Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies |
|
Author: | Admin_Russell | Posted: | Feb 18, 2019 20:07 | Subject: | Re: Questions about Unikitty / Counterparts | Viewed: | 75 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location: USA, California |
Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog Requests, TyresOFlaherty writes:
| Randy,
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly! (And nice avatar, Blacktron II forever!)
That makes sense, and my only counter-point to that is that Brickset uses info
from here to list minifigures, and being a collector, it's nice to be able
to have each of the alternate figs listed in a collection. Additionally, it gives
sellers more options to sell unique minifigs as well.
Just giving my two cents.
Thanks!
-Kevin
P.S. I'm curious how those decisions are made, is there one person that decides
on all these things, or do a bunch of admins just come to an agreement? Just
wondering
|
We've discovered that the only two to have multiple versions of the minifig
were the SDCC exclusives, and there were no instructions for those - only box
art that wasn't always consistent.
Considering the fact that people aren't going to be parting out those sets
for the minifigures, there doesn't seem to be a lot of harm in leaving those
two as exceptions.
But for all other sets, we've decided one entry is enough. To allow more
entries like this would create a precedent with huge implications. So your pending
entries will be rejected in a few days.
FYI, decisions like this are often made in the back rooms of BL where the admins
have their own Forum.
|
|
|
Author: | Admin_Russell | Posted: | Feb 15, 2019 23:02 | Subject: | Re: Aren't these differences ridiculous? | Viewed: | 95 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location: USA, California |
Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, rosies writes:
| Actually,
The powers that be will be removing 3 of them from the catalogue in a few weeks.
|
Is that so? Please elaborate.
| In Catalog, brikomania writes:
| I really like the extensive catalog, and think that most of the differences (like
the jumpers or tiles with groove, etc) are really useful.
But when you get to things like this, with a 1 x 2 x 6 arch, having something
like 4 variants, doesn't it make it too hard for sellers AND buyers?
I get the raised arch difference, that is notable, but this thin/thick thing?
|
|
|
|
|
Author: | Admin_Russell | Posted: | Jan 29, 2019 12:28 | Subject: | Re: Minifig Inventory for 70831? | Viewed: | 43 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location: USA, California |
Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog Requests, TyresOFlaherty writes:
| I've been uploading new parts for 70831 the past couple days, and I'm
just about ready to do a full inventory on the set, I'm just waiting for
3 minifigs that I've tried to add to be approved: tlm145, tlm146, tlm147.
I know that they're in line numerically behind other figs that will be approved
once the Apocalypseburg (7084) is approved, can I get an admin to approve them
so I can inventory them and get them added to 70831?
Thanks!
|
They are being held up because of issues concerning the exact build. The rocket
guy has blasts coming out of the rockets. However, we need to decide whether
or not to include the whole blaster backpack assembly or not. Sometimes those
decisions take a while.
The unikitties have similar problems. First, I don't know if we will approve
two different constructions of a minifigure for a single set. This has been done
before, but only on a case-by-case basis.
The sleeping one will get approved for sure since it comes from the primary build.
However, you need to reshoot that one with the head attached as shown in the
instructions. The current pending image shows the head 1/2 stud offset to the
right. It shouldn't cover the Reddish Brown 1 x 1 at all.
I realize the photos on the box and instructions show the sleeping kitty built
the way you have it in your photo, but we try to stick close to the instructions
whenever possible.
Thanks for you contributions so far, especially the images.
