Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | calsbricks  | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2017 07:54 | | Subject: | Please include in Sellers tools | | Viewed: | 69 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Please include in the release of sellers tools a mechanism to allow stores to
back up not only their stores inventory but also their settings.
There, apparently is now ay to do this at present.
|
 |
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2017 13:56 | | Subject: | Re: No Instant Checkout = Force must offer Quote | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, chetzler writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
| | In Suggestions, PaulOfBricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, PurpleDave writes:
| | In Suggestions, PaulOfBricks writes:
| | I think it should be mandatory by Bricklink that any seller not using Instant
checkout will
Automatically will have the Quote option enabled.
What is the harm in that?
|
I voted No. On the surface, I don't really care if sellers enable the Quote
function, but I don't want to see it become a mandatory part of my shopping
experience. I have zero interest in Instant Checkout. If someone doesn't
have one key element that is the only reason I placed the order, I'd rather
be able to just cancel out of it without having my money even get involved, much
less having to wait for refunds to clear (something which can take a few weeks
if PayPal flags the refund for investigation like I've had happen a few times
in the past), where IC forces you to pay up front and hope your seller has their
inventory locked down.
For Quote, my main concern would be that if everyone is forced to have it turned
on, and sellers start getting thoroughly sick of having quotes auto-cancel because
elements end up being short due to other orders coming through during the turnaround,
we might see stores restricting sales to quoted orders, preventing me from being
able to just place my order and be done with it.
I'm looking at the amounts you're talking about, and in the one example
all I can see is maybe a $2 difference. I'm not big on just throwing away
money, but I've run into stores where simply placing the order could cost
$20-50 more for very basic parts. $2 extra in shipping costs seems like a bargain
at that point. I've placed orders where the cost of the parts was less than
1% of the invoiced total, not because the seller decided to rake me over the
coals on shipping, but because the order was for maybe $0.25 in parts. Generally,
that would be a very cost-prohibitive way to order parts, but sometimes I find
that there's literally only one store without a massive minimum buy that
has something I need for a MOC, and they have absolutely nothing else I want
to buy from them. So, I can either suck it up and pay shipping on maybe one
or two pieces, I can scrap my plans and see if I can come up with a new design,
or I can play the long game and hope someone else lists that part under more
favorable conditions...and probably cut my output down to nothing in the process.
|
I should of made it clearer but everybody seems to be missing that fact I'm
only saying it quote should be 'offered'
Buyers do not have to use it.
If you don't care about all the fees, or which shipping charge you will get,
and you want to guarantee the parts are yours, fine you can check out as normal.
I'm just saying Quote should be enabled if your fees and postage are not
calculated (by instant checkout) before being legally obliged to pay
|
I agree with the suggestion but note you are not "legally obliged" to pay for
an order online if you change your mind and no longer want it. The only problem
here is those sellers that try to enforce you to pay for all those add-on fees,
won't let you cancel and give you an NPB saying an order is legally binding
and their fees were stated (or hidden) in their terms somewhere. Although those
sellers are the minority that is why your suggestion gets my support.
Robert
|
So you are actually OK with allowing a few bad sellers to dictate terms to the
rest of us? Why is that it OK with you? I find it unacceptable. This is just
totally backwards! Why can't anyone think of a way to penalize the FEW bad
sellers instead of the MANY good sellers?
Where does it end? Will you be as supportive of this attitude when you are forced
to ship every order with insurance or tracking because of a few untrustworthy
buyers? I don't particularly like receiving large orders in bubble mailers
because the mailers are prone to damage and the pieces get scratched; I think
every order should be shipped in a box. In fact, I think we should FORCE every
seller to ship orders in boxes because that's what I do for 99% of my orders
already--no skin off my back! That's not a big deal, right?
We just HAVE to get away from this one-size-fits-all make-everyone-conform mindset.
This attitude is why most all of our governments are bloated and ineffectual.
I will again put forth the idea of a probabtionary period for new sellers and
problem sellers (an idea that actually addresses the root cause!) Once you've
shown you are a good actor, restrictions are lifted. As for the rest of us,
please just leave us in peace and let us run our stores as we see fit!
|
Well said - here, here - All individuals may be equal but that doesn't make
them the same and the same applies to BL stores. Why in earth's name would
we want to implement features that just aren't needed? If you find a store
that isn't communicative or helpful just move on - it will not take many
people moving on for them to disappear. Leave appropriate feedback when you have
to to warn others. There are lots and lots of ways to deal with this other than
forcing something down someone's throat. We are totally against that, and
that is in addition to the fact that the quote system is flawed in thought and
design. Let each and every store run its business - BL holds the marketplace
and they get paid a generous sum of money to do that but if you allow them to
start dictating how you have to run your store, then the marketplace loses its
individuality and identity I don't believe anyone really wants that.
The probationary period isn't a bad concept to look into and there are other
ways as well to get at the sellers who seem to create this type of thread in
the forum.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2017 14:34 | | Subject: | Re: No Instant Checkout = Force must offer Quote | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, MarieA writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, PaulOfBricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, PaulOfBricks writes:
| | I believe in instant checkout even though I still have a few problems with it
that are still not being addressed. However:
I believe you should know the cost upfront of your cart, fees and shipping before
being obliged to pay.
I recently placed an order and again the fees and extra are so buried within
the terms the parts cost become 34% more! also I was invoiced for the larger
box option, and I know if using the instant checkout the parts would have easily
fit into the smaller letter rate. I read the terms 3 times and still some fees
were still easily missed.
This happens over and over again, its not a one off.
I think it should be mandatory by Bricklink that any seller not using Instant
checkout will
Automatically will have the Quote option enabled.
What is the harm in that?
