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.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 15, 2017 10:09 | | Subject: | Change to information held in Catalogue | | Viewed: | 130 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| 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.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 12, 2017 11:56 | | Subject: | Re: Moderate Forum Posts | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, StormChaser writes:
| | I suggest that members with 2 or less feedback have their forum posts moderated,
meaning that posts must be approved by a moderator before appearing in the forum.
This should resolve the issue of scammers joining BrickLink merely to post spam
in the forum.
|
Yet another +1
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Sep 11, 2017 12:15 | | Subject: | Re: Separate email addresses for buying/selling | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, stecre writes:
| | I think it would be very useful to be able to have separate email addresses for
your buying and selling activities.
I operate a store but also have wanted lists and buy from time to time and being
able to separate the various emails to different addresses would be helpful.
e.g.
To the "Buying" email address:
Any messages regarding orders you placed e.g. Invoices etc.
Wanted list notifications
To the "Selling" email address:
Any messages regarding orders received e.g. invoices, payments
Emails about Fees
Perhaps there could even be a configuration page for users to select which emails
they would like to go to which address?
Yes you can probably achieve this with filters on your email client if on a PC
but not sure about phones and other devices.
Thanks,
Steve
|
Voted yes but I think this needs to be expanded. Holding multiple address records
has its problems but it really is the only way to go. We, as a store, have 2
distinct locations - one for our storage/picking centre and one for order processing.
If Bricklink allowed us to hold multiple addresses ((including e-mail addresses)
it would make life much easier, There are issues with doing that but most organisations
have overcome those and I am sure BL can do the same.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Aug 15, 2017 08:38 | | Subject: | Re: Upgrade XML download to include addresses | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Brick_Genie writes:
| | In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | The current XML order download allows you to get member ID or real name. It does
not include address/city/state/country. Please add those fields.
|
I recently had someone write me a Python script which retrieves this data from
the api. Feel free to send me a message if you're interested!
|
We also had a development done using Brickstock which provides address detail
of the member placing an order. If you use Brickstock we can send that on.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Aug 7, 2017 08:34 | | Subject: | Re: Field For Tracking Numbers | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, 458italia writes:
| | I think it would be helpful to have a field on the order summary for Tracking
Number that can be entered by the seller. It is something that applies to a considerable
amount of transactions, yet currently requires either duplication (update messages)
or clunky work arounds (using the VAT field for example). If it does not apply,
it can be left blank.
|
Already exists - see image below - it is on your 'Customize display settings
from the orders received page - put a tick in the box it adds the column which
once you fill it out the tracking number appears on the order and the order summary
page.
Hope that helps.
|
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Jul 30, 2017 13:28 | | Subject: | Re: All sellers should have quote options | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Brickwilbo writes:
| | In Suggestions, mrbisco writes:
| | I'm tired of not being able to ask for a quote on an item through the system.
Twice in the last day I have sent an email to a seller asking for a quote and
then have then change the price of the item. It's making me want to just
put through the order and then cancel if I don't like the shipping terms.
|
Changing price after an inquiry sais any about those sellers.
| | Bricklink really needs to swings towards the buyers in terms of usage. Take
care of the buyers and things work out better for the sellers. Catering to the
sellers just creates a poor buying environment.
And, of course neither seller will honor the price that I was asking for a quote
on. Of course not. If the thing is in my cart waiting for a shipping quote,
they shouldn't be able to change the price.
|
Unfortunately the quote feature is designed to cancel the quote completely if
1 item is sold out.
|
That was another reason why we didn't implement it. It is flawed. Works for
some doesn't work for others. The other big thing from our point of view
is that we would end up doing all the work for the quote and that may be wasted
as the supposed buyer doesn't accept the quote (We process orders first,not
last).
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Jul 30, 2017 13:02 | | Subject: | Re: All sellers should have quote options | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mrbisco writes:
| | I'm tired of not being able to ask for a quote on an item through the system.
Twice in the last day I have sent an email to a seller asking for a quote and
then have then change the price of the item. It's making me want to just
put through the order and then cancel if I don't like the shipping terms.
Bricklink really needs to swings towards the buyers in terms of usage. Take
care of the buyers and things work out better for the sellers. Catering to the
sellers just creates a poor buying environment.
And, of course neither seller will honor the price that I was asking for a quote
on. Of course not. If the thing is in my cart waiting for a shipping quote,
they shouldn't be able to change the price.
|
Voted no - totally unnecessary. If you wish for a quote use the message function
in the store - or the quote feature (if they have it enabled) if you do not hear
back - or you get a quote which is not what you expected - move on to another
store. Forcing anyone to do something is never a good idea - that is why features
are optional where they should be.
Without stores there would be no buyers - and of course the reversal is true
- no buyers - no stores. A balance has to be struck and the site has grown significantly
since its inception without forcing buyers or seller to use features which should
be optional.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Jul 25, 2017 12:33 | | Subject: | Re: Get shipping costs BEFORE final checkout | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, tonnic writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | It's a common topic you're addressing. It has been in the making for
many years, but the system almost works. There is already a "shipping cost suggestion"
tool which is often quite accurate, but not always. For this to work, the system
needs to know the exact weight and size of all parts. This database still isn't
100% complete. But I suppose we will be getting there and step by step we're
getting to auto checkout. But expect it to remain this way for at least another
year or two..
