|
 |
| | | Author: | Admin_Russell  | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2024 22:20 | | Subject: | Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 604 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location:  USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
 |
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| Hello again everyone, 
Below I have listed the general groups of variants we are tackling and the results
of the deliberation over the last month. I was originally planning to provide
a schedule for when these changes will happen, but based on the progress with
the tiles since February 1, I am hesitant to commit to any timeline except that
we will not change anything on this list prior to February 15.
Frosted bricks
These will be merged as planned, and a new Help Page is being written on this
topic.
Smooth slopes
These will be merged as planned, and a new Help Page is being written on this
topic.
Connections between studs
This whole class of variants will NOT be merged as part of this project. Complete
research needs to be done for the related 1 x 3 inverted slopes and the differing
angles, plus more work to understand how the 2 x 2 inverted slope relates to
these parts.
Sprue marks
The minifigure chair was the only one in this category and it will be merged
as planned.
Torsos with ribs
This whole class of variants will NOT be merged as part of this project. However,
we will rename these parts to remove the “ribs” depending on if we can get some
better photos. We will also place a moratorium on any new torsos distinguished
by underside ribs.
Inside supports
We will merge 46212 (Brick 1 x 2 x 5) as planned, but as part of this project
we will not be touching 32064c (Brick 1 x 2 with Axle Hole and Side Supports)
or 10247 (Plate Modified 2 x 2 with Pin Hole). More research needs to be done
in regards to the practical use cases of the parts and their actual use in LEGO
sets. As part of this project, however, we will also mark part 772 for deletion
(with a 3 month time frame before a merge), even though it wasn’t on the original
list. This variant likely does not even exist and it’s similar in class to the
46212.
X-shaped axle holes
These will be merged as planned.
Hinges with teeth
These will be merged as planned, and a new Help Page is being written on this
topic.
Duplo bricks with bottom tubes
These will be merged as planned.
Blocked and vented studs
These will be merged as planned, and a new Help Page is being written on this
topic.
Determined entries for very common parts
Update: We are well on our way through the decorated versions of 3 out of the
4 parts. Another 250 of these are scheduled to be changed on Tuesday (tomorrow).
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2024 22:40 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 91 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Torsos with ribs
This whole class of variants will NOT be merged as part of this project. However,
we will rename these parts to remove the “ribs” depending on if we can get some
better photos. We will also place a moratorium on any new torsos distinguished
by underside ribs.
|
Thank-you very very much for this one
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | DaddyOs_Bricks | | Posted: | Feb 13, 2024 05:58 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 91 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello again everyone,
Below I have listed the general groups of variants we are tackling and the results
of the deliberation over the last month. I was originally planning to provide
a schedule for when these changes will happen, but based on the progress with
the tiles since February 1, I am hesitant to commit to any timeline except that
we will not change anything on this list prior to February 15.
Frosted bricks
These will be merged as planned, and a new Help Page is being written on this
topic.
Smooth slopes
These will be merged as planned, and a new Help Page is being written on this
topic.
Connections between studs
This whole class of variants will NOT be merged as part of this project. Complete
research needs to be done for the related 1 x 3 inverted slopes and the differing
angles, plus more work to understand how the 2 x 2 inverted slope relates to
these parts.
Sprue marks
The minifigure chair was the only one in this category and it will be merged
as planned.
Torsos with ribs
This whole class of variants will NOT be merged as part of this project. However,
we will rename these parts to remove the “ribs” depending on if we can get some
better photos. We will also place a moratorium on any new torsos distinguished
by underside ribs.
Inside supports
We will merge 46212 (Brick 1 x 2 x 5) as planned, but as part of this project
we will not be touching 32064c (Brick 1 x 2 with Axle Hole and Side Supports)
or 10247 (Plate Modified 2 x 2 with Pin Hole). More research needs to be done
in regards to the practical use cases of the parts and their actual use in LEGO
sets. As part of this project, however, we will also mark part 772 for deletion
(with a 3 month time frame before a merge), even though it wasn’t on the original
list. This variant likely does not even exist and it’s similar in class to the
46212.
X-shaped axle holes
These will be merged as planned.
Hinges with teeth
These will be merged as planned, and a new Help Page is being written on this
topic.
Duplo bricks with bottom tubes
These will be merged as planned.
Blocked and vented studs
These will be merged as planned, and a new Help Page is being written on this
topic.
Determined entries for very common parts
Update: We are well on our way through the decorated versions of 3 out of the
4 parts. Another 250 of these are scheduled to be changed on Tuesday (tomorrow).
|
Thank you for the update.
Can you clarify if the merge of blocked/vented/hollow studs in regards to minifigure
heads will be moving forward or is this now only effecting 2x2 domes?
Are the above 3 stud types all being merged or are only blocked and vented being
merged and hollow will remain a separate listing?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Feb 13, 2024 13:24 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 81 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, DaddyOs_Bricks writes:
| | Can you clarify if the merge of blocked/vented/hollow studs in regards to minifigure
heads will be moving forward or is this now only effecting 2x2 domes?
|
Yes, it includes minifigure heads.
| | Are the above 3 stud types all being merged or are only blocked and vented being
merged and hollow will remain a separate listing?
|
"Blocked" and "Vented" are being merged into "Hollow".
After all of the merges, there will be only three stud types in the catalog ["Solid",
"Hollow", and "Open"] instead of five.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Turez | | Posted: | Feb 14, 2024 08:02 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 82 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, DaddyOs_Bricks writes:
| | Are the above 3 stud types all being merged or are only blocked and vented being
merged and hollow will remain a separate listing?
|
"Blocked" and "Vented" are being merged into "Hollow".
After all of the merges, there will be only three stud types in the catalog ["Solid",
"Hollow", and "Open"] instead of five.
|
To clarify things a bit, the current "Hollow" (3626c) and "Vented"
(28621) will be merged into "Blocked Open" (3626b). Once that is done,
"Blocked Open" will be renamed to "Hollow".
In other words, this entry will re retained, but will be called "Hollow Stud"
in the future:
[p=3626b]
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Feb 14, 2024 14:04 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, DaddyOs_Bricks writes:
| | Are the above 3 stud types all being merged or are only blocked and vented being
merged and hollow will remain a separate listing?
|
"Blocked" and "Vented" are being merged into "Hollow".
