nuances in the historical
aspects of Bricklink. Unfortunately he's pretty much confirmed he doesn't
care about BL as anything but a marketplace and making things more convenient
for that, and has essentially said that he wants people who use it as a historical
reference to just "forget" older variations. Would love to know if this
is all his idea or if it's being ordered by Lego for some reason, and if
so why.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Feb 2, 2024 00:45 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Ringtail writes:
| | In Catalog, Saitobricks.ca writes:
| | Quick question, did you address the slugger video yet? Or was it just the duck
bricks video? If so can you please link it?
|
From what I can tell he's only addressed it to debunk the grooved tile thing
Slugger got wrong and the reasons for merging some other pieces, and hasn't
acknowledged the issues people have with this wiping out nuances in the historical
aspects of Bricklink. Unfortunately he's pretty much confirmed he doesn't
care about BL as anything but a marketplace and making things more convenient
for that, and has essentially said that he wants people who use it as a historical
reference to just "forget" older variations. Would love to know if this
is all his idea or if it's being ordered by Lego for some reason, and if
so why.
|
Bricklink is funded by fees paid on orders through the marketplace. Without fees
there is no catalogue.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 09:49 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 105 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | . |
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Saitobricks.ca | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 10:28 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
Too true.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | SnarkBricks | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 14:37 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 60 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:
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 14:50 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 72 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello again everyone. This is the latest update on the variants project.
|
....
| | We have a meeting on Monday (Feb 5) with our catalog admins to go through the
rest of the list and make final decisions. After that meeting, a schedule will
be made for the merges. Due to the large number of minifigure heads in the catalog,
the merge process is likely to not be complete until the end of May.
|
Please consider the functional differences between 46212 and 2454, both in production
by TLG and kept separate by them and in every other catalog. I documented a good
example of this in Ninjago City here:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1451755
Only repeating this because there's no admin response, so my apologies if
it has been seen and is being considered already.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 21:25 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, oukexergon writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello again everyone. This is the latest update on the variants project.
|
....
| | We have a meeting on Monday (Feb 5) with our catalog admins to go through the
rest of the list and make final decisions. After that meeting, a schedule will
be made for the merges. Due to the large number of minifigure heads in the catalog,
the merge process is likely to not be complete until the end of May.
|
Please consider the functional differences between 46212 and 2454, both in production
by TLG and kept separate by them and in every other catalog. I documented a good
example of this in Ninjago City here:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1451755
Only repeating this because there's no admin response, so my apologies if
it has been seen and is being considered already.
|
+1
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StarBrick | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 15:16 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 73 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | Thanks for adding the XML, saves a lot of time |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | ralphs_bricks | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 16:00 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 107 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| The ramifications of this first change is rearing it's ugly head already.
Bricksync can't find these renumbered parts and is deleting inventory during
sync.
This will be fun.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Alfiesbricks | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 20:02 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Brickfreedom can't update inventory anymore and brickstock is falling apart
too. 🙈 After the November incident where password noobs made that I was unable
to sell bricks during the busiest time of the year, the Holliday season (and
lose a lot of money due to this) the advice now is to stop syncing and close
my other stores on other selling sites.
If this was a real company, someone would have been fired by now, haha.
Everything is awesome. 🎶
In Catalog, ralphs_bricks writes:
| | The ramifications of this first change is rearing it's ugly head already.
Bricksync can't find these renumbered parts and is deleting inventory during
sync.