Your solution 2 of estimating shipping costs before this database is in place
and 100% complete isn't really a good idea. If you order a brick from me,
pessimistic shipping costs are €18,50 - because the brick could be huge. In reality,
it will be €1,33. So it doesn't really mean anything and it would certainly
scare away alot of buyers.
In Suggestions, rumbi_rumun writes:
| | In my opinion the largest problem of the Bricklink page is that the final shipping
costs are often unknown till the invoice. It is much too late. I suggest calculating
the maximum shipping costs before the final checkout.
Let me display an example:
The buyer Alice orders parts which weigh 80 grams. The seller Bob states that
the shipping costs are 3 EUR up to 100 grams and 4 EUR up to 200 grams. Bob means
the TOTAL weight while from Alice's point of view the weight of packing materials
is unknown and never stated. This way Alice doesn't know the final price.
(Btw. I suppose it is against the EU law.)
Once I have come across such a case that in seller's opinion the maximum
net weight of parts was about 30 grams to keep the total weight below 100 grams!
Is it fair and clear?
I can see the following solutions:
(i) suggest the buyers to state their shipping costs precisely, in terms of net
weight of parts or dimensions of parts
(ii) apply automatic calcultion of maximum shipping costs on the checkout page
so that the seller couldn't apply higher costs.
The latter one is much better.
Best regards
Tomasz Witkowski / rumbi_rumun
Gdynia, Poland
|
|
A lot of buyers, maybe some sellers too, do not know the weight of the order.
They are not aware of the excistence of a weight function they can select.
Maybe there is a reason but I think this function should be default and, if not
wanted turned of. Not the other way around. I think it is very helpfull in almost
all orders.
Another thing, sometimes understandable but also sometimes common sence can help
quite well, is the fact that if an order is 15 grams of Lego and one of the shipping
tresholds is 20 grams the order with an envelope etc. will rise above the 20
grams.
A few times a year buyers believe that envelopes, small or large, do not weigh
more than 5 grams and that there is no need for an extra stamp.
A seller could, or even should, mention at the parts description that the dimension
or weight does not allow it to be shipped in an envelope but in a (far) more
expensive parcel.
I am still a bit anxious about a system through Bricklink that 'knows'
what shippingcosts must be.
There are so many variations possible.
It is about the amount of the parts, dimension, strangely formed parts, weight,
value, fragility etc.
|
I made a tool for myself to generate my invoices, and it generates a shipping
cost table in the invoice. This way, buyers can see where they're at and
how much more they could add. I think the opaque way it is now is OK, as long
as in return, sellers will allow additions or removal of some items. In my opinion
it's not OK if shipping costs are unclear in advance and the seller is rigid
about this after the order is placed. I think that at least the ability to add
more to an order should be mandatory. I don't know any professional webshop
that doesn't allow this.
I get what you're saying about the automatic calculation. You can already
turn on the shipping cost suggestion feature. I am not "using" using it, but
I have it switched on to monitor how it's doing, and I must say it's
usually correct when predicting when something is a letter or a parcel. On
Brickowl there's full auto checkout with this, and there it's correct
95% of the time. (You can debate what to do with the other 5%) I have my weight
bands set up so that they take into account progressively increasing envelope
weight, ie. 20g minus 5g, then 50g minus 10g, or something like that.
|
5% error means 50 orders per 1000 are not correct - that will soon add up for
stores who receive lots of orders - someone is going to have to bear that cost.
|
It's not actually a problem, it's just a fact and shops can handle it
how they like. You can set up your shipping calculation to be either optimistic
or pessimistic, decide whether you will refund any discrepancies in the buyer's
advantage or not. To me it's not a problem. And neither is it to the buyer,
as they always see how much it will cost and decide to pay that for the order.
|
Whilst it may not be a problem for some stores it also may be for others.
Not everyone has moved to BO (for a variety of reasons, of course) but the auto-checkout
over there possibly works based on the fact that the majority of their items
have proper dimensions which the current BL catalogue does not - even if they
are in stud.io or Mosaik). Dimensions are vital and for those parts that do not
have them then the order shouldb't be available to auto-checkout. I think
that is something similar to the way BO works (but not entirely sure as we do
not use that site.
| |
| | Please Bricklink, if you read these threads and accept constructive thoughts
bring in auto-checkout where it will work (no volume/dimension postal systems),
listen to your members, especially those who have been on the site for many,
many years and talk to them. All of that will help to maintain your position
as Lego's leading marketplace.
|
If auto checkout would be implemented in only some countries and not in others,
and this situation would persist for longer than a month, I would honestly shut
down my store and leave Bricklink. I think fair competition is the basic foundation
of this marketplace, if this would be compromised I would take my business elsewhere,
just on principle.
Anyway, it is not rocket science. It already almost works. All that's needed
before it can go live is hard data (all parts' dimensions have to be in the
database) and an easy (semi)automatic way to send refunds for missing parts.