After all of the merges, there will be only three stud types in the catalog ["Solid",
"Hollow", and "Open"] instead of five.
|
To clarify things a bit, the current "Hollow" (3626c) and "Vented"
(28621) will be merged into "Blocked Open" (3626b). Once that is done,
"Blocked Open" will be renamed to "Hollow".
|
Yes. Thank you for that.
I was being more generic than stating the exact process that is going to occur.
In other words, the "Blocked" and "Vented" terminology are going
to disappear in the catalog.
| | In other words, this entry will re retained, but will be called "Hollow Stud"
in the future:
[p=3626b]
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | brickbiters | | Posted: | Feb 16, 2024 14:32 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| the thing is, this is NOT a hollow stud if it is vented. you can't put anything
through a vented stud. why not just get rid of 'blocked' and keep 'vented'
as 'blocked' would just be a normal stud?
In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, DaddyOs_Bricks writes:
| | Are the above 3 stud types all being merged or are only blocked and vented being
merged and hollow will remain a separate listing?
|
"Blocked" and "Vented" are being merged into "Hollow".
After all of the merges, there will be only three stud types in the catalog ["Solid",
"Hollow", and "Open"] instead of five.
|
To clarify things a bit, the current "Hollow" (3626c) and "Vented"
(28621) will be merged into "Blocked Open" (3626b). Once that is done,
"Blocked Open" will be renamed to "Hollow".
In other words, this entry will re retained, but will be called "Hollow Stud"
in the future:
[p=3626b]
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | DaddyOs_Bricks | | Posted: | Feb 14, 2024 09:49 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, DaddyOs_Bricks writes:
| | Can you clarify if the merge of blocked/vented/hollow studs in regards to minifigure
heads will be moving forward or is this now only effecting 2x2 domes?
|
Yes, it includes minifigure heads.
| | Are the above 3 stud types all being merged or are only blocked and vented being
merged and hollow will remain a separate listing?
|
"Blocked" and "Vented" are being merged into "Hollow".
After all of the merges, there will be only three stud types in the catalog ["Solid",
"Hollow", and "Open"] instead of five.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Thank you for the clarification.
Bill
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Feb 13, 2024 06:15 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 89 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello again everyone,
Below I have listed the general groups of variants we are tackling and the results
of the deliberation over the last month. I was originally planning to provide
a schedule for when these changes will happen, but based on the progress with
the tiles since February 1, I am hesitant to commit to any timeline except that
we will not change anything on this list prior to February 15.
Frosted bricks
These will be merged as planned, and a new Help Page is being written on this
topic.
Smooth slopes
These will be merged as planned, and a new Help Page is being written on this
topic.
Connections between studs
This whole class of variants will NOT be merged as part of this project. Complete
research needs to be done for the related 1 x 3 inverted slopes and the differing
angles, plus more work to understand how the 2 x 2 inverted slope relates to
these parts.
Sprue marks
The minifigure chair was the only one in this category and it will be merged
as planned.
Torsos with ribs
This whole class of variants will NOT be merged as part of this project. However,
we will rename these parts to remove the “ribs” depending on if we can get some
better photos. We will also place a moratorium on any new torsos distinguished
by underside ribs.
Inside supports
We will merge 46212 (Brick 1 x 2 x 5) as planned, but as part of this project
we will not be touching 32064c (Brick 1 x 2 with Axle Hole and Side Supports)
or 10247 (Plate Modified 2 x 2 with Pin Hole). More research needs to be done
in regards to the practical use cases of the parts and their actual use in LEGO
sets. As part of this project, however, we will also mark part 772 for deletion
(with a 3 month time frame before a merge), even though it wasn’t on the original
list. This variant likely does not even exist and it’s similar in class to the
46212.
X-shaped axle holes
These will be merged as planned.
Hinges with teeth
These will be merged as planned, and a new Help Page is being written on this
topic.
Duplo bricks with bottom tubes
These will be merged as planned.
Blocked and vented studs
These will be merged as planned, and a new Help Page is being written on this
topic.
Determined entries for very common parts
Update: We are well on our way through the decorated versions of 3 out of the
4 parts. Another 250 of these are scheduled to be changed on Tuesday (tomorrow).
|
Thanks for the update. Since you mention the timeline is not certain, I will
consider my email and message (https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1454060)
answered.
Is there any info or estimation on when the renumbering of the decorated heads
is going to begin and finish?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Feb 13, 2024 13:28 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | Is there any info or estimation on when the renumbering of the decorated heads
is going to begin and finish?
|
No, but considering the amount of work it represents, it will most likely be
the last group of items to be handled on the list. I would be surprised if the
site starts merging any of the decorated heads in the next two months with everything
else that needs to also happen.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Feb 13, 2024 15:53 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 80 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | Is there any info or estimation on when the renumbering of the decorated heads
is going to begin and finish?
|
No, but considering the amount of work it represents, it will most likely be
the last group of items to be handled on the list. I would be surprised if the
site starts merging any of the decorated heads in the next two months with everything
else that needs to also happen.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Thanks, Russell previously also mentioned it could take until May, so yes, that
seems to make sense then. Hopefully it will indeed be the last group, so that
at least everything else is in place within the foreseeable future.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Feb 13, 2024 07:53 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 105 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| |
Inside supports
We will merge 46212 (Brick 1 x 2 x 5) as planned
|
Can you please respond to the given rationales for why this should not happen?
These are very different parts (not variants) in connectivity, function even
within Lego instructions, and of course aesthetics where they have a specific
purpose in this case (usually used for transparency). Where else is this part
merged? Who would benefit from the loss of this unique part?
Can you comment on why this and not the 1x2x1 without inside supports would be
merged?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Feb 13, 2024 20:39 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 144 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, oukexergon writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| |
Inside supports
We will merge 46212 (Brick 1 x 2 x 5) as planned
|
Can you please respond to the given rationales for why this should not happen?
These are very different parts (not variants) in connectivity, function even
within Lego instructions, and of course aesthetics where they have a specific
purpose in this case (usually used for transparency). Where else is this part
merged? Who would benefit from the loss of this unique part?
Can you comment on why this and not the 1x2x1 without inside supports would be
merged?
|
Because the transparent 3004 and 3065 both exist, so this is necessary to keep
them apart.
The 2454 and 46212 do not both exist in transparent colors:
[p=46212,12]
The only reason to keep them separate is to distinguish the early solid color
versions which had no side supports. But that is a minor consideration and practically
speaking there is no functional difference.
You would also be hard pressed to say that any of those early sets came ONLY
with the earliest version of the part. Both types are correct, and maybe there
were both types present in some copies.