Go ahead and move the inventory to pending status using autofill before it drops
off the reservation list. You can add the figs to the pending inventory and the
Inv Admins will address any problems they see.
|
|
Author: | Admin_Russell | Posted: | Jan 26, 2019 13:18 | Subject: | Re: Complete set of Unikitty CMFs? | Viewed: | 101 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location: USA, California |
Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| In Catalog, alphadavy writes:
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | How would you recommend selling a complete set of CMFs?
|
Personally, I would do what these other sellers have done and list the whole
set under the random entry. As long as you describe things clearly in your notes,
buyers will understand that they are paying for a whole set. This is one of those
areas where the average prices must be deduced from scanning listings or sold
listings instead of the calculated averages.
|
It is a shame that the site cannot do something and step in and help sellers
and buyers here, by realising what they need. Some people want to sell and buy
complete series. I thought the primary goal of bricklink was to enable sales
of LEGO, so adding a "complete series" for each CMF or similar series would work
well for those people. Does it really matter that they were never sold that way
by LEGO? If need be, this information could always be added as a note to a complete
series entry.
|
+1
It's about time!
|
Here you go. Let's try it out.
Let me know if you think the random one needs a big question mark placed over
it. If people like this entry and use it, we'll go ahead and add the others.
|
Thanks, everybody, for the responses.
In the last 12 days we have sold as many of the complete series as were sold
in the last 5 months under the random entry.
In response, I have added another of these collective entries:
And when we add The LEGO Movie 2 Series in a few days, it will also have an "entire
series" entry so we can see how it does from the start.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: | Admin_Russell | Posted: | Jan 22, 2019 11:56 | Subject: | Re: sw695 is now sw0695 | Viewed: | 67 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location: USA, California |
Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, runner.caller writes:
| In Catalog, grimsbricksuk writes:
| Yes but why?
In Catalog, FreeStorm writes:
| In Catalog, grimsbricksuk writes:
| They've changed the SW minifig numbering system & I'm not sure why...?
In Catalog, runner.caller writes:
| Happened to notice this was changed between the time I downloaded my inventory
and the time that I tried to upload new parts. Weird.
|
|
Hello,
It's to sort the minifig:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1124573
-Fred
|
|
It's because the number of unique sw figures has gone over 1000 so that people
can sort by itemID so now the battle droids will still show up first if sorted
that way.
They are lucky (and I mean, I'm lucky) that I wasn't uploading a ton
of sw minifigs.
I download my inventory and use VLOOKUP functions to find inventory locations
if a part I'm listing already exists in my inventory. I didn't notice
the change until I went to upload and it was consolidating on me. Luckily, it
was just the one star wars figure this time.
It would be nice if they handled something like this during the 10 minute down
time period instead of just willy nilly ...cough....cough... admin...cough russel
lol, just playin. Thanks for your contributions and dedication!
|
Yeah, there's no great time to do something like this since nightly and monthly
maintenance locks everybody out, including me.
But a couple of things to note - no old number was reused by another minifig.
So there should be no accidental mislistings as a result. The other thing is
that there is a permanent record of item number changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReqList.asp?viewYear=&viewMonth=&viewGeDate=&q=&viewStatus=A&itemType=&viewAction=I
And each catalog detail page has a log at the bottom showing changes to that
entry.
|
|
|
|
Author: | Admin_Russell | Posted: | Jan 17, 2019 20:32 | Subject: | Re: Question for processing | Viewed: | 69 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location: USA, California |
Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, pitterdrei writes:
| Hello,
in certain Lego bricks, single row, e.g. No .: 3004, 3009, 3010 etc. are there
in the inner "pins" which made of solid material and which with hole - is a distinction
here or is this neglected in the item description?
Would appreciate an answer very much
greetings
pitterdrei
|
No, the BrickLink catalog does not distinguish between a hollow vs solid pin,
but you are free to add such information to your listings.
|
|
Author: | Admin_Russell | Posted: | Jan 14, 2019 12:51 | Subject: | Re: Complete set of Unikitty CMFs? | Viewed: | 77 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location: USA, California |
Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, alphadavy writes:
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | How would you recommend selling a complete set of CMFs?
|
Personally, I would do what these other sellers have done and list the whole
set under the random entry. As long as you describe things clearly in your notes,
buyers will understand that they are paying for a whole set. This is one of those
areas where the average prices must be deduced from scanning listings or sold
listings instead of the calculated averages.
|
It is a shame that the site cannot do something and step in and help sellers
and buyers here, by realising what they need. Some people want to sell and buy
complete series. I thought the primary goal of bricklink was to enable sales
of LEGO, so adding a "complete series" for each CMF or similar series would work
well for those people. Does it really matter that they were never sold that way
by LEGO? If need be, this information could always be added as a note to a complete
series entry.
|
+1
It's about time!
|
Here you go. Let's try it out.