That's just about it. They could get this fixed up in a month, but I guess
realistically it will take another year at least.
|
It is relatively easy to gloss over and make the issues surrounding this appear
to be simple and straightforward, after all the other site had it at their launch,
so I am told, however the BL team are not having the easiest of times getting
everyone behind this or getting the code/system right. Where it works, implement
it. Not all countries are the same - where it doesn't yet work solve the
problems and then with what they have learned from the other implementations
move on. I do not see why people suggest that by not using auto-checkout we
would be disadvantaged. As a buyer who has made just under 1000 purchases in
my time on the site I have never even considered auto-checkout. It isn't
going to increase sales and the only tangible thing it may or may not do is prevent
NPB's. It might make it easier for those buyers who are shipping cost sensitive
to see the full price before they place and pay for their order, but we provide
all that information anyway, and give the buyer a choice of how they want their
items shipped. Auto-checkout is not the panacea people make it out to be. As
and when it arrives and it can be shown to work for the UK postal system we will
look at it further - I do believe, like many others that is a way off yet, but
for those countries where it works and works well why not give them an opportunity
to get on with it. People are not going to buy from a seller just because they
use auto-checkout - they buy because they have the parts at the right price and
are reliable and more and more because they do not charge additional fees. Postage
at cost and that is it.
Good luck with this, anyway, we will be watching the issue very closely, as I
am sure many others will be doing as well. Of the stores that we are in regular
communications with none have spent any real time looking at the preview site
and all but 1 have said they will not be implementing it as and when it arrives
- but did not rule it out in the future.
|
You raise two topics, potential problems with the system and how it wouldn't
increase the number of orders. Well, I really think it would increase it alot.
Yes, your reasoning is sound, but on an emotional level, seeing a number on your
screen of what you will pay, and then paying right away, and having bought something
immediately, it's really a big thing. You could argue that the Snickers at
the counter of the supermarket are pointless as they are already in the candy
section and even cheaper at that..... still, it works, and it's a strategy
used worldwide. Auto checkout really takes away an emotional barrier I think.
Well, we could discuss that endlessly probably, but in the end we won't know
until it is there. But I'll just say that I really believe it's a "thing".
As for problems with the algorythms, I don't really see what could be the
problem. Well, I see one potential issue: Part dimensions are missing and the
order shows up as costing €10 more shipping that it actually costs to post. That's
the worst thing that could happen, right?
So is that that bad? OK, it could be an order missed. But parts with missing
dimensions will be rare - and already are rare. I don't understand what makes
you say it's way off? So far, I really haven't had any of these issues
yet. Shipping cost suggestion is simply correct for all orders I checked. Miscalculations
would be somewhere in the order of 1 out of a 100 (neglible even if the added
popularity because of auto checkout is only 1%). And even if it happens, a buyer
may still go through with the order. And as a seller the extra €10 spent on shipping&handling
is really yours to fairly keep, although you could also decide to refund it.
It's not like it would undermine in the system, a shop, or someone's
administration. You can also set it up in a way you will lose €10 some of the
time, and make up for it with higher prices, handling fee, or whatever. But it
will probably be off less often then your (well, at least my) inventory is off.
The only thing that is really lacking is packing dimensions besides functional
dimensions. A diagonal part is now considered a solid block by the system, while
it should really have a separate set of dimensions that take into account that
you could put the part flat by rotating it 45 degrees. That is relevant for big
panels for example, but the amount of orders this would really affect is less
than 1%.
|
Thank you for taking the time to respond to our thoughts on the matter. Time
will be the judge of whether it increases sales or not - we don't believe
it will but understand your logic. Fortunately, in life, there are always going
to be differing opinions on matters such as this. As I said earlier when we buy
we look at who has the parts we need not whether they offer auto-checkout or
not but then again we are not shipping cost sensitive as some buyers appear to
be.
As for the database, dimensions are vital whether they be part or packaging and
there is not really any sign of that in the database yet. I am convinced that
BL have held up offering out that change to the database due to the issues they
had in the very beginning about images, intellectual property etc. They may have
seen that BO did not go to the members for that, they incorporated it in their
system from the outset. The data is available somewhere. Lego certainly have
it and probably use it in LDD. We could, of course be wrong, but they aren't
commenting so again we really cannot be sure.
As for the system and how it actually works out shipping costs we, like many
others we communicate with, are waiting on the release of the feature and testing
it in real life before committing to it. That may sound like 'sour grapes'
or something similar but to be honest as we charge postage at cost with no packaging
costs or any other fees, there really isn't any room to manoeuvre. An awful
lot of our orders are bulk orders with 'heavy postage costs' - it wouldn't
take too many of those to start hitting our bottom line and that is something
we are not prepared to get into.
We do believe BL need to offer out a lot more information on how this is going
to work. We have multiple size large letter and small parcel boxes each with
different tare weights and capacities. Is the system going to stop short of choosing
the box and just say it is a large letter. If not how is it going to determine
capacity of the box? We know, for example, exactly how many 2 x 4 bricks will
go into the largest large letter box in the UK. Will they know that? Some of
the stores we buy from take great time and pride out of their packaging getting
as much as possible to lay flat so it will fit in a large letter rather than
a small parcel - is it going to know that? What about large brick orders - we
get lots of those and often find it is more economical to split the order (for
packaging purposes) into two parcels rather than use a medium parcel. It may
be possible to cope with that by setting up an over 2Kg method but really not
sure about it.