Every customer can make a decision up front if the fees and postage are reasonable
and acceptable. When im invoiced a total random bunch of fees I am not entered
into the contact agreement before knowing them.
|
Sorry Paul - voted no - don't like to see anyone forced into doing something
they don't wish to do. I have never had what happened to you happen to me
and have placed 1000 orders on Bricklink. No quotes asked for - none received.
Graneted postal costs are never our main concern when we need parts and there
are others where it is vitally important.
If I did ask a seller for a quote even if they didn't have it enabled and
they simply didn't respond, I would think they don't want my business
and find the items elsewhere, if possible.
As a seller it is our responsibility, amongst others, to communicate with our
buyers either pre-sale, during processing or post sale. If we don't do that
we are letting ourselves down as well as other stores on the site.
Forcing this as a feature is not, in our opinion, the right way to deal with
it. Avoid those stores and move on - when enough buyers do that and their orders
dwindle or even fall off a cliff, that fixes the problem cause they will disappear,
hopefully.
|
I just dont think when placing an order I have to guess what prices you are going
to choose for me.
You currently dont include you packaging materials in the weight, you also say
you may impose the insurance
so I place a 212g order with my cart valued £41
which of the following am I going to pay? (from your chart)
101 - 250 Large Letter
No Tracking - Tracked - 2nd Class
- 1.30 - - - - - - - 2.40 - - - - - - 2.32
101 - 250 Small Parcel
No Tracking - Tracked - 2nd Class
- 3.40 - - - - - - - 4.40 - - - - - - 3.90
or once packaging is added (and I know you package very well in sturdy boxes!)
is it going to take me into 251g-500g range?
251 - 500 Large Letter
No Tracking - Tracked - 2nd Class
- 1.74 - - - - - - - 2.84 - - - - - - 2.68
251 - 500 Small Parcel
No Tracking - Tracked - 2nd Class
- 3.40 - - - - - - - 4.40 - - - - - - 3.90
I think It will fit in the small letter 250g range 1.30 price and I dont want
insurance.
You package it well and takes it into the 251g small parcel brakcet and you also
decide that Im high risk and want to insure it and send it tracked 4.40 or 2nd
class 3.90. Do you think I should not know up front? which one of the 9 prices
it could be? rather than have to guess?
This is just a quick scan or your terms pages, there are other sellers who offer
a simular postage chart that also add package fees and paypal fees that you would
have to calculate also on top of the guessed postage price.
Its only about making the experience as simple as possible for the customer.
Y
|
What you are missing in reading the terms, and I think I am going to do something
about that, shortly is how we deal with an order once received. Our postage tables
reflect nothing more than an image of those from Royal mail - They are meant
as a guideline. When we get an order we send out our own acknowledgement which
is much more detailed than what Bricklink offers and in it we explain how things
work in our store. We inform everyone that they will have rock solid firm shipping
costs/options in 24 - 48 hours after we have pre-processed the order. We pick
all orders first and pre-package them to guarantee postage costs.
We then receive a response from that buyer and invoice them exactly as they are
expecting and have chosen. No guesswork, no gimmicks just a simple process of
picking the order pre-packaging it and advising the buyer of that. I suppose
you could look at that as a quote but not a BL one (Their quote system is flawed,
badly - doesn't work properly on inventory and is not enabled in our store.
I am now going to add to our terms and policies page a reflection of that order
acknowledgement which should make it totally clear what is going to happen, give
the buyers their choices for shipping and confirming that we charge no fees whatsoever
- just postage at cost.
|
And at this point, do you allow your customer to cancel the order if the shipping/extra
fees are deemed by them to be excessive?
|
simple answer yes but we don't charge any fees just postage at cost
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2017 12:02 | | Subject: | Re: No Instant Checkout = Force must offer Quote | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | | | Never ever had this problem and I do not believe we have ever not responded to
a query pre an order. Again move on and go somewhere that want's your business,
rather than dealing with someone who obviously doesn't.
|
What impression does a new user get of the whole of BL when they come across
a seller that won't let them checkout, won't give them a quote and won't
reply to an email asking about postage costs. Bad sellers tarnish all sellers,
especially if the buyer is new.
|
I think you might be stretching it a bit. Bricklink has continued to grow year
on year ever since it started (without either a quote feature or IC). I am sure
that will continue. If the quote system wasn't flawed in the way it handles
inventory, then maybe, just maybe more people might embrace it. As for ic only
time will tell there. some have adopted some haven't. Still quite buggy and
missing key features e.g sales tax,etc. etc.
Quote from recent first time user
Thank you very much for making my first order on bricklink smooth
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2017 11:28 | | Subject: | Re: No Instant Checkout = Force must offer Quote | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, PaulOfBricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, PaulOfBricks writes:
| | I believe in instant checkout even though I still have a few problems with it
that are still not being addressed. However:
I believe you should know the cost upfront of your cart, fees and shipping before
being obliged to pay.
I recently placed an order and again the fees and extra are so buried within
the terms the parts cost become 34% more! also I was invoiced for the larger
box option, and I know if using the instant checkout the parts would have easily
fit into the smaller letter rate. I read the terms 3 times and still some fees
were still easily missed.
This happens over and over again, its not a one off.
I think it should be mandatory by Bricklink that any seller not using Instant
checkout will
Automatically will have the Quote option enabled.
What is the harm in that?
Every customer can make a decision up front if the fees and postage are reasonable
and acceptable. When im invoiced a total random bunch of fees I am not entered
into the contact agreement before knowing them.
|
Sorry Paul - voted no - don't like to see anyone forced into doing something
they don't wish to do. I have never had what happened to you happen to me
and have placed 1000 orders on Bricklink. No quotes asked for - none received.