Let me know if you think the random one needs a big question mark placed over
it. If people like this entry and use it, we'll go ahead and add the others.
|
|
Author: | Admin_Russell | Posted: | Jan 13, 2019 22:22 | Subject: | Re: Complete set of Unikitty CMFs? | Viewed: | 76 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location: USA, California |
Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, chetzler writes:
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| In Catalog, chetzler writes:
|
Is this supposed to be the entry for the complete set of 12 unique Unikitty collectible
minifigs? This whole entry is very confusing. The name says "complete random
set" and also "1 minifigure". The inventory shows 12 unique figs. Which is
it: a random set of 12? One random figure? A complete set of all the figs?
The price guide doesn't help much: the average prices seem too low for a
set of 12 and too high for a single fig. Judging by the individual prices it
appears that some sellers are treating this entry as a single random fig and
others are treating it as a a set of 12.
|
This is a known problem. This entry is *supposed* to be for ONE complete minifigure
(randomly chosen from the available 12), but because we do not have an entry
type for the complete set of 12 minifigures (yet), some sellers use this entry
type for that purpose as well.
|
Can we get a note on this entry that explicitly states this? As I noted above
the name is misleading as is the image showing all 12 figures.
|
I've added the note to this entry and will add similar notes to other entries
later. One of the other things I'm planning on doing is coming up with an
image that more clearly shows the random nature of the entry, e.g. an image of
the foil pack with a large question mark over it. If someone wants to give this
a shot, we will try a different image and see if that improves things.
| | The drawback of creating another entry type is that we already have multiple
ways these are sold, and we are concerned that it might add to the confusion:
|
It certainly wouldn't be more confusing than this entry as it currently stands.
|
| Am I better off creating a super lot if I want to sell a complete set of 12?
|
The site officially discourages sellers from using superlots for any purposes.
|
It does? Why? This is the first I have heard this. Is this stated somewhere?
|
| I understand that some people abuse the superlot function by listing one item
for $0.01 and the others at an outrageous price. I have never done this and
I have sold several superlots at fair, discounted prices. If BrickLink doesn't
like super lots it should disable that feature.
|
Apparently there was a serious problem with people abusing the feature in connection
with Easy Buy, so superlots are now hidden unless buyers opt to see them. Superlots
have never been a favorite thing for a long time, probably because they are so
awkward to work with. But the site doesn't want to just cut things from people's
stores, either, so the feature has been left there for buyers and sellers that
want it.
| How would you recommend selling a complete set of CMFs?
|
Personally, I would do what these other sellers have done and list the whole
set under the random entry. As long as you describe things clearly in your notes,
buyers will understand that they are paying for a whole set. This is one of those
areas where the average prices must be deduced from scanning listings or sold
listings instead of the calculated averages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: | Admin_Russell | Posted: | Jan 12, 2019 12:58 | Subject: | Re: New items not in the catalogue | Viewed: | 71 times | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
|
BrickLink ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location: USA, California |
Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog Requests, DarylB writes:
| Please could you tell me how to add new items to the catalogue, in particular
how to allocate a 'pb' number to the part number for parts that are printed
or stickered. Thank you. Regards Daryl.
|
Thanks, Daryl.
Here is the reference page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=168
For patterned (pb) parts, all parts of the same mold are grouped together and
numbered sequentially. To see the latest additions, simply search by item number,
using the part number plus the "pb" plus an asterisk wild card (*), e.g. 3001pb*
Then sort the search results by item number, with the direction "down". See the
images attached below.