We also receive lots of multiple batch orders and we don't have any idea
how that is going to work. We certainly do not wish to end up paying multiple
Pay[pal fees for a single order.
Lots more detail is required and of course in this case the proof of all of this
will take time to emerge.
Anyway - thanks again for your time in responding
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Jul 24, 2017 15:06 | | Subject: | Re: Get shipping costs BEFORE final checkout | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, tonnic writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | It's a common topic you're addressing. It has been in the making for
many years, but the system almost works. There is already a "shipping cost suggestion"
tool which is often quite accurate, but not always. For this to work, the system
needs to know the exact weight and size of all parts. This database still isn't
100% complete. But I suppose we will be getting there and step by step we're
getting to auto checkout. But expect it to remain this way for at least another
year or two..
Your solution 2 of estimating shipping costs before this database is in place
and 100% complete isn't really a good idea. If you order a brick from me,
pessimistic shipping costs are €18,50 - because the brick could be huge. In reality,
it will be €1,33. So it doesn't really mean anything and it would certainly
scare away alot of buyers.
In Suggestions, rumbi_rumun writes:
| | In my opinion the largest problem of the Bricklink page is that the final shipping
costs are often unknown till the invoice. It is much too late. I suggest calculating
the maximum shipping costs before the final checkout.
Let me display an example:
The buyer Alice orders parts which weigh 80 grams. The seller Bob states that
the shipping costs are 3 EUR up to 100 grams and 4 EUR up to 200 grams. Bob means
the TOTAL weight while from Alice's point of view the weight of packing materials
is unknown and never stated. This way Alice doesn't know the final price.
(Btw. I suppose it is against the EU law.)
Once I have come across such a case that in seller's opinion the maximum
net weight of parts was about 30 grams to keep the total weight below 100 grams!
Is it fair and clear?
I can see the following solutions:
(i) suggest the buyers to state their shipping costs precisely, in terms of net
weight of parts or dimensions of parts
(ii) apply automatic calcultion of maximum shipping costs on the checkout page
so that the seller couldn't apply higher costs.
The latter one is much better.
Best regards
Tomasz Witkowski / rumbi_rumun
Gdynia, Poland
|
|
A lot of buyers, maybe some sellers too, do not know the weight of the order.
They are not aware of the excistence of a weight function they can select.
Maybe there is a reason but I think this function should be default and, if not
wanted turned of. Not the other way around. I think it is very helpfull in almost
all orders.
Another thing, sometimes understandable but also sometimes common sence can help
quite well, is the fact that if an order is 15 grams of Lego and one of the shipping
tresholds is 20 grams the order with an envelope etc. will rise above the 20
grams.
A few times a year buyers believe that envelopes, small or large, do not weigh
more than 5 grams and that there is no need for an extra stamp.
A seller could, or even should, mention at the parts description that the dimension
or weight does not allow it to be shipped in an envelope but in a (far) more
expensive parcel.
I am still a bit anxious about a system through Bricklink that 'knows'
what shippingcosts must be.
There are so many variations possible.
It is about the amount of the parts, dimension, strangely formed parts, weight,
value, fragility etc.
|
I made a tool for myself to generate my invoices, and it generates a shipping
cost table in the invoice. This way, buyers can see where they're at and
how much more they could add. I think the opaque way it is now is OK, as long
as in return, sellers will allow additions or removal of some items. In my opinion
it's not OK if shipping costs are unclear in advance and the seller is rigid
about this after the order is placed. I think that at least the ability to add
more to an order should be mandatory. I don't know any professional webshop
that doesn't allow this.
I get what you're saying about the automatic calculation. You can already
turn on the shipping cost suggestion feature. I am not "using" using it, but
I have it switched on to monitor how it's doing, and I must say it's
usually correct when predicting when something is a letter or a parcel. On
Brickowl there's full auto checkout with this, and there it's correct
95% of the time. (You can debate what to do with the other 5%) I have my weight
bands set up so that they take into account progressively increasing envelope
weight, ie. 20g minus 5g, then 50g minus 10g, or something like that.
|
5% error means 50 orders per 1000 are not correct - that will soon add up for
stores who receive lots of orders - someone is going to have to bear that cost.
|
It's not actually a problem, it's just a fact and shops can handle it
how they like. You can set up your shipping calculation to be either optimistic
or pessimistic, decide whether you will refund any discrepancies in the buyer's
advantage or not. To me it's not a problem. And neither is it to the buyer,
as they always see how much it will cost and decide to pay that for the order.
|
Whilst it may not be a problem for some stores it also may be for others.
Not everyone has moved to BO (for a variety of reasons, of course) but the auto-checkout
over there possibly works based on the fact that the majority of their items
have proper dimensions which the current BL catalogue does not - even if they
are in stud.io or Mosaik). Dimensions are vital and for those parts that do not
have them then the order shouldb't be available to auto-checkout. I think
that is something similar to the way BO works (but not entirely sure as we do
not use that site.
| |
| | Please Bricklink, if you read these threads and accept constructive thoughts
bring in auto-checkout where it will work (no volume/dimension postal systems),
listen to your members, especially those who have been on the site for many,
many years and talk to them. All of that will help to maintain your position
as Lego's leading marketplace.
|
If auto checkout would be implemented in only some countries and not in others,
and this situation would persist for longer than a month, I would honestly shut
down my store and leave Bricklink. I think fair competition is the basic foundation
of this marketplace, if this would be compromised I would take my business elsewhere,
just on principle.