Graneted postal costs are never our main concern when we need parts and there
are others where it is vitally important.
If I did ask a seller for a quote even if they didn't have it enabled and
they simply didn't respond, I would think they don't want my business
and find the items elsewhere, if possible.
As a seller it is our responsibility, amongst others, to communicate with our
buyers either pre-sale, during processing or post sale. If we don't do that
we are letting ourselves down as well as other stores on the site.
Forcing this as a feature is not, in our opinion, the right way to deal with
it. Avoid those stores and move on - when enough buyers do that and their orders
dwindle or even fall off a cliff, that fixes the problem cause they will disappear,
hopefully.
|
I just dont think when placing an order I have to guess what prices you are going
to choose for me.
You currently dont include you packaging materials in the weight, you also say
you may impose the insurance
so I place a 212g order with my cart valued £41
which of the following am I going to pay? (from your chart)
101 - 250 Large Letter
No Tracking - Tracked - 2nd Class
- 1.30 - - - - - - - 2.40 - - - - - - 2.32
101 - 250 Small Parcel
No Tracking - Tracked - 2nd Class
- 3.40 - - - - - - - 4.40 - - - - - - 3.90
or once packaging is added (and I know you package very well in sturdy boxes!)
is it going to take me into 251g-500g range?
251 - 500 Large Letter
No Tracking - Tracked - 2nd Class
- 1.74 - - - - - - - 2.84 - - - - - - 2.68
251 - 500 Small Parcel
No Tracking - Tracked - 2nd Class
- 3.40 - - - - - - - 4.40 - - - - - - 3.90
I think It will fit in the small letter 250g range 1.30 price and I dont want
insurance.
You package it well and takes it into the 251g small parcel brakcet and you also
decide that Im high risk and want to insure it and send it tracked 4.40 or 2nd
class 3.90. Do you think I should not know up front? which one of the 9 prices
it could be? rather than have to guess?
This is just a quick scan or your terms pages, there are other sellers who offer
a simular postage chart that also add package fees and paypal fees that you would
have to calculate also on top of the guessed postage price.
Its only about making the experience as simple as possible for the customer.
Y
|
What you are missing in reading the terms, and I think I am going to do something
about that, shortly is how we deal with an order once received. Our postage tables
reflect nothing more than an image of those from Royal mail - They are meant
as a guideline. When we get an order we send out our own acknowledgement which
is much more detailed than what Bricklink offers and in it we explain how things
work in our store. We inform everyone that they will have rock solid firm shipping
costs/options in 24 - 48 hours after we have pre-processed the order. We pick
all orders first and pre-package them to guarantee postage costs.
We then receive a response from that buyer and invoice them exactly as they are
expecting and have chosen. No guesswork, no gimmicks just a simple process of
picking the order pre-packaging it and advising the buyer of that. I suppose
you could look at that as a quote but not a BL one (Their quote system is flawed,
badly - doesn't work properly on inventory and is not enabled in our store.
I am now going to add to our terms and policies page a reflection of that order
acknowledgement which should make it totally clear what is going to happen, give
the buyers their choices for shipping and confirming that we charge no fees whatsoever
- just postage at cost.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2017 11:08 | | Subject: | Re: No Instant Checkout = Force must offer Quote | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, chetzler writes:
| | In Suggestions, PaulOfBricks writes:
| | I believe in instant checkout even though I still have a few problems with it
that are still not being addressed. However:
I believe you should know the cost upfront of your cart, fees and shipping before
being obliged to pay.
I recently placed an order and again the fees and extra are so buried within
the terms the parts cost become 34% more! also I was invoiced for the larger
box option, and I know if using the instant checkout the parts would have easily
fit into the smaller letter rate. I read the terms 3 times and still some fees
were still easily missed.
This happens over and over again, its not a one off.
I think it should be mandatory by Bricklink that any seller not using Instant
checkout will
|
No, No, NO! Voted no.
| |
Automatically will have the Quote option enabled.
What is the harm in that?
|
-Someone else buys the parts while the customer is waiting on the quote!
-It makes the purchase process longer!
-It's a draconian one-size-fits all approach!
| | Every customer can make a decision up front if the fees and postage are reasonable
and acceptable. When im invoiced a total random bunch of fees I am not entered
into the contact agreement before knowing them.
|
And they still can in my shop and many others! I charge no additional fees and
my shipping rates are quite clear (I usually end up paying some of the shipping
myself). Don't try to force me to run my shop in a particular way just because
a few other sellers are shady!
"Request for invoice" works just fine and my sales have remained steady even
after the instant checkout debacle, so people are still OK with using this method.
Instant checkout still does NOT allow for calculation of sales taxes and even
though this is on the road map I have very little faith that it will be implemented
properly. IC also (as far as I can tell) calculates shipping strictly on weight
and volume. I would appreciate a system that mirrors my shipping tables: give
the customer one price if his order contains a set and another if it contains
only parts. This would be far easier to implement.
I'm sorry you ran across a bad seller, but again, I'm am getting very,
VERY tired of the knee-jerk reactions around here that propose up-ending the
processes of a bunch of good sellers just because a few bad sellers are jerks.
If you have to read the terms multiple times that should be a sign to leave
that store.
Some people are always going to try to game the system, IC or not. "Caveat emptor"
will always be good advice, just do a little research as always and stick to
sellers with a good track record.
|
+111111111111 - wholeheartedly agree.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2017 11:07 | | Subject: | Re: No Instant Checkout = Force must offer Quote | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Bricklord writes:
| | Fully supported. I have had the Quote function enabled since it was first introduced,
and have no intention of ever screwing myself and my customers over by implementing
that goat rodeo called Instant Checkout. Sellers should be obliged to offer the
Quote Function if they opt not to use Instant Checkout. The latter must not be
made mandatory though. If it does, I and a large number of other sellers will
leave.