If you can't figure it out, please submit the item anyway with whatever item
number you can, and we will make the correction for you. A good image is really
the thing we are after the most.
|
|
|
Author: | Admin_Russell | Posted: | Jan 7, 2019 12:38 | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 857-1 | Viewed: | 36 times | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
|
BrickLink ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location: USA, California |
Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 3 Part 3739 Light Gray Wheel 24 x 43 Technic
* Delete 3 Part 3740 Black Tire 24 x 43 Technic
* Add 1 Part 3736 Light Gray Technic, Steering Pulley Large
* Change 3 Part Light Gray 3739c01 Wheel 24 x 43 Technic with Black Tire 24 x 43 Technic (3739 / 3740) {Counterpart to Regular}
|
These big wheels came assembled in these early technic sets as the design of
the box confirms this too.
|
Yes, they came assembled in the sets, but this was for display purposes. In the
instructions it is very clear that they are considered separate parts. As per
the rules, this means they should not be listed assembled in BrickLink inventories:
Part Assemblies - Part assemblies should be included in the Regular Items section
of set inventories only when the assemblies in question come pre-assembled in
the set box. For example, 2429c01 should be included in set inventories rather
than 2429 and 2430. There are some exceptions to this rule, such as certain large
animal assemblies. Another exception is when an item is pre-assembled for the
purpose of box display.
| I owned this set in my childhood and one light gray 3736 was included. At the
time, I thought this part was included for adding a motor to the second motor.
See photo attached. But I didn't know the inventory of 960 or 870 motor sets
and this part was also included there.
|
I also owned this set and did not have an extra steering wheel (that I can remember).
The steering wheel shown in the instructions comes from the motor pack.
|
|
Author: | Admin_Russell | Posted: | Jan 7, 2019 02:21 | Subject: | Re: Admin Russell, what's with the images? | Viewed: | 130 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location: USA, California |
Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| Well, now I can understand why the StormChaser is confused.
If the large image slot is going away, and the large images are going to then
slot into what now is the small slot...
...and I get keeping the small slot because the small slot had ALL colors of
a piece where the large slot typically had one "representative" image per piece
and not per color...
...then I think the solution would be to leave the small images as they were
(as those were the large images slotted down into the small slot) and change
the credit to the appropriate contributor.
If I understand the plan, which I may not, and apparently is also not clear to
more than just me, the plan is to replace all the small images with large images
as they become available. You're keeping the small slot because that slot
is already prepped to contain multiple colors of a piece where the large slot
is not...and you have small images of more pieces than you have large images.
I imagine that you'd lose ~70% of the images if you kept the large set and
abandoned the small set...because you don't have all colors in the large
set.
Right? So I can see the logic of that strategy.
|
Yes. Essentially, that is it.
| Still.
That leaves me with these questions:
1. Why plug my small images back into the small slot? Why not leave the large-image-put-into-the-small-slot
(as this is the goal) and change the contributor? Seems like you're going
to have to go back and do that at some point.
|
There are two different banks of "small" images. There is the original bank which
contains your small images, and this is where the credit on those minifig small
images came from. The images from this bank still show up in Forum macro tags
and other older pages. They are fixed at 80 x 60, and we have no mechanism to
change them, other than if we reupload an image as the main image, and then new
thumbnail will be written over the old one.
The other bank of "small" images can be larger than even the original "large"
image, and the original "large" image was copied into this slot in the case of
minifigs, sets, etc. (basically, anything that could not have images in multiple
colors). When this copy script was run (this was a one-time function), the credit
was NOT transferred.
In cases where the large and small image were the same, or the large and small
images both had the same contributor, there was (and is) no attribution issue.
But there is an issue with large/small pairs that had different contributors.
And fortunately that is not typical.