As for people needing to place 1 x 1 round tiles inside the 46212, this only
happens with the transparent version.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Feb 14, 2024 03:13 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, oukexergon writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| |
Inside supports
We will merge 46212 (Brick 1 x 2 x 5) as planned
|
Can you comment on why this and not the 1x2x1 without inside supports would be
merged?
|
Because the transparent 3004 and 3065 both exist, so this is necessary to keep
them apart.
The 2454 and 46212 do not both exist in transparent colors:
[p=46212,12]
|
As yet. I can see reasons why this could change.
| | The only reason to keep them separate is to distinguish the early solid color
versions which had no side supports. But that is a minor consideration and practically
speaking there is no functional difference.
|
There are. I'm discussing a few.
| | You would also be hard pressed to say that any of those early sets came ONLY
with the earliest version of the part. Both types are correct, and maybe there
were both types present in some copies.
|
Maybe? I have two of these sets, and they certainly both came with 46212. Deliberately
trying to erase these from the catalog seems counterproductive. That's from
both a technical collector angle, but also just because it's erasing valuable
information.
| | As for people needing to place 1 x 1 round tiles inside the 46212, this only
happens with the transparent version.
|
Any tile, and various other part types. Perhaps parts yet to be designed. Heck
something might fit nice and tight into 2454 currently or something could be
designed for them and they could suddenly be needed in transparent colors. Who
am I to say what else a creative builder could come up with? Why pretend there
is no distinction here that could be useful? This is why someone may say the
decision is shortsighted.
So the argument first assumes TLG would never make transparent 2454. Of course
they could and would, given connectivity needs. If next year or in five years
you see a trans-black 2454, would it change the inventory need? The inside supports
mean a 1x2x5 can stand on a single stud tightly and centered, whereas 46212 cannot.
Likewise it means 46212 is lighter and easier to knock down from a single-stud
connection. It's also entirely flexible to that end. It's feasible that
it could be used in solid colors for that reason alone. They have many possible
different uses. If building angular walls or trying to create a rounded walled
space, or for whatever reason allowing for some hinging of the parts, one will
be superior to the other. So it's feasible TLG or other designers would desire
to swap them in colors.
But even if the assumption that 2454 will never be transparent stands correct,
the stud connectivity alone, coupled with the aesthetic of each (not just in
terms of color, but what they look like, for example, on the side 46212 could
make good exhausts or cannons, but 2454 would look wrong used this way) means
they are different. Supports in bricks have no functional difference, but the
supports in 1x2x5 changes their functionality in many ways. That TLG or other
designers hasn't tapped on these potentials fully doesn't mean the parts
should be merged. They are still different.
The most frustrating thing here is that you are systematically losing information
and undoing a perfectly aligned catalog with every other Lego-related resource
on parts TLG and others wo you led readily see as different. And I fail to see,
at least with this part, put aside everything else, what is to be gained. Even
giving the argument that 2454 will never be transparent, if I want a transparent
1x2x5 I'll have no trouble finding one, if I want to sell them, I'll
have zero trouble posting them. It's been done for decades now. You are "fixing"
what is working flawlessly.
Please reconsider.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Feb 14, 2024 08:56 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 72 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
Just to add my opinion to this conversation. The reality is that...
| | The 2454 and 46212 do not both exist in transparent colors:
[p=46212,12]
|
...yet. If tomorrow LEGO decides to make a solid color 46212 (or vice versa),
we will be forced to split 2454 back into two listings. Their functional differences
are significant.
Just because the transparent color use makes this easy to differentiate at the
moment, it doesn't mean we count on it being that way.
Thanks,
~Jen
| |
The only reason to keep them separate is to distinguish the early solid color
versions which had no side supports. But that is a minor consideration and practically
speaking there is no functional difference.
You would also be hard pressed to say that any of those early sets came ONLY
with the earliest version of the part. Both types are correct, and maybe there
were both types present in some copies.
As for people needing to place 1 x 1 round tiles inside the 46212, this only
happens with the transparent version.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1977_mauro | | Posted: | Feb 14, 2024 12:06 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| +1
In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
Just to add my opinion to this conversation. The reality is that...
| | The 2454 and 46212 do not both exist in transparent colors:
[p=46212,12]
|
...yet. If tomorrow LEGO decides to make a solid color 46212 (or vice versa),
we will be forced to split 2454 back into two listings. Their functional differences
are significant.
Just because the transparent color use makes this easy to differentiate at the
moment, it doesn't mean we count on it being that way.
Thanks,
~Jen
| |
The only reason to keep them separate is to distinguish the early solid color
versions which had no side supports. But that is a minor consideration and practically
speaking there is no functional difference.
You would also be hard pressed to say that any of those early sets came ONLY
with the earliest version of the part. Both types are correct, and maybe there
were both types present in some copies.
As for people needing to place 1 x 1 round tiles inside the 46212, this only
happens with the transparent version.
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Feb 14, 2024 14:36 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello again everyone,
Below I have listed the general groups of variants we are tackling and the results
of the deliberation over the last month. I was originally planning to provide
a schedule for when these changes will happen, but based on the progress with
the tiles since February 1, I am hesitant to commit to any timeline except that
we will not change anything on this list prior to February 15.
Frosted bricks
These will be merged as planned, and a new Help Page is being written on this
topic.
Smooth slopes
These will be merged as planned, and a new Help Page is being written on this
topic.
Connections between studs
This whole class of variants will NOT be merged as part of this project. Complete
research needs to be done for the related 1 x 3 inverted slopes and the differing
angles, plus more work to understand how the 2 x 2 inverted slope relates to
these parts.
Sprue marks
The minifigure chair was the only one in this category and it will be merged
as planned.
Torsos with ribs
This whole class of variants will NOT be merged as part of this project. However,
we will rename these parts to remove the “ribs” depending on if we can get some
better photos. We will also place a moratorium on any new torsos distinguished
by underside ribs.
Inside supports
We will merge 46212 (Brick 1 x 2 x 5) as planned, but as part of this project
we will not be touching 32064c (Brick 1 x 2 with Axle Hole and Side Supports)
or 10247 (Plate Modified 2 x 2 with Pin Hole). More research needs to be done
in regards to the practical use cases of the parts and their actual use in LEGO
sets. As part of this project, however, we will also mark part 772 for deletion
(with a 3 month time frame before a merge), even though it wasn’t on the original
list. This variant likely does not even exist and it’s similar in class to the
46212.