That said, the Quote function must be improved. Instead of an obfuscated tab
at the very end of the checkout process, it should be the fork in the road right
at the start.
|
Nothing should be mandatory as far as this goes. You have over 11,000 unique
sellers on this site and they will all have an opinion of whether they want to
offer quotes or instant checkout - leave it that way and you may end up filtering
out the 'damaged goods sellers' that seem to happen - this is really
odd, I must say all this talk about sellers not responding etc. We have been
buying for a very long time on this site and have never had a seller not respond
to any query we had pre, during or post sale. Most of them are happy to get their
orders in and process them and certainly do not want to turn away business. Maybe
people should name and shame them  .
| |
In Suggestions, PaulOfBricks writes:
| | I believe in instant checkout even though I still have a few problems with it
that are still not being addressed. However:
I believe you should know the cost upfront of your cart, fees and shipping before
being obliged to pay.
I recently placed an order and again the fees and extra are so buried within
the terms the parts cost become 34% more! also I was invoiced for the larger
box option, and I know if using the instant checkout the parts would have easily
fit into the smaller letter rate. I read the terms 3 times and still some fees
were still easily missed.
This happens over and over again, its not a one off.
I think it should be mandatory by Bricklink that any seller not using Instant
checkout will
Automatically will have the Quote option enabled.
What is the harm in that?
Every customer can make a decision up front if the fees and postage are reasonable
and acceptable. When im invoiced a total random bunch of fees I am not entered
into the contact agreement before knowing them.
|
|
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2017 11:02 | | Subject: | Re: No Instant Checkout = Force must offer Quote | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, PaulOfBricks writes:
| | I believe in instant checkout even though I still have a few problems with it
that are still not being addressed. However:
I believe you should know the cost upfront of your cart, fees and shipping before
being obliged to pay.
I recently placed an order and again the fees and extra are so buried within
the terms the parts cost become 34% more! also I was invoiced for the larger
box option, and I know if using the instant checkout the parts would have easily
fit into the smaller letter rate. I read the terms 3 times and still some fees
were still easily missed.
This happens over and over again, its not a one off.
I think it should be mandatory by Bricklink that any seller not using Instant
checkout will
Automatically will have the Quote option enabled.
What is the harm in that?
Every customer can make a decision up front if the fees and postage are reasonable
and acceptable. When im invoiced a total random bunch of fees I am not entered
into the contact agreement before knowing them.
|
I agree. I think it is perfectly acceptable that a buyer should be able to refuse
to pay if they were not told of the total costs for an order in a clear and simple
way. Some seller's terms are contradictory and / or confusing (for example
charging lot fees but do not consolidate lots), and also not knowing what packaging
the seller will use can change the costs significantly.
|
We believe that already exists - a buyer can request to cancel an order at any
time and most reasonable sellers will simply cancel and move on, that is what
we do.
| |
Either make quotes mandatory, or allow buyer-led cancellations if they do nto
want to proceed once invoiced with the true total.
|
Don't agree. If you are going to do that why not make all features mandatory
- new layouts, instant checkout etc. Taking away people's choices is never
a good idea.
| |
I am amazed at how many sellers don't reply to emails asking for quotes.
I've had two sellers that did not reply to messages in the past week, and
one other saying that I should be able to work it out by myeslf from their terms
page. Of course, I couldn't work it out as they don't say how much their
packaging weighs. Not only do they lose a sale now, they will probably lose all
future sales too.
|
Never ever had this problem and I do not believe we have ever not responded to
a query pre an order. Again move on and go somewhere that want's your business,
rather than dealing with someone who obviously doesn't.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2017 10:57 | | Subject: | Re: No Instant Checkout = Force must offer Quote | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Pippyblocks writes:
| | This is why I have a min buy of £5 and postage at cost, simple and clear.
|
And so do we
| | In Suggestions, PaulOfBricks writes:
| | I believe in instant checkout even though I still have a few problems with it
that are still not being addressed. However:
I believe you should know the cost upfront of your cart, fees and shipping before
being obliged to pay.
I recently placed an order and again the fees and extra are so buried within
the terms the parts cost become 34% more! also I was invoiced for the larger
box option, and I know if using the instant checkout the parts would have easily
fit into the smaller letter rate. I read the terms 3 times and still some fees
were still easily missed.
This happens over and over again, its not a one off.
I think it should be mandatory by Bricklink that any seller not using Instant
checkout will
Automatically will have the Quote option enabled.
What is the harm in that?
Every customer can make a decision up front if the fees and postage are reasonable
and acceptable. When im invoiced a total random bunch of fees I am not entered
into the contact agreement before knowing them.
|
|
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2017 10:39 | | Subject: | Re: No Instant Checkout = Force must offer Quote | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, PaulOfBricks writes:
| | I believe in instant checkout even though I still have a few problems with it
that are still not being addressed. However:
I believe you should know the cost upfront of your cart, fees and shipping before
being obliged to pay.
I recently placed an order and again the fees and extra are so buried within
the terms the parts cost become 34% more! also I was invoiced for the larger
box option, and I know if using the instant checkout the parts would have easily
fit into the smaller letter rate. I read the terms 3 times and still some fees
were still easily missed.
This happens over and over again, its not a one off.
I think it should be mandatory by Bricklink that any seller not using Instant
checkout will
Automatically will have the Quote option enabled.
What is the harm in that?
Every customer can make a decision up front if the fees and postage are reasonable
and acceptable. When im invoiced a total random bunch of fees I am not entered
into the contact agreement before knowing them.
|
Sorry Paul - voted no - don't like to see anyone forced into doing something
they don't wish to do. I have never had what happened to you happen to me
and have placed 1000 orders on Bricklink. No quotes asked for - none received.