Anyway, it is not rocket science. It already almost works. All that's needed
before it can go live is hard data (all parts' dimensions have to be in the
database) and an easy (semi)automatic way to send refunds for missing parts.
That's just about it. They could get this fixed up in a month, but I guess
realistically it will take another year at least.
|
It is relatively easy to gloss over and make the issues surrounding this appear
to be simple and straightforward, after all the other site had it at their launch,
so I am told, however the BL team are not having the easiest of times getting
everyone behind this or getting the code/system right. Where it works, implement
it. Not all countries are the same - where it doesn't yet work solve the
problems and then with what they have learned from the other implementations
move on. I do not see why people suggest that by not using auto-checkout we
would be disadvantaged. As a buyer who has made just under 1000 purchases in
my time on the site I have never even considered auto-checkout. It isn't
going to increase sales and the only tangible thing it may or may not do is prevent
NPB's. It might make it easier for those buyers who are shipping cost sensitive
to see the full price before they place and pay for their order, but we provide
all that information anyway, and give the buyer a choice of how they want their
items shipped. Auto-checkout is not the panacea people make it out to be. As
and when it arrives and it can be shown to work for the UK postal system we will
look at it further - I do believe, like many others that is a way off yet, but
for those countries where it works and works well why not give them an opportunity
to get on with it. People are not going to buy from a seller just because they
use auto-checkout - they buy because they have the parts at the right price and
are reliable and more and more because they do not charge additional fees. Postage
at cost and that is it.
Good luck with this, anyway, we will be watching the issue very closely, as I
am sure many others will be doing as well. Of the stores that we are in regular
communications with none have spent any real time looking at the preview site
and all but 1 have said they will not be implementing it as and when it arrives
- but did not rule it out in the future.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Jul 24, 2017 10:06 | | Subject: | Re: Get shipping costs BEFORE final checkout | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, tonnic writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | It's a common topic you're addressing. It has been in the making for
many years, but the system almost works. There is already a "shipping cost suggestion"
tool which is often quite accurate, but not always. For this to work, the system
needs to know the exact weight and size of all parts. This database still isn't
100% complete. But I suppose we will be getting there and step by step we're
getting to auto checkout. But expect it to remain this way for at least another
year or two..
Your solution 2 of estimating shipping costs before this database is in place
and 100% complete isn't really a good idea. If you order a brick from me,
pessimistic shipping costs are €18,50 - because the brick could be huge. In reality,
it will be €1,33. So it doesn't really mean anything and it would certainly
scare away alot of buyers.
In Suggestions, rumbi_rumun writes:
| | In my opinion the largest problem of the Bricklink page is that the final shipping
costs are often unknown till the invoice. It is much too late. I suggest calculating
the maximum shipping costs before the final checkout.
Let me display an example:
The buyer Alice orders parts which weigh 80 grams. The seller Bob states that
the shipping costs are 3 EUR up to 100 grams and 4 EUR up to 200 grams. Bob means
the TOTAL weight while from Alice's point of view the weight of packing materials
is unknown and never stated. This way Alice doesn't know the final price.
(Btw. I suppose it is against the EU law.)
Once I have come across such a case that in seller's opinion the maximum
net weight of parts was about 30 grams to keep the total weight below 100 grams!
Is it fair and clear?
I can see the following solutions:
(i) suggest the buyers to state their shipping costs precisely, in terms of net
weight of parts or dimensions of parts
(ii) apply automatic calcultion of maximum shipping costs on the checkout page
so that the seller couldn't apply higher costs.
The latter one is much better.
Best regards
Tomasz Witkowski / rumbi_rumun
Gdynia, Poland
|
|
A lot of buyers, maybe some sellers too, do not know the weight of the order.
They are not aware of the excistence of a weight function they can select.
Maybe there is a reason but I think this function should be default and, if not
wanted turned of. Not the other way around. I think it is very helpfull in almost
all orders.
Another thing, sometimes understandable but also sometimes common sence can help
quite well, is the fact that if an order is 15 grams of Lego and one of the shipping
tresholds is 20 grams the order with an envelope etc. will rise above the 20
grams.
A few times a year buyers believe that envelopes, small or large, do not weigh
more than 5 grams and that there is no need for an extra stamp.
A seller could, or even should, mention at the parts description that the dimension
or weight does not allow it to be shipped in an envelope but in a (far) more
expensive parcel.
I am still a bit anxious about a system through Bricklink that 'knows'
what shippingcosts must be.
There are so many variations possible.