The whole rationale behind this image unification is because the management does
not like the disconnect between a thumbnail image that shows one thing and a
large image that shows another. It is fine to have a thumbnail that shows only
a portion of the large image. But jumping to an entirely new image is considered
non-standard and distasteful.
| 2. All the legs images in question are recent contributions, and while they may
have slotted into the small slot correctly, that doesn't answer why the large
images are getting mis-attributed. And will the mis-attribution continue?
|
There is no attribution issue with the legs images. You are just interpreting
the credits wrongly. However, because your images are in almost every case superior
to what we have, and because we prefer photos for printed parts, I uploaded your
images to both the old and the new slot and put all other images in the additional
images slot.
So right now, all catalog detail pages of those printed leg parts will show your
username under both small and large credits. But when the large image credit
slot is replaced by the additional credit slot, then the person who submitted
the primary additional image (the "default" additional image, if you will) will
have their username there instead, in cases where there is an additional image.
| 3. Are there other images in the system that are similarly mis-attributed?
|
As I mentioned in another post, there are thousands of images attributed to "Admin"
that belong to other people. We change the credit when they are claimed.
Other than that, I am sure there are plenty of cases where someone helped another
upload an image and the credit never got correctly assigned. Or sometimes a user
tweaks an image an reuploads it under their account - normally in that situation
we will credit the original user, but I'm sure there have been cases where
it didn't happen.
In short, in a database this size, I wouldn't be surprised to find a lot
of errors with attribution, just like there are a lot of errors in other areas.
| 4. I probably do have large images of many pieces for which previously there
were only small slots. However, in the case of the small minifig images in question
here, those large images were uploaded to the system at one time and rejected
in favor of another (usually existing) image for whatever reason. If they were
rejected before, why would I bother to go through the effort of finding all these
things and upload them to have them be rejected a second time?
|
It's hard for me to understand why an image of yours would get rejected,
but it does appear that in each of these cases, your small image (80 x 60) was
approved but your full size one wasn't.
These are all minifig images, so perhaps they didn't show the minifig built
exactly the right way, or didn't show front and back. The images could have
been rejected for any number of reasons.
However, a couple things have changed dramatically in the catalog since you uploaded
these images the first time. First, we have an additional image slot and we are
not afraid to use it. So if a good image comes in, we don’t have to completely
throw out someone else’s image to use yours.
The second thing that has changed is that high quality images with a white background
are greatly preferred over standard shots. Nice images were always appreciated,
but the emphasis was on correctness, not visual appeal.
So for example, the first minifig on the list currently has a large image showing
the neckpiece removed from the minifigure so as to show the printing on the torso.
In the past it was considered more desirable to be explicit about all details
of the figure, but now the emphasis is on a presentation of the minifigure that
will help sell it to today’s consumer.
So in short, we think that your previously rejected images would stand a good
chance of being accepted today. And when in comes to parts, you have many, many
80 x 60 images in the BL system that could easily be upgraded to a larger size.
| I hope everyone understands I'm dispassionate about having my images included.
It's not an ego thing. I am concerned that I and other contributors are doing
what amounts to quite a bit of work, and there's a bug or flaw in the system
somewhere...or some bit of information hasn't been communicated appropriately...and
this problem persists, which may result in you having to go back to the contributors
and ask for a re-upload, and so on. And we're all chasing our tails. And
each other's tails.
In any event, I appreciate your efforts here. But you'll understand my reluctance
to comb through the back catalog of images I've created (or create new) and
upload them and so on without some assurance that they're going to be managed
efficiently and appropriately. I just see no sense in adding load to an existing
problem and I'd guess you don't want to be constantly manually fixing
all of it.
Thanks for the "fix" but I'm just not sure that the "why"...the reason for
things being out of whack...have been addressed as you shared no comment on that.
|
I understand the concern about mismanagement of images. But the site has actually
not lost anything or corrupted it. The attribution problems with certain minifig
images are all going to get ironed out anyway as we prepare to deprecate the
large image slot. If anything, we need to update the way credits are shown, and
make sure that contributors know exactly why an image is rejected.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|