| Discussion Forum: Thread 353669 |
|
 |
| | | Author: | PurpleKangaroo  | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2024 19:07 | | Subject: | Proposed Alternative to Catalog Consolidation | | Viewed: | 130 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| So there's been some heated discussion about the recent decision to consolidate
certain Bricklink part entries. For example, the merger of certain parts with
open studs and parts with blocked studs. Much has been said about the fact that
people rely on Bricklink as a catalog as well as a marketplace, and how the removal
of this information is detrimental to the future success of the LEGO hobby. But
I think what has been missing from this conversation is a reasonable alternative
to the current status quo. Instead of simply deleting the nuanced information
that has been carefully curated over decades by an army of dedicated volunteers,
I have an alternate suggestion:
Go ahead and consolidate part entries. Do it. Even the ones with stickers. Put
'em all in one place. 2x3 Slope? One entry. But wait! What's this? A
drop-down menu! This one lets users look at the many different colors that the
part comes in. And Hark! I spy another drop-down menu beside the first! This
one seems to list the different mold variants! Avast me hearties! A third drop-down
menu! With the different stickered and printed variants! That's right--I'm
proposing treating mold variants, printed variants, and stickered variants in
the same way that colors are currently handled.
Each drop-down menu would be filtered according to the selection made in the
other two drop-down menus. For example, suppose a part came in both a glossy
and a matte finish. However, the sand-blue version of the part only ever came
in the matte finish. So when a user selects "Sand Blue" from the part's
Color drop-down menu, the Mold drop-down menu would automatically filter to only
include the Matte option. Perhaps the same part also came in the color green,
with both Gloss and Matte mold variants. Then when selecting "Green"
from the Color drop-down munu, the user would still have the choice of selecting
either Gloss or Matte from the Mold drop-down menu.
Of course, each menu would have an "undetermined" option, which would
be the default option in order to allow sellers and buyers ease of use.
My point is that the solution to this catalog complexity is not the removal of
crucial information. There is a better way, and I believe the incredible Bricklink
team has the opportunity to simultaneously simplify the user experience while
retaining the nuance that has made Bricklink the defacto LEGO parts catalog for
so many wonderful years.
Am I crazy, or is there room for compromise?
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Saitobricks.ca | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2024 19:21 | | Subject: | Re: Proposed Alternative to Catalog Consolidation | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, PurpleKangaroo writes:
| | So there's been some heated discussion about the recent decision to consolidate
certain Bricklink part entries. For example, the merger of certain parts with
open studs and parts with blocked studs. Much has been said about the fact that
people rely on Bricklink as a catalog as well as a marketplace, and how the removal
of this information is detrimental to the future success of the LEGO hobby. But
I think what has been missing from this conversation is a reasonable alternative
to the current status quo. Instead of simply deleting the nuanced information
that has been carefully curated over decades by an army of dedicated volunteers,
I have an alternate suggestion:
Go ahead and consolidate part entries. Do it. Even the ones with stickers. Put
'em all in one place. 2x3 Slope? One entry. But wait! What's this? A
drop-down menu! This one lets users look at the many different colors that the
part comes in. And Hark! I spy another drop-down menu beside the first! This
one seems to list the different mold variants! Avast me hearties! A third drop-down
menu! With the different stickered and printed variants! That's right--I'm
proposing treating mold variants, printed variants, and stickered variants in
the same way that colors are currently handled.
Each drop-down menu would be filtered according to the selection made in the
other two drop-down menus. For example, suppose a part came in both a glossy
and a matte finish. However, the sand-blue version of the part only ever came
in the matte finish. So when a user selects "Sand Blue" from the part's
Color drop-down menu, the Mold drop-down menu would automatically filter to only
include the Matte option. Perhaps the same part also came in the color green,
with both Gloss and Matte mold variants. Then when selecting "Green"
from the Color drop-down munu, the user would still have the choice of selecting
either Gloss or Matte from the Mold drop-down menu.
Of course, each menu would have an "undetermined" option, which would
be the default option in order to allow sellers and buyers ease of use.
My point is that the solution to this catalog complexity is not the removal of
crucial information. There is a better way, and I believe the incredible Bricklink
team has the opportunity to simultaneously simplify the user experience while
retaining the nuance that has made Bricklink the defacto LEGO parts catalog for
so many wonderful years.
Am I crazy, or is there room for compromise?
|
Sorry man but nothing we say will change what has and will be done. But I voted
yes anyway. 