X-shaped axle holes
These will be merged as planned.
Hinges with teeth
These will be merged as planned, and a new Help Page is being written on this
topic.
Duplo bricks with bottom tubes
These will be merged as planned.
Blocked and vented studs
These will be merged as planned, and a new Help Page is being written on this
topic.
Determined entries for very common parts
Update: We are well on our way through the decorated versions of 3 out of the
4 parts. Another 250 of these are scheduled to be changed on Tuesday (tomorrow).
|
Firstly, thank you for the update!
Secondly, I still disagree with merging of 46212. I find the argument "it
only exists in transparent colors" as hypocritical towards removing frosted
bricks, which quite the opposite, were only recognized in transparent colors
despite technically existing for opaque colors.
Colors should not be a factor in what is a different part. Molds should not be
sorted by colors, colors should be sorted by colors.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | brickerking | | Posted: | Feb 14, 2024 18:28 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 69 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello again everyone,
Below I have listed the general groups of variants we are tackling
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Feb 15, 2024 05:49 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Russell could you send me another email with a similar list for the heads? (old
numbers and new)
And if possible a start date for that phase. Thanks.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello again everyone,
Below I have listed the general groups of variants we are tackling and the results
of the deliberation over the last month. I was originally planning to provide
a schedule for when these changes will happen, but based on the progress with
the tiles since February 1, I am hesitant to commit to any timeline except that
we will not change anything on this list prior to February 15.
Frosted bricks
These will be merged as planned, and a new Help Page is being written on this
topic.
Smooth slopes
These will be merged as planned, and a new Help Page is being written on this
topic.
Connections between studs
This whole class of variants will NOT be merged as part of this project. Complete
research needs to be done for the related 1 x 3 inverted slopes and the differing
angles, plus more work to understand how the 2 x 2 inverted slope relates to
these parts.
Sprue marks
The minifigure chair was the only one in this category and it will be merged
as planned.
Torsos with ribs
This whole class of variants will NOT be merged as part of this project. However,
we will rename these parts to remove the “ribs” depending on if we can get some
better photos. We will also place a moratorium on any new torsos distinguished
by underside ribs.
Inside supports
We will merge 46212 (Brick 1 x 2 x 5) as planned, but as part of this project
we will not be touching 32064c (Brick 1 x 2 with Axle Hole and Side Supports)
or 10247 (Plate Modified 2 x 2 with Pin Hole). More research needs to be done
in regards to the practical use cases of the parts and their actual use in LEGO
sets. As part of this project, however, we will also mark part 772 for deletion
(with a 3 month time frame before a merge), even though it wasn’t on the original
list. This variant likely does not even exist and it’s similar in class to the
46212.
X-shaped axle holes
These will be merged as planned.
Hinges with teeth
These will be merged as planned, and a new Help Page is being written on this
topic.
Duplo bricks with bottom tubes
These will be merged as planned.
Blocked and vented studs
These will be merged as planned, and a new Help Page is being written on this
topic.
Determined entries for very common parts
Update: We are well on our way through the decorated versions of 3 out of the
4 parts. Another 250 of these are scheduled to be changed on Tuesday (tomorrow).
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Feb 15, 2024 14:39 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 273 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello again everyone,
Below I have listed the general groups of variants we are tackling and the results
of the deliberation over the last month. I was originally planning to provide
a schedule for when these changes will happen, but based on the progress with
the tiles since February 1, I am hesitant to commit to any timeline except that
we will not change anything on this list prior to February 15.
|
Today the catalog team got a message (in all caps) protesting the variant merges.
Some of the points have not been addressed yet, so I thought I would take this
opportunity to answer these before we get started with merging.
Sorry it's so long. 
01 WHY RUIN SOMETHING THAT WORKS SO WELL! YOU WILL LOSE MANY CUSTOMERS AROUND
THE WOURLD,
IN THIS HOBBY/WORK OF ART THE BUYER ALWAYS COMES FIRST!
One of the things people will learn about the BrickLink catalog is that it is
HUGE. Meaning that it would be hard to ruin it by just changing a few entries.
02 IF YOU DO THIS, YOU WILL DESTROY THE GREATEST REFERENCE FOR LEGO PARTS ANYWHERE
ON THE INTERNET, PEOPLE FROM AROUND THE WORLD HAVE BEEN DOING DATA ENTRIES FOR
20 YEARS, ALL THIS DATA WILL BE GONE!
We are actually saving the data, and others have done this too:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1454780
In some cases we will be making Help Pages to preserve the most useful data.
03 THER IS NO NEED TO DO THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE BACUSE WHEN THERE IS 2 OR 3
VARIANTS THER IS ALWAS A PICTURE OF THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF EACH PART SHOWING THE
DIFFERENT DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS!
The need is both for sellers who have boxes of used parts to sort and buyers
who have to make their way around a catalog with entries that are hard to explain.
04 MANY OF US WILL USE CHINESE BASED WEB SITES AND OR BRICK-OWL.COM TO SOURCE
OUR PARTS!
I don't think so!
05 YOU ARE MAKING TO VERY BAD OF A DECISION WITH NOT IN PUT FROM THE US, AFOLS
/ BUYERS / SELLERS,
We took input from people for the last month in the Forum, plus other input for
many years. These decisions were not made in a vaccum.
06 DIFFERENT VARIANTS HAVE HAD SEPARATE ENTRIES FOR 20 YEARS, DONT "FIX"
WHAT IS NOT BROKEN OR YOU WILL HAVE THE SAME FATE AS SEARS
07 THIS DOES NOT HONOR DANIEL JEZEK, THE FOUNDER OF BRICK-LINK.COM IN ANY WAY!
For sure, Dan would have been on the side of this project. He sometimes referred
to the "balkanization" of the catalog as a bad things. Many of the variants
being removed would likely not have been approved under his leadership.
08 THIS RUNIS EVERTHING HE DID FOR AFOLS / BUYERS / SELLERS
IF HE WAS STILL ALIVE TODAY HE WOULD BE VERY DISAPPOINTED!
I think he would be relieved to not have to account for several different kinds
of hollow studs. In fact, he was the one that made the policy that only ONE head
stud variant would be used in all minfigure inventories. By continuing to allow
solid stud heads in early inventories, we are actually breaking this policy.