It is about the amount of the parts, dimension, strangely formed parts, weight,
value, fragility etc.
|
I made a tool for myself to generate my invoices, and it generates a shipping
cost table in the invoice. This way, buyers can see where they're at and
how much more they could add. I think the opaque way it is now is OK, as long
as in return, sellers will allow additions or removal of some items. In my opinion
it's not OK if shipping costs are unclear in advance and the seller is rigid
about this after the order is placed. I think that at least the ability to add
more to an order should be mandatory. I don't know any professional webshop
that doesn't allow this.
I get what you're saying about the automatic calculation. You can already
turn on the shipping cost suggestion feature. I am not "using" using it, but
I have it switched on to monitor how it's doing, and I must say it's
usually correct when predicting when something is a letter or a parcel. On
Brickowl there's full auto checkout with this, and there it's correct
95% of the time. (You can debate what to do with the other 5%) I have my weight
bands set up so that they take into account progressively increasing envelope
weight, ie. 20g minus 5g, then 50g minus 10g, or something like that.
|
5% error means 50 orders per 1000 are not correct - that will soon add up for
stores who receive lots of orders - someone is going to have to bear that cost.
If dimensions are added to the catalogue with specific guidelines for that data
then the catalogue will get better but there are lots and lots of other things
for us that need to be dealt with before - multiple batches - box volume capacity,
missing items in inventory (we need inventory tracking capabilities which already
exist in the system but we cannot get at them).
Yes it would be nice to know the shipping cost before you place your order, I
do not believe anyone can justifiably dispute that but there is also a lot more
to be done before the system is ready to provide that. The quote system doesn't
work for us as we process before we invoice and the shipping suggestion feature
we never implemented as it was suspect (no dimensions in the catalogue).
Someone mentioned a further couple of years before this is available and that
is a shame for some; and of little or no interest to others, As a store owner
I have asked myself do I need auto-checkout - the answer is it would be nice,
but it is not essential. What is needed far more in our opinion are working tools
for the stores - better inventory management tools, outputs to Excel (proper
outputs not garbled up xml files) and a whole lot more. More options and choice
on invoicing and printing formats. The messaging system needs to be updated to
offer more of a marketing tool. Orders need to have all information attached
(Drive through, etc) to them so the audit trail is complete on each transaction,
etc., etc. The list does go on.
Please Bricklink, if you read these threads and accept constructive thoughts
bring in auto-checkout where it will work (no volume/dimension postal systems),
listen to your members, especially those who have been on the site for many,
many years and talk to them. All of that will help to maintain your position
as Lego's leading marketplace.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Jul 4, 2017 13:41 | | Subject: | Re: Classic Wanted List Unavailable on June 5th | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Administrative, martineamonson writes:
| | It seems like the "Improvements" you are planning aren't very popular with
your user base...
I, for one, find your new, improved version of the site 10x more difficult to
use than the old one - why don't you just leave it alone ?
It ain't broke - don't fix it...
And if you insist on shoving YOUR version down everyone's throats, why not
also just leave the Classic versions and let us CHOOSE ?????
|
Whilst we agree with you about the classic v new look we also see problems leaving
it. People always want change whether it is broken or not. If classic is left
how long before people are clamouring for changes to that which means two code
bases to deal with and double the issues. Even today the changes made to the
order detail pages have created bugs in the classic look (which, coincidently
remain unfixed). There isn't really a simple straightforward resolution to
this issue. We, like you and many others would vote for the classic look - there
are some who will vote for the new look. The best option would be a balance between
the two - but we do not head up development for BL.
As the head of a professional development company in the UK for far too many
years to recall the site needs a re-think, that much everyone agrees with - (IOO)
but that is unlikely to happen.
Not everyone went to BO when it was launched or even today and it has a newer
fresher look than BL, It has also had autocheckout working (in a fashion) since
its inception but still not everyone left here for there. So it isn't totally
about the software - it is more about the presence rather than the look.
Yesterday we got a message from a newish buyer that we had gone the extra mile
for that once he figured out how to leave feedback he would give us a thumbs
up - nice of him - but giving feedback is really quite simple and straightforward.
You click on the Post link at the end of the order line and get on with it. These
simple little functions/features need much better documenting. Adding a batch
to an existing order. The number of times we get asked to add to an order and
have to explain stores cannot do that, but here is how you can do it - is beyond
recollection.
The catalogue needs improvement- the sellers need the right tools to do their
job for the buyers and a level playing field, where possible. The Award winning
web developer who commented on here has obviously won plaudits for their work
as I am sure the BL development team has - in their own arena. Bricklink, however
is different - yes it is a marketplace but its catalogue is unique and invaluable
- as a reference guide it is better than Lego's public face. Their stores
cannot tell you which sets contain which pieces nor do they differentiate between
mould changes (and sometimes that is vital to a build) - all of that is here
not elsewhere and that is what helps to give this site its enormous presence
in the Lego marketplace. Market leaders they certainly are and quite possibly
always will be but when you do not listen to your 'customers' beware
strange things can happen.
Enough for tonight - Hope you all had a great Independence day.