This will be fun.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 20:04 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Alfiesbricks writes:
| | Brickfreedom can't update inventory anymore and brickstock is falling apart
|
you mean brickstore, right? brickstock is dead software
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Alfiesbricks | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 20:10 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, Alfiesbricks writes:
| | Brickfreedom can't update inventory anymore and brickstock is falling apart
|
you mean brickstore, right? brickstock is dead software
|
Ehr, yes. Ofcourse. 🙈 I'm a Linux user and somehow that is what it's
still called on my desktop. But there is already discussion about these mailfunctions
in the technical forum. 🥳
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | zorbanj | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 20:20 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Alfiesbricks writes:
| | Brickfreedom can't update inventory anymore and brickstock is falling apart
too. 🙈 After the November incident where password noobs made that I was unable
to sell bricks during the busiest time of the year, the Holliday season (and
lose a lot of money due to this) the advice now is to stop syncing and close
my other stores on other selling sites.
|
Why would Bricklink be concerned with you being able to sync with Bricklink's
competitors?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Alfiesbricks | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 20:30 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Well, if I would be selling through bricklink alone whilst also taking in account
that bricklink has also lost marketshare the past few years, I would to have
close the shop. No income for Bricklinks competitors, but also no income for
bricklink. And the availability of the tools to sync inventories do suggest that
this goes for a lot more stores then just mine. 😉
Honoustly you could have easily guessed that by yourself couldn't you? 😉
In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| | In Catalog, Alfiesbricks writes:
| | Brickfreedom can't update inventory anymore and brickstock is falling apart
too. 🙈 After the November incident where password noobs made that I was unable
to sell bricks during the busiest time of the year, the Holliday season (and
lose a lot of money due to this) the advice now is to stop syncing and close
my other stores on other selling sites.
|
Why would Bricklink be concerned with you being able to sync with Bricklink's
competitors?
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | zorbanj | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 21:51 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Your post doesn't make any sense.
In Catalog, Alfiesbricks writes:
| | Well, if I would be selling through bricklink alone whilst also taking in account
that bricklink has also lost marketshare the past few years, I would to have
close the shop. No income for Bricklinks competitors, but also no income for
bricklink. And the availability of the tools to sync inventories do suggest that
this goes for a lot more stores then just mine. 😉
Honoustly you could have easily guessed that by yourself couldn't you? 😉
In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| | In Catalog, Alfiesbricks writes:
| | Brickfreedom can't update inventory anymore and brickstock is falling apart
too. 🙈 After the November incident where password noobs made that I was unable
to sell bricks during the busiest time of the year, the Holliday season (and
lose a lot of money due to this) the advice now is to stop syncing and close
my other stores on other selling sites.
|
Why would Bricklink be concerned with you being able to sync with Bricklink's
competitors?
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | BigBBricks | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 20:34 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| |
Why would Bricklink be concerned with you being able to sync with Bricklink's
competitors?
|
Because the only way for larger sellers to upload part-outs to BrickLink is via
the same API commands that the sync applications use. Without the API, BrickLink
suffers.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 20:46 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, BigBBricks writes:
| | In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| |
Why would Bricklink be concerned with you being able to sync with Bricklink's
competitors?
|
Because the only way for larger sellers to upload part-outs to BrickLink is via
the same API commands that the sync applications use. Without the API, BrickLink
suffers.
|
I use BrickStore, free and open source.
I didn't uploaded or updated ANY lot on BrickLink since maybe hum 2006 or
such?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | BigBBricks | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 21:00 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, BigBBricks writes:
| | In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| |
Why would Bricklink be concerned with you being able to sync with Bricklink's
competitors?
|
Because the only way for larger sellers to upload part-outs to BrickLink is via
the same API commands that the sync applications use. Without the API, BrickLink
suffers.
|
I use BrickStore, free and open source.
I didn't uploaded or updated ANY lot on BrickLink since maybe hum 2006 or
such?
|
Yep, that was what I was referring to. BStore is a must have, BL wouldn't
still be kicking without it. I still remember back in 2019 when BLink staff posted
that they were going to stop allowing the API calls while trying to scuttle the
sync applications, just about everyone threw a red flag, reminded them that they
didn't have a reliable way on their own portal for us to upload.
We've got to remember, it was only a few years back when BL was basically
leaderless. Seller tools would have been so much of a nicer to have than that
XP everyone is spending so much time on... So many bad decisions made by the
former head decision maker.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | UTLF | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 21:02 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 21:11 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, UTLF writes:
| | | | So many bad decisions made by the former head decision maker.
|
Former?
|
You've been reported to LEGO.
