have a multipls? They are both two things on one sheet, both have 2 different
parts on the sheet.
-jed
The first one only appears in one set so it has the set number in the item number.
The second one appears in multiple sets so it uses multi in the item number.
have a multipls? They are both two things on one sheet, both have 2 different
parts on the sheet.
-jed
The first one only appears in one set so it has the set number in the item number.
The second one appears in multiple sets so it uses multi in the item number.
so everytime a new piece of plastic comes out it will be named the set number
and pls, but then once they release that piece of plastic in to another set it
will have to be changed to multipls? Seems very short sighted.
[…]
so everytime a new piece of plastic comes out it will be named the set number
and pls, but then once they release that piece of plastic in to another set it
will have to be changed to multipls? Seems very short sighted.
I believe the sets that use the same sheet(s) are always all released together,
no?
have a multipls? They are both two things on one sheet, both have 2 different
parts on the sheet.
-jed
The first one only appears in one set so it has the set number in the item number.
The second one appears in multiple sets so it uses multi in the item number.
so everytime a new piece of plastic comes out it will be named the set number
and pls, but then once they release that piece of plastic in to another set it
will have to be changed to multipls? Seems very short sighted.
-jed
Things in the database are constantly changing to reflect the ever-evolving and
ever-growing amount of product that LEGO releases. Is everything "short-sighted"
when things are done one way given the information currently known and updated
as needs in the database change?
We reorganize sets and minifigures all the time when categorization needs to
change. Things are renumbered as new information becomes available. Parts are
recategorized or split into multiple categories when needs arise. Were all of
these things "short-sighted"?
Cheers,
Randy
P.S. Any plastic sheets that are released will usually all be released in the
same wave of sets, so going forward this conversation is a moot point. The older
ones are being updated to the current way of doing things as we come across them.
We number and name plastic sheets just like sticker sheets now. It makes submissions
for contributors much easier to figure out and speeds up the approval process
for us. I consider all of that "long-sighted".
have a multipls? They are both two things on one sheet, both have 2 different
parts on the sheet.
-jed
The first one only appears in one set so it has the set number in the item number.
The second one appears in multiple sets so it uses multi in the item number.
so everytime a new piece of plastic comes out it will be named the set number
and pls, but then once they release that piece of plastic in to another set it
will have to be changed to multipls? Seems very short sighted.
-jed
Things in the database are constantly changing to reflect the ever-evolving and
ever-growing amount of product that LEGO releases. Is everything "short-sighted"
when things are done one way given the information currently known and updated
as needs in the database change?
We reorganize sets and minifigures all the time when categorization needs to
change. Things are renumbered as new information becomes available. Parts are
recategorized or split into multiple categories when needs arise. Were all of
these things "short-sighted"?
Cheers,
Randy
P.S. Any plastic sheets that are released will usually all be released in the
same wave of sets, so going forward this conversation is a moot point. The older
ones are being updated to the current way of doing things as we come across them.
We number and name plastic sheets just like sticker sheets now. It makes submissions
for contributors much easier to figure out and speeds up the approval process
for us. I consider all of that "long-sighted".
you should have led with the PS. it makes sense to do it like stickers. I still
contend decisions should be made thinking not only for now, but also for the
future. for example. super hero minifigs are now up to sh0000 like sh0255.
they were just 3 digits like sh255. why not just make the jump by a factor of
100 instead of 10 like to sh00255.
you do good work. I'm not intending to be rude, just to understand. It's
frustrating when the IDs change and I've got to rework inventories to account
for it.
have a multipls? They are both two things on one sheet, both have 2 different
parts on the sheet.
-jed
The first one only appears in one set so it has the set number in the item number.
The second one appears in multiple sets so it uses multi in the item number.
so everytime a new piece of plastic comes out it will be named the set number
and pls, but then once they release that piece of plastic in to another set it
will have to be changed to multipls? Seems very short sighted.
-jed
Things in the database are constantly changing to reflect the ever-evolving and
ever-growing amount of product that LEGO releases. Is everything "short-sighted"
when things are done one way given the information currently known and updated
as needs in the database change?
We reorganize sets and minifigures all the time when categorization needs to
change. Things are renumbered as new information becomes available. Parts are
recategorized or split into multiple categories when needs arise. Were all of
these things "short-sighted"?
Cheers,
Randy
P.S. Any plastic sheets that are released will usually all be released in the
same wave of sets, so going forward this conversation is a moot point. The older
ones are being updated to the current way of doing things as we come across them.
We number and name plastic sheets just like sticker sheets now. It makes submissions
for contributors much easier to figure out and speeds up the approval process
for us. I consider all of that "long-sighted".
you should have led with the PS.
I thought about it, but I wanted the initial thoughts to sink in first. I have
been managing databases for over 25 years, and I have never seen a single one
that hasn't had to be upgraded, adjusted, changed, reorganized, etc. over
that entire time. My personal opinion (as well as many others) is that databases
and software are never "future-proof" no matter what people think. So,
my initial thoughts were to show that many things in relation to a database are
done in hindsight having acquired knowledge rather than being "short-sighted"
up front.
it makes sense to do it like stickers. I still
contend decisions should be made thinking not only for now, but also for the
future. for example. super hero minifigs are now up to sh0000 like sh0255.
they were just 3 digits like sh255. why not just make the jump by a factor of
100 instead of 10 like to sh00255.
Oh, I hear where you are coming from. Unfortunately, we have to balance what
can be extended for the future versus the reality of long numbers being inconvenient
for everyone and making the catalog look horrible. We tried extending some numbers
in the past as an experiment and then received feedback that the longer numbers
weren't necessary, so why were we doing it. Basically, neither way is
better than the other in the end. Databases get updated and users here need to
know that after 25 years of existence, BrickLink is always a work in progress.
you do good work. I'm not intending to be rude, just to understand.
Thanks, and I did not take it as rude. I am more than happy to help users see
the larger picture from 30,000 feet when it comes to managing this database and
the varying ways it needs to be tailored for all different groups of users. Some
things that help one group tend to slightly annoy another group and vice versa.
It really is a huge balancing act.
It's
frustrating when the IDs change and I've got to rework inventories to account
for it.
Unfortunately, part and parcel of owning a store here.
have a multipls? They are both two things on one sheet, both have 2 different
parts on the sheet.
-jed
The first one only appears in one set so it has the set number in the item number.
The second one appears in multiple sets so it uses multi in the item number.
so everytime a new piece of plastic comes out it will be named the set number
and pls, but then once they release that piece of plastic in to another set it
will have to be changed to multipls? Seems very short sighted.
-jed
The first number is the set or sets a sheet appears in. The numbers in parenthesis
are the numbers printed on the sheet. All are convenient and useful for reference.
The second part you are referring to came out in 2005. LEGO hasn't been in
the habit of duplicating parts like this for ages. So, not short-sighted... just
hindsight is actually being applied here.
have a multipls? They are both two things on one sheet, both have 2 different
parts on the sheet.
-jed
The first one only appears in one set so it has the set number in the item number.
The second one appears in multiple sets so it uses multi in the item number.
so everytime a new piece of plastic comes out it will be named the set number
and pls, but then once they release that piece of plastic in to another set it
will have to be changed to multipls? Seems very short sighted.
-jed
The first number is the set or sets a sheet appears in. The numbers in parenthesis
are the numbers printed on the sheet. All are convenient and useful for reference.
The second part you are referring to came out in 2005. LEGO hasn't been in
the habit of duplicating parts like this for ages.
Informative. Thanks
So, not short-sighted... just hindsight is actually being applied here.
The second part you are referring to came out in 2005. LEGO hasn't been in
the habit of duplicating parts like this for ages. So, not short-sighted... just
hindsight is actually being applied here.
~Jen
I see, I think the problem is that I'm looking at is as a part, but I think
I should be looking at is as if it were a box with multiple capes or dragon wings
in it. (I still wish you'd add the boxes as an alternate item in sets).
my frustration is as a seller managing a complex inventory, repeatedly changing
names and numbers are not convenient. especially when future changes can be
avoided. In the past, I complained about names being changed and was told that
I shouldn't bother with the names, but focus on the numbers. This system
for the plastic seems like it would just increase the possible need to change
item IDs in the future. Also, i find it annoying that things like decorated
tiles, minifig heads, etc need to be changed because the digits after the pb
increase. some are pb01, which will likely need to become pb001 after 100 are
in the system. Why not just use a 6 digit code for everything that uses a pb.
sure pb000001 is cumbersome for items that might never have 1000 printed. maybe
start with 3 digits until it becomes obvious you'll need over 1000 and then
make the one time switch to digits. and then in a few years switch to 9 digit
codes.
The second part you are referring to came out in 2005. LEGO hasn't been in
the habit of duplicating parts like this for ages. So, not short-sighted... just
hindsight is actually being applied here.
~Jen
I see, I think the problem is that I'm looking at is as a part, but I think
I should be looking at is as if it were a box with multiple capes or dragon wings
in it. (I still wish you'd add the boxes as an alternate item in sets).
my frustration is as a seller managing a complex inventory, repeatedly changing
names and numbers are not convenient. especially when future changes can be
avoided. In the past, I complained about names being changed and was told that
I shouldn't bother with the names, but focus on the numbers. This system
for the plastic seems like it would just increase the possible need to change
item IDs in the future. Also, i find it annoying that things like decorated
tiles, minifig heads, etc need to be changed because the digits after the pb
increase. some are pb01, which will likely need to become pb001 after 100 are
in the system. Why not just use a 6 digit code for everything that uses a pb.
sure pb000001 is cumbersome for items that might never have 1000 printed. maybe
start with 3 digits until it becomes obvious you'll need over 1000 and then
make the one time switch to digits. and then in a few years switch to 9 digit
codes.
The second part you are referring to came out in 2005. LEGO hasn't been in
the habit of duplicating parts like this for ages. So, not short-sighted... just
hindsight is actually being applied here.
~Jen
I see, I think the problem is that I'm looking at is as a part, but I think
I should be looking at is as if it were a box with multiple capes or dragon wings
in it. (I still wish you'd add the boxes as an alternate item in sets).
my frustration is as a seller managing a complex inventory, repeatedly changing
names and numbers are not convenient. especially when future changes can be
avoided. In the past, I complained about names being changed and was told that
I shouldn't bother with the names, but focus on the numbers. This system
for the plastic seems like it would just increase the possible need to change
item IDs in the future. Also, i find it annoying that things like decorated
tiles, minifig heads, etc need to be changed because the digits after the pb
increase. some are pb01, which will likely need to become pb001 after 100 are
in the system. Why not just use a 6 digit code for everything that uses a pb.
sure pb000001 is cumbersome for items that might never have 1000 printed. maybe
start with 3 digits until it becomes obvious you'll need over 1000 and then
make the one time switch to digits. and then in a few years switch to 9 digit
codes.
USA, North Carolina
Netherlands, Overijssel
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
Basically, neither way is
Canada, Ontario