Graneted postal costs are never our main concern when we need parts and there
are others where it is vitally important.
If I did ask a seller for a quote even if they didn't have it enabled and
they simply didn't respond, I would think they don't want my business
and find the items elsewhere, if possible.
As a seller it is our responsibility, amongst others, to communicate with our
buyers either pre-sale, during processing or post sale. If we don't do that
we are letting ourselves down as well as other stores on the site.
Forcing this as a feature is not, in our opinion, the right way to deal with
it. Avoid those stores and move on - when enough buyers do that and their orders
dwindle or even fall off a cliff, that fixes the problem cause they will disappear,
hopefully.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2017 07:20 | | Subject: | Change Search Results for Find Stores | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| I believe it would be very helpful for the collection of statistical data if
the way the search in Find Stores' returned its results was altered to include
a column for Instant checkout enabled/adopted. Use the same Lightning bolt that
is currently being used simply add the column rather than having to go back and
forth betwee the searches - without IC and the 2nd with
The example shown reflects the UK's top 11 stores for no of items. 5 of the
11 have implemented it so far. 6 haven't, for whatever reason.
This would save having to make 2 searches (and less calls on the server) apart
from making it easier to gather the data.
|
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Oct 22, 2017 04:51 | | Subject: | Please add new item to Activity Page | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Please add new Non-Commercial Activity category to the My activity section to
cover add Packaging Dimensions to Catalogue Items. Include Pending, approved
and disapproved.
This will allow individuals to identify what is happening with their submissions.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Oct 16, 2017 11:49 | | Subject: | Improvements to part descriptions | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| It would be very helpful if in the part descriptions submitters were required
to put colours where appropriate. For example and especially for minifig torso
assemblies.
If someone submits a new minifig torso or legs assembly they should fill in a
short form for Hip colours, leg colour(s) as well as torso colour, arm colour
and hand colour.
If we could get this as a requirement it would make life much easier especially
when using tools like goatleg.
If the description doesn't include all this information then Goatleg doesn't
always find it and that makes identifying some of these parts much harder than
it needs to be.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 14:07 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | […]
There
are well over 1/2 million members of Bricklink now - even if only 20% of them
contributed […]
|
You’re overly optimistic about contribution rate.
I don’t think that there ever were 20% of BLers who contributed, even back when,
even counting one-time contributors.
And for something that will only interest sellers, 0.02% (100 people) seems more
likely. But maybe it would suffice 
|
There are two of us who have already said we would supply our data which, I can
assure you, would make a dent in what is needed. We are all 'whistling in
the wind' over this cause BL do their own thing and changes to the catalogue
are changes to their single most important and valuable asset. You will remember
the saga over image rights when they took over and how there is a shyness to
open the catalogue any further (the changes to Brickstock and logging in). Good
to get this out in the air and see what peoples thoughts are but it ain't
going to happen.
If it promotes dialogue with BL development we will have achieved something.
Dimensions, weights etc ?????
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 13:49 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 14 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, brickbrowser writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
There are far greater weight discrepancies / inconsistencies in batches of packaging
materials (even from same supplier), than those attributed to mold or part colour
differences. Furthermore, one weight submitter's scales and measuring technique
probably differs from another's to the extent that the exercise is moot.
I doubt that would ever be an effective use of people's time.
|
You may be right - the only thing is surely we have to start somewhere - as I
said in an earlier reply the current generic system only works because sellers/stores
have been doing this manually
|
For the record - when doing up shipping cost for an order, we have _never_ weighed
the order, we always used BL's supplied weight (unless of course the weight
was not specified). As far as I can recall, we have never had issues with an
order needing more postage than what was indicated by using supplied weights.
As others have indicated as well, adding weights to PPCs is a massive undertaking,
time that would be better and more profitably spent elsewhere.
Niek.
|
We weight every order and totally disregard BL's weight as
it does not make allowances for bags, other packaging materials and of course
the box we use. Strange you don't weigh your orders?
|
Poor choice of words, my bad. I meant - we don't weigh orders before determining
shipping cost. We have a good handle on what fits into where, and that includes
how much weight to add for packing material. We have enough NBPs to make packing-up-and-then-unpacking
a pain in the behind. If we over-estimated shipping, we refund. If we under-estimated,
we eat the diff. Same will happen when auto-checkout will come by.
For us, PPC weights are a non-issue, and (again for us) efforts would be better
spent developing other features.
Niek.
|
Then AFOL's comments about checking MyWeight a PPC weight or defaulting to
the generic weight solve that issue - if the PPC weight were available.
BTW
We work very differently to you. Our parts are picked and prepacked to determine
an accurate shipping cost - we never under or overcharge - no refunds no administration
just simply parcel sent at cost given to buyer. It has worked well for us for
6 years and 4100+ orders - not sure we need to change it. Haven't had an
NPB in all that time - so again that is not an issue for us. I have said this
many times and will keep saying it - if instant checkout can replace a manual
system which doesn't get it wrong - ever - then subject to them sorting out
the Paypal on site payment issue (to do with addresses) we will look at it in
seriousness if not we will stay with what works for us and hasn't let us
down - the old expression applies if it ain't broke don't fix it.
There are huge number of things that are needed on the site - we agree with
that but that all appears to be out of our (The community's) control or influence
- the roadmap has changed a multitude of times - no one knows where the seller
tools are or if we will ever see them - so many other things do need doing -
we agree but we and others do not see this as being the lead weight to bring
it all to a halt it would simply be another enhancement to the BL catalogue.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 13:36 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, WoutR writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, DadsAFOL writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
Yes, we have manually recorded lot weights on thousands of PCC's over the
years of selling. I would be happy to share that info to seed the database.