All your VIP points have been deleted.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | UTLF | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 21:19 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 21:28 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 21:04 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | | | | | Because the only way for larger sellers to upload part-outs to BrickLink is via
the same API commands that the sync applications use. Without the API, BrickLink
suffers.
|
I use BrickStore, free and open source.
I didn't uploaded or updated ANY lot on BrickLink since maybe hum 2006 or
such?
|
Yep, that was what I was referring to. BStore is a must have, BL wouldn't
still be kicking without it. I still remember back in 2019 when BLink staff posted
that they were going to stop allowing the API calls while trying to scuttle the
sync applications, just about everyone threw a red flag, reminded them that they
didn't have a reliable way on their own portal for us to upload.
We've got to remember, it was only a few years back when BL was basically
leaderless. Seller tools would have been so much of a nicer to have than that
XP everyone is spending so much time on... So many bad decisions made by the
former head decision maker.
|
This guy is dead.
But if you're so unhappy of everything, why are you still here then?
Love & Hate thing, like many here?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 21:06 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | | | | | Because the only way for larger sellers to upload part-outs to BrickLink is via
the same API commands that the sync applications use. Without the API, BrickLink
suffers.
|
I use BrickStore, free and open source.
I didn't uploaded or updated ANY lot on BrickLink since maybe hum 2006 or
such?
|
Yep, that was what I was referring to. BStore is a must have, BL wouldn't
still be kicking without it. I still remember back in 2019 when BLink staff posted
that they were going to stop allowing the API calls while trying to scuttle the
sync applications, just about everyone threw a red flag, reminded them that they
didn't have a reliable way on their own portal for us to upload.
We've got to remember, it was only a few years back when BL was basically
leaderless. Seller tools would have been so much of a nicer to have than that
XP everyone is spending so much time on... So many bad decisions made by the
former head decision maker.
|
This guy is dead.
|
https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2022/03/02/business/tech/Nexon-Kim-Jungju-obituary/20220302143324233.html
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | BigBBricks | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 21:11 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
Huh? Jay didn't die. He was graciously let go, if he has passed since then,
I apologize to his family for my words, but if not, he stunk.
| |
But if you're so unhappy of everything, why are you still here then?
Love & Hate thing, like many here?
|
Not unhappy with the current staffing at all, even under current circumstances.
I just didn't agree with the decisions under the previous management. I felt
they were very short sighted and lacked the understanding of what a daily user
of the site needed. In the end, I feel they kneecapped BL to what it's potential
growth and maturity could have been.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Feb 2, 2024 00:36 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, BigBBricks writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
Huh? Jay didn't die. He was graciously let go, if he has passed since then,
I apologize to his family for my words, but if not, he stunk.
|
XP was a failure but some of the decisions from his time have become very popular.
The original AFOL Designer Program seems to be one of the reasons LEGO wanted
bricklink and has gone from strength to strength, MOC shop ideas in Studio. Plus
he probably saved bricklink from itself, it was a headless organisation before
he bought it.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | BigBBricks | | Posted: | Feb 2, 2024 00:44 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | XP was a failure but some of the decisions from his time have become very popular.
The original AFOL Designer Program seems to be one of the reasons LEGO wanted
bricklink and has gone from strength to strength, MOC shop ideas in Studio. Plus
he probably saved bricklink from itself, it was a headless organisation before
he bought it.
|
Let's not fool anyone, BrickLink was purchased for the sales dataset. I don't
disagree that those programs are outstanding, I was specific to XP and all the
time and effort that went it.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Feb 2, 2024 00:56 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, BigBBricks writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | XP was a failure but some of the decisions from his time have become very popular.