09/A IN JULY 2018 YOU INTRODUCED STUDIO WITCH IS IN INDISPENSABLE, STUDIO AND
BRICK LINK ARE LIKE SALT AND PEPPER OR PRIMER AND PAINT THEY MUST BE IN SYNCHRONIZATION
WITH EATCH OTHER
Agreed, although it is interesting that despite my personal efforts to further
integrate Studio into this Forum, both the administration and the Studio userbase
have insisted on keeping them separate.
09/B RIGHT NOW I CAN DESIGN A MOC ON STUDIO, I WILL THEN EXPORT THE PARTS TO
BRICK LINK AND ORDER THE PARTS, BUILD THE MOC, CREATE THE INSTRUCTIONS AND SELL
THEM ON REBRICKABLE.COM
Or you could do this in MOC shop next year (2025), but only if the MOC meets
certain standards.
09/C WHEN YOU MERGE VARIANTS YOU WILL RUIN BRICK LINK WEATHER YOU INTENDED TO
OR NOT! IF YOU DO THIS I WILL HAVE NO CHOSE BUT TO USE BRICK-OWL.COM FOR THE
MERGED VARIANTS
I'm not entirely sure whether Brick Owl will retain these variants after
we have merged them. I would advise against it, but if Brick Owl wants to corner
the market on parts that almost nobody wants, they are free to to that. The Brick
Owl catalog was decoupled from the BrickLink catalog years ago with the invention
of the Brick Owl ID (BOID).
09/D THE PROBLEM IS BRICK-OWL.COM IS NOT INTEGRATED INTO STUDIO, THAT MAKES ORDERING
PARTS A LOT MORE DIFFICULT, AND VERY TIME CONSUMING!
Well there is a reason that Studio is integrated with the BrickLink catalog and
not other catalogs. We pay for the development and maintenance of Studio, and
we choose to benefit our platform with the integration.
09/E I WILL HAVE TO MANUALY AND IVDVUALY LOOK FOR EACH PART ON BRICK-OWL.COM
THIS WILL TAKE HOURS!
My advice is keep using BrickLink. The variants we are removing aren't going
to make a lick of difference in a Studio model. I would welcome any real-life
cases where this variant merge project affects people's using of Studio.
10/A ALSO IF I BUY INSTRUCTIONS ON REBRICKABLE.COM AND BUY THE PARTS FROM BRICK-LINK.COM
THIS PROCESS SHOULD ONLY TAKE A FEW MINUTES FOR THE ALGORITHM TO PROSESS THE
DATA
Rebrickable is an affiliate of ours, and they are being briefed on all changes.
They Rebrickable folks are quite the experts at mapping things, so I wouldn't
worry about this too much.
10/B IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETTWEEN SLOPED BRICKS
WITH A RORGH OR TEXTURED SURFACE AND SLOPED BRICKS WHITH A SMOOTH SURFACE
Sorry, it is not. There are not simply 2 kinds of textures. There are a range
of textures that are out there, and only showing 2 on BrickLink presents a false
dichotomy to our users.
10/C FOR EXAMPLE SLOPE BRICK 2 x 4 (45°) WITH ROUGH SURFACE 3037 IS MORE DESIRABLE
BECAUSE IT DOES NOT GET SCTRATED AS EASLY AS ONE WITH A SMOTH SURFACE
Yet currently on BrickLink (pre-merge) there is no way to order only a "rough
surface" slope. You could get any of a wide variety of textures, including
ones that some people think are smooth. There are a lot of blind partouts going
on out there, so don't think for a minute that every seller listing even
the smooth ones has actually looked at every brick, especially the New stock.
10/D https://img.brickowl.com/files/image_cache/larger/lego-red-slope-2-x-4-45-with-rough-surface-3037-32-935193-81.jpg
BrickLink Discussions Moderators, please leave this link as an exception. That
is indeed a beautiful image.
11/A IF YOU INTEGRATE BRICK-OWL.COM WITH STUDIO, IT WOULD MAKE THINGS EASER FOR
US AFOLS
The chance of that happening is very, very low - sorry.
11/B HOWHEVER THE NUMBER OF PARTS, NUMBER OF STORES AND THE SIZE STORES ARE FAR
GREATER ON BRICK-LINK.COM THAN ON BRICK-OWL.COM OR THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE THE PART
IN THE COLOR THAT I WANT SIMPLY BECAUSE THER ARE LESS AVABILE
Very true, and one of the reasons for that is the active catalog present on BrickLink.
People are attracted to the catalog, even though most variants the LEGO Group
releases never make in into the catalog.
12/A LET US THE SELLERS AND BUYERS DECIDE THROUGH A BINDING VOTE, WEATHER OR
NOT TO MERGE THE VARIANTS AFTER ALL IF THERE WAS NO DEMAND / BUYERS THER WOULD
BE NO REASION FOR THIS WEB-SITE TO EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE
I've said this before, but if we left it up to a general user vote, BrickLink
would lose most of the variants in the catalog today.
12/B THAT MEANS THAT YOU WOULD HONOR THE VOTE AND PUBLISH THE NUMBERS FOR ALL
TO SEE!
We don't even publish the votes for Forum suggestions or BDP models. It would
increase transparency, but that may be too transparent.
13 THE PROBLEM IS BRICK OWL.COM IS NOT INTEGRATED WITH BRICK VALUT.TOYS
THAT COULD RUIN ONE OF THE BEST PLACES TO GET CUSTOM STAR WARS MOCS/SETS
Brick Owl and Brick Vault are their own sites with their own concerns.
14 PUT THE OLD MOULDS / VARIANTS ON A SEPREATE WEB SITE! LINKS INCLUDED
There are some great sites out there that document many variants that we don't
recognize on BrickLink. We have no issue with people building or using those
sites.
15 IF YOU DONT LIKE THIS IDEA, ASK US THE SELLERS AND BUYERS WHAT SHOULD BE DONE
TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM! ALSO THER WAS NO PROBLEN IN THE FIRST PLACE,
We have been asking these questions for years. Every meeting, every convention,
every Forum thread. These changes have been a long time coming, and community
input was at the heart of the decision to move ahead.