From there like everything else here it just gets crowdsourced over time and
wouldn't really be a big deal. Just set up the system with a bit of a waterfall...
if MyWeight exists, use that; if not then if PCC weight exists use that; else
use ItemID weight.
Here's a good example of why this would be helpful:
- Catalog - 0.36
- Black actual - 0.3331 (-7.5%)
- White actual - 0.3425 (-4.9%)
- Trans Clear actual - 0.3836 (+6.5%)
So if someone bought 1000 of these in your store, and you wanted to weigh them
using the catalog weight instead of counting them...
- Your customer would get 1075 black and your inventory would be short 75 for
the next order
- Your customer would get 1049 white and your inventory would be short 49 for
the next order
- Your customer would get 935 trans clear and your inventory would be over 65,
and your customer would be upset asking for a refund or for you to ship the missing
parts.
Same issue applies to postage calculation. Its totally possible that the system
undercharges on postage for the trans clear because 1000 actually weighs 383g,
not 360g like the catalog expects.
|
Thank you for joining this thread and the detail you provided it is helpful for
others to see what a difference the weights can make towards shipping. We would
be happy to share our data with BL as well.
|
The transparent parts are heavier because they are made in a different material.
LEGO often has a different designID for those parts,which BrickLink sees as an
alternative (to keep things simple for buyers and sellers).
I have been studying the small design changes on the 3001 bricks. I have seen
many mold changes that would cause such small changes in weight, and the exact
weight of the raw material might differ from one batch to the next (especially
because LEGO uses several suppliers). Even mold wear adds weight to the parts.
The only correct way to do this would be to assign a tolerance to the weight,
it is an illusion that the part weight is constant in so many decimals.
|
Hardly an illusion based on the data presented, although we agree nothing is
constant with Lego. They weigh parts that they send out for their B&P site and
the count can be significantly out on the same item. Everyone agrees this is
not an exact science - we are simply exploring other possibilities that may help
to solve or improve on the current system, which, with the best will in the world
is far too generic.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 12:07 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, DadsAFOL writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
Yes, we have manually recorded lot weights on thousands of PCC's over the
years of selling. I would be happy to share that info to seed the database.
From there like everything else here it just gets crowdsourced over time and
wouldn't really be a big deal. Just set up the system with a bit of a waterfall...
if MyWeight exists, use that; if not then if PCC weight exists use that; else
use ItemID weight.
Here's a good example of why this would be helpful:
- Catalog - 0.36
- Black actual - 0.3331 (-7.5%)
- White actual - 0.3425 (-4.9%)
- Trans Clear actual - 0.3836 (+6.5%)
So if someone bought 1000 of these in your store, and you wanted to weigh them
using the catalog weight instead of counting them...
- Your customer would get 1075 black and your inventory would be short 75 for
the next order
- Your customer would get 1049 white and your inventory would be short 49 for
the next order
- Your customer would get 935 trans clear and your inventory would be over 65,
and your customer would be upset asking for a refund or for you to ship the missing
parts.
Same issue applies to postage calculation. Its totally possible that the system
undercharges on postage for the trans clear because 1000 actually weighs 383g,
not 360g like the catalog expects.
|
Thank you for joining this thread and the detail you provided it is helpful for
others to see what a difference the weights can make towards shipping. We would
be happy to share our data with BL as well.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 11:11 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, brickbrowser writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | Have you looked at the preview site and how it works in comparison with BO? There is almost a deafening silence here about the preview site, which, of course adds to people's
concerns.
|
Not looked again since July, as I'm not aware of any further progress.
My thoughts on issues at that time were in regard to missing dimensions:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1045320
|
Remember that - we voiced our concerns at the time as well, and so did others.
It certainly isn't going to go away - things need to be out in the open about
it - are there dimensions being held somewhere ? Have the converted stud measurements
to mm? Can we see and modify those? Lots and lots of question really but unfortunately
there are not a lot of answers coming out, which is a shame really.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 10:30 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, brickbrowser writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
There are far greater weight discrepancies / inconsistencies in batches of packaging
materials (even from same supplier), than those attributed to mold or part colour
differences. Furthermore, one weight submitter's scales and measuring technique
probably differs from another's to the extent that the exercise is moot.
I doubt that would ever be an effective use of people's time.
|
You may be right - the only thing is surely we have to start somewhere - as I
said in an earlier reply the current generic system only works because sellers/stores
have been doing this manually
|
For the record - when doing up shipping cost for an order, we have _never_ weighed
the order, we always used BL's supplied weight (unless of course the weight
was not specified). As far as I can recall, we have never had issues with an
order needing more postage than what was indicated by using supplied weights.
As others have indicated as well, adding weights to PPCs is a massive undertaking,
time that would be better and more profitably spent elsewhere.
Niek.
|
We weight every order and totally disregard BL's weight as
it does not make allowances for bags, other packaging materials and of course
the box we use. Strange you don't weigh your orders? As for the claim about
massive undertaking - so is adding dimensions and how does everyone think the
catalogue got put together in the first place - it just appeared !!!!! There
are well over 1/2 million members of Bricklink now - even if only 20% of them
contributed that reduces the amount of time it would take to get started
populating the relevant fields - The absolute same applies to proper dimensions.
The catalogue wasn't created in a day or a year it is still ongoing and so
would this if it were to be put in place.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 05:37 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, brickbrowser writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | As for the quite common comment that it works on BO so it should work here -
that is a logical statement if all things were equal, but unfortunately they
are not. The stores we have spoken to that are on both sites have tended to tell
us they only ever ship large letter style parcels on BO whereas they do both
parcels and large letters on BL. (I think this may be down to somewhat smaller
orders on BO - but cannot be 100% accurate with that)
|
We sell on BO and it works well enough. If dimensions for a particular part
aren't in the catalogue the system defaults to parcel rate. If it fits large
letter, a refund for difference is easy to send at time of shipping. It's
not a perfect system, but it's worth the minor inconvenience for the benefit
that instant checkout brings and as you said - we have to start somewhere.
I spend more time sending BL reminders to late/non payers on BL than I do sending
refunds to BO customers for overpaid P&P!
|
Interesting - we don't sell on BO but have kept our options open. Have you
looked at the preview site and how it works in comparison with BO? There is almost
a deafening silence here about the preview site, which, of course adds to people's
concerns. If it was all working wonderfully well I am sure we would hear from
those who have the time to test it as well as NL with the 'good new'
but nothing like that at the moment.
We maintain our thoughts that BL needs to at worst add the dimensions capability
to the catalogue (or at least define where it is getting its information from,
and at best allow members to add those dimensions. That doesn't ensure that
it will, work but it gives it a better chance.
In our 6 years as a store we have had a handful of buyers that we had to chase
for payment - it isn't a major issue for us - but we do understand others
position as well. mot sure if we have ever completed an NPB. We may be lucky
with that and of course it can change almost instantly. but that side of it is
not our main concern. Getting the shipping right first time every time, which
is what we do manually, is.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2017 04:13 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, brickbrowser writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
There are far greater weight discrepancies / inconsistencies in batches of packaging
materials (even from same supplier), than those attributed to mold or part colour
differences. Furthermore, one weight submitter's scales and measuring technique
probably differs from another's to the extent that the exercise is moot.
I doubt that would ever be an effective use of people's time.
|
You may be right - the only thing is surely we have to start somewhere - as I
said in an earlier reply the current generic system only works because sellers/stores
have been doing this manually - it would be nice to know how the instant checkout
is actually going to calculate which box type - and the associated tare it is
going to use - easy enough to set up a different delivery method for your boxes
and have the tare weight associated with that but as you say that can differ
between batches and manufacturers. Large letters come in envelopes as well as
boxes and small parcel boxes have an almost infinite number available in the
UK - all with different tares.
We would like to understand how their calculations are going to work so we can
determine whether it is worthwhile or not. That information is lacking.
As for the quite common comment that it works on BO so it should work here -
that is a logical statement if all things were equal, but unfortunately they
are not. The stores we have spoken to that are on both sites have tended to tell
us they only ever ship large letter style parcels on BO whereas they do both
parcels and large letters on BL. (I think this may be down to somewhat smaller
orders on BO - but cannot be 100% accurate with that)
Ignoring that completely a very thorough and detailed description of how ic is
intended to work on BL would be very helpful for all parties.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 15, 2017 13:35 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, qwertyboy writes:
| | So how do you suggest BL tackles the weight issues resulting from TLG mold changes?
Niek.
|
There is no one single way of achieving that - Lego themselves haven't resolved
this. The K boxes of parts that get shipped to all the Lego stores differ in
weight for the same part and the same colour. Our suggestion was meant to be
an improvement on what is currently in place as it is far too generic. The reason
it has worked for so long is down to the individual stores and how they handle
orders - they have done the package weights manually and of course that is actual
not calculated. That works - there can be no denial to that. Where a postal system
is based just on weight it is the perfect solution - pick the parts - put them
in a parcel that will hold them weigh it and price it. Ship it - if instant checkout
can do that - then go for it.
Where volume calculations are required then it requires more than just weight
- manually it is easy and most stores who have been around a while will do it
almost instantly. Whether software can do that or not remains to be seen and
please do not refer to the other site for this. BL is not BO and vice versa -
if they were the same, despite the problem being the same - then BL would have
had instant checkout years ago - they aren't and probably never will be.
So the only real solution is doing it manually (AI solution perhaps - I doubt
it but that is feasible).
As not a lot is known about how the preview site is actually doing it is difficult
to comment accurately on where BL is with the feature. There are stores who are
clamouring for it - there are stores who are sitting back and waiting and there
are stores who say - not interested - don't need it. Time will tell - as
and when it gets released.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 15, 2017 13:20 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | | | - In 627 orders processed on the other site, with them having one weight for
each part no, we haven't experienced one single issue. Weight differences
are small, the likelihood of this "screwing up" auto-checkout is minimal, and
if it does make an err, the seller can chalk it up to the cost of doing business.
|
I agree this is not really necessary. It is a huge amount of data to collect
as well especially if the data is meant to be "more" accurate.
A while ago I looked at the weight distribution of 100 of the Krusty torsos:
They are all identical parts, same colour and print, but they vary in weight
slightly (at most in the second decimal place - they were all 1.27+-0.03 g) with
a distribution that is very similar to the distribution of weights of a random
sample of torsos (both printed and unprinted).
If people are then adding "accurate" data based on PCC number, I really hope
they don't get this data by weighing just one part. They should be getting
it from a large number of the same parts with the same PPC, and taking the average.
If I had picked a single torso, I could have claimed the weight was as low as
1.24g, if another as heavy as 1.30g. I made the average for my batch 1.274g,
in the catalogue it is 1.25g.
If I sold 100 of them, I might think it is as low as 124g total or it could be
as high as 130g. The catalogue tells me 125g. That 6g possible difference is
well within the buffer I allow when estimating the weight of packaging, tape,
etc.
It is interesting to compare these torsos:
1.28g 1.30g 1.28g 1.28g 1.27g
They are all orange torso assemblies with (almost same) print and vary only in
the different colour hands. Are the hands really responsible for the variation
in weights? If a hand is 0.09g (I think all colours currently have same weight)
making a pair 0.18g, then the variation of 0.03g in 0.18g seems very large. Whereas
a natural variation within the same colour torsos and arms seems more reasonable.