The original AFOL Designer Program seems to be one of the reasons LEGO wanted
bricklink and has gone from strength to strength, MOC shop ideas in Studio. Plus
he probably saved bricklink from itself, it was a headless organisation before
he bought it.
|
Let's not fool anyone, BrickLink was purchased for the sales dataset. I don't
disagree that those programs are outstanding, I was specific to XP and all the
time and effort that went it.
|
The sales (volume) data was freely available. Why would they need to pay for
that?
They knew IDEAS was growing too fast, especially designs for AFOLs by AFOLs,
and the BDP has been an excellent home to push that type of large MOC, keeping
IDEAS for sets aimed at non-FOLs.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | BrickDeals | | Posted: | Feb 2, 2024 03:04 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, BigBBricks writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | XP was a failure but some of the decisions from his time have become very popular.
The original AFOL Designer Program seems to be one of the reasons LEGO wanted
bricklink and has gone from strength to strength, MOC shop ideas in Studio. Plus
he probably saved bricklink from itself, it was a headless organisation before
he bought it.
|
Let's not fool anyone, BrickLink was purchased for the sales dataset. I don't
disagree that those programs are outstanding, I was specific to XP and all the
time and effort that went it.
|
They just wanted control.
If LEGO could find a way to eliminate the second hand market, they would.
The irony is that most of the reason the secondary markets exist is because LEGO
can't properly manage its' supply chains. (and refuses to print on demand,
which should be possible with 21st century technology)
The reality is other sites would pop up if they shuttered BL, so they settled
on having control over it.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | helge | | Posted: | Feb 2, 2024 03:38 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, BrickDeals writes:
| | In Catalog, BigBBricks writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | XP was a failure but some of the decisions from his time have become very popular.
The original AFOL Designer Program seems to be one of the reasons LEGO wanted
bricklink and has gone from strength to strength, MOC shop ideas in Studio. Plus
he probably saved bricklink from itself, it was a headless organisation before
he bought it.
|
Let's not fool anyone, BrickLink was purchased for the sales dataset. I don't
disagree that those programs are outstanding, I was specific to XP and all the
time and effort that went it.
|
They just wanted control.
If LEGO could find a way to eliminate the second hand market, they would.
The irony is that most of the reason the secondary markets exist is because LEGO
can't properly manage its' supply chains. (and refuses to print on demand,
which should be possible with 21st century technology)
The reality is other sites would pop up if they shuttered BL, so they settled
on having control over it.
|
This sums it up nicely I think. My first thought when heard that LEGO was taking
over was "They are going to shut it down", the second was "No, they
just want to control" it. My impression after dealing with them for 20+ years,
is that they more and more see retailers as a necessary evil, that they would
do away with if they just found a way. I really hope I am wrong.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Feb 2, 2024 04:40 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, BrickDeals writes:
| | In Catalog, BigBBricks writes:
|
.
| |
They just wanted control.
If LEGO could find a way to eliminate the second hand market, they would.
The irony is that most of the reason the secondary markets exist is because LEGO
can't properly manage its' supply chains. (and refuses to print on demand,
which should be possible with 21st century technology)
The reality is other sites would pop up if they shuttered BL, so they settled
on having control over it.
|
Yes, but it's important to realize changes like these are incremental to
change the culture of BL and thus that of its users. We are being nudged toward
production/direct profit parts for TLG. Something like this change moves in this
direction. If everyone is looking for a slope they produce now, and not any particular
historical part, many will just add it to their Shop cart, profiting TLG while
BL sellers quietly lose that business.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | zorbanj | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 21:58 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Thank you for the clarification.
I also saw this post after I posted myt question;
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1452095
In Catalog, BigBBricks writes:
| | In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| |
Why would Bricklink be concerned with you being able to sync with Bricklink's
competitors?
|
Because the only way for larger sellers to upload part-outs to BrickLink is via
the same API commands that the sync applications use. Without the API, BrickLink
suffers.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | BigBBricks | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 22:12 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| | Thank you for the clarification.