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2024 19:48 | | Subject: | Re: Proposed Alternative to Catalog Consolidation | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, PurpleKangaroo writes:
Yes, there certainly is.
| | and I believe the incredible Bricklink team has the opportunity
|
The opportunities do not lie with BrickLink any longer. They have squandered
the community's goodwill and trust for the last 15 years. The solution is
not BrickLink, but BrickLink's successor.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Saitobricks.ca | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2024 19:59 | | Subject: | Re: Proposed Alternative to Catalog Consolidation | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, StormChaser writes:
| | In Suggestions, PurpleKangaroo writes:
Yes, there certainly is.
| | and I believe the incredible Bricklink team has the opportunity
|
The opportunities do not lie with BrickLink any longer. They have squandered
the community's goodwill and trust for the last 15 years. The solution is
not BrickLink, but BrickLink's successor.
|
Sadly yes.  😔
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2024 03:30 | | Subject: | Re: Proposed Alternative to Catalog Consolidation | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| That sounds awful to me. Things like that work OK for a few variables when those
variables do mot take many values, but for decorated parts it is complete overkill.
Think about minifigure heads. The variables would be stud type, colour and decoration
number. The first two are fine. But the print is not a variation of a standard
head, different prints are different parts and should be catalogued separately.
If you want to know what (print) heads exist in a specific colour, you can already
do that using an existing search.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | BrickCompulsion | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2024 03:43 | | Subject: | Re: Proposed Alternative to Catalog Consolidation | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | Am I crazy, or is there room for compromise?
|
The size of the drop down menu for say 3068b would be enormous!
I’m really not in favour of the upcoming catalogue change and I think it will
be detrimental to bricklink
I still can’t see how it’s better where you have reissues and certain variants
that are very expensive. Plus how will you realise there are two different variants
without trawling through lots of listings. It’s just daft but I don’t know why
I’m bothering to type this as bricklink won’t listen and just carry on regardless
Thanks for the extra work I now have to do and for the extra questions that I
will need to answer that don’t currently need to ask
Also the extra work for me to list things…
Much appreciated!
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2024 08:51 | | Subject: | Re: Proposed Alternative to Catalog Consolidation | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, PurpleKangaroo writes:
| | So there's been some heated discussion about the recent decision to consolidate
certain Bricklink part entries. For example, the merger of certain parts with
open studs and parts with blocked studs. Much has been said about the fact that
people rely on Bricklink as a catalog as well as a marketplace, and how the removal
of this information is detrimental to the future success of the LEGO hobby.
|
Keep in mind that some of this catalog information might actually be detrimental
and unhelpful to the hobbyist too since it can also give a false sense of what
is officially accurate and what is not. For starters we know that the Bricklink
catalog only allows for one head type to be documented as the official version
found in sets and belonging to a minifigure thereby making the whole concept
of an accurate minifig inventory breakdown in relation to the correct head to
be unviable, inaccurate and therefore unhelpful information to keep documented.
On the same token there is a difference between wanting to collect something
because you want both versions and wanting to collect something simply because
Bricklink leads you to assume that one part is more accurate than another. Either
way Lego does not differentiate these minor variations and it appears they also
no longer want Bricklink or its users to differentiate them either and therefore
I don't think finding a solution is the problem here as they already have
their own plans for the direction they want to take the site...
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2024 10:50 | | Subject: | Re: Proposed Alternative to Catalog Consolidation | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, PurpleKangaroo writes:
| | Of course, each menu would have an "undetermined" option, which would
be the default option in order to allow sellers and buyers ease of use.
My point is that the solution to this catalog complexity is not the removal of
crucial information. There is a better way, and I believe the incredible Bricklink
team has the opportunity to simultaneously simplify the user experience while
retaining the nuance that has made Bricklink the defacto LEGO parts catalog for
so many wonderful years.
Am I crazy, or is there room for compromise?
|
Keep half of the variants in the catalog and delete the other half. 
In all seriousness, I think many people would like something like what you described,
but the problem is that the pace of development here is very slow and it will
be a very long time before anything like that is implemented. As far as I can
tell, the current variant merges are being done using the existing catalog change
forms.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2024 11:08 | | Subject: | Re: Proposed Alternative to Catalog Consolidation | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, wildchicken13 writes:
| | […]
As far as I can
tell, the current variant merges are being done using the existing catalog change
forms.
|
That’s so the changes are logged (in the changelogs that are visible by everyone),
not because of a lack of tools.
(Though one could argue they could have a tool that allows for batch actions
AND logging….)
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2024 11:34 | | Subject: | Re: Proposed Alternative to Catalog Consolidation | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, wildchicken13 writes:
| | […]
As far as I can
tell, the current variant merges are being done using the existing catalog change
forms.
|
That’s so the changes are logged (in the changelogs that are visible by everyone),
not because of a lack of tools.
(Though one could argue they could have a tool that allows for batch actions
AND logging….)
|
Indeed. There's a solution for everything; BrickLink just hasn't developed
it yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, Oregon
Canada, Ontario
United Kingdom, England
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine