For various parts in my wanted lists, I have the color set to "Not Applicable"
because it doesn't matter. However, some portion of these (5-10% ish) end
up with "No image" being displayed.
I assume one of the catalog admins can probably associate the existing images
to the non-color version, but what's the best way to trigger that? I don't
see a form; would it just be posting to the "Catalog Requests" group
with the part numbers impacted by this issue?
For various parts in my wanted lists, I have the color set to "Not Applicable"
because it doesn't matter. However, some portion of these (5-10% ish) end
up with "No image" being displayed.
I assume one of the catalog admins can probably associate the existing images
to the non-color version, but what's the best way to trigger that? I don't
see a form; would it just be posting to the "Catalog Requests" group
with the part numbers impacted by this issue?
Many parts will only have an image in the (Not Applicable) slot if there is a
comparison image being used for different part variants. Other than that, a part
will not have any image assigned to the (Not Applicable) slot. The site displays
something if it is there and does not display something if it isn't there.
In other words, everything is functioning as it should.
For various parts in my wanted lists, I have the color set to "Not Applicable"
because it doesn't matter. However, some portion of these (5-10% ish) end
up with "No image" being displayed.
I assume one of the catalog admins can probably associate the existing images
to the non-color version, but what's the best way to trigger that? I don't
see a form; would it just be posting to the "Catalog Requests" group
with the part numbers impacted by this issue?
Many parts will only have an image in the (Not Applicable) slot if there is a
comparison image being used for different part variants. Other than that, a part
will not have any image assigned to the (Not Applicable) slot. The site displays
something if it is there and does not display something if it isn't there.
In other words, everything is functioning as it should.
Cheers,
Randy
Okay, I don't think my question was clear. Let me give an example of where
I'm confused.
3706 contains no image for "Not Applicable)" because there is no differentiation.
This is apparent from the catalog page. However, when 3706 is in a wanted list,
"Not Applicable)" displays the image for the black color. 3705, 4519,
44294, 3707, and (many) others are similar in picking a color image to display
on a wanted list.
32073 contains no image for "Not Applicable)" because there is also
no differentiation. This is also apparent from the catalog page. However, when
32073 is in a wanted list, setting the desired color to "Not Applicable)"
displays no image.
I think you're referring to the first behavior, which is what shows up when
one is viewing the catalog page. When in a wanted list the behavior of 32073
is different from the other axles. Why is this behavior different and can it
be changed to be consistent so some image is displayed even if no color is specified
in a wanted list?
54675c01, 54696c01, 7229, 92693c01, 55013, 3743, 89678 also display similar behaviors
of no image in a wanted list.
32073 contains no image for "Not Applicable)" because there is also
no differentiation. This is also apparent from the catalog page. However, when
32073 is in a wanted list, setting the desired color to "Not Applicable)"
displays no image.
Actually let me clarify this. My comment on "This is also apparent from
the catalog page" refers to "No differentiation".
The catalog page of 32073 IS different in that it doesn't seem to have an
option for (Not Applicable) as a color selection, so there isn't a slot for
"No Image" under that color. You simply can't select that as a color
on the catalog page as you can with 3705. So there is some catalog structure
difference between those parts.
For various parts in my wanted lists, I have the color set to "Not Applicable"
because it doesn't matter. However, some portion of these (5-10% ish) end
up with "No image" being displayed.
I assume one of the catalog admins can probably associate the existing images
to the non-color version, but what's the best way to trigger that? I don't
see a form; would it just be posting to the "Catalog Requests" group
with the part numbers impacted by this issue?
Many parts will only have an image in the (Not Applicable) slot if there is a
comparison image being used for different part variants. Other than that, a part
will not have any image assigned to the (Not Applicable) slot. The site displays
something if it is there and does not display something if it isn't there.
In other words, everything is functioning as it should.
Cheers,
Randy
Okay, I don't think my question was clear. Let me give an example of where
I'm confused.
3706 contains no image for "Not Applicable)" because there is no differentiation.
This is apparent from the catalog page.
The catalog page only shows (Not Applicable) in the dropdown list for that part
because sellers have some listed as color (Not Applicable) in some of their stores.
It has nothing to do with whether the item has an image associated with the color
(Not Applicable) or not [in this case, not]. The only way for the (Not Applicable)
to be removed from the dropdown is for all sellers of the part to actually list
their items appropriately with an actual color.
However, when 3706 is in a wanted list,
"Not Applicable)" displays the image for the black color. 3705, 4519,
44294, 3707, and (many) others are similar in picking a color image to display
on a wanted list.
The wanted list is choosing the default color image that is defined by the site
for that part, which was historically known as the 'large image' and
is now known as the 'legacy image'. I don't know why it was chosen
to do it that way, but that's the way it is currently coded. Technically,
the wanted list should not show an image at all for color (Not Applicable) for
any of those parts listed above. The 'legacy image' is named that because
it will eventually be deprecated. At that time, the images will most assuredly
not show in the wanted lists anymore.
32073 contains no image for "Not Applicable)" because there is also
no differentiation. This is also apparent from the catalog page. However, when
32073 is in a wanted list, setting the desired color to "Not Applicable)"
displays no image.
The catalog page does not show (Not Applicable) in the dropdown list for that
part because sellers do not have -any- listed as color (Not Applicable) in -any-
stores. It has nothing to do with whether the item has an image associated with
the color (Not Applicable) or not [once again, in this case, not].
I think you're referring to the first behavior, which is what shows up when
one is viewing the catalog page. When in a wanted list the behavior of 32073
is different from the other axles. Why is this behavior different and can it
be changed to be consistent so some image is displayed even if no color is specified
in a wanted list?
The behavior here looks like it is not choosing a default image for (Not Applicable)
in the wanted list pop-up because no listings on the site are listed with color
(Not Applicable). All of the other parts you mentioned above did have listings
in (Not Applicable). So, it looks like the wanted list pop-up is choosing its
functionality based on whether sellers list items incorrectly or not.
54675c01, 54696c01, 7229, 92693c01, 55013, 3743, 89678 also display similar behaviors
of no image in a wanted list.
As proven above, all of these parts all show no default images in a wanted list
because sellers have actually listed all of their parts with actual colors and
the wanted pop-up on those pages knows it.
Hopefully, this stuff made some sense, but there is nothing that the catalog
admins can do to fix this behavior. It is something that is happening in the
back-end logic. In any case, the proper behavior should be for wanted lists to
never show an image for a part in color (No Applicable) or maybe have a special
dotted line drawing image of a part meant to be used only in wanted lists for
the color (Not Applicable). It should not be basing anything on what sellers
have listed or not. Til now, you have just gotten lucky sometimes because sellers
list items incorrectly without a color chosen and the site is playing off of
that for some reason.
For various parts in my wanted lists, I have the color set to "Not Applicable"
because it doesn't matter. However, some portion of these (5-10% ish) end
up with "No image" being displayed.
I assume one of the catalog admins can probably associate the existing images
to the non-color version, but what's the best way to trigger that? I don't
see a form; would it just be posting to the "Catalog Requests" group
with the part numbers impacted by this issue?
Many parts will only have an image in the (Not Applicable) slot if there is a
comparison image being used for different part variants. Other than that, a part
will not have any image assigned to the (Not Applicable) slot. The site displays
something if it is there and does not display something if it isn't there.
In other words, everything is functioning as it should.
Cheers,
Randy
Okay, I don't think my question was clear. Let me give an example of where
I'm confused.
3706 contains no image for "Not Applicable)" because there is no differentiation.
This is apparent from the catalog page.
The catalog page only shows (Not Applicable) in the dropdown list for that part
because sellers have some listed as color (Not Applicable) in some of their stores.
It has nothing to do with whether the item has an image associated with the color
(Not Applicable) or not [in this case, not]. The only way for the (Not Applicable)
to be removed from the dropdown is for all sellers of the part to actually list
their items appropriately with an actual color.
However, when 3706 is in a wanted list,
"Not Applicable)" displays the image for the black color. 3705, 4519,
44294, 3707, and (many) others are similar in picking a color image to display
on a wanted list.
The wanted list is choosing the default color image that is defined by the site
for that part, which was historically known as the 'large image' and
is now known as the 'legacy image'. I don't know why it was chosen
to do it that way, but that's the way it is currently coded. Technically,
the wanted list should not show an image at all for color (Not Applicable) for
any of those parts listed above. The 'legacy image' is named that because
it will eventually be deprecated. At that time, the images will most assuredly
not show in the wanted lists anymore.
32073 contains no image for "Not Applicable)" because there is also
no differentiation. This is also apparent from the catalog page. However, when
32073 is in a wanted list, setting the desired color to "Not Applicable)"
displays no image.
The catalog page does not show (Not Applicable) in the dropdown list for that
part because sellers do not have -any- listed as color (Not Applicable) in -any-
stores. It has nothing to do with whether the item has an image associated with
the color (Not Applicable) or not [once again, in this case, not].
I think you're referring to the first behavior, which is what shows up when
one is viewing the catalog page. When in a wanted list the behavior of 32073
is different from the other axles. Why is this behavior different and can it
be changed to be consistent so some image is displayed even if no color is specified
in a wanted list?
The behavior here looks like it is not choosing a default image for (Not Applicable)
in the wanted list pop-up because no listings on the site are listed with color
(Not Applicable). All of the other parts you mentioned above did have listings
in (Not Applicable). So, it looks like the wanted list pop-up is choosing its
functionality based on whether sellers list items incorrectly or not.
54675c01, 54696c01, 7229, 92693c01, 55013, 3743, 89678 also display similar behaviors
of no image in a wanted list.
As proven above, all of these parts all show no default images in a wanted list
because sellers have actually listed all of their parts with actual colors and
the wanted pop-up on those pages knows it.
Hopefully, this stuff made some sense, but there is nothing that the catalog
admins can do to fix this behavior. It is something that is happening in the
back-end logic. In any case, the proper behavior should be for wanted lists to
never show an image for a part in color (No Applicable) or maybe have a special
dotted line drawing image of a part meant to be used only in wanted lists for
the color (Not Applicable). It should not be basing anything on what sellers
have listed or not. Til now, you have just gotten lucky sometimes because sellers
list items incorrectly without a color chosen and the site is playing off of
that for some reason.
Cheers,
Randy
Maybe a more in-depth reply next time, Randy Just thankful for the no limitations
on text in the forum, yet. Though, keep it up and we'll see how that evolves
Seriously, thanks from us catalog plebes, for taking the time to properly explain.
Hopefully, this stuff made some sense, but there is nothing that the catalog
admins can do to fix this behavior. It is something that is happening in the
back-end logic. In any case, the proper behavior should be for wanted lists to
never show an image for a part in color (No Applicable) or maybe have a special
dotted line drawing image of a part meant to be used only in wanted lists for
the color (Not Applicable). It should not be basing anything on what sellers
have listed or not. Til now, you have just gotten lucky sometimes because sellers
list items incorrectly without a color chosen and the site is playing off of
that for some reason.
Cheers,
Randy
Hmmm... someone with a devious mind and a shop they are not using could fix this!
[…]
Hmmm... someone with a devious mind and a shop they are not using could fix this!
The store would have to be open, no?
Open.
One of each standard part listed as Not-Applicable.
Normal prices so as not to trigger fraud or PG issues.
Crazy high minimum buy.
Oh, I see. All the images would populate. But then there would be many annoyed
Wanted List shoppers when this shop kept showed up with so many lots on their
lists. Nevermind!
[…]
Hmmm... someone with a devious mind and a shop they are not using could fix this!
The store would have to be open, no?
Open.
One of each standard part listed as Not-Applicable.
Normal prices so as not to trigger fraud or PG issues.
Crazy high minimum buy.
Hmm, ‘normal’ prices for parts that don’t exist?
Oh, I see. All the images would populate. But then there would be many annoyed
Wanted List shoppers when this shop kept showed up with so many lots on their
lists. Nevermind!
Well, if you don’t care for your store, you don’t care having 1,000,000 members
least-favouriting you
[…]
Hmmm... someone with a devious mind and a shop they are not using could fix this!
The store would have to be open, no?
Open.
One of each standard part listed as Not-Applicable.
Normal prices so as not to trigger fraud or PG issues.
Crazy high minimum buy.
Oh, I see. All the images would populate. But then there would be many annoyed
Wanted List shoppers when this shop kept showed up with so many lots on their
lists. Nevermind!
Would the items show up on all these wanted lists if the shop is set to only
ship to Sint Maarten?
USA, Texas
Not Applicable)" because there is no differentiation.
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
Canada, Alberta