I also saw this post after I posted myt question;
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1452095
In Catalog, BigBBricks writes:
| | In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| |
Why would Bricklink be concerned with you being able to sync with Bricklink's
competitors?
|
Because the only way for larger sellers to upload part-outs to BrickLink is via
the same API commands that the sync applications use. Without the API, BrickLink
suffers.
|
|
No problem, happy to help, knowing is half the battle and all that. GO Joe.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Alfiesbricks | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 20:34 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 20:43 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Alfiesbricks writes:
| | Brickfreedom can't update inventory anymore and brickstock is falling apart
too. 🙈
|
BrickStore simply update the database manually, or wait tomorrow morning.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | macebobo | | Posted: | Feb 2, 2024 00:50 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, ralphs_bricks writes:
| | The ramifications of this first change is rearing it's ugly head already.
Bricksync can't find these renumbered parts and is deleting inventory during
sync.
This will be fun.
|
Oh, sorry to hear this. But, why would you keep syncing while Bricklink are
making these types of changes? Good way to get bitten in the butt.
At least you have a backup, right?
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Sodoshi | | Posted: | Feb 2, 2024 11:35 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | Well, you knackered Bricklink Studio. Thanks for not co-ordinating. |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | runner.caller | | Posted: | Feb 2, 2024 16:40 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
Important update to the sellers' correction list:
|
I think I broke the wanted list upload feature trying to get the second head
batch uploaded.
Originally, I was gonna go through and note stud type on heads, but after giving
it some thought, I think I'll just let the changes go through and consolidate
the soon-to-be-duplicate lots when the time comes.
From a stud type on head stand point, I've definitely used the "wrong"
stud type per a fig's inventory to complete a fig or even encountered
it like that from a lot that was unlikely the original owner changed it out.
Tells me there was a lot of undocumented cross over where the alternate stud
type head was never listed as an alternate item. I think it also created dead
inventory as buyers looking to complete a certain fig wouldn't add that non-used
head to their wanted list.
I never once had a buyer complain that the wrong stud type was used, but I also
tried to make it accurate whenever possible and would really only do it when
it was likely a cross-over era. Obviously, wouldn't put a hollow stud on
a vintage castle fig etc...
So my thoughts are this might be a good change for heads and may help eliminate
some dead inventory for the heads that were previously only ever listed as alternates
in sets or not listed in any inventories at all.
There may be some collateral damage, but I think it will be a good move overall.
At least for heads. I don't list enough bulk parts to comment on those.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | tmtomh | | Posted: | Feb 2, 2024 23:17 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | tmtomh | | Posted: | Feb 2, 2024 23:18 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | tmtomh | | Posted: | Feb 2, 2024 23:19 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
Thanks for this consolidated update - it's definitely helpful.
FYI, though, the image and link for issue #11 on the Overview page are both broken
because
of... the catalogue change that issue #11 of the Overview page is supposed to
be documenting.
|
|
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | PaulOfBricks | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2024 04:26 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Just come back from holiday to see this, and im really dissapointed.
Merging part variants is ridiculous idea, the whole point of bricklink is to
buy the parts we want and need, to complete old set as far as im concerned,
if I have an old set that needs a certain parts and I recieve a modern reissue
part I am going to be pissed off,
kind of invalidates the whole point of bricklink I think.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | RONALDSLEGO | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2024 05:08 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Hi,
how can I search with the XML wanted list in my shop if the most is in stockroom?
I do not think it is possible anybody a idea?
The items for sale I have found.
Greetings Ronald
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | DaddyOs_Bricks | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2024 21:03 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 87 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Has any consideration been given to how this update and merge will affect the
traffic that is driven to bricklink when buyers are generating wanted lists from
sites such as rebrickable, either from their set inventories or MOC inventories;
or any of the design programs with the parts/ part numbers that that have been
in use prior to the changes on the 1st and future proposed changes?