An Ex-pat in the UK
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Jun 27, 2017 12:12 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 60012-1 | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 2 Part 4865b Trans-Light Blue Panel 1 x 2 x 1 with Rounded Corners (Alternate)
* Add 2 Part 92409 Black Tire 17.5mm D. x 6mm with Shallow Staggered Treads - Band Around Center of Tread (Alternate)
Comments from Submitter:
2 sets parted out today both with alternates as above
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Jun 22, 2017 10:57 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 21019-1 | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 8 Part 3794b Light Bluish Gray Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with 1 Stud with Groove (Jumper) (Alternate)
Comments from Submitter:
2 sets parted out today both had the b variant.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | May 17, 2017 10:01 | | Subject: | Re: Add variant field | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Brick.Door writes:
| | I don't know if changes to the Bricklink database are even possible, but
I think this would really benefit Bricklink and their vision for the stud.io.
Part variants was one of the problems with sourcing parts for the MOC shop, and
it will be again for stud.io. Users who create a model and want to order the
pieces don't have any efficient way to look for different suitable variants
of a part. It can make a big difference for price and availability.
I suggest that a new "variant" field be added for catalog parts, wanted lists
and store inventory. This would be an attribute similar to the color. It could
be left n/a if the variation hasn't been identified or isn't important.
Or it could be selected a, b, c etc. to specify a particular one.
Unlike the color, variant "a" would have a different meaning for each part. This
would be captured in the part description and pictures.
|
Hello there and thank you for the suggestion
In many ways this already exists within the system, albeit not in a true formatted
way. The Related items element on the catalogue part no page gives details of
all variants of the part so if you look at for example you will see
and shown. It isn't particularly easy to search and find
that due to the fact that the 15573 has a different part number completely. The
same applies to many other parts/variants on Bricklink. One of the problems with
all of this variant stuff is that Lego themselves do not differentiate like Bricklink.
If you order a 3794 from them today you will get a 15573 which is the most current
version of the part.
There has to be a better way of doing this and knowing whether a part has a variant
or not but I am not sure this approach would cover it.
I think it is one of those 'back to the drawing board rethinks. 
One of my technical people suggested using the base mould number as the part
number and then for each variant of that part adding a suffix of v (for variant,
and then a number, so in the case mentioned above instead of 3794 and 3794b and
15573 you would see 3794, 3794v1, and 3794v2 but with that show an alternate
part number of 15573 for 3794v2. That way you could search for 3794* and get
all the related parts, but you would also see the currently used Lego id for
the part.
That would mean quite a change to the database and I don't think the development
team are really looking at that at the moment, with all the other priorities
going on.
You have made a good point and it is definitely something that should be looked
at and considered for the future - in what form - not sure - but definitely needs
looking at.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | May 10, 2017 01:33 | | Subject: | Re: Improvements to Find Stores | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | […]
Please see images - the first two are what we have now. The 3rd image is what
we would like to see as an improvement/enhancement. […]
|
What third image?
|
Morning
Not sure where that went to but here it is again.
|
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | May 9, 2017 14:13 | | Subject: | Improvements to Find Stores | | Viewed: | 125 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| We would like to see the following additional sorts added to the find stores
screen.
Please see images - the first two are what we have now. The 3rd image is what
we would like to see as an improvement/enhancement.
This would very much help to gauge where you were as a store in comparison to
others. The current sorts are okay, but adding these will give the stores a real
opportunity to compare themselves with stores of similar size etc.
This is not a massive code change - the query that gest the underlying data for
all existing sorts simply have an "ORDER BY" command associated with them.
Please note we are well aware how frequently that data changes but that really
doesn't matter for the purposes this serves.
|
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | May 8, 2017 10:00 | | Subject: | Re: Another thought | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | Brickset inventories are actually direct imports from lego's replacement
parts database, so they might as well directly import from lego rather than brickset.
But the source is of course the problem. If a part is no longer current, then
lego just replaces it with a close match for their replacement parts section,
so any data extracted from it needs to be treated with care.
I though BL were playing around with direct imports from the lego server a while
ago. I wonder if anything happened with it?
|
Hello and thanks for joining our thread. It is obvious I haven't made our
suggestion entirely clear. Where the data comes from in the BL catalogue is not
really that important to this. It is what we can do with the data once it is
in there, hence our suggestion.
BL has embedded in it far too many differences between what it holds and how
Lego represent that (There are no Lego variants, for example - minifigs are
not held in sets as minifigs, etc, etc.) what we would like to achieve is getting
the data back to us in a useful way. The summary we asked for would be helpful,
especially when you are evaluating sets for parting out or buying.
Sorry if we confused, hopefully it is now clearer.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | May 8, 2017 09:25 | | Subject: | Another thought | | Viewed: | 172 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| As mentioned in the previous suggestion - we are all waiting on either details
of the sales tools in the next update or the launch of that update, whichever
BL decide to provide. Yesterday I put a suggestion forward for a different type
of view on the price guide which would make our lives much easier. Hopefully
that will garnish enough support to at least get noticed.
Today we want to talk about another very nice addition to the price guide when
trying to use it to determine what you wish to part out.
Currently if you visit Brickset you can find on their full screen inventory view
a summary of the items in each set by category and colour. Unfortunately they
are not the Bricklink categories nor colours, so it takes a little while to convert
that. Please see their summary of set 75030 (image 1).
I have converted that to a Bricklink summary (image 2), which is already in the
system as data and just needs a new view or query set up for us to see it and
use it.