The weight may well depend on the location of the part in the mold / on the sprue
if multiple parts are molded at once even though all are given the same PPC.
|
A huge amount of data is also required for actual dimensions rather than studs
but none of that is impossible especially when you have a willing and capable
membership the size of Bricklink.
It is a complicated scenario really - no one solution can do it all but we could
do with improving the one we currently have.
Bricklink, we believe do not want to open the catalogue any further - it is their
single most valuable asset, so it is probably unlikely that this suggestion will
get anywhere near implementation. If it causes thought then it will achieve what
it was set out to do. Same part with mould variations but the same PCC as well
as variances on colours and composition (differing amounts of ABS etc all make
this a very, very complex arena.
Perhaps most importantly this does not prevent auto-checkout from working if
and when it comes out of preview and we didn't in any way suggest that, despite
earlier comments. Auto-checkout has already been built and this wasn't in
place - they have used some information from somewhere to determine weight and
volume? Not sure what nor how - that really hasn't been explained but I am
sure it will work for some - maybe not for all just yet, but only time will really
tell.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 15, 2017 12:23 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
I would vote no, for two reasons:
- In 627 orders processed on the other site, with them having one weight for
each part no, we haven't experienced one single issue. Weight differences
are small, the likelihood of this "screwing up" auto-checkout is minimal, and
if it does make an err, the seller can chalk it up to the cost of doing business.
- TLG is known to have made changes to their molds just to save a few cents
by requiring less ABS. These changes are done to parts that keep the exact same
PPC, and most times BL doesn't differentiate (think hollow versus solid pins
under a 1x4 brick for example). Those weight changes could actually be more significant
than the weight change for different colors. In effect, the weight-per-PPC will
almost always be an approximation, not the 100%-always-correct-weight for a PPC.
In short, I am convinced these weight differences are a non-issue for auto-checkout.
Experience proves this. I am sure others can verify this. Don't make things
more complex than they need to be.
Niek.
|
Thank you for your comment. Your opinion is noted, however I am not convinced
using the other site as a reference point is really relevant. The other site
also has proper dimensions for each part, which BL does not and as far as I can
tell from the brief look at the preview site the implementation here is different
to that over there. We sell lots and lots of bulk orders and a small difference
on an individual part can make a significant difference overall. As far as putting
that down to cost of business we will let you do that - it is of no interest
whatsoever to us. Maintaining margin/profitability is a key factor to a successful
business and taking all steps necessary to prevent additional costs is one small
part of that. With over 4000 order on this site we have no mistakes on postage
costs - once bl's implementation of instant checkout can be shown to provide
that reliability we will consider using it, however it is not of major importance
to us at the moment. There are far more important things to deal with.
|
Sorry I mis-read part of your original post. We are not trying to overly complicate
things - our suggestion, we believe, would help not hinder, and I do not believe
in any way did we say that this would prevent 'screwing up' with instant
checkout. We suggested it would help - not hinder.
As for your opinion, you are, of course entitled to it as we are to ours. You
have been around this site nearly as lone as we have so you will appreciate that
lots of people differ on what is needed, what is important etc. That is the way
life and business goes but it is more than essential to compare apples with apples
not apples and pears. In terms of coding this is a simple change and would take
any programmer less than a day to achieve it and it may, yes may help - it certainly
isn't going to hinder by any stretch of the imagination.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 15, 2017 11:54 | | Subject: | Re: Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | The Bricklink catalogue has the perfect base for this change but it is a question
of whether the developers feel they can do it with minimum effort. Each item
in the catalogue has a PCC as well as its mould or design id number associated
with it. The PCC code is Lego's element id and it is what they print in their
instructions.
There have been lots of comments both in and out of the forum concerning part
weights and how there is a variance between colours of the same part number.
We have also experienced this. The simple way to deal with this is to add a weight
field against the PCC in the catalogue. This would allow the system to hold the
individual weights for each colour part and could be used to more accurately
provide cart weights for instant checkout when it comes out of preview.
|
I would vote no, for two reasons:
- In 627 orders processed on the other site, with them having one weight for
each part no, we haven't experienced one single issue. Weight differences
are small, the likelihood of this "screwing up" auto-checkout is minimal, and
if it does make an err, the seller can chalk it up to the cost of doing business.
- TLG is known to have made changes to their molds just to save a few cents
by requiring less ABS. These changes are done to parts that keep the exact same
PPC, and most times BL doesn't differentiate (think hollow versus solid pins
under a 1x4 brick for example). Those weight changes could actually be more significant
than the weight change for different colors. In effect, the weight-per-PPC will
almost always be an approximation, not the 100%-always-correct-weight for a PPC.
In short, I am convinced these weight differences are a non-issue for auto-checkout.
Experience proves this. I am sure others can verify this. Don't make things
more complex than they need to be.
Niek.
|
Thank you for your comment. Your opinion is noted, however I am not convinced
using the other site as a reference point is really relevant. The other site
also has proper dimensions for each part, which BL does not and as far as I can
tell from the brief look at the preview site the implementation here is different
to that over there. We sell lots and lots of bulk orders and a small difference
on an individual part can make a significant difference overall. As far as putting
that down to cost of business we will let you do that - it is of no interest
whatsoever to us. Maintaining margin/profitability is a key factor to a successful
business and taking all steps necessary to prevent additional costs is one small
part of that. With over 4000 order on this site we have no mistakes on postage
costs - once bl's implementation of instant checkout can be shown to provide
that reliability we will consider using it, however it is not of major importance
to us at the moment. There are far more important things to deal with.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
United Kingdom, England