When I try to use rebrickable to buy the parts that were updated on the 1st they
can no longer be found for sale on bricklink via rebrickable. I would think the
same result will happen when trying to buy the part list for a MOC that includes
affected parts.
I apologize if this has already been asked or addressed but I have not been able
to find it. The lengthy threads across multiple posts are not easy to navigate
or follow for those that do not spend time in the forums on a regular basis.
Bill
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | tmtomh | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2024 23:18 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, DaddyOs_Bricks writes:
| | Has any consideration been given to how this update and merge will affect the
traffic that is driven to bricklink when buyers are generating wanted lists from
sites such as rebrickable, either from their set inventories or MOC inventories;
or any of the design programs with the parts/ part numbers that that have been
in use prior to the changes on the 1st and future proposed changes?
When I try to use rebrickable to buy the parts that were updated on the 1st they
can no longer be found for sale on bricklink via rebrickable. I would think the
same result will happen when trying to buy the part list for a MOC that includes
affected parts.
I apologize if this has already been asked or addressed but I have not been able
to find it. The lengthy threads across multiple posts are not easy to navigate
or follow for those that do not spend time in the forums on a regular basis.
Bill
|
It appears that either:
(a) No thought has been given to this important issue you raise, or
(b) Thought was given to it and the conclusion was, “We’ll announce it and Rebrickable
and all the other sites, software apps and tools will have to figure out how
to deal with it.”
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Feb 4, 2024 09:30 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, tmtomh writes:
| | In Catalog, DaddyOs_Bricks writes:
| | Has any consideration been given to how this update and merge will affect the
traffic that is driven to bricklink when buyers are generating wanted lists from
sites such as rebrickable, either from their set inventories or MOC inventories;
or any of the design programs with the parts/ part numbers that that have been
in use prior to the changes on the 1st and future proposed changes?
When I try to use rebrickable to buy the parts that were updated on the 1st they
can no longer be found for sale on bricklink via rebrickable. I would think the
same result will happen when trying to buy the part list for a MOC that includes
affected parts.
I apologize if this has already been asked or addressed but I have not been able
to find it. The lengthy threads across multiple posts are not easy to navigate
or follow for those that do not spend time in the forums on a regular basis.
Bill
|
It appears that either:
(a) No thought has been given to this important issue you raise, or
(b) Thought was given to it and the conclusion was, “We’ll announce it and Rebrickable
and all the other sites, software apps and tools will have to figure out how
to deal with it.”
|
(c) “We never know what kind of impact this has on third parties, but will be
sending lists to our affiliates (Brickset and Rebrickable) and Brickstore just
in case. Most of the changes should be absorbed by normal processes, but our
concern here is volume. We will make the changes batch by batch, and not all
on the same day.”
— https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1450771
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Feb 4, 2024 09:43 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, tmtomh writes:
| | In Catalog, DaddyOs_Bricks writes:
| | Has any consideration been given to how this update and merge will affect the
traffic that is driven to bricklink when buyers are generating wanted lists from
sites such as rebrickable, either from their set inventories or MOC inventories;
or any of the design programs with the parts/ part numbers that that have been
in use prior to the changes on the 1st and future proposed changes?
When I try to use rebrickable to buy the parts that were updated on the 1st they
can no longer be found for sale on bricklink via rebrickable. I would think the
same result will happen when trying to buy the part list for a MOC that includes
affected parts.
I apologize if this has already been asked or addressed but I have not been able
to find it. The lengthy threads across multiple posts are not easy to navigate
or follow for those that do not spend time in the forums on a regular basis.
Bill
|
It appears that either:
(a) No thought has been given to this important issue you raise, or
(b) Thought was given to it and the conclusion was, “We’ll announce it and Rebrickable
and all the other sites, software apps and tools will have to figure out how
to deal with it.”
|
(c) “We never know what kind of impact this has on third parties, but will be
sending lists to our affiliates (Brickset and Rebrickable) and Brickstore just
in case. Most of the changes should be absorbed by normal processes, but our
concern here is volume. We will make the changes batch by batch, and not all
on the same day.”