In addition it would be really helpful if when you ask it to part out a set to
determine its value and how many of the items you already have in your inventory
if it not only told you the totals, but to be able to click on that link to see
what individual parts you would be adding or need to complete that set. This
is shown in red in image 3. Make it clickable.
Hope all of this is clear. If not please add your thoughts. Lets get the most
we can out of the catalogue -a fter all we all contribute to it.
|
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | May 7, 2017 10:34 | | Subject: | Just a thought | | Viewed: | 203 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| We would like to see some changes to the way the price guide can be viewed whilst
waiting for the site update to take place for this area. Currently for those
that use the guide to check prices on items you have to go back and forth between
the 'choose page' and the detail page. So, if you have or want a variety
of say part 2420 in different colours you can spend some time going through the
process to see all the data and then once you have seen it all, unless you write
it down you cannot remember all the info you had to take in.
If an option was available to view 'all colours, for example' you could
have all the information you need in one place. See example. The link at the
end of the table would provide the demographic date for the colour chosen, if
, again for example you wanted to see the prices in the UK for example.
Comments?
(The figures in the example are all fictitious).
|
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2017 12:03 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 10232-1 | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 4 Part 92409 Black Tire 17.5mm D. x 6mm with Shallow Staggered Treads - Band Around Center of Tread (Alternate)
Comments from Submitter:
Two 10232's parted out today and both had 92409 tires rather than the older version 51011u.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2017 03:28 | | Subject: | Re: DO AWAY WITH PRICE GUIDE....... | | Viewed: | 84 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, thewolf06 writes:
| | | |
While implementing this foolishness, let's have BL eleminate a store's
ability to charge a "minimum buy" . That way a buyer is no longer FORCED to purchase
extra parts they don't need so a buyer can make profits. Then prohibit lot
limits for the stores which choose to make easy profits that way. Then BL can
further determine the "value" of our LEGO for us! All LEGO parts are sold at
$xxxx no more plummeting prices!
In the end all the sales are public information and some one will get it and
just charge us to get the information,lol! Dang free will and free market. Maybe
you are to young to remember paperback price guides published yearly and monthly
for everything from action figures, baseball cards, cars, stamps, etc. LEGO is
no different.
Bdaddy360
|
Actually, I was being saracstic at the way bricklink has taken away a feature
that every buyer would actually use and a feature that I have used multiple times.
Maybe your too young to remember sarcasm.
|
1000 + orders placed - never used the feature you are talking about and I am
more than confident there are many others. You cannot say every buyer would use
cause that just isn't factual. Some buyers may use would be more accurate.
Doing away with the price guide is not a good idea and voted no - what would
be the point of that anyway?
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Mar 9, 2017 07:15 | | Subject: | Re: Bricklink Drive through messages | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Brickwilbo writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, Brickwilbo writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | Currently there is no copy of this attached to the order it refers to. In order
to strengthen the audit trail on each order, we would like to see a copy of this
attached to the order as other messages are.
Please implement.
|
If implemented, please make it optional.
Optionally Drive Thru messages could be saved in the Outbox of My Messages.
|
Don't mind it being optional, but do not think saving it to the outbox is
helpful as it means multiple locations for order audit trail.
|
If saved anyway it would make sense to keep a visible copy in the Outbox, just
as Invoices.
http://www.bricklink.com/myMsg.asp?a=o&v=7
| | We want all information regarding an order to be held with the order.
|
Invoices aren't held with the order, but in the Outbox.
|
We are aware of the issues with invoices but at least a date when the invoice
is issued is held within the order details where there is no reflection of the
drive-thru at all anywhere except on the order detail page with the drive thru
icon.
To conform to normal accounting practices, world wide - there should be a complete
audit trail of events/transactions available with each order. As SQl holds that
data anyway, it is simply a question of reflecting it with the order not in a
separate location.
Hope that clarifies our suggestion.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Mar 9, 2017 07:02 | | Subject: | Re: Bricklink Drive through messages | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Brickwilbo writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | Currently there is no copy of this attached to the order it refers to. In order
to strengthen the audit trail on each order, we would like to see a copy of this
attached to the order as other messages are.
Please implement.
|
If implemented, please make it optional.
Optionally Drive Thru messages could be saved in the Outbox of My Messages.
|
Don't mind it being optional, but do not think saving it to the outbox is
helpful as it means multiple locations for order audit trail.
We want all information regarding an order to be held with the order.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Mar 9, 2017 05:04 | | Subject: | Bricklink Drive through messages | | Viewed: | 153 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Currently there is no copy of this attached to the order it refers to. In order
to strengthen the audit trail on each order, we would like to see a copy of this
attached to the order as other messages are.
Please implement.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Feb 15, 2017 05:02 | | Subject: | Re: Expanding Bricklink towards Playmobil | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, StormChaser writes:
| | In Suggestions, FauconRoyal writes:
| | Here is my suggestion: why not expand Bricklink towards Playmobil products?
|
How about getting BrickLink right before going off in other directions?
Not necessarily a bad idea, although I would have no interest in off-brand collectibles
and anything other than LEGO should be marketed on a completely different website.
|
More than agreed +++++
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
United Kingdom, England
)
)
)
)
)