16 ARE THE PART NUMBERS GOING CHANGE OR MERGE ON STUDIO?
Yes. Studio pulls these from the BrickLink catalog, so they will change. The
tiles have already changed.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | zorbanj | | Posted: | Feb 15, 2024 15:17 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| |
07 THIS DOES NOT HONOR DANIEL JEZEK, THE FOUNDER OF BRICK-LINK.COM IN ANY WAY!
08 THIS RUNIS EVERTHING HE DID FOR AFOLS / BUYERS / SELLERS
IF HE WAS STILL ALIVE TODAY HE WOULD BE VERY DISAPPOINTED!
|
These false assertions about Dan are infuriating.
| | 09/C WHEN YOU MERGE VARIANTS YOU WILL RUIN BRICK LINK WEATHER YOU INTENDED TO
OR NOT! IF YOU DO THIS I WILL HAVE NO CHOSE BUT TO USE BRICK-OWL.COM FOR THE
MERGED VARIANTS
I'm not entirely sure whether Brick Owl will retain these variants after
we have merged them. I would advise against it, but if Brick Owl wants to corner
the market on parts that almost nobody wants, they are free to to that.
|
When I went through my inventory to add the requisite notes, I checked the price
differential between my variants and it was almost nothing in most cases. What
an eye opener.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Feb 15, 2024 15:27 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | 16 ARE THE PART NUMBERS GOING CHANGE OR MERGE ON STUDIO?
|
I don't know the others, but I wish to donate 1€ for this poor guy to fix
his locked keyboard caps lock.
Who's following me?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Stuart9 | | Posted: | Feb 15, 2024 15:31 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I’ve a franc I could spare. 
In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | 16 ARE THE PART NUMBERS GOING CHANGE OR MERGE ON STUDIO?
|
I don't know the others, but I wish to donate 1€ for this poor guy to fix
his locked keyboard caps lock.
Who's following me?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Feb 15, 2024 15:37 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stuart9 writes:
| | I’ve a franc I could spare.
|
Franc? Didn't read the news? Euro? No idea? ah OK...
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | 16 ARE THE PART NUMBERS GOING CHANGE OR MERGE ON STUDIO?
|
I don't know the others, but I wish to donate 1€ for this poor guy to fix
his locked keyboard caps lock.
Who's following me?
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | BensBrickstore | | Posted: | Feb 15, 2024 19:11 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | 16 ARE THE PART NUMBERS GOING CHANGE OR MERGE ON STUDIO?
|
I don't know the others, but I wish to donate 1€ for this poor guy to fix
his locked keyboard caps lock.
Who's following me?
|
I think it might be just as productive if we all pitch in and buy this person
a few computer classes that can teach them how to use spell check.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Feb 15, 2024 19:16 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, BensBrickstore writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | 16 ARE THE PART NUMBERS GOING CHANGE OR MERGE ON STUDIO?
|
I don't know the others, but I wish to donate 1€ for this poor guy to fix
his locked keyboard caps lock.
Who's following me?
|
I think it might be just as productive if we all pitch in and buy this person
a few computer classes that can teach them how to use spell check.
|
Ambitious program! I may not be wealthy enough for this unfortunately
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Feb 15, 2024 16:11 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Was it also in green ink?
These answers would be more believable if they were bold and all caps.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | brickerking | | Posted: | Feb 15, 2024 20:05 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 82 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello again everyone,
Below I have listed the general groups of variants we are tackling and the results
of the deliberation over the last month. I was originally planning to provide
a schedule for when these changes will happen, but based on the progress with
the tiles since February 1, I am hesitant to commit to any timeline except that
we will not change anything on this list prior to February 15.
|
Today the catalog team got a message (in all caps) protesting the variant merges.
Some of the points have not been addressed yet, so I thought I would take this
opportunity to answer these before we get started with merging.
|
Not sure why you would respond to a message in all-caps and post it here making
this person out to be crazy. This person is actually quite passionate for BrickLink
and you are crushing them. Your tone in the response is very tone-deaf in my
opinion. You literally have people shouting at you to stop merging variants,
yet your response is: we are right and you are obviously wrong - gaslighting
the folks who are trying to make their point - which is a valid point. Not a
good look.
Look, you're (BrickLink) obviously making this change and not going back.
At the same time you are obviously burning bridges with many people. Take time
to consider the humans behind this site and that their passion is your bottom
line. What's more important, catalog changes or relationships with people
and communities that support your bottom line? Is this all really worth the relationships
that are being strained and even broken? This public humiliation (even though
the writer may have given you permission or we will never know who they are)
is not putting out any fires, it's just fanning the flames.
I understand that the most vocal forum members on here are supporters of this
variant merger. And a post like this may make everyone feel better about themselves
and this decision. But don't forget about those people you don't hear
from very often or ever that don't support this merger. You may think this
is a great idea and so may many of your colleagues, but there are also many users
of this site that don't agree.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Feb 16, 2024 04:54 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 90 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, brickerking writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello again everyone,
Below I have listed the general groups of variants we are tackling and the results
of the deliberation over the last month. I was originally planning to provide
a schedule for when these changes will happen, but based on the progress with
the tiles since February 1, I am hesitant to commit to any timeline except that
we will not change anything on this list prior to February 15.
|
Today the catalog team got a message (in all caps) protesting the variant merges.
Some of the points have not been addressed yet, so I thought I would take this
opportunity to answer these before we get started with merging.
|
Not sure why you would respond to a message in all-caps and post it here making
this person out to be crazy. This person is actually quite passionate for BrickLink
and you are crushing them. Your tone in the response is very tone-deaf in my
opinion. You literally have people shouting at you to stop merging variants,
yet your response is: we are right and you are obviously wrong - gaslighting
the folks who are trying to make their point - which is a valid point. Not a
good look.
Look, you're (BrickLink) obviously making this change and not going back.
At the same time you are obviously burning bridges with many people. Take time
to consider the humans behind this site and that their passion is your bottom
line. What's more important, catalog changes or relationships with people
and communities that support your bottom line? Is this all really worth the relationships
that are being strained and even broken? This public humiliation (even though
the writer may have given you permission or we will never know who they are)
is not putting out any fires, it's just fanning the flames.
I understand that the most vocal forum members on here are supporters of this
variant merger. And a post like this may make everyone feel better about themselves
and this decision. But don't forget about those people you don't hear
from very often or ever that don't support this merger. You may think this
is a great idea and so may many of your colleagues, but there are also many users
of this site that don't agree.
|
What I also don't really understand is why Bricklink would suddenly decide
to address:
- a random email
- on the same day
- with a really elaborate reply
- to questions that don't lead to much interesting or new information, or
have already been discussed ad nauseam (the whole "what Dan would have wanted"
topic is such an eye roller - Nobody knows what Dan would have thought and done
in 2024, nor does it matter)
- when that effort could have gone into detailing the facts: any info on what
changes into what precise, and the timeline?