— https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1450771
|
Wow, thanks for the link, I missed that. Surprising, very strange reasoning IMO.
Software is not organic tissue. Nothing gets absorbed if you just do it slowly
or in small doses. Pretty sure everyone benefits from a clean full update, that
is well announced and well documented, so only 1 update has to be made and the
risk of human errors is much smaller. I'm still waiting for Russell to give
me a rough timeline so that I know what I'm going to have to be working with..
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Feb 4, 2024 11:37 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | […]
Wow, thanks for the link, I missed that. Surprising, very strange reasoning IMO.
Software is not organic tissue. Nothing gets absorbed if you just do it slowly
or in small doses. Pretty sure everyone benefits from a clean full update, that
is well announced and well documented, so only 1 update has to be made and the
risk of human errors is much smaller. I'm still waiting for Russell to give
me a rough timeline so that I know what I'm going to have to be working with..
|
Even more baffling is that Studio wasn’t immediately updated. It’s BrickLink
Studio. Not a third-party software. They are in the same building!
It’s not the first time parts were re-IDed. It always takes weeks (and messages!)
to have them fixed, but then, one could imagine the Studio team isn’t always
warned (hence the need for messages). Here, the team knows (I checked), and,
anyway, that should be automatic!
The more I think about it, the more I get upset. I should stop thinking about
it….
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Feb 4, 2024 11:50 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | […]
Wow, thanks for the link, I missed that. Surprising, very strange reasoning IMO.
Software is not organic tissue. Nothing gets absorbed if you just do it slowly
or in small doses. Pretty sure everyone benefits from a clean full update, that
is well announced and well documented, so only 1 update has to be made and the
risk of human errors is much smaller. I'm still waiting for Russell to give
me a rough timeline so that I know what I'm going to have to be working with..
|
Even more baffling is that Studio wasn’t immediately updated. It’s BrickLink
Studio. Not a third-party software. They are in the same building!
It’s not the first time parts were re-IDed. It always takes weeks (and messages!)
to have them fixed, but then, one could imagine the Studio team isn’t always
warned (hence the need for messages). Here, the team knows (I checked), and,
anyway, that should be automatic!
The more I think about it, the more I get upset. I should stop thinking about
it….
|
Haha, good point. And the fact that the link/picture of the tile in the help
topic ABOUT this change was broken after the item number change is also telling.
I mean, that's really not a big deal and it was fixed quickly after it was
reported, but it just shows the whole process and the consequences weren't
really thought through... and doing it slowly just creates more episodes of it.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Duq | | Posted: | Feb 4, 2024 07:16 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| So here's where trouble starts.
You said for the tiles it would be a name change only. Instead you've changed
and removed part numbers. An import into BrickStore no longer recognises 3070b
as a 1x1 Tile because that's now 3070. 3070b is apparently no longer a valid
part number.
So bye bye backwards compatibility. Thanks a lot.
As I said before, the correct solution would have been parent parts. Backwards
compatible, solves the problem for newbies without f***ing things up for experienced
users and collectors.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Feb 10, 2024 08:12 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 82 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | We have a meeting on Monday (Feb 5) with our catalog admins to go through the
rest of the list and make final decisions. After that meeting, a schedule will
be made for the merges. Due to the large number of minifigure heads in the catalog,
the merge process is likely to not be complete until the end of May.
|
How did the meeting go? Any updates?
Anyway, it's been a month or so since the original announcement, and there's
been a lot of discussion (both good and bad) since then. I've seen a lot
of dismissive or belittling attitude, and a lot of misinformation or fearmongering
circulating around. I am concerned about losing existing documentation, and concerned
that volunteer work would simply be thrown out just like that, but I do not believe
the catalogue is being greatly "dumbed down", or will continue to be
so as some make the case out to be. I stand by that an umbrella system would
be helpful, and would negate the issues with some of these.
Anyway, I wanted to give my thoughts on the changes, in order of how they are
listed on the Help Center:
Frosted parts:
I think it's pretty clear that this was never an intentional feature, either
caused by decay of the mold, or by changes to mold that are not as visible in
the opaque parts. These traits are not well-documented which causes the catalogue's
set appearances to be misleading, and it's not a consistent treatment, as
the opaque parts are not distinguished the same way (we don't distinguish
"thin" and "thick" walls, for instance, which is the cause of
some of these).
Tl;dr: I'm fine with this change.
Smooth slopes:
Similar to above, this is poorly documented resulting in misleading data. Smooth
slopes are likely a lot more common in the 05-07 ish era of sets. However, much
as Russell has pointed out, even the "smooth" slopes are not smooth.
The difference is just in the amount of texture, and there's not simply two
versions of the texture. This could perhaps also be caused by mold decay. LEGO
did also not renumber the molds based this difference as far as I know. I believe
sets may also even include a mixture of "smooth" and "rough"
slopes.
Tl;dr: I'm fine with this change.
Connection between studs:
This one is easy to see if you know to look for it, and obviously an intentional
change. I would have kept this one.
Chair with sprue mark:
Ditto. I see no reason not keep this one.
Torsos with ribs:
I'll preface this with that I am not a minifigure person. This mold change
would drive me nuts if I was. I'll abstain from making a comment on this
one aside from that I believe Reissue prints should be recognized regardless
of the mold.
Inside supports:
All three of these I feel are different cases:
32064c has a functional difference, as has been discussed, so I would not merge
it.
46212 has a functional difference that is used in sets, and thus, I would not
merge it. That it only comes in transparent colors should not be a factor of
concern.
10247 I believe is fine to merged.
X-shaped axle holes:
I always found this change silly, but I feel like we have pretty good documentation
on it, and thus, should not merge it. The difference is pretty easy to spot.
Hinges:
I would not merge these. LEGO even renumbered these.
DUPLO brick with bottom tube:
Probably fine?
Blocked or vented stud:
Again, minifigures seem like a nightmare, so I'll abstain to comment on those.
"Blocked" and "Vented" feel like almost the same thing though.
However, looking at the domes, I feel those are well-catalogued, thus I would
not merge those.
Distinguishing these two stud-types feels difficult, however. That is where I
believe an umbrella system comes in handy, not for distinguishing the extremely
obvious differences. Same for the axle holes and connection between studs.
Removed determiner:
Inconsequential.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Feb 10, 2024 14:51 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | […]
LEGO did also not renumber the molds […]
LEGO even renumbered these. […]
|
Either way it’s used, that is not a good argument, or even a good hint, because
LEGO is very inconsistent on this. Some moulds have been renumbered while we
can’t see any difference (for instance 3066 = 35256, difference?). There’s many
moulds that have not been renumbered while there’s obvious differences (that’s
the case for most of the bricks, and, oh, it seems 4079 too ).
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Feb 10, 2024 15:27 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | […]
LEGO did also not renumber the molds […]
LEGO even renumbered these. […]
|
Either way it’s used, that is not a good argument, or even a good hint, because
LEGO is very inconsistent on this. Some moulds have been renumbered while we
can’t see any difference (for instance 3066 = 35256, difference?). There’s many
moulds that have not been renumbered while there’s obvious differences (that’s
the case for most of the bricks, and, oh, it seems 4079 too ).
|
You are right about that, yeah.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Feb 10, 2024 20:52 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | Anyway, I wanted to give my thoughts on the changes, in order of how they are
|
Basically agree with all your analysis. Except this to add:
| | DUPLO brick with bottom tube:
Probably fine?
|
Honestly it's a functional difference, even if nobody cares.
|
|
|
|
|
Canada, Ontario
Sweden, Västernorrland
Norway
Netherlands, Zuid-Holland
United Kingdom, England
France, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur
Spain, Comunidad Valenciana
Ireland, Dublin