- when there are so many helpdesk tickets / problems / bugs that go unanswered
and unsolved in the meantime
It seems to be a pattern for Bricklink to concentrate on things that Bricklink
has decided are interesting, rather than addressing real and more pressing problems..
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | minifig_75 | | Posted: | Feb 18, 2024 06:25 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 72 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | In Catalog, brickerking writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello again everyone,
Below I have listed the general groups of variants we are tackling and the results
of the deliberation over the last month. I was originally planning to provide
a schedule for when these changes will happen, but based on the progress with
the tiles since February 1, I am hesitant to commit to any timeline except that
we will not change anything on this list prior to February 15.
|
Today the catalog team got a message (in all caps) protesting the variant merges.
Some of the points have not been addressed yet, so I thought I would take this
opportunity to answer these before we get started with merging.
|
Not sure why you would respond to a message in all-caps and post it here making
this person out to be crazy. This person is actually quite passionate for BrickLink
and you are crushing them. Your tone in the response is very tone-deaf in my
opinion. You literally have people shouting at you to stop merging variants,
yet your response is: we are right and you are obviously wrong - gaslighting
the folks who are trying to make their point - which is a valid point. Not a
good look.
Look, you're (BrickLink) obviously making this change and not going back.
At the same time you are obviously burning bridges with many people. Take time
to consider the humans behind this site and that their passion is your bottom
line. What's more important, catalog changes or relationships with people
and communities that support your bottom line? Is this all really worth the relationships
that are being strained and even broken? This public humiliation (even though
the writer may have given you permission or we will never know who they are)
is not putting out any fires, it's just fanning the flames.
I understand that the most vocal forum members on here are supporters of this
variant merger. And a post like this may make everyone feel better about themselves
and this decision. But don't forget about those people you don't hear
from very often or ever that don't support this merger. You may think this
is a great idea and so may many of your colleagues, but there are also many users
of this site that don't agree.
|
What I also don't really understand is why Bricklink would suddenly decide
to address:
- a random email
- on the same day
- with a really elaborate reply
- to questions that don't lead to much interesting or new information, or
have already been discussed ad nauseam (the whole "what Dan would have wanted"
topic is such an eye roller - Nobody knows what Dan would have thought and done
in 2024, nor does it matter)
- when that effort could have gone into detailing the facts: any info on what
changes into what precise, and the timeline?
- when there are so many helpdesk tickets / problems / bugs that go unanswered
and unsolved in the meantime
It seems to be a pattern for Bricklink to concentrate on things that Bricklink
has decided are interesting, rather than addressing real and more pressing problems..
|
Hello there!
So, as an AMATEUR seller (I won't become a pro, but I do spend A LOT OF TIME
WORKING on my INVENTORY..!) what I have failed to understand until now, as far
as COMMUNICATION from the Bricklink Support Team goes, is : we're in 2024.
sending a simple email has become quite easy. So, WHY the sellers don't receive
emails when there are issues with updates?
And I don't talk only about this variants merge issue.
I'm talking about all the sellers' inventories technical issues related
to updates that have been happening these past 4 years (I started selling in
2020)...??
Sellers spend an awful long time working on inventories... this dedication on
their inventories is not even worth a bit of respect and attention from the Support
team : that's my general feeling for these past years... I need to be informed
when there were technical bugs / issues on my inventory, for God's sake!
Because I don't want to spend 30 minutes looking for 1 item that's not
here anymore or realizing that items that I still have magically disappeared
in my BL inventory.
This is really tiring.
As sellers, we are entitled to a little bit more respect and we should get information
emails when there has been bugs.
regards,
Soon-a-b.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Feb 18, 2024 08:52 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, minifig_75 writes:
| | Hello there!
So, as an AMATEUR seller (I won't become a pro, but I do spend A LOT OF TIME
WORKING on my INVENTORY..!) what I have failed to understand until now, as far
as COMMUNICATION from the Bricklink Support Team goes, is : we're in 2024.
sending a simple email has become quite easy. So, WHY the sellers don't receive
emails when there are issues with updates?
And I don't talk only about this variants merge issue.
I'm talking about all the sellers' inventories technical issues related
to updates that have been happening these past 4 years (I started selling in
2020)...??
Sellers spend an awful long time working on inventories... this dedication on
their inventories is not even worth a bit of respect and attention from the Support
team : that's my general feeling for these past years... I need to be informed
when there were technical bugs / issues on my inventory, for God's sake!
Because I don't want to spend 30 minutes looking for 1 item that's not
here anymore or realizing that items that I still have magically disappeared
in my BL inventory.
This is really tiring.
As sellers, we are entitled to a little bit more respect and we should get information
emails when there has been bugs.
regards,
Soon-a-b.
|
Could you be more specific about what technical issues you are referring to?
Are you talking about Catalog changes that affect your inventory (like a category
change) or actual bugs in seller inventories?
If it's the latter, I have not experienced any of these. I have always been
able to track down any discrepancies to user error. (Mostly, not checking that
the page fully updated before I left it.) Nor have I read about any that weren't
related to third-party software or order checkout.
Thanks,
~Jen
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | minifig_75 | | Posted: | Feb 18, 2024 09:36 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, minifig_75 writes:
| | Hello there!
So, as an AMATEUR seller (I won't become a pro, but I do spend A LOT OF TIME
WORKING on my INVENTORY..!) what I have failed to understand until now, as far
as COMMUNICATION from the Bricklink Support Team goes, is : we're in 2024.
sending a simple email has become quite easy. So, WHY the sellers don't receive
emails when there are issues with updates?
And I don't talk only about this variants merge issue.
I'm talking about all the sellers' inventories technical issues related
to updates that have been happening these past 4 years (I started selling in
2020)...??
Sellers spend an awful long time working on inventories... this dedication on
their inventories is not even worth a bit of respect and attention from the Support
team : that's my general feeling for these past years... I need to be informed
when there were technical bugs / issues on my inventory, for God's sake!
Because I don't want to spend 30 minutes looking for 1 item that's not
here anymore or realizing that items that I still have magically disappeared
in my BL inventory.
This is really tiring.
As sellers, we are entitled to a little bit more respect and we should get information
emails when there has been bugs.
regards,
Soon-a-b.
|
Could you be more specific about what technical issues you are referring to?
Are you talking about Catalog changes that affect your inventory (like a category
change) or actual bugs in seller inventories?
If it's the latter, I have not experienced any of these. I have always been
able to track down any discrepancies to user error. (Mostly, not checking that
the page fully updated before I left it.) Nor have I read about any that weren't
related to third-party software or order checkout.
Thanks,
~Jen
|
Yeap, it is the later, and I can assure you I'm not the only one having these
technical issues, unfortunately.
One of my friends owns a store here too and encounters these issues. Mostly items
that were sold and reappear in store, or the contrary. I can assure you it's
not the seller's fault
I only work on the Bricklink website, not from Brickstore, may be that's
the reason of the problem.
And yes, I learnt to wait for the page to finish updating before leaving it..
Anyway, my post actually is about COMMUNICATION
what I was trying to say is that it would be really cool, if, for a change, the
support team would keep sellers informed a bit more than presently..
Thanks!!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Feb 18, 2024 09:44 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, minifig_75 writes:
| | In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, minifig_75 writes:
| | Hello there!
So, as an AMATEUR seller (I won't become a pro, but I do spend A LOT OF TIME
WORKING on my INVENTORY..!) what I have failed to understand until now, as far
as COMMUNICATION from the Bricklink Support Team goes, is : we're in 2024.
sending a simple email has become quite easy. So, WHY the sellers don't receive
emails when there are issues with updates?
And I don't talk only about this variants merge issue.
I'm talking about all the sellers' inventories technical issues related
to updates that have been happening these past 4 years (I started selling in
2020)...??
Sellers spend an awful long time working on inventories... this dedication on
their inventories is not even worth a bit of respect and attention from the Support
team : that's my general feeling for these past years... I need to be informed
when there were technical bugs / issues on my inventory, for God's sake!
Because I don't want to spend 30 minutes looking for 1 item that's not
here anymore or realizing that items that I still have magically disappeared
in my BL inventory.
This is really tiring.
As sellers, we are entitled to a little bit more respect and we should get information
emails when there has been bugs.
regards,
Soon-a-b.
|
Could you be more specific about what technical issues you are referring to?
Are you talking about Catalog changes that affect your inventory (like a category
change) or actual bugs in seller inventories?
If it's the latter, I have not experienced any of these. I have always been
able to track down any discrepancies to user error. (Mostly, not checking that
the page fully updated before I left it.) Nor have I read about any that weren't
related to third-party software or order checkout.
Thanks,
~Jen
|
Yeap, it is the later, and I can assure you I'm not the only one having these
technical issues, unfortunately.
One of my friends owns a store here too and encounters these issues. Mostly items
that were sold and reappear in store, or the contrary. I can assure you it's
not the seller's fault
I only work on the Bricklink website, not from Brickstore, may be that's
the reason of the problem.
And yes, I learnt to wait for the page to finish updating before leaving it..
Anyway, my post actually is about COMMUNICATION
what I was trying to say is that it would be really cool, if, for a change, the
support team would keep sellers informed a bit more than presently..
Thanks!!
|
I am certain that using BrickLink without third-party software is not what's
causing your issues.
Without access to change logs for our store inventories, it's very difficult
to track down phantom inventory errors. I think you are asking them to communicate
with you about issues that have not been reported, acknowledged, or fixed.
The reality is that if there were large-scale store inventory issues, sellers
would be reporting errors here every minute of every day.
~Jen
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Feb 18, 2024 13:10 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Yeap, it is the later, and I can assure you I'm not the only one having these
technical issues, unfortunately.
One of my friends owns a store here too and encounters these issues. Mostly items
that were sold and reappear in store, or the contrary. I can assure you it's
not the seller's fault
|
It happened to me maybe twice in 17 years.
It does NOT exist if you don't have:
* a DAILY import of your Inventory in XML
https://www.bricklink.com/invExcel.asp
* and that ALL changes you make in your Inventory are saved locally (using BrickStore)
It's the ONLY way to be sure it's BrickLink and not the user.
In short, sorry, but without any method and proof, this is 99.999999% user error
or not remembering correctly.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | minifig_75 | | Posted: | Feb 18, 2024 10:06 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, minifig_75 writes:
| | Hello there!
So, as an AMATEUR seller (I won't become a pro, but I do spend A LOT OF TIME
WORKING on my INVENTORY..!) what I have failed to understand until now, as far
as COMMUNICATION from the Bricklink Support Team goes, is : we're in 2024.
sending a simple email has become quite easy. So, WHY the sellers don't receive
emails when there are issues with updates?
And I don't talk only about this variants merge issue.
I'm talking about all the sellers' inventories technical issues related
to updates that have been happening these past 4 years (I started selling in
2020)...??
Sellers spend an awful long time working on inventories... this dedication on
their inventories is not even worth a bit of respect and attention from the Support
team : that's my general feeling for these past years... I need to be informed
when there were technical bugs / issues on my inventory, for God's sake!
Because I don't want to spend 30 minutes looking for 1 item that's not
here anymore or realizing that items that I still have magically disappeared
in my BL inventory.
This is really tiring.
As sellers, we are entitled to a little bit more respect and we should get information
emails when there has been bugs.
regards,
Soon-a-b.
|
Could you be more specific about what technical issues you are referring to?
Are you talking about Catalog changes that affect your inventory (like a category
change) or actual bugs in seller inventories?
If it's the latter, I have not experienced any of these. I have always been
able to track down any discrepancies to user error. (Mostly, not checking that
the page fully updated before I left it.) Nor have I read about any that weren't
related to third-party software or order checkout.
Thanks,
~Jen
|
I disagree, AND these issues I was talkin about do not, most fortunately, happen
everyday (otherw I'd have closed my store here already! )
I cannot spend my time writing on this forum, as I am not a pro..
And I guess I'm just not the only one in this case haha.
Again, I was talking about the lack of communication from the support team
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Feb 18, 2024 10:14 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, minifig_75 writes:
| | […]
Again, I was talking about the lack of communication from the support team
|
Jennnifer told you she’s not affected by these errors.
The ‘pros’, who, you say, have more time to complain, are not complaining about
these errors, even though they would have bigger & more diverse inventories and
many more occasions to be affected by these errors.
So you’re the only one (with your friend) to see these errors.
But you want the support team to communicate about them.
You are not making any sense.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Feb 18, 2024 13:15 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | I disagree, AND these issues I was talkin about do not, most fortunately, happen
everyday (otherw I'd have closed my store here already! )
|
It's completely false, sorry to say.
See my other reply?
|
|
|
|
|
Canada, Ontario
Germany, Niedersachsen
Netherlands, Utrecht
Sweden, Örebro
France, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur
United Kingdom